|
|
|
|
|
| | The Historical Jesus Page 4 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) | | It amazes me how people who claim not to believe spend all of there time try to disprove him. If in there eyes he did not exist they why fight? Why not let those of us who continue our belief? As a Christian we are obligated to spread the gospel(good news) Are non- Christians obligated to spread disbelief? | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/11/2007 10:17:12 AM | neocon, Have you ever thought that just maybe people are sick of being told that they are somehow inferior or less worthy because they reject the notion that Jesus is God?
Christian believe that they are to spread the good news. For a great many the good news is old news. Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses , Mormon, and Born Again Christains are all spreading their version of the good news. Each claiming that they are the true Church. Each will bring out their text and and argue why everyone else is wrong and they are right. All claim to be Christians and yet they all fight over who is the real Christian.
Many in the non Christain community are not so much spreading their non belief system or lack of . They are exercising thier rights to defend their own personal choices. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/11/2007 3:10:31 PM |
Countibli, you have on several occassions made reference to what the original language actually meant. I would like to know if you actually can read Biblical Greek and/or Hebrew or do you get your info from some other source? If the latter, would you mind sharing that source?
I'm not sure what you mean here, aside from the mistranslation of "virgin." I normally don't speak in terms of the original language. The only other two examples I can think of off the top of my head come from the Gospel of John. One is a verse that Christians claim show Jesus saying he's god. The other is John 1:1 which has been argued as demonstrating Jesus' divinity, but I think doesn't. However, since I speak neither Greek nor Hebrew I rarely try to talk about the meaning in the original language.
As far as this thread goes the mistranslation of virgin is the only example I can think of that I've argued the meaning in the original language. I think people can see for themselves if the Messianic prophecies Christians claimed were fulfilled by Jesus are valid if they look for themselves at what the OT (in English) says. Christians have a habit of taking verses out of context and using them to prove all sorts of things about Jesus. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/11/2007 3:13:15 PM |
It amazes me how people who claim not to believe spend all of there time try to disprove him. If in there eyes he did not exist they why fight? Why not let those of us who continue our belief? As a Christian we are obligated to spread the gospel(good news) Are non- Christians obligated to spread disbelief?
If Christians weren't Hell bent on establishing an American theocracy and forcing Armageddon in the Middle East we Atheists probably wouldn't spend much time at all proving you guys wrong. | |
|
| |
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/12/2007 7:51:24 PM |
It amazes me how people who claim not to believe spend all of there time try to disprove him. If in there eyes he did not exist they why fight?
Our attempts to disprove God are only reactions to the constant attempts by theists to establish God's existence. If you didn't go around preaching, we wouldn't have to go around trying to undo it all.
Also, just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't produce dire consequences. If I believe there is a talking monkey in my closet who wants me to kill children, it is fairly obvious that such a monkey does not exist. Yet I bet you'd do your darndest to persuade me that such a creature does not exist if I were intent on carrying out this monkey's supposed wishes! | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/12/2007 9:26:41 PM | So basically you are saying that you go around trying to disprove God because you do not have a life?
Sad. | |
|
| |
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/13/2007 1:12:43 AM | | Howard Fast is a fiction writer and a Communist. Not exactly an impeccable source of information about early Christianity. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/13/2007 1:56:09 AM | Frankly so long as your belief makes you a good neighbour, makes you centered, and causes no direct harm to others I could care less what you believe.
The moment you try to impose any of your beliefs onto the body politic, the educational system, science, or any of your fellow men against their will I will stand in the main to stop any who do so, no matter what the belief, be it theistic or non-theistic.
I am interested in libertarianism for the citizen, especially in matters of personal belief...
That said, I do not want matters of spirituality to retard areas of science, politics, or civil progress.
You may vote as your personal conscience dictates. That should be your right as a citizen. The moment you step across the right of any other citizen, be it in the field of education, politics, civil rights, medicine, science, or spirituality, I think your foot should be well and duly severed.
Frankly I don't think Jesus was historically too interested in the workings of the state either...but that depends on who you think the most accurate biographer was...and to be honest, I don't think there is any kind of concensus on that.
Nuff said! | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/13/2007 9:54:52 AM | Read the genealogies carefully, both lines have descent from Jeconiah.
I have....and no, there isn't any reference to Jeconiah in the gospel of Luke--none at all...not even a 'Coniah.' If you believe there is..then chapter and verse please.
The key thing is when this happened. It's recorded in Acts and IIRC it was after Pentacost that he was replaced.
