Biblical Translation--Eden

Autumman. there still seems to be some confusion in your mind about events and records. It is simply pointless for us to discuss events until we have established a common ground about documents. If you dont mind I will disregard (not avoid) those comments about events and discuss them later. Having said this, in you above statement you have confused the NT with point 2 when in actuality the documents fall into catergory one. Please dont confuse the issue when I am talking about documents and you are discussing events. If indeed you are a brainiac, do I really need to listed the cast of Historians and independent writers that speak of Christ's exitence. If I need to I will, but it certainly would be a waste of space and time to list what the average first year seminary student knows. I get the impression you are deliberatley ignoring the cast of people that we both know and establish the existence Christ and the numerous events of Jesus' life. Furthermore you are obligated to demonstrate why Luke the historian is unreliable. Enough said. If you need me to do so i certainly will provide those characters you are avoiding to mention. Question do you believe the things written about Pontius Pilate? Whaaaat? Read John 16:13. the Apostle's word were the words of Christ throught the Spirit. Then re-read any specific esptile.
I mean this in the best possible way, please avoid doctinal discussions, if you do not have a working Knowledge of the scriptures. Why do they cast doubt you have not even began to establish that they are unreliable as mentioned in thier sources. it is reasoning in circles to say the miracles cast doubt and then say the documents are not reliable because the speak of miracles. First demolish all of the textual evidence then you can start on the events. Agreed? By what strech of the imagination is this a strech. What do you mean? No, no, no dont restate your position on this question address what I said about it. This constitues a disagreement not a respone. You will get thehang of this debating thing, just kidding dude. Acts chapter 2 says he did. Now get to the task of showing why it is not reliable as a historical document, not from its content but from its manuscripts and documents itself. Also he is a God humility and love not a present day world leader., ie "My kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servents would fight." Get itThanksD Bertot
ps I was not being sarcaric about he brainiac comment I meant it as a compliment.

To Autunman. Not bore you to tears but a couple of things I for got to mention in my last post.About the Epitles not mentioning the teachings of Christ. The Apotle Paul in 1Cor chapter 1 says, "What man knows the mind of another man except he reveal it unto hin, likewise what man knows the mind of God, except he reveal it unto him, we have the mind of Christ." He not only taught the teachings of Christ but he claimed verbal inspiration in this place and numerous others.Secondly, with regard to position of corroberating evidence for the NT documents, you are viewing the NT as a single work all written at the same time. The truth is that the epistles, the Acts, then the Gospel around the same time, is the order but independent of eachother, in diffrent places and different times. The Epistles and specfically Acts certainly should be considered supporting documents for the Gospels themselves, written by histoians that verify thier reliability from the enternal biographical and historical evidence they present. Then those authors and historians like Pliny the Younger (you forgot to mention him) and many others corroberate it even further..Just a couple of point I forgot to mention.Thanks
D Bertot

Autumnman,Though we've wandered a long way from the Hebrew translation of the Eden account without the old Off Topic warning, I have to ask you about your lattest assertion which you quoted. Huh?Let's start with Paul - what did Paul teach that Jesus did not teach?What did John teach that Jesus did not teach?What did Peter teach that Jesus did not teach?Three specimens would do for starters - one each for Paul, John, and Peter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill:Allow me to reply to bertot first.You do realize that was a quote from the Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible, right?I'll get back to your request after a response to bertotRegards,
Ger

bertot:Both you and jaywill are really loading me down. I am more than happy to reply to both of you but it may take me a little time.You wrote: The following is from Eerdman' Handbook to the Bible (EHB).
Regarding the Gospel of Mark:

quote:

---

"This is the shortest of the Gospels, and probably the first to be written (AD 65-70 or even earlier). There is a strong early tradition that John Mark wrote it in Rome, setting down Jesus' story as he had heard it direct from the apostle Peter.
"Only four paragraphs in these 16 chapters are unique to Mark. All the rest appears again in either Matthew or Luke, or both.
"The name 'John Mark' occurs often in Acts and the epistles ('John' the Jewish name, 'Mark' the Latin). His mother had a house in Jerusalem where the early church met (Acts 12:12). And he was cousin to Paul's companion, Barnabas. Mark blotted his copybook with Paul by going home half-way through the first missionary tour. But Barnabas gave him a second chance, and he later won the love and respect of Paul and Peter" (EHB pg. 499).

