Prophecy being fulfilled in front of our eyes

[ajwps]

I don't believe in the equation Adamsimpire states here. In response to your statement, ajwps... Jesus never proclaimed himself equal to God the Father in neither power, glory, nor knowledge. The knowledge of the Second Coming was and always has been part of God the Father's design. Remember that - the Father's design, not the Son's. Perhaps Jesus was left "out of the loop" because it served no purpose for Him to know.
-Douglas

Douglas actually Jesus never said anything about being a god. Later Paul of Tarsus and the gospel writers wrote the NT as related to them by the hired persector of the Christians and sent by the Roman appointed head priest.

They got these variable messages from insight into what Paul told them he heard from Jesus on his bolt of lighting strike on his trip to Damascus.

For most Christians it is a matter of FAITH.....

 

[Hobbit]

Jesus told Pilot and the Sanhedrin that he was the son of God. It helps to read a book before quoting it.

 

[ajwps]

Jesus told Pilot and the Sanhedrin that he was the son of God. It helps to read a book before quoting it.

If Jesus told Pontius and the Sanhedrin that he was the son of god, did he write this fact down on papyrus or did he record on Memorex?

I have read this quotation by Jesus in the NT but it seems that it was written down more than 60 years after his death by those who never met Jesus.

How did the NT writers get Jesus' quote about being a god or speaking to the Sanhedrin. If it was by word of mouth, the final written words would have been dramatically different than when someone heard, from someone, who didn't remember exactly what the last guy said but passed it on to the next guy who wrote it down. But even the original gospel can't be found to verify that this statement was not added later by Monks in the 17th century.

Please give original non-revised copies of the words of Jesus himself.

 

[5stringJeff]

I think you're misunderstanding something here.

God= Jesus= Holy Spirit

Adam, that is not correct. Jesus is not the Father, nor is Jesus the Holy Spirit, nor is the Father the Holy Spirit. All are God, but all are not each other.

 

[5stringJeff]

Douglas actually Jesus never said anything about being a god. Later Paul of Tarsus and the gospel writers wrote the NT as related to them by the hired persector of the Christians and sent by the Roman appointed head priest.

They got these variable messages from insight into what Paul told them he heard from Jesus on his bolt of lighting strike on his trip to Damascus.

For most Christians it is a matter of FAITH.....

Jesus actually made several claims of being God. He stated that "I and my Father are one" and that "before Abraham was, I Am." The orthodox Jews of the day attempted to stone Jesus for these statements because they understood exactly what Jesus meant. In fact, in His trial in front of the Sanhedrin: "The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.' "
So your claim that Jesus never claimed to be God is false.

 

[ajwps]

Jesus actually made several claims of being God. He stated that "I and my Father are one" and that "before Abraham was, I Am." The orthodox Jews of the day attempted to stone Jesus for these statements because they understood exactly what Jesus meant. In fact, in His trial in front of the Sanhedrin: "The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.' "
So your claim that Jesus never claimed to be God is false.

Again you are missing the point. Jesus nor his disciples wrote the NT gospels until at least 60 years after the crucifixion. What Jesus said, swore, agreed to or claimed were based ONLY on what Paul (who never met the living Jesus) claimed and put in the mouth of the man Jesus.

Paul of Tarsus (the main writer of the NT gospels said clearly and in the context of the entire chapter)

KJV Philippians 1:18

1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in PRETENSE, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

or

1 Corinthians 9:20

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Can't be much clearer than this admission of not caring whether he or ANYONE elses motives are, that either being truthful or lying and being deceitful in teaching of Jesus as the Christ is righteous to rejoice about. It seems peculiar that a god would want his main advocate to use lies or deception to get believers. At least not the G-d who created everything including the universe.

Do you think that the main author of the NT would write what he never heard from the living Jesus?

 

[Hobbit]

Again you are missing the point. Jesus nor his disciples wrote the NT gospels until at least 60 years after the crucifixion. What Jesus said, swore, agreed to or claimed were based ONLY on what Paul (who never met the living Jesus) claimed and put in the mouth of the man Jesus.

