How many here believe Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion

[sealybobo]

The word is bind & covet in that Essence not Pray or worship, and once again your perspective of what it is being taught is through cultures that anthropromorphized simple concepts and precepts.
If that Essence is not a man nor form then it is a nature type image not a physical image, and if it says the Essence is in the name in the Holy city of Shalem and Shalem means
to be complete, whole, and stable then that nature to be all you could and should be (evolve) is Shalem. Life(creation) is about
transforming and progression to the highest state one could and should be whether in micro or macro levels of existance we see this. The mirror opposite to live is evil, opposite to have Lived is Devil (nature of decay, death, and destruction).
Society takes this simplicity and gives it a bastardized form through anthropromorphizing what was warned not to and the most simple comands not to make forms of these conceptual intangible expressions.

Sources:
Gen 1:27 word for image is tzelem (Essence nature type image).
but physical image would be " to'ar"

Isaiah 42:8 we can't pray to any image of anything physical- Exodus 20:3-7 and Deuteronomy 5:8-10
God is not a man nor form-(Isaiah 2:22, 14:13, I Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, and Hosea 11:9, Deuteronomy 4:11-12 and the 13 major principles of the Jewish faith based on the Rambam's teaching of "ain lo demus haguf ve'ayno guf" -- that Hashem has no physical form.)

The Gemarah (Baba Batra 75) Tells us Jerusalem is named after G0D and is the place commemorating his name(description)& essence.
In Sefer D’varim (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 14:23,24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11).the place that I will choose to place My Name(the messenger of God shares this name and reflects this Essence). That is referring to YeruShalem because Sifri identifies the place which Hashem will choose (12:18) as “Yerushalayim”.
Shalem means completeness/wholeness thus describing the Essence to be all we could and should be aka evolve/progress.
YeruShalem would carry the name. (1 Kings 11:36 &
in dead sea scrolls: Words of the Archangel Michael scroll 4Q529, 6Q23)

You sound insane.

So you lose an argument and that's all you can do is demonize your opponent, where have I seen this reply before? Hmmm?

You just said evolution and being all you could and should be sounds insane.
Yeah just think that way and continue miss representing what you do not know.
Just remember, you make fun of Christianity, but you use their precepts when you argue from that which you do not know. That makes you a victim as much as the Christian followers.

Ah don't mind silly Boo Boo he is one of those people who talks non stop about something he insists doesn't exist








After 52 years I know for a fact their is a God and Jesus




.

You worship something that never visited

Got proof?






.

How do you want me to prove something that doesn't exist never visited?

If you're claiming it visited it's on you to prove it or shut it

 

[Wyatt earp]

You sound insane.

So you lose an argument and that's all you can do is demonize your opponent, where have I seen this reply before? Hmmm?

You just said evolution and being all you could and should be sounds insane.
Yeah just think that way and continue miss representing what you do not know.
Just remember, you make fun of Christianity, but you use their precepts when you argue from that which you do not know. That makes you a victim as much as the Christian followers.

Ah don't mind silly Boo Boo he is one of those people who talks non stop about something he insists doesn't exist








After 52 years I know for a fact their is a God and Jesus




.

You worship something that never visited

Got proof?






.

How do you want me to prove something that doesn't exist never visited?

If you're claiming it visited it's on you to prove it or shut it

Listen your the one claiming he didn't visit



Prove it.



.

 

[sealybobo]

So you lose an argument and that's all you can do is demonize your opponent, where have I seen this reply before? Hmmm?

You just said evolution and being all you could and should be sounds insane.
Yeah just think that way and continue miss representing what you do not know.
Just remember, you make fun of Christianity, but you use their precepts when you argue from that which you do not know. That makes you a victim as much as the Christian followers.

Ah don't mind silly Boo Boo he is one of those people who talks non stop about something he insists doesn't exist








After 52 years I know for a fact their is a God and Jesus




.

You worship something that never visited

Got proof?






.

How do you want me to prove something that doesn't exist never visited?

If you're claiming it visited it's on you to prove it or shut it

Listen your the one claiming he didn't visit



Prove it.



.

Who didn't visit? First you have to prove it exists

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ah don't mind silly Boo Boo he is one of those people who talks non stop about something he insists doesn't exist








After 52 years I know for a fact their is a God and Jesus




.

You worship something that never visited

Got proof?






.

How do you want me to prove something that doesn't exist never visited?

If you're claiming it visited it's on you to prove it or shut it

Listen your the one claiming he didn't visit



Prove it.



.

Who didn't visit? First you have to prove it exists

you were the first one to say it never visited..




So you already admits it exists.