---

It certainly sounds as though Peter, Paul and Mark all knew each other quite well and therefore probably shared notes and ideas and therefore they cannot be used to corroborate one another. Extra-biblical sources are needed for historical corroboration.Now, let's take a look at Luke:

quote:

---

"The Gospel is part one of a two-part history of Christian beginnings-Luke/Acts. Both parts are dedicated to the same man, the Roman Theophilus, and both are written with the same purpose.
"The Gospel does not mention the author's name, but all the evidence points to Luke the doctor, Paul's companion on his missionary journeys (see introduction to Acts). Luke worked with Mark and knew him well (Colossians 4:10,14; Philemon 24), and the Gospel Mark wrote is one of his main sources" (EHB pg. 514).

---

It sounds like the Christian oriented text, Eerdmans' Handbook to the Bible, does not completely agree with your assertion.I look forward to your response,
Ger

To Autunman, sorry to be loading you down, that was not my intention. Thank you for your quote from Erdman. I think it is ironic that you use this as a source, because it contains much historical information that I dont think you would agree with. For example would you agree that Mark got this from a real historical person named Peter, do you agree with the location and date, do you agree with their sources. Do you agree there is strong early TRADITION, whatever that may be? See the problem here, you quoting something that really supports my positon. You would not use it for simply your argument without acknowledging most of it, correct?Further I did not say they did not know each other,I simply said they did not compile all of this in one meeting like the council of Nicaea or something. The books were written in different locations with amazing accuacy with alot of information cooberated by independent sources. Tactitus, Suetonius, Orosius, etc. then of course by the earliest Church Fathers, where one can reproduce nearly the entirity of the NT. How is that for cooberation. Ofcourse all of the quotes from historians and Church fathers are all forged, no doubt. And ofcourse all of this overwheling evidence is still not enough. If it were a spurious gospel dug up today it ofcouse would be accepted simply because it is old and contradicts the weak unsupported NT documents,Ha Ha.I will present the completely overwhelming information for the book of Acts in the next post. If anyone is interested take a look at Werner Keller's, The Bible as History. It staggers the imagination.I hope this does not constitute a response to the very lenghty post I made previously.Thanks D Bertot

Autumnman,The unusual things done by Jesus were accompanied by unusual words and teachings. His acts were extraordinary and His words also were extraordinary.When His opposers sent guards to arrest Him they came back and said - "Never has a man spoken as this man [has]" (John 7:46)Astounding words were accompanied with the testimony of astounding acts as signs and miracles. His teaching included a recommendation that if they could not believe because of the prodoundity of His words they should believe because of the power of His deeds -"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works.