Paul of Tarsus (the main writer of the NT gospels said clearly and in the context of the entire chapter)

I've seen this used over and over again to try and disprove the gospels, but it's not true. The books were compiled into formal books an distributed at this time. The apostles themselves wrote their accounts, which were later compiled into books. It's kinda like claiming Jules Verne didn't actually write "Paris in the 20th Century" just because it wasn't published until after his death.

Can't be much clearer than this admission of not caring whether he or ANYONE elses motives are, that either being truthful or lying and being deceitful in teaching of Jesus as the Christ is righteous to rejoice about. It seems peculiar that a god would want his main advocate to use lies or deception to get believers. At least not the G-d who created everything including the universe.

Do you think that the main author of the NT would write what he never heard from the living Jesus?

Like so many other people, you take these verses out of context. By preaching in PRETENSE, Paul was referring to people preaching Christ for reasons other than faith and conviction (he even lists envy and spite as possible reasons), not that they were using deception to get their point across. Paul rejoiced in this since they were reaching people and may even start to listen to what they preach. The other one was no stab at deception, since Paul WAS A JEW. What he was saying is that you have to try to fit in with those you reach. Trying to make them adhere to your customs and traditions is fruitless and counterproductive, while trying to fit in will get them to trust and accept you. Now stop quoting verses out of context.

 

[Shazbot]

Jesus actually made several claims of being God. He stated that "I and my Father are one" and that "before Abraham was, I Am." The orthodox Jews of the day attempted to stone Jesus for these statements because they understood exactly what Jesus meant. In fact, in His trial in front of the Sanhedrin: "The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.' "
So your claim that Jesus never claimed to be God is false.

Let's look at a few things so I can make sure we are on the same grounds here.

I understand the first statement quoted, "I and my Father are one", to refer to the fact that they are, indeed united, though physically separate entities.

The second quote, "before Abraham was, I Am" is a declaration by Jesus, saying that He is indeed the great I Am, aka, Jesus Christ is Jehovah (neither of which is the Father).

The third quote, being a conversation between the High Priests and Jesus only illustrates to us the fact that Jesus did (on many occasions, actually) proclaim His own divinity, in that He is the Son of God. That is no proclamation that He is God the Father. Jesus even says how the "Son of Man" (Jesus) will be seen "sitting at the right hand of power" (at the right hand of the Father). Jesus taught that He was/is the Son of God...never that He was/is God the Father himself.

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

I've seen this used over and over again to try and disprove the gospels, but it's not true. The books were compiled into formal books an distributed at this time. The apostles themselves wrote their accounts, which were later compiled into books. It's kinda like claiming Jules Verne didn't actually write "Paris in the 20th Century" just because it wasn't published until after his death.

Interesting observation of yours that "the apostles themselves wrote their accounts which were later compiled into books." Is there any physical evidence of this premise? Are there any papyrus fragments from the apostles or disciples of Jesus existing gospel documents with the name of the authors that have been either carbon dated or other dating methods giving credence to apostles writing down the gospel books during Jesus time on earth?

Kind of like saying that Francis Bacon was the author of the Shakespearean works instead of poor William S. Who knows but the controversy goes on and on. Without the original gospel texts with the authors name, your premis is simply part of your faith and not proven.

Can't be much clearer than this admission of not caring whether he or ANYONE elses motives are, that either being truthful or lying and being deceitful in teaching of Jesus as the Christ is righteous to rejoice about. It seems peculiar that a god would want his main advocate to use lies or deception to get believers. At least not the G-d who created everything including the universe.

Do you think that the main author of the NT would write what he never heard from the living Jesus?

Out of context? Paul even in your own version of the chapter admits that even if 'people preaching Christ for reasons other than faith and conviction (out of envy or spite) get converts, Paul of Tarsus rejoices in this fact.

WHY is it necessary to rejoice in people who preach Christianity out of evil or malicious reasons get converts? Paul the most prolific writer in the Gospels rejoices while god accepts converts who were converted out of LIES from these 'other folks.' What kind of god then is Christ who seemingly doesn't care how he gets people to believe that he is a god?