..and according to the chronology of events, it happened BEFORE Pentecost as properly recorded in the book of Acts chapter 1 verse 26:
"And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias;and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
Thus ending chapter one and beginning chapter two with verse one:
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place."
Fitman, You ask about the two different "'religions" It is true that Paul , Peter and James had a much different take on Jesus and what it meant to be a follower of Jesus.
Paul had little contact with the original Chruch in Jerusalem that was headed by James the Just. Jame is either the brother of Jesus or his cousin. Paul is a Greek Jew. he had in about 20 years of preaching only two short visits to Jerusalem. We Know that he was at odds with the original Chruch. He was preaching his own version of Jesus and not what the followers in Jerusalem were preaching
Some feel the Paul may have been a Gnostic. It is only in some later writing that he seems to change. In fact Paul does seem to contradict himself on a great many subjects.
The new Testament focuses on Paul and his letters. We see very little of James or Peter. The followers of Paul's version of did a lot to erase the influence of James and to a smaller degree Peter.
The biggest division in the early Christian chruch was over circumcision and kosher laws.
The reality is by the time of the nicene conference there were many different versions of Christianity. It is only when The Non Christian Emperor constantine made a decree as to what would be the official version of the christian faith that we get what today is Christianity.
Ahh Mr. Artz-- I must tell you that I am not interested in faiths or religions molded and changed by men...as well as other spiritual powers...but one--Jesus Christ ,who taught the dispensation of God through a revelation of Himself who is the head of all principality and power (Col. 2:10) and also, the church. (Col.1:18)
I like the verse which states: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 28)
The scripture states also that God adds to his church as He so wills. According to New Testament teaching, this work is carried out and completed by the Spirit of God and is likened to the wind in the relation to its invisible performance here on earth.
The Gospel as presented by Paul is quite the same as that of Peter and James in essence of the person and faith by whom the revelation was given with the exception of minor clashes. I do NOT agree that Paul was preaching his own version of Jesus and not what the followers in Jerusalem were teaching or preaching and DO contend it was the same message.
The apostle Paul was given a much different role in its delivery IMO which carried with it some different contentions. Firstly, he was seen as an outsider and persecutor of the faith in one Jesus Christ. After overcoming this tremendous hurdle, he had to wait a good number of years before his ministry took off so to speak. Let us remember that it was Peter who was approached in a vision by God on a rooftop and needed correction and instruction on the direction in which God was going to go with this same Gospel message. If one wanted to critique someone they might better want to have a look at Peter who denied the Lord three times and to whom Christ addressed as Satan ...hmmm?? That was 'cause Jesus knew what direction those that would call his alleged 'Christian church' might follow.
   | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/13/2007 11:44:11 AM | you are so wrong hen you say the gospel of paul is the same as Peter and James.
first Paul is a Hellenized Jew. he may in fact been more Greek in his thinking then Jewish. We only have pauls word for it that he had a privet meeting with Peter and James and the Pillars of the Chruch gave him their Blessing. Only Pauls word. Now if he did have their Blessing why then in Phil3:2 Does he call them Dogs? His words on this are not directed at Jews but at Christians who require that in order to be a fully faithful Christian one most still follow the law.
There was a major division in the Early Chruch and even a division between Paul and Barbabas with whom Paul at one time preached with. It would seem that the splitit with Barbabas and Paul was not a friendly split.
To say that there isa strieght line progression from Jesus to the writings of paul isa stretch to say the least. That facts are that by the 3rd century there were so many different christian beliefs that That The roman emperor called for the Nice conference to once and for all make a creed as to what a Christian was and what a Christian was to believe. The idea of the trilogy was not official doctrine untill that time. Different churches in Egypt , Ethiopia ,Greece, Armenia Roman were all useing different text and had a variety of believes. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/13/2007 9:40:12 PM | Indeed Artz, good points....
Now, for RDtoo's response... You may wish to consider that "Jews, The History of the People" is not written as a work of fiction and that it was thoroughly and well researched for 15 years by Howard Fast.
As to your dismissal of him as a communist, you may also wish to look into his life a little more carefully and find that he came back disillusioned after getting to know the Soviet Union and renounced it as well he should have. So, that makes him as much a communist in its ideal sense as was Joshua himself!... You do realize that Joshua was a true communist, don't you?... :-)
As to your allegation that most Christians would object to Mr. Fast's book, do take a look at the reviews by several Christians of this book on Amazon. Many found it illuminating and I also believe that it is. Come to think of it, I think I will re-read it at some point soon. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/14/2007 7:42:38 AM | Artz,
I just popped in for a minute, and nuts, there was your post. I got stuck again. But have to say, This is all wrong. You state:
you are so wrong hen you say the gospel of paul is the same as Peter and James.