​

Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves. (John 14:10,1)Christ would prefer that we receive Him because of belief in His profound words. But if not He recommends that we receive Him because of His extraordinary deeds.He claims to be God come in the flesh. We are told of the greatest miracle of creation - that is that out of nothing God created the universe. This seems a miracle to me which I am faced with everyday.If God could create the universe out of nothing He has the power to overide the typical flow of nature if He it meets His need to impress us that it is really He who has come to us in the Son of God.He would not always set His seal of authenticity in this way. But at times He did. There are whole books of the Bible which contain no miracles. For instance the books recording the return of the Jews from captivity are lacking in miraculous acts. But God is still very much behind the scenes accomplishing His purpose.At any rate I regard the existence of something rather than nothing as a miracle. No one has been able to explain the Big Bang as far as I can see, in any other terms but the bringing about of the universe from nothing. Is that not a miracle?But you say something interesting here: It seems like you prefer "realistic" argumentative accounts which remind you of real people today. Is it that things which might reflect negatively on the Christians are likely to be more "historical" to your sense?So if these things seem more "historical" to then you should have no problem with such events as:1.) Jesus scolding the disciples for thier unbelief after His resurrection (Mark 16:14).2.) Some of the disciples still being in doubt when they saw the resurrected Jesus ( Matt.28:17)3.) Peter going back to his custom of fishing after the resurrection because of his apparent unclarity as what he was to do next (John 21:3).4.) Thomas insisting for the most scientific empirical evidence before he would believe like the other disciples that Jesus rose (John 20:25).5.) Paul rebuking Peter for not being true to the gospel message (Gal. 2:11-14)6.) Paul and Barnabus having a contention over John Mark's accompnaying them again, so that the two could not longer work together (Acts 15:35-39).7.) John having to warn about the domineering Diotrephes who loved too much to be a leader (3 John 9-11).8.) Alexander the coppersmith opposiing Paul's ministry, and Paul having to warn Timothy about him (2 tim 4:14,15).9.) Judiazers preaching a legalistic gospel in competition to Paul's gospel of grace (Phil.1:15)10.) Paul writing an entire letter to deal with divisions occuring in the church in Corinth (First Corinthians)11.) Paul having to refer to 500 witnesses of the resurrection, most of which were still alive and could verify that the resurrection really occured (1 Cor 15).12.) Co-workers in Asia turning away from Paul's ministry and from Paul himself so that he had to say "All Asia has turned away from me." (2 Tim 1:16)13.) Paul lamenting that Phygelus and Hermogenes no longer work along with him (2 Tim 1:16)14.) Paul lamenting that Demas has abandoned him and gone back to the world which he loved (2 Tim. 4:10).15.) Paul having to discipline Hymenaeus and Alexander for ignoring their consciences and making shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim 1:20).If you say that these incidents have more of a authentic sound to them because of how we see modern people behave, I would agree. But the effect makes me more believing of the context rather than less so.In writing the four gospels the evangelists included too many things which could be potentially emabarressing to them for it to sound unauthentic.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

To Autumnman Try to keep all of this in the siprit of friendly debate. The beauty of this is that we can take as much time as we need to develope our ideas and thoughts. You are certainly not being picked on and you probably do not feel as though you are.A few comments as I am waiting your next reply. It appears, at least I think so that you have no real disagreemnt with the textual, time, location and aurthors of the NT, in as much as you have not questioned any of it in nearly five or six responses. Initally, I thought it would be necessary to reproduce all of the overwhelming evidence for thier existence and reliability going back to the early days following the Apostles. I might point out at this juncture that this would have been a perfect time for people to question the stories in the Gospels and Acts at that time. No one seems to have wanted to do this. Some questioned what should be included at times but they never questioned the content, as if they accepted and believed it as true. The closer people are to events the less their content is discussed with disagreement, because they accept them as valid. Agreed?Earlier you mentioned Josephus. I might point out that most if not all attempts to ascribe his text to copist have really failed. In as much as the passage is mentioned in all of the manuscripts of Josephus including the one by Euusbius. Then we have the coorberating evidence of people like Thallus, Mara-Bar Serapion, the Talmud, etc, etc. Can all of these be dismissed as frauds and non cooberating evidence. Will any amount of evidence be sufficient for the skeptic.ThanksD Bertot