The other one was no stab at deception, since Paul WAS A JEW. What he was saying is that you have to try to fit in with those you reach. Trying to make them adhere to your customs and traditions is fruitless and counterproductive, while trying to fit in will get them to trust and accept you. Now stop quoting verses out of context.

Was Paul of Tarsus a Jew? Did you not read the NT Corinthian verse said by the (JEW) Paul who readily admits that he pretends to be a Jew to the Jews in order to convert them to Christ? Let me repaste it for you so that you won't fail to mention it in your reply.

1 Corinthians 9:20

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Opinions about the authors of the Gospel are just opinions with no proofs. And Paul admits that he was never a Jew but only when he found it expedient to steal the Jewish souls from G-d.

Who converted Jesus to a new religion where he was a god?

 

[Shazbot]

Interesting observation of yours that "the apostles themselves wrote their accounts which were later compiled into books." Is there any physical evidence of this premise? Are there any papyrus fragments from the apostles or disciples of Jesus existing gospel documents with the name of the authors that have been either carbon dated or other dating methods giving credence to apostles writing down the gospel books during Jesus time on earth?

Kind of like saying that Francis Bacon was the author of the Shakespearean works instead of poor William S. Who knows but the controversy goes on and on. Without the original gospel texts with the authors name, your premis is simply part of your faith and not proven.

You are correct...the premise is based on faith. You can't knock the NT for this reason, though, when the OT is subject as well. I mean, what about the pentateuc...err, the five books of Moses. It is accepted that Moses wrote those books...but where did he get his information? He lived a couple thousand years after Adam and Eve, and yet his account goes clear back to the creation. The concept is that he had records which were kept from Adam to Abraham and beyond. We don't have those original records. We only have re-written, re-translated copies of what Moses wrote. That, however, does not discount their credibility, for I have faith that what Moses wrote is true.

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

You are correct...the premise is based on faith. You can't knock the NT for this reason, though, when the OT is subject as well. I mean, what about the pentateuc...err, the five books of Moses. It is accepted that Moses wrote those books...but where did he get his information? He lived a couple thousand years after Adam and Eve, and yet his account goes clear back to the creation. The concept is that he had records which were kept from Adam to Abraham and beyond. We don't have those original records. We only have re-written, re-translated copies of what Moses wrote. That, however, does not discount their credibility, for I have faith that what Moses wrote is true.
-Douglas

You are quite correct Douglas.

The NT gospel were written by men who got stories from years before and purportedly wrote them down into the good news books and epistles.

The claim about Moses is that he obtained the five books of Moses directly from the voice of G-d on Mt. Sinai. Actually we don't have re-written, re-translated or revised versions of the 5 books of Moses. The Dead Sea Scrolls, written at least 2000 years ago were found in the caves in the desert.

They were actually dated for the time span and low-and-behold, the words in the 5 books had not changed even one letter from that time until this day.

And if it really was G-d Himself who gave Moses these 356,257 letter Torah, then would G-d not know about the genesis of creation, Adam and Eve and everything that had happened from the beginning of things science accepts to this day.

The NT in comparison, was written by men from men's word of what Jesus said more than 60 years before. Mainly the NT used the Old Testament Torah as a way of making the gospels have a historical reference but the NT has now been re-written, re-worked and with many new versions based upon different languages into something that would never have been recognized by Paul of Tarsus.

Again, even Moses words received from G-d, letter from letter, was witnessed by about 600,000 people at the base of the mountain and how many witnessed the writing of the New Testament?

Both bibles based on faith. And only one seems to now fit into the design of the universe. One was written about one man who lived for about 31 years and the other about how men lived and died with lessons from real characters of the frailities of mankind with which to learn lessons of life and the other solely about faith in a man for a free salvation in life in the great bye and bye.

