|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Existence of Jesus Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
Dear me.Hold OLD are you? How stupid do you think we are? I pointed out 4:9 attributes "Love thy neighbour" to God, not Jesus. You bring up a totally UN-RELATED verse that mentions PAUL'S instructions, and uses the phrase "THROUGH Jesus Christ". You then falsely claim this was actually Jesus speaking (it wasn't),and you falsely claim it refers to 4:9 (it doesn't) Now you claim -
quote: This is outrageous mis-representation.Either you are so incompetent you cannot even grasp how wrong you have gone here, or you are a total mountebank, a sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal. The verse in question is 4:9It attributes "Love Thy neighbour" to God. It does NOT mention Jesus. AndVerse 4:2 does not attribute anything to Jesus, it bears no relation to berse 4:9, although it does mention the name Jesus. Randman really believes this un-related 4:2 which attributes nothing to Jesus, somehow shows the Saying in another verse IS attributed to jesus. Ridiculous. Now he thinks he has caught me in some error.What poppycock. The un-related verse 4:2 DOES mention Jesus in passing -so what, randman? What on earth do YOU think this has to do with attributing the Saying in verse 4:9 ? Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Iason, do I need to repost the entire list?
OK, here it is. Your evidence:
1 Thess 4:9 - Paul tells Christians to "love one another" WITHOUT a mention of Jesus! Even though Jesus supposedly taught exactly that. First of all, even if what you had claimed was true, whooppee. So what! God or Jesus, both work fine. But he does mention Jesus. Keep in mind the book was not written in chapter and verse. Paul mentions Jesus specifically as commanding this in verse 4:2 and verse 4:9 is part of the instructions "of Jesus Christ." Also, take note that Paul once again reiterates the bodily death, resurrection and return of Jesus Christ in verse 4:14.
We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. Sounds like he mentioning Jesus all over the place to me. You claimed:
* 2 Cor. 6:1 - Paul talks about the the "day of deliverance" (quoting Isaiah 49:8) without the slightest mention of what Jesus had said on this very important topic!" Uh wrong, Paul quotes this verse as an appeal to walk in grace right now, not as an eschatological teaching which seems to be topic you are referring to, and Paul precedes this with clear references to Christ in the preceding verses over and over again. Take a look at 2 Cor. 5: 13:14.
For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, .... Heck, look at 1 Cor. 15: 3-6. Paul specifically and unequivocally refers to the gospels message, completely contrary to the claims of scholar's you quote.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. If you are going to quote these letters as truly being from the apostle Paul, it is absurd on the face of it make the claims these guys are doing. Specifically, Paul: 1. Confirms the historical life, death and bodily resurrection of the man Jesus Christ.2. Confirms there were 12 apostles and others that witnessed this event, that saw Jesus in a Resurrected form. 3. That at the time of writing Corinthians, most of these men were still alive and their testimony available to the people Paul was preaching to. You claim:
* Rom. 6:2 - Paul talks of Christian baptism - NO MENTION of the baptism in the Jordan." There is no need to mention the baptism into Jordan of Jesus since Paul is referring to the believer's own baptism, not how Jesus was also baptized. Furthermore, the reference is Rom. 6.3, not 6.2 as stated. It would make no sense to mention Jesus's baptism into Jordan here since Paul is talking really of the Cross and being baptized spiritually into the death of Jesus in order to walk in "new life."
* Rom. 133 - Paul encourages Paul to trust the authorities - yet those authorities allegedly just crucified his God!" And? I mean this is exactly what one would expect. Jesus eschewed political revolution and Paul does the same. Note though the concept of separation here, which on it's own is quite radical for that time. He speaks of those entrusted as ministers of justice, but which is distinct and separate from the ministers of the gospel. Early on, there is total separation between ecclesiastical matters and secular matters in the sense they are 2 different spheres with 2 different sets of authority, one ministers through the truth of the gospel and the other through "the sword".