jawill:You and bertot are really getting ahead of me here. I already know that you both "believe" in what is written in the Holy Bible, and that you both have considerable "faith" in your Lord Jesus Christ. Neither one of you need to convince me of that.If indeed the Holy Bible is a work of corroborated historical fact then why is it that your religion is based on "faith" and "belief" and not historical fact? The supernatural events described in the Holy Bible must be believed because you can only "read" about them in one narrow source; the Holy Bible. We can "read" about historic Greece from many diverse sources. We can "read" about historic Alexander the Great from many different sources. We can "read" about historic Roman Emperor Herod the Great who died in 4 BC. However, Herod's "massacre of the innocents" (Matthew 2:16) is an incident that is not recorded in any other sources. One must therefore take that portion of the Gospel of Matthew on "faith."Do you see what I am driving at?You asked: Where in the Gospels does Jesus of Nazareth mention Adam & Eve, Adam's sin in paradise, that his most important mission on earth was to correct Adam's error?Paul preaches in Roman's 5:14, 1st Corinthians 15:22 & 45, and 1st Timothy 2:13 & 14 that Adam's transgression that caused death and sin to enter the world was Jesus' primary goal to correct. Yet Jesus himself never mentions Adam's transgression.Let's start there.Regards,
Ger

bertot: "All this" is indeed "in the spirit of friendly debate. I like and respect you and jaywill. I do not feel as though I am being picked on at all, as you surmized already. To keep the discussion flowing, I attempt to reply to your post in a timely manner, but often I am unable to cover all the subjects presented to me. As the discussion moves along both you and jaywill will have to bring up the subjects I did not address so that we can give them the attention they deserve.You wrote: A written account of supernatural events does not amount to "evidence." Even Matthew's account of Herod the Great "killing all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof" (Mt 2:16) in and of itself does not make the event a historical fact.Furthermore, Jesus never says; Remember my miracles, my supernatural deeds. Jesus does say, "my words shall not pass away" (mt 24:35, Mr 13:31,Lu 21:33), and in John 14:23 "If a man love me, he will keep my words."In the Open Bible section Teachings of Christ it lists Acts 1:5 "Baptism", 1:8 "witnessing", and 2nd Corinthians 12:9 "Grace". It is my understanding that 2nd Corinthians was composed by Paul around 54 AD, before any of the Gospels were composed, and Acts was composed around the same time as the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John 75 to 90 AD. Why are there not more "words" of Jesus Christ being quoted by the early Church founders Peter and Paul?I'll get back to you.
Ger