 

[Hobbit]

Interesting observation of yours that "the apostles themselves wrote their accounts which were later compiled into books." Is there any physical evidence of this premise? Are there any papyrus fragments from the apostles or disciples of Jesus existing gospel documents with the name of the authors that have been either carbon dated or other dating methods giving credence to apostles writing down the gospel books during Jesus time on earth?

The originals were lost during the Roman persecution of the Christians. Many many things were burned and destroyed by the Romans that we'll never see again, like the Etruscan civilization that occupied most of Italy before Rome, but just because there's little evidence left doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Kind of like saying that Francis Bacon was the author of the Shakespearean works instead of poor William S. Who knows but the controversy goes on and on. Without the original gospel texts with the authors name, your premise is simply part of your faith and not proven.

You can't prove they didn't write it and I can't prove they did. You're no more right than I am. Your point?

Out of context? Paul even in your own version of the chapter admits that even if 'people preaching Christ for reasons other than faith and conviction (out of envy or spite) get converts, Paul of Tarsus rejoices in this fact.

Paul was not iterating that it is good for people to preach the gospel out of spite. If you read the ENTIRE chapter, rather than picking out little quotes that make your point, he is reiterating the point made by the story of Joseph in Genesis, and that is that all things work for good for those who love God. Once again, you take a quote out of context and try to make a point, only failing to realize that the quote you were using was of a completely different subject than you're talking about.

WHY is it necessary to rejoice in people who preach Christianity out of evil or malicious reasons get converts? Paul the most prolific writer in the Gospels rejoices while god accepts converts who were converted out of LIES from these 'other folks.' What kind of god then is Christ who seemingly doesn't care how he gets people to believe that he is a god?

Once again, the point is that all things work out for good, so it humored Paul to see people teach Christ for the wrong reasons, only to later find out what they were really preaching. Now, what kind of God is He? Well, he's the kind of God that won't send you to Hell because the person who got you to convert didn't believe what he was preaching, that's what kind.

Was Paul of Tarsus a Jew? Did you not read the NT Corinthian verse said by the (JEW) Paul who readily admits that he pretends to be a Jew to the Jews in order to convert them to Christ? Let me repaste it for you so that you won't fail to mention it in your reply.

Read what I post. Paul was a Jew. In fact, before changing his name from Saul to Paul and starting his ministry, he was one of the most feared members of the Jewish church. He was the prime persecutor of Christians and was present at the stoning of the first Christian martyr (unless you count Jesus, which I consider a special case), Stephen (try reading Acts, sometime). What Paul is saying in this verse is, now listen carefully now, because I'm only going to say it one more time, is that in order to reach people, you have to try to fit in with them. Paul was basically restating the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." His beliefs differed from Orthodox Jews, but when he was around Jews, he followed and respected their customs, since disrespecting them would only make them hostile. He goes on later to say (if you'd ever bother actually reading more than one verse at a time, or even the whole verse), "...to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I mgith by all means save some." He's saying that you have to try to fit in with people in order to reach them. For example, I live in the south, and if some guy from New England came down here to try to preach some stuff to us, but he always talked about how the seafood's not as good here, and never would try our food, and refused to acknowledge anything southern, I'd be disinclined to listen to him. Now, if he came down here and tried the food, adopted some of the slang, and in other ways tried to fit in, I'd like him. It's not deception or "LIES," as you like to claim, since he won't fool anyone into thinking he's a southerner. However, his effort to fit in will show that he really cares more for us than himself and that he respects our ways. It's just like when I went to Jamaica. I wasn't going to fool anyone into thinking I was Jamaican, so there was no trickery or deception involved. However, I learned some of the lingo, tried the local cuisine, played soccer on their field by their rules, and even listened to their music. When it was all said and done, they told us they admired us for our desire to connect with them and that they thought we were 'more real' than even the professional missionaries that came to them. That's what Paul meant. If you want to be friends with Mexicans, you'll have to learn to hit Pinatas and eat Tacos. If you want to be friends with Canadians, you'll probably have to learn some hockey. If you want to befriend a Jamaican, you'll have to try some codfish with akee and breadfruit. If you want to befriend a Brazilian, learn about soccer. That's what it means, and don't ask for further elaboration, as I can't make it much clearer than that.