But are trying to say it never visited.



So prove it never visited


.

 

[sealybobo]

You worship something that never visited

Got proof?






.

How do you want me to prove something that doesn't exist never visited?

If you're claiming it visited it's on you to prove it or shut it

Listen your the one claiming he didn't visit



Prove it.



.

Who didn't visit? First you have to prove it exists

you were the first one to say it never visited..




So you already admits it exists.


But are trying to say it never visited.



So prove it never visited


.

You guys started this by saying he impregnated Mary. Prove it. And you say the only way to heaven is to believe. Well, prove it. And if you can't please don't suggest this

 

[HaShev]

See Sealy you need me, because best knowing the truth and proving sources for that truth ends these silly arguments.
BEAR is arguing about Mary yet doesn't even know that the Christ figure who's mother was Mary who died by stoning and Hanging on Passover was Yeshu son of Mary of 100bc, a far cry from Pilate era AD or King Herod's era Christs used to make the Jesus myth.
Furthermore Mary was not a virgin, she was called Stada (deviated) because she had Yeshu through a fling with Roman soldier Pantheras (Pandera) and this is why the NT says: In Matthew 1:19 he states Joseph didn't want to expose her to public disgrace, so he had a mind to divorce her (Mary) quietly (as to not get her stoned).
This is why John of Patmos calls it the Harlot Church. They lift higher in the trinity of christs the one who's mother was a Harlot, they lift high the harlot as a forbiden asherah by the altar, and they placed Jesus lineage through all the harlots of the Bible hence calling them the church of Satan.
Sources:
Matthew mentions four sinful harlot women of the bible conveniently and coincidentally in the Joseph genealogy:
1) (Genesis 38:12-19) Tamar who was the one who disguised herself as a harlot to seduce her father-in-law Judah.
2) (Joshua 2:1) Rahab who was a harlot living in the city of Jericho. And note wasn’t even of Jewish lineage, she was a Canaanite. The creators of the legend/image icon in trying to create his lineage and plagiarizing the OT goofed this one big time.
3) (Ruth 3:1-14) Ruth who was the one through her mother-in-law Naomi's request, came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married.
4) (2 Samuel 11:2-5) Bathsheba was the controversial one who became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah.

Sources on Yeshu son of Mary Stada.
"Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?"by John Blanchard
The mother of Hyrcanus, Salomè, in spite of her being called by another name, showed favour to Jehoshua and his teaching; that she was a witness of his wonderful works and powers of healing, and tried to save him from the hands of his sacerdotal enemies, because he was related to her;
John was son of Hyrcanus and was despised by the Pharisee, notice this means there is proof of they do connect.

Sources for the history of (Yeshu) Jesus: philosopher Celsus (178 CE) Christian writer Epiphanius (c.320-403 CE), the Christian apologist Origen (c.185-254 CE) Within the Talmud Shabbos 104, the gemara explicitly discusses the mother being Stada and the father being Pandera. Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zerah II 40d)and in the Tosefta on Hullin II, and (Sanhedrin 43a & 67a). This story is further expanded upon in the Tosefta and Baraitas.
2 accounts:
-Dr. Franz Hartman -
& Gerald Massey's Lectures Originally published in a private edition c. 1900


According to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract "Shabbath," this Jehoshua, the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or Lydda,

Jesus ben Stada (or Pandera) was placed in the time period of about 90 B.C. in Lydda, a town Peter is said tohave visited in ACTS. Interestingly the early church father Epiphanius around 400 said Pandera was the grandfather of Jesus.

 

[shimon]

Not To Mention the fact that they compiled all those individuals with all those myths and stories to bring the Jesus of the gospels to life....In Otherwords the writers of the new testament good News(As Bad as the National Enquirer Rag) Came up with a "Good News" item that titilated their readers all those years ago and has titilated many readers for the many years that came after.... I Guess Bagdad Bob(Saddams newsman) could not hold a candle to the creators of the new testament in telling a tale tale for "Ratings"..... notice the spelling of RAT ings ....Or We smell a RAT when we see one....

 

[HaShev]

And getting the news from the adversary (Rome) is like getting your news from
MSNBC (Comcast owned pays off Senators) or CNN (Time Warner-Sorros and Saudis owned big shares of).

 

[hobelim]

And getting the news from the adversary (Rome) is like getting your news from
MSNBC (Comcast owned pays off Senators) or CNN (Time Warner-Sorros and Saudis owned big shares of).

The gospels were written centuries before the romans usurped authority over their interpretations and from ignorance of the figurative language used by the authors they created an edible three in one mangod as the universal fulfillment and validation of every pagan religion and cult in the empire, the antichrist that many so called believers cower before on their knees to this day.