PAUL'S GOSPEL?
His gospel was the same gospel.
Jesus preached the kingdom of God Mark 1:14
JAMES Jam 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
PAUL Act 28:30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Act 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
PAUL Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
first Paul is a Hellenized Jew. he may in fact been more Greek in his thinking then Jewish.
PAUL A HEBREW OF THE HEBREWS:
Phi 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Phi 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Phi 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
We only have pauls word for it that he had a privet meeting with Peter and James and the Pillars of the Chruch gave him their Blessing. Only Pauls word.
I LIE NOT!
And of course, we know that Paul is a liar, Just like all the other prophets and apostles. Sure....AND Jesus too. its all face. We can't trust any of them, but we can trust the modern day scholars who don't really like those guys. But, Paul the liar said:
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Now if he did have their Blessing why then in Phil3:2 Does he call them Dogs? His words on this are not directed at Jews but at Christians who require that in order to be a fully faithful Christian one most still follow the law.
WHY WERE THEY CALLED DOGS?
The Jews, gave this term to the gentiles who were not included in the covenant. The gentiles were dogs, and the Jews the children of God. Now, those Jews who were attempting to require gentiles to become Jews before they could become Christians had become in opposition to the church and its teaching. Therefore, they were outside the covenant, and the gentiles were accepted in. Thus, Paul calls the Judaizers the dogs, and the Gentile believers the children.
THE ACTS 15 CONFERENCE--EVERYONE ON THE SAME PAGE?
This issue of circumcision was brought before the entire church, and a decision was made. Peter is the first to agree, and then what do you know James seconds the motion. They were in full agreement with Paul.
PETER: act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
JAMES; Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH AGREED: Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
PAUL KEPT THE LAW:
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
There was a major division in the Early Chruch and even a division between Paul and Barbabas with whom Paul at one time preached with. It would seem that the splitit with Barbabas and Paul was not a friendly split. AN UNFRIENDLY HOSTILE SPLIT? Paul had said that they were to go and check on the churches they had set up. Barnabus wanted to take Mark, and Paul did not. They argued the point and the contention was so sharp that Barnabus took Mark, and Paul took Silas. They did not split and form different churches. They found a win win situation. They both went and checked on the churches, Paul took one, and Barnabus the other. Barnabus wanted to prove Mark to Paul, and by this He did so. Thus, Paul later wrote: 2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. To say that there isa strieght line progression from Jesus to the writings of paul isa stretch to say the least. WHO TAUGHT PAUL? Actually Paul was taught personally by Christ. He went to Arabia and was taught by Christ though revelation. Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. Thus, Paul could speak of what Christ taught him regarding things that occurred before his calling: 1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: That facts are that by the 3rd century there were so many different christian beliefs that That The roman emperor called for the Nice conference to once and for all make a creed as to what a Christian was and what a Christian was to believe. The idea of the trilogy was not official doctrine untill that time. Different churches in Egypt , Ethiopia ,Greece, Armenia Roman were all useing different text and had a variety of believes. VARIOUS CHRISTIAN BELIEFS: Yes, there were various different beliefs, and they were called Christian, but they were not Christian. A pagan emperor had taken over the church. The church became state sponsored, and not God sponsored. From that time, on, there would be a holy Roman Empire. The church would ride this beast, it would become wealthy, powerful politically but it was a counterfeit. The true Church was overtaken by false teaching, and they had to go underground. Here are just a few scriptures showing what was to happen and what did happen. Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Joh 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3Jo 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 3Jo 1:10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Art | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/14/2007 8:17:53 AM | Forgive me for miss useing the word gospel I should have typed Epistles.
However you did a good job of making my point about circumcision and Paul's disconnect from the main body of the Chruch in Jerusalem. As i said Paul was out on his own doing these things and not under any authority except his own. His own that he claims by a vision. Paul was born in a Greek city educated as a Greek. and a Jew by birth. He was very much a Hellenized Jew.
Paul revelations can't compare to a personal man to man bond with Jesus. Once again we only have Paul's words here. I do believe that some day other early Christian writings by James or other leaders of the chruch in Jerusalem will shed more light on Paul and followers. They are the ones that started the jesus movement down the road to become a pagan religion we now know as Christianity.