In answering this interesting question, I do so for myself. Someone else may choose to reply differently. Firstly, I don't think that Jesus Christ is a religion. I regard Jesus Christ as a living Person.The way you ask the question subtly establishes a dichotomy that I don't want to agree with. That is, i.e.,the idead that the resurrection of Jesus is not a "historical fact" but the something else is "historical fact", say like, the existence of the philosopher Socrates.You have a certain "trust" in the testimony of one Plato that a man named Socrates was an actual brilliant philosopher. So do I. I see no good reason to doubt it. However, there is far more corroborating evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth died and rose from the dead than there is that a great philospher named Socrates ever lived.So firstly, I want to say, for lack of a better word, you have a lot of "faith" or something like "faith" for things which are far less documented than the rising of Christ from the tomb in three days.Now, having made point let me say this. The Gospel of Christ in its most intrinsic significance is not a matter of man simply giving mental agreement to some objective facts. It is about one Person entering into the very being of another person and becoming united, mingled, blended, and merged with that person so that the two lives - as natural and a supernatural become one.Let me try to clarify.God is not interested that I simply nod my head and give mental assent to an objective fact which has nothing to do with the way live. God is interested that this living Person, Who is alive, Who rose from the dead and is in a form in which He can enter into my spiritual being, my psychological being, and even physical being become one with me.The means that God has ordained that this merger of two lives be accomplished is faith."...that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith" (Eph. 3:17)The preached facts are for the purpose of Christ coming into our beings to live.This is not sentimental. This is actual. This is not a matter like saying "Abraham Lincoln lives on in our hearts" in a kind of sentimental way. No indeed. Christ making His home in our hearts is exactly literal. The living Person of the Son of God is in a form as the life giving Spirit, the Another Comforter, the Spirit of reality, the pneumatic Christ in which His very being can enter into the very being of the one who receives Him."But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12,13) God's eternal purpose involves Him dispensing a living Person - Himself, in Christ Jesus, as the Holy Spirit into our being such that we are reborn with a compound life - a mingling of God's uncreated and eternal life with our created life. "[T]he last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)Faith is the means that God has ordained for this union of two lives to be accomplished. Why He has chosen the way of faith is hard for me to say. But for certain faith leaves man nothing to boast in as of himself. Faith leaves nothing for the human being to feel proud of as a self attainment or reason to brag."Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing [to Him], for he who comes forward to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to God, at least in this era of time. Faith is the means by which He will wrought Christ into man's being. Faith is the means of God infusing the living Person of Himself into our hearts to "make His home" ... settle down peacefully in an "organic" unity blended with our personalities so that He lives His life from within us and out through us.The real biblical faith is something like X-Ray. Faith is the means by which the Triune God transfuses Himself into our being. Faith is the way the risen and living Son of God infuses His life into our life." ... that Christ may make His home in your hearts THROUGH FAITH"The goal is the living Person Jesus Christ having His HOME, actual, not sentimental, in your heart and eventually spreading out into your whole being including your resurrected and glorified body. The nature of the Holy Bible is different from any other writing on this earth in all of human history.Behind the Bible is the living eternal Spirit of God seeking to "breath" Himself into the reader.I know this sounds mystical. And it is divine, mystical, and mysterious. But it is nonetheless true. There is an effect you can obtain from reading the Bible which you will not get from reading any other kind of writing. I said ANY other kind of writing. This book is unique.For a lack of any better discription, the Bible is the God breathed worde of God. If you read with a heart turned and focused on the living Person of God the words of the Bible infuse you with divine life. I mean actually. I do not meant in any sentimental way.Actually, I have no more faith than you do.I say again, autumnman, within myself, within jaywill alone, I have no more faith than you do. I know that faith is kid of "X-Rayed" into me through the words of the Bible. Faith is infused into me, bit by bir, drop by drop, by taking into me the words of the Bible.When I come to the Bible with a willingness to be changed in my being by God, the result is that I leave that reading with a little more of God's very being as part of my being.The words of the Bible produce this mysterious ability to believe in Christ and in God within me. And then through that means I receive this living Person of the Triune God - Father, Son, Holy Spirit into my person.There are many great men and women. This phenomenon does not occur with any other reading about these people. Christ is God and man fused into one living Person who is available and accesible. Faith grows. There are people who are being utilized by the enemy of God to work against faith growing in your heart. These forces have planted doubts in many minds. The result is that you come to the Bible closed hearted and with suspicions. You come as Eve came to the wrong tree. She came doubting God's motives. She came questioning God's heart and suspicious of God's intentions.Doubts, suspicions, reasons not to believe, rationals why not to trust, questionings all meant to close you up to God dispensing Himself into your being.This verse is important to many of us. Here the Apostle Paul gives advice to his co-working apostle Timothy: God' economy is God's operation. It is God's eternal purpose. It is the way God manages His household. Oikonomia means household management or household dispensation.God's operation is carried out in the sphere and realm of faith - "God's economy which is in FAITH".The quote does not mean that we are never to have any questions. The quote doesn't mean that we are never to research or study or even try to verify things taught in the Bible. But the quote means that God's purpose with us is executed in the realm of faith. His whole dealing with us to bring us into His family, into His household, into His kingdom, into His life and glory, is carred out in the sphere of faith.The OIKONOMIA of God, His operation, His household management and dispensation of His wealth and riches and indeed of Himself as divine life for us - is in the sphere and realm of faith. I think I do.It is the difference between picking up a book to collect only objective items of data for curiousity and coming to be X-Rayed into, infused with a living Person. I will try to answer these latter questions in another post dedicated to them.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Autumnman,You ask this fair question: A verbatim repetition of Paul's teaching in Romans chapter five I do not have. However here is strong evidence that Jesus taught the fall of man from Eden. And here also His teaching that He is the salvation from the transgression and curse received from Adam's failure in Eden.First He did refer to the Genesis record of Adam and Eve as "the beginning" (Matt. 19:14; Mark). We may take this to indicate that Jesus regarded Adam and Eve as the beginning of the human race.Jesus also regarded Satan as an evil progenitor "father" and a liar and a murderer from this "beginning"of our race. He told the opposing religionists that their father was the devil:"You are of [your] father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks it out of his own [possessions]; for he is the liar and the father of it.From this teaching we can see:1.) The human beings are a kind of offspring of the devil - "your father the devil". We will see latter that this relationship was brought about by the devil injecting poison into man.2.) We see that this relationship of people having a kind of "genetic" if you will, relationship with the devil occured at the beginning.3.) Whatever this devil speaks is a lie. This would harmonize with the serpent lying of course to Eve.4.) The Devil cannot but lie because there is no truth in him.