* 1 Cor. 1:7 - Paul talks of the coming of Christ in the future tense - no hint he had recently been. Wrong again. Paul refers to Jesus having already come once and died in the immediate preceding sentences and within the same paragraph, verse 1:6 (in light of verse 15-3-6) which says what his "testimony about Christ" is. He further alludes to Jesus coming as the Messiah in his earthly ministry in the following verses: 1 Cor. 1:13-171 Cor.1:23 1 Cor.2:2 1 Cor.2:8 1 Cor.3:11 1 Cor.5:7 1 Cor.7:23 1 Cor.9:5 (which mentions Jesus' natural brothers, .....) ...as do the other apostles, the Lord's brothers and Cephas Paul refers to Jesus' natural brothers as fellow ministers here. How could Jesus not have lived and have natural brothers. Keep in mind the context. Paul is talking about apostles here, and the New Testament and Paul state that James became an apostle (Jesus appearing to him), and tradition and textual evidence suggest Jesus' other brother also became either an apostle or church leader of that stature. This is getting tiring. This message has been edited by randman, 06-05-2005 04:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
One point.
You have paul making claims about Jesus natural brothers. So? We have Rowling makign claims about Harry Potters natural parents. What external source are you using to confirm the letters? For that matter, 1 Cor 9:5 , we have in the KJV9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? doesn't look like he is mentioning the natural syblings of Jesus at all. This message has been edited by ramoss, 06-05-2005 09:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
The early apostles believed they saw the Risen Jesus. Well, of course. That is what Paul and the early Christians were excited about. God had sacrificed his Son to triumph over death and they experienced this Christ. They were talking about a spiritual being who had undergone experiences in a spiritual realm that supports life on earth. The powers of that realm rule this earth and had sacrificed Jesus but he triumphed over them and believers could receive him in visions. It was all visionary. It wasn't about a flesh and blood human being developed in the uterus of an earthly woman. That part is added later. Later the risen Christ came to mean a flesh and blood human being whose physical body disappeared from a tomb on earth in the environs of Jerusalem, but that is not what Paul is talking about. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FormalistAesthete Inactive Member |
lasion, since I know nothing about history prior to the 15th century, your post inspired a couple of questions:
1) Is your list an exhaustive list of all early First Century historians, so that one can conclude that there are no written mentions of the alleged Jesus other than the Bible? 2) Given that: there were numerous itinerant rabbis and self-proclaimed messiahs in the early First Century; Palestine was considered to be an insignificant part of the Roman Empire, and; the alleged Jesus spent all but a few days of his life away from Jerusalem or any other power center, would it be surprising that even if he really existed that many contemporary historians would not have thought him important enough to mention?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
1) There are no historians from before 93 C.E. that mentioned Jesus. The major reference in antiquities seems to be a much later interpolition, and not from that time period. One historian that should have written about Jesus if he existed as described in the New testament would have been Philo of Alexandria, who wrote about conditoins in Jerusalum at the time, and actually wrote a letter highly critical of Pontious Pilate.
2) It is possible that an interrent preacher named Y'shua got executed .. lots of people were. However, the events surounding that event would not have matched the description of things in the New testament. How far to stories have to deviate from reality to have it legend and myth, and not history?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
Thanks for youre reply :-)
quote: Well, it's exhaustive in that it contains all the writers I could find out about - there may be some minor figures not mentioned (especially those not in English yet.) The list of those who ALLEGEDLY mentioned Jesus is well known - I am quite sure there is no writer who mentioned Jesus who was not been mentioned. Also note .. my list covers much of the 2nd century as well - my dates were 30-180 or so.
quote: Well, their are dozens of books mentioning THOUSANDS of people - many quite insignificant normal people. Such as the Jewish prophetess Sabbe mentioned by Pausanias - "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5] Here we see a minor nobody from Palestine mentioned in a classic work - Jesus must have been even LESS known that this minor prophetess who nobody has ever heard of. If Jesus was so insignificant, so minor, so un-remarkable, so forgetable that he rated less notice than the smallest of nobodies - then he bears no resemblance to the Gospel Jesus at all. Such a nobody can hardly be called the "real Jesus" - he is nothing like the Jesus of Christian belief. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
my local paper recently had an article about some mentions of jesus in the talmud, one referencing handing him over to the roman, and another referencing the date of his crucifixion.