Your an American and a Christian. If you were to move to a christian community in say Ethiopia. You would still be an American. Your follow Ethiopian Christians would say you are a Christian but still an American Christian. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:30:30 AM | I wouldn't doubt there was a petty criminal in roman times that had a small, extremely devoted following that spread his teachings after being put to death and embellished it with all kinds of nonsense. Borrowed every aspect from the myths of the time to convert people.
I don't really see how christianity could have got started without an actual teacher, it just seems like things moved to fast to have all been spun togather from pure myth.
I don't buy that roman scholars not writing about him means he did not exist. Why would they write about him? This was in the time of all kinds of mad men prophets that claimed all sorts of things. I just don't see why he would have come up on the romans radar even. | |
|
mam69
| | Joined: 1/16/2007
Msg: 92 | |
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/14/2007 12:02:07 PM | | He was REAL!!!!! Too much historical and scientific proof to deny it. People can choose to believe what they want about him, according to their relgeous beliefs but to deny his existance would be ludicris. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/14/2007 1:02:50 PM | "People can choose to believe what they want about him"
That is basically what it comes down to. There is absolutely no scientific data to back what you say up in the slightest though. The historical data is VERY murky at best here. I'm a total atheist but I think its stupid to believe that Jesus never actually existed.
To me if you want to look at the bible objectively on what was put down on paper its like putting to paper the life of George Washington today with everything coming down orally. Then 1800 years from now people worshipping him as a god with this whole myth built up over time.
The stories/myths are as real as 2000 years from now people thinking Jesus chopped down the cherry tree.
Hate to say it to you christians, but 2000 years from now your boy will be remembered no different than Dionysus today. Some ancient myth no one believes in anymore. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/14/2007 1:12:44 PM | This subject fires me up. I take comfort in the fact that its pretty obvious 5 generations down the line no one will believe in this nonsense.
Maybe Jesus is going to send 2 billion atheist in china to hell in the next 50 years, along with 2 billion hindus in india.... muslims and jews? toast...then he saves 15% of the planet because of his compassion????
give me a ****ing break. Its almost a bipolar pyschology. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/14/2007 2:24:07 PM | | Why would you say that he existed when there is nothing outside the New Testament that says one word about him? the earlist known writing in the nT are at least 30 years after his death. could you write an account of your life from 30 years ago and be accurate? Could you write a 2nd hand account and be sure it was correct? He very well could be a composite of the many different massai figures that were preaching in that time. he could be made up to fill a gap made by the god/ Man mythes of Greece and Roman. Yes he could have been a charismatic mystic with a large following. It is hard to say. we have nothing that was written while he was alive. You would have thought that if he were so important and so charismatic. that surly someone would have bee taking notes. A Jewish Scribe or someone else within his followers would have written some notes while he was preaching. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/14/2007 2:49:07 PM | | I believe there was such a person that may have been who people say he was.... Highly subjective, but that is about as close to knowing the truth as you are likely to get. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/15/2007 11:47:09 AM |
Hate to say it to you christians, but 2000 years from now your boy will be remembered no different than Dionysus today. Some ancient myth no one believes in anymore.
Who is Homer? Is he the historical non-entity whose father was a river and his mother a nymph? Didn't he write some fabulous fairytales about gods, battles, and a mythical la-la land? There are more fragments containing information about the NT writings than about the Illiad - and yet Troy exists. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/15/2007 1:38:09 PM | | Good point. And where exactly was Homer from age 12 until adulthood? I'll bet he went to China or India and and and .......... | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/15/2007 4:27:30 PM |
Who is Homer? Is he the historical non-entity whose father was a river and his mother a nymph? Didn't he write some fabulous fairytales about gods, battles, and a mythical la-la land? There are more fragments containing information about the NT writings than about the Illiad - and yet Troy exists.
Umm...
Point?
I don't think you'll find too many people arguing that they know anything about Homer either...it's highly debatable that the Illiad and the Oddyssey had one author...it probably stemmed from an older cycle of oral poetry, just like the stories of the Bible.
I think this falls into the "so what" category. Sorry. *shrug* | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/15/2007 5:23:02 PM | | I have never heard that the Iliad was anything but a story. has anyone ever heard once that the Iliad and the Odyssey were the Absolute truth? could there be some factual places and maybe some events in those stories of course. a few facts her and there do not make a statement of infallible truth. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
4
of
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
|
|
Home
login 