This matches very well with Paul teaching that Eve was deceived and that generally the devil is a deceiver.5.) The Devil speaks his lies out of his possessions. He is filled up with his perculiar treasure of untruths. This agrees with the picure of Adam being led to disobey the God of truth.6.) The Devil is the "father of it [lies]" according to Jesus. Therefore all falsehood, lying, deception, trickery, etc. have their ultimate source in this evil personage. All this confirms Paul's thought that the original created man Adam disobeyed God. You see his disobedience were all due to the lying nature of the Devil.7.) Satan the devil is not only the father of lies, and the father of the fallen sinners, but also the original murderer from the beginning. This may refer to Cain's murder of Abel in Genesis. But it also reveals the devil's desire to bring DEATH into man's world generally. He comes to kill and steal and destroy (John 10:10).In general the murderous, lying, devil, who has fathered from the beginning the sinners, all connect Paul's teaching with Christ's concerning early human beings.But there is more. In John chapter three we see these words from Jesus: The word picture of Moses lifting up the brass serpent in the wilderness is not from Genesis per se but from the book of Numbers.However you have in Jesus's teaching here:1.) The serpent symbol which connects to the original serpent in the garden who deceived Eve and led Adam to sin, to the serpents who poisoned the Israelites in the wilderness.2.) The people were bitten by fiery serpents because of their unbelief and distrust against God.3.) The poison of the serpents is likened to the poison of sin injected into all people. Because "whosoever believes" regards all people in the world. It is the world that God so loved that He sent His Son to save.4.) The poisoned Hebrews is therefore a symbol of the sinful world as a whole.5.) The brass serpent that Moses erected was the source of the healing of the serpent bitten Israelites as the crucified Son of Man is the healing for the sin poisioned world:"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ..."The brass serpent is the type. The lifted up Savior, the Son of God, is the reality of the type. To look on the brass serpent was to be healed. To believe on the judged Savior lifted in the cross is to be saved from perishing and be given eternal life.6.) Paul says in Romans that in Christ all will be made alive. He says that through the obedience of one many will be constituted righteous.And to believe in the crucified Son of God is to receive eternal life. And to believe in the lifted up Son of God is to not be judged for sins - "should not perish". This means that the judged Son of God is thier substitutionary atoning sacrifice. He becomse the righteousness of the beleiver.7.) Brass is an element in the Bible often associated with judgment. The brass serpent in John 3:15 and Numbers 21:4-9 speak of the lifted up item as under divine judgment.Christ in His own teaching becomes the brass serpent. He becomes the human being who died on the cross and seen by God as Satan himself with all the poison of sin and the sinners themselves represented in Him. God judges the whole matter of man's union with Satan in Christ upon His cross on which He was lifted up.8.) The brass serpent on the pole in Numbers 21 had the form of a serpent but did not actually have the poison of the serpent.Christ died in the form of the sin originating Devil but lacked the actual sin nature. Christ came to earth in the form of the Satanified and Devil poisoned human race. He came in the likeness of the flesh of sin but did not actually have sin within Him. He commited no sins and He charged the people in the gospel that none of them could convict Him of sin.All this agrees with Paul portraying Christ as the sinless man committing the one righteous act of death on the cross that we might be constituted righteous:"So then as it was through one offense unto condemnation to all men, so also it was through one righteous act unto justification through the One, Jesus Christ."Jesus alludes to the one righteous act of being lifted up on the cross:"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes into Him nay have eternal life." (John 3:14,15)This much should be enough to prove that Paul's teaching of the fall of Adam and the atonement accomplished by Jesus were based on what Jesus Himself taught.Now we see that Jesus said that His death was the new covenant for the forgiveness of sins. At the last supper He taught: The covenant He speaks of is the new covenant prophecied by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31. This new testament is the foundation of Paul's belief and teaching that Christ becomes the justificational righteousness of believing sinners through His obedient act of dying on the cross - an act of obedience in Romans 5:18.It is in contrast to the old covenant of justification through law keeping enacted under Moses in the book of Exodus.Do not think by this I have by any means exhausted the parallels between the words of Jesus and the words of Paul. This is just enough to demonstrate that what Paul taught Jesus first taught.There is much more I could write on this.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks for your and others participation it this discussion. thanks for the friendly spirit manifested. I think there are numerous things we have presented that have gone unanswered and in that spirit of friendly debate I will try to talk about a few of the most important ones here again.Aside from the miracles would you agree that there is enough historical, technical and arechelogical information contained in history, records, manuscript information to establish the books of the NT as a reliable historical document. Remembering all of the sources and information that has been presented thus far. this coupled with fact that there is the greatest amount of evidence for the NT than any other document in history. Remember I am not asking if you believe the events described actually took place but simply would it qualify as a scholarly, accurate representation based on the actual hard physical evidence. A simple yes or no will suffice initially, then you may elaborate.Further, I have presented numerous cooberating sources that can atleast testifiy to one of the single most important events in Christian history, Christ's crucifiction and death and you have not responded as to why they would not be legitimate and they most certainly are. Ironically history and archeology are a companion source of cooberation the NT books and thier actual events.Using nothing more than the Bible and the Acts of the Apostles, archeologits have uncovered numerous, to many to mention here, places, locations, names, peoples, events, inscriptions, etc, etc etc., that were, hitherto, unknown to the world. An accident or coincidence, I dont think so. The point I am making here Autmnman, is that Christianity is not founded on myths and fables but on the strongest evidence any one could want. If you are the educated person I think you are, you are already aware of the information I am speaking about. When we remove the "did the event actually happen question and lay bare the bones of the evidence, it could not be that anything person could not consider them as anything but reliable as a Source for not only Faith but objective observation. You cannot start with a anti-supernatural bias initially, you have to look at the evidence first. Agreed. [qs]In the Open Bible section Teachings of Christ it lists Acts 1:5 "Baptism", 1:8 "witnessing", and 2nd Corinthians 12:9 "Grace". It is my understanding that 2nd Corinthians was composed by Paul around 54 AD, before any of the Gospels were composed, and Acts was composed around the same time as the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John 75 to 90 AD. Why are there not more "words" of Jesus Christ being quoted by the early Church founders Peter and Paul?[,qs]I must admit I dont understand the relevance of this question to the issue and myself and others have answered it several times. If you are going to quote scripture you should view the passages that are offered in respone to those questions, they answer you question.Furthermore it should be obvious to any thinking person our Faith is not established on Faith only but the strongest of evidence.Thanks D Bertot