Since the gospels were written during times of extreme persecution and after the destruction of Judea, the temple, and the enslavement exile and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews the gospels should be suspect, but not because of any irrational or superstitious Roman interpretations.


To Jesus, his disciples, and the authors of "the good news"..... the nations of the roman empire were the enemy. If you witnessed the destruction of Judea and the crucifixion of thousands of Jews, were living on the run, and all you had were the clothes on your back and a pen and paper how would you strike back and where would you hide the treasures of the kingdom of God?



I have not come to bring peace but a sword.


"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations."


Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them."


Take this cup of wine and drink it, all of you. This is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant.




"Just art thou, in these thy judgements, thou Holy One who art and wast: for they have shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink" Rev:16:6

 

[HaShev]

According to John of Patmos the Roman scheme was brewing around 70ad which is what era is being described and the start of the compiling of texts and plagiarism 70-90ad.
Later Constantine gave this compiled character his Canaanite mythology of the dying god scene to surpass and mask father Baal as the new face. GAVE them the crucifixion cross mark of the beast, sinless nature and deification of a created image(idol).

Sources: Luke 21:24 & Romans 11:25 and history of that era show that
Revelation 11:1-3 occurred already in aprox 70 ad.
Also John of Patmos wrote
the anti christ(anointed) was there in his day=Rome who destroyed the authority of the anointed Priests & the Temple.

 

[shimon]

Talk About "False News" ....If I remember correctly and I quote "The most distiquished body of acedemic opinion ever assembled (Catholic Encyclopedia Preface) Admits that the gospels " Do Not go back to the first century of the christian era" ( Catholic Encyclopedia Farley, ED vol.vi.p 137, pp655-6)........ Further in an even more damaging admission The Church admits the earliest of the extant manuscripts(of the new Testament) it is true do not date back beyond the middle of the forth century AD (Catholic Encyclopedia op.cit pp 656-7).... Now one can take it for what it is but as One can see even the church fathers have very grave doubts about how valid any of the "Good News" is regarding its authenticity esp regarding the Time of Jesus so called time on earth....Many tall Tales and Strecting of the "Truthes" could have occured over such a vast stretch of Time.... One must wonder if in todays age such "News" would have been even "Newsworthy" or would the ladies much prefer to curl up with a nice harlequin romance and the men a magazine about roadsters or fit and shape mags...At least one could get a little bang for ones buck instead of having to fork over 10 per cent of ones hard earned dollars to a story that gives little but takes a whole lot of imagination to believe it is the "gospel Truth"

 

[Meriweather]

Talk About "False News" ....If I remember correctly and I quote "The most distiquished body of acedemic opinion ever assembled (Catholic Encyclopedia Preface) Admits that the gospels " Do Not go back to the first century of the christian era" ( Catholic Encyclopedia Farley, ED vol.vi.p 137, pp655-6)........ Further in an even more damaging admission The Church admits the earliest of the extant manuscripts(of the new Testament) it is true do not date back beyond the middle of the forth century AD (Catholic Encyclopedia op.cit pp 656-7).... Now one can take it for what it is but as One can see even the church fathers have very grave doubts about how valid any of the "Good News" is regarding its authenticity esp regarding the Time of Jesus so called time on earth....Many tall Tales and Strecting of the "Truthes" could have occured over such a vast stretch of Time.... One must wonder if in todays age such "News" would have been even "Newsworthy" or would the ladies much prefer to curl up with a nice harlequin romance and the men a magazine about roadsters or fit and shape mags...At least one could get a little bang for ones buck instead of having to fork over 10 per cent of ones hard earned dollars to a story that gives little but takes a whole lot of imagination to believe it is the "gospel Truth"

There is a difference between when one of the Gospel's was first written--and the oldest copy of that Gospel in existence. Your post seems to be addressing the latter. For example, Mark's Gospel was written in the first century, probably around 70 A.D. Possibly there was a fragment found dating to 90 A.D., but the oldest copies in existence are from the 300s (or fourth century).

Compare this to A Christmas Carol, written in 1843, but copies still being printed out in 2017.

 

[shimon]

There was no Mark s gospel . It certainly was not mentioned by any of the original people... Now there was a anonymous scripture that was much latter given the name Mark but quite frankly no one know if a Mark wrote it as a matter of fact later on two of the other books borrowed heavily( can we say plagerized) from this so called " Mark" ( I know a Mark when I see one) I believe it was Luke and one other book...So quite frankly you are conjecturing and placing yourself above and I gooute the best academic field of its time...