of course, it contains no reference to WHERE in the talmud, or who said it, and when. if anyone's especially interested, maybe i'll copy the article by hand, but it's not really very informative. and i strongly doubt its authenticity. it mentions small print, and marginalized printing (emendations) which could EASILY be forgeries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yeah Right.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
that's what i said. i was wondering if anyone (ie: you) knew anything on the matter.
(another article on the same page is about a new translation of the babylonian talmud. all 35,000 pages of it. so i wouldn't be suprised if no one here is familiar with this claim)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
There are several passages in the Talmud said to possibly refer to Jesus - most of it seems to be from the later layer. Zindler does an exhaustive treatment in his recent"The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" This page covers the main passages -
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html Peter Kirby gives some details also:
Talmud None of it seems convincing as evidence for Jesus -* there seem to be several confused traditions * dates and names don't match well It seems to be late reaction to Gospel stories, not history. Mead wrote "Did Jesus live 100BC" which deals with some of this - it is online at Peter Kirby's -
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The passages you link to do actually exist, but as in all of the Talmud, when pulled out of context they can be taken to mean almost anything. The actual context is a really, really long series of discussions related to the issue of sorcery and heresy. The section is literally hundreds of pages long and has reached the stage of "whatifs" and "arguing in the style of." Frankly, I never even thought about connecting them with Jesus before this was brought up. It's an interesting idea, really stretching the point, but would certainly be reasonable in a Talmudic sense.
This is one of the reasons that understanding the Talmudic tradition is so important. The Talmud is a bunch of scholars sitting around a table in a bar late at night. It is every College beer and debate session ever held. It is counting the hairs on an asses nose and the drops of rain as they fall. It is argument by example and a constant debate looking for the exceptions that make the rule. Since the parts quoted are from some of the later Talmud, certainly long after Jesus death and after the fledgling Christianity had taken form and organization, it's not at all unlikely that the character Jesus might be brought up as one example whether he existed or not. However reading the passages in content does not lead to the idea they refered to a specific individual as opposed to a generic class designed to stress a point. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
valerieelliott Inactive Member |
Would you read "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Just to expand your thoughts. Smile But, you know, if you do not accept the Bible as the Word of GOD, nothing about our universe is going to make sense to you. Even then, there will be questions. Remeber that the Bible contains science, but it ain't about science. It contains history but it is no a history book, per se. The Bible is, however, complee revelation on how to become saved, one with GOD, and spending eternity with HIM. Isn't it funny that when we look at the word history, you can almost see what it really is--His Story.
Relax, there is still time. Val
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
quote: Hello Valerie. Welcome to the forum. I can't help chuckling at your 'His Story' remark, because it reminds me of Michael Jackson's 'HIStory' gimmick a few years ago... As for this thread's topic, I myself acknowledge the existence of Jesus. But not as how you perceive him, of course. Jesus was mentioned in scripture. The universe made sense to me. But I don't agree that the Bible is the word of God [some parts, maybe, but not all]. That means I just shot down your assertion that nothing in the universe makes sense without the Bible. Just an intrusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
valerieelliott Inactive Member |
I am curious, friend. (Thanks for the welcome.) When one says that the Bible is not the Word of GOD, but rather contains the Word of GOD--who do you differentiate between the two?
For the record, I am one of those misguided souls that believes that Jesus is the Christ; GOD, the Son of GOD. The GOD/man Savior of the world. The Self-existent One. The Alpha and Omega, First and the Last. The I AM.Thank you for responding. I love this sight, some of this stuff would be funny if it weren't so sad to read. This message has been edited by valerieelliott, 06-12-2005 09:47 AM Val
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024