jaywill: You really need to help me out here. You are so long-winded in your reply that I have considerable difficulty following your line of thought. Please try to keep you responses to me and concise and to the point as you possibly can. Thanks, GerIn your last post you wrote: In the synoptic Gospels of, Matt. 16:23 and Mark 8:33 did not Jesus turn to Peter and say, "Get thee behind me, Satan ..." Whereas in Luke 4:8 he uses the same phrase, "Get thee behind me, Satan ..." when supposedly addressing the devil in the wilderness.Now then, Peter was the cornerstone of the New Church, right? It sound to me as though the authors of the time used the terms "devil=false accurser" and "Satan=adversary" as generic terms describing human behavior as opposed to appelations of a supernatural enemy of a Supreme God. If that is not the case then Jesus actually called Peter, "Satan."Furthermore, In Isaiah 14:12 the author describes Lucifer "son of the morning" Heb. heylel=shining one, an epithet of the king of Babylon; heylel=morning star. Yet in Rev. 22:16 Jesus supposedly says, "I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star."Again, it appears as though heylel "Lucifer" as "the morning star" denotes something other than a supernatural enemy of a Supreme God.The serpent of the field which God had made, Gen. 3:1, described in the Heb. Eden Narrative is not a supernatural enemy of a Supreme God.I comprehend your mythical approach to Scripture, however, it is a wordy and inaccurate approach at best. Try, if I might suggest, reading Rev. 12:3 & 9 {"another wonder in heaven ... a great red dragon, having seven heads -- the great dragon ... that old serpent, called the devil and Satan), and compare it to Isaiah 27:1 Leviathan ... the dragon that is in the sea". Leviathan is the tortuous serpent of Ugaritic/Canaanite mythology, Lotan, the beast with seven heads.
Note that in Isaiah the LORD "will kill the dragon that is in the sea."Are you suggesting that HE did not?Regards,
Ger

