Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-14-2018 5:48 AM
198 online now:
Meddle, PaulK, Pressie (3 members, 195 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,910 Year: 16,733/29,783 Month: 721/1,956 Week: 224/331 Day: 2/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   The historical Jesus didn't create a new religion!
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 21 (538229)
12-04-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
12-04-2009 4:48 PM


Re: Torah
andersbranderud writes:

The original versions (i.e. in Heberw) of the five first books in the Jewish Bible.

I didn't know the clay tablets Moses wrote on was available. That is what would be necessary for you to be using the original versions.

So apparently you are not using the originals as they don't exist.

Therefore you must be using copies of copies of copies etc.

So I was asking what is the source you are using.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2009 4:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 17 of 21 (538363)
12-06-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by andersbranderud
12-04-2009 2:16 PM


Re: Purpose of the Creator
Hi Anders

I think you may have dug a bit of a hole here.
First you said the sacrifice is not necessary for salvation and then you point me to Isiah 53. If Yehoshua is the messiah then according to Isiah 53 he became a sacrifice for our sins. If sacrifices are not necessary the messiah becomes useless. In other words, he was killed in vain. He achieved nothing, because according to you all that God requires is to try and follow the torah. Here is another question: If we had a temple today would you go and sacrifice sin offerings or not?

btw, what does Devarim 6:4 have to do with sincerity? Here is the verse in my bible
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD;"
somehow i am missing your point.

Also while we are at it, from your website:

The only Scripture that Ribi Yehoshua and his original Netzarim (corrupted to 'Nazarene') Jews knew and taught was the Tanakh (Jewish Bible), from which the "Old Testament" (begging the question of displacement) — Original Testament (OT) — was Christianized. All of his teachings were based in the Tanakh and he never taught anything contrary to it. Look up the following examples in any world-recognized encyclopedia:

•NT wasn't even written until 4 centuries after the death of Ribi Yehoshua. (The few fragments of Greek papyri from the 3rd century were likely either Roman Hellenist paraphrases from Hebrew Matityahu or Roman Hellenist syncretisms.) Even then, only the Roman Hellenists, who had separated from the original Jewish followers by 135 C.E., accepted them.

oh dear! It is quite clear that the NT was written in the 1st century for reasons we can go into if you want.

•There are thousands of redactions in the earliest extant source manuscripts of NT.
Really? Could they expand on what the mean please?

•Christmas wasn't celebrated until 5 centuries after the death of Ribi Yehoshua… and then it was syncretized from the birthday of the Roman sun-god by the Roman Hellenists who had separated from the original Jewish followers by 135 C.E.
ummm...so what? What does this have to do with the authenticity of the NT?

•Easter wasn't celebrated until several centuries after the death of Ribi Yehoshua… and then it was syncretized from the festival for the pagan goddess I*sh*t*a*r / A*sh*t*o*r*e*th by the Roman Hellenists who had separated from the original Jewish followers by 135 C.E.
Again, so what?

•Sunday wasn't celebrated until several centuries after the death of Ribi Yehoshua… and then it was syncretized from the day dedicated to the sun-god by the Roman Hellenists who had separated from the original Jewish followers by 135 C.E.
And again, so what?
Is that all you have? This doesn't look good for you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by andersbranderud, posted 12-04-2009 2:16 PM andersbranderud has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1810 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 18 of 21 (539881)
12-20-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by FullCircle
11-27-2009 2:00 AM


Re: wow...
How can you look at the past 2000 years of human history and say that Jesus didn't live? That's ignorant, friend.

ignorant? really? to ask for proof of the existence of a person who allegedly did so much but managed to leave so little evidence?

We have nothing he made, nothing he wrote. We do not know where he was born or where he died. We do not have his body and we don't have those of his relatives. We have no records of his existence, no third-party records (save that collected together, both canon and non, in what we now call "the bible"). We don't know when he was born or when he lived. If he caused a revolution in his own time there is no record of that. We don't even have his death-warrant by the person or persons who are said to have condemned him.

Is it so much to ask for some proof?

I'm assuming you have something else than the bible?

We don't need real people to change the way society thinks - the church of the jedi's proves that. Co$ and it's madness proves that.

We don't need real things to have happened to create cults and religions - mormons prove that (sorry, Mormons, but a magic hat and rock? seriously?).

Muhammed lived, we know that. We know where he lived, where he died, what he looked like (despite muslim's violent tendencies about pictures nowadays, there are many pictures made in antiquity of the man). His claim to being a prophet is something else that is essentially unprovable except through faith, and in that he's very similar to any historical Jesus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by FullCircle, posted 11-27-2009 2:00 AM FullCircle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tram law, posted 08-29-2010 1:49 PM greyseal has not yet responded

    
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2653 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 19 of 21 (577540)
08-29-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by greyseal
12-20-2009 11:52 AM


Re: wow...
quote:

We do not have his body and we don't have those of his relatives.


You do understand the irony of that statement don't you?

If the actual remains of Jesus were to be found, it would disprove the validity of the resurrection and therefore disprove all of Christianity.

quote:

Is it so much to ask for some proof?

Regardless of what proof is out there, you can't change a person's beliefs. And no, this is not contradictory to the previous statement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by greyseal, posted 12-20-2009 11:52 AM greyseal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 1:52 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 1:54 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 20 of 21 (577541)
08-29-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tram law
08-29-2010 1:49 PM


Re: wow...
If the actual remains of Jesus were to be found, it would disprove the validity of the resurrection and therefore disprove all of Christianity.

Not exactly. It would disprove the "Bodily Ascension" but not the Resurrection.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tram law, posted 08-29-2010 1:49 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 21 of 21 (577542)
08-29-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tram law
08-29-2010 1:49 PM


Re: wow...
If the actual remains of Jesus were to be found, it would disprove the validity of the resurrection and therefore disprove all of Christianity.

I think it depends more on whether you are an advocate of a rapturous type event or not.

ABE Oops cross posted similar post with Jar. Sorry

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tram law, posted 08-29-2010 1:49 PM Tram law has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018