In defense of prophecy

It doesn't ultimately boil down to these three options.What if Jesus was simply a populist leader? An evangelical if you will. Who's later followers applied the trappings of godhood to him. What if a large portion of the biblical sayings attributed to Jesus weren't said by him?Note that even in the biblical record there is some suggestion of this. Look closely at the Gospels, now look at the record of Paul's teachings? Notice any differences?What if 'Jesus' is actually a conglomeration of several figures living at the time? Who's teachings became merged into the figure singularly recorded as Jesus?What if one of the other many Gospels were actually true, and the four chosen by the Catholics false?

Mr. Jack says:Note that even in the biblical record there is some suggestion of ..( a large portion of the biblical sayings attributed to Jesus weren't said by him)Look closely at the Gospels, now look at the record of Paul's teachings? Notice any differences?
For the serious Bible scholars, it is a known fact that even though all of the Bible is written for us, not all of the Bible was written TO us. Jesus, of course, came for everyone, yet even He said that His primary task was to convert the Jews, at first. Did God in the flesh then humanly change His mind? The probable answer is that for a time, the message did have to be for the Jews, in order to give them a set amount of time to either accept or reject it. Once the time had passed, Paul was chosen as a messanger to the non-Jewish believers who were largely illiterate and unlearned. Most Bible Scholars do not find much evidence for a haphazardly constructed Bible.
A few of the liberal intellects who seemingly believe in the legend within their own minds attempt to disprove Christs divinity, even though several prominant lawyers who have examined the evidence have concluded the ancient writings as sound. To question the accuracy of scripture in the Gospel accounts is akin to questioning virtually every historical bibleographical source ever written about everyone in the distant past. The Bible has over 20,000 original manuscripts, whereas the next great documents of antiquity have perhaps as few as ten or less original sources.

Hi brother Phatboy. Good job you're doing. Since you're interested in prophecy, I would add to the prophecies about Jesus those fulfilled prophecies by Jesus. This sends a sound one, two punch for the divinity of the man. The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are good for starters. God bless.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

I notice you fail to address the main point of my post.Please either retract, or defend, your Lord, Liar or Lunatic Trichotomy. I do not hold to either of these three possibilities.

OK, Mr. Jack. Lets address your post more directly. First of all, you will always have the option of rejecting any information that I present to you. This is the free will given to us.
1)What if Jesus was simply a populist leader? An evangelical if you will. Who's later followers applied the trappings of godhood to him. What if a large portion of the biblical sayings attributed to Jesus weren't said by him? ==Many popular leaders have appeared in History. None have had such a controversial influence. While it is true that Jesus never directly claimed to be God, He did represent the monotheistic God of the Hebrews. The question thus becomes this: Was the God of the Hebrews an absolute fact or another relativistic belief on the planet? It is a question of faith.
2) Look closely at the Gospels, now look at the record of Paul's teachings? Notice any differences?
Yes. Jesus knew that His first ministry was to the Jewish people. Peter and the Apostles had a different message than Paul because Paul was sent to the non Jewish people. To get a grip on the theology behind this, I suggest this website: http://www.biblicalanswers.com/index.htm
3)What if 'Jesus' is actually a conglomeration of several figures living at the time? Who's teachings became merged into the figure singularly recorded as Jesus?
OK. I'll go with your theory. Now...show us the other figures and show us the theological blending.
I am unconvinced of this theory, Mr. Jack.
What if one of the other many Gospels were actually true, and the four chosen by the Catholics false? ==The four chosen Gospels were chosen by people whom the church considered as the "annointed" spiritual leaders within Orthodox Christianity. The other Gospels were rejected because of incosistancy with the rest of scripture. Either we believe and trust the process for Canon vs non canon, or we reopen the controversy. We will find, however, a consistency in the four gospels lacking in the rest.
1-4. The Canonical Gospels.=(Only these four were recognized as canonical.)
5. The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
6. The Gospel of Peter.
7. The Gospel according to the Egyptians
8. The Gospel of Matthias.
9. The Gospel of Philip.
10. The Gospel of Thomas.
11. The Proto-Evangelium of James.
12. The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
13.The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
14.The Gospel of Basilides.
15.The Gospel of Valentinus.
16.The Gospel of Marcion.
17.The Gospel of Eve.
18.The Gospel of Judas.
19.The writing Genna Marias.
20.The Gospel Teleioseos.

Hello Phatboy,I think I will never cease wondering why apologists cannot refrain from prefacing their assertions with prompts for the reader. Is it because you think the reader might question the veracity of these assertions unless you tell them before hand what they should think?For example, in your post you basically say that "serious bible scholars" and "prominent lawyers" agree with everything you're saying, whereas there are only an insignificant few "liberal intellects" (i.e. Not serious bible scholars)who "seemingly believe in the legend of their own minds" (i.e. are arrogant and stupid) who are ignorant enough to disagree with you.The first problem with this is that it is not true, i.e., it is called lying for God. But even if and when you are presenting evidence which you have reason to think is well supported, why the coloration? Why not just present the actual evidence and let the readers evaluate it for themselves instead of spin doctoring the rhetoric?Incidentally, your adjectives are tripping you up again here:

quote:

---

Phatboy:

​

The Bible has over 20,000 original manuscripts . . .

---

On the contrary, we have exactly zero original manuscripts of the biblical text.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hello buzsaw,

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

. . . those fulfilled prophecies by Jesus. This sends a sound one, two punch . . .

---

Shadow boxing is easy. Why not address my previous observations regarding your assertion that the 1967 six-day war was the fulfillment of Luke 21:24? You do still assert this, don't you? Or have you changed your mind?Namaste'Amlodhi