bertot: To your question: Yes. As I said in an earlier post somewhere, "There are historical events and locations woven throughout the NT." However, Matthew 2;16 is not one of them. It would be the crucifiction and death of Jesus of Nazareth. I cannot remember what the numerous corroborating sources were regarding the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. In the NT there are very few biographical details regarding Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure. Please document a few for me. I diasgree.
Christianity is founded on myths and fables and superstition. I have agreed--and never disagreed--that there are historical facts in the NT and in fact in the entire Holy Bible. It was written by human beings who lived during the times which are described in their literature. If one of them had mentioned San Francisco, Chicago, New York I really would have been stunned. They did not. They mentioned place and people and things current to their life experience. That is not a shock.1st&2nd Corinthians was composed around 53 & 54 AD.
Romans was composed around 58 AD.
1st&2nd Peter was composed around 63 AD.
Mark was composed around 64 & 65 AD.
Matthew was composed around 75 to 90 AD.
Luke was composed around 75 to 90 AD.
John was composed around the end of the first century.The NT is not even compiled in a chronological order. If indeed we had the notes Peter must have had to accurately describe events to Mark the NT would at least have a sense of being a historical record. We do not. Prior to there even being the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John there was Paul and Peter and the countryside through which they sojourned. That a historical account of events does not make. Of course I am going to quote scripture; we are talking about the New Testament, right? I am trying to get out of you and jaywill a few extra-biblical sources regarding the actual individuals and events which are claimed by those individuals to have actually happened. We are talking about a Supreme God who has supposedly sent his only begotten to earth to die so that all humanity may be saved from mortality, right? Not only is the "only begotten" part of this scenario not supported by the Heb. Tanakh {OT}, but the Supreme God needing to have his only begotten hung on a "tree" to die for the world's sins does not make logical sense, nor does the scenario of "Adam" causing sin and mortality to enter the world.The entire Christian doctrine amounts to nothing more than superstition {a faith or belief based on little or no empirical, objective evidence).If you can find where you shared your extra-biblical sources let me know the "post #" and I will respond to it.Thanks,
Ger