Opinions about the authors of the Gospel are just opinions with no proofs. And Paul admits that he was never a Jew but only when he found it expedient to steal the Jewish souls from G-d.

I tend to find the evidence other than the texts themselves to be quite compelling, like the fact that St. Andrew, one of the apostles, founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. There's also the fact that when a lot of people like you claim these documents were 'fabricated,' Roman records show that the Christian movement had been around since the death of Christ. However, there was no need for the written account until the time that the documents can be dated because the apostles were STILL ALIVE TO TELL THE TALE for quite some time, and then their immediate followers were there. It was all compiled before it could be distorted by age. As for Paul not being a Jew, if you'd actually read the whole Bible, such as Acts 8 and 9, you'd find out that Paul worked for the Jewish church in rounding up the Christian 'heretics' to bring them to justice. Just because you misinterpereted scripture doesn't change history. I can read "All men are created equal" as an anti-slave statement all day, but that doesn't change the fact that Jefferson owned slaves, now try learning a bit more about what is probably the most important and undisputedly the most read book in history before you start making any more wild claims, and I don't ever want to see you quote anything without having at least read the surrounding chapter. Taking apart supposed contradictions and hypocracies is more fun when I actually have to look farther than two lines from where you quoted for an explanation.

Who converted Jesus to a new religion where he was a god?

What? Are you implying that someone convinced Jesus he was God and that's what started the religion. I'll take a few honest, even if they are offensive and uninformed, questions, but this is outright blasphemy. Even if I did want to entertain this rather offensive question, I'd have to say it was moot, since the Christian faith believes that Jesus always knew his purpose from the beginning of time. The idea of Jesus being God on foot also includes the idea that Jesus existed long before his birth to Mary.

 

[ajwps]

The originals were lost during the Roman persecution of the Christians. Many many things were burned and destroyed by the Romans that we'll never see again, like the Etruscan civilization that occupied most of Italy before Rome, but just because there's little evidence left doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Interesting that you should know the circumstances of the destruction of the ORIGINAL Gospels. I wonder if you could share the source of this information with the rest of us? If there is 'little evidence left' could you point this evidence out and where to find this proof? The whole world waits with anticipation of this little proof of the Gospels.

There actually does appear to be some historical documents about Christ found early in the last century. In a small churchyard in Rennes le Chateau, a local parish priest by the name of Béranger Saunière found some ancient documents that made him suddenly very wealthy after taking these mysterious documents to the Roman Church. Many wonder why the Catholic Church decided to make this priest extremely wealthy but these early documents never surfaced.

You can't prove they didn't write it and I can't prove they did. You're no more right than I am. Your point?

You were making a comparison about Jules Vernes and his books being published after his death. What was your point?

Paul was not iterating that it is good for people to preach the gospel out of spite. If you read the ENTIRE chapter, rather than picking out little quotes that make your point, he is reiterating the point made by the story of Joseph in Genesis, and that is that all things work for good for those who love God. Once again, you take a quote out of context and try to make a point, only failing to realize that the quote you were using was of a completely different subject than you're talking about.

WHAT??? So Joseph, son of Jacob, was based on using pretence and deceit in order to work out for good for those who love G-d? Out of context??? What the heck are you talking about? (by the way, Philippians 1:18 and deceit to garner converts was perfectly in context with the entire first chapter of Philippians.

Once again, the point is that all things work out for good, so it humored Paul to see people teach Christ for the wrong reasons, only to later find out what they were really preaching. Now, what kind of God is He? Well, he's the kind of God that won't send you to Hell because the person who got you to convert didn't believe what he was preaching, that's what kind.

Exactly which direction is hell? It 'humored' Paul to see deceitful or envious people teach and convert people to a G-d who has never used lies to convert anyone. Why would Truth need lying, deceit or pretence to get people to believe in Him? Why would such a god be all good when he had to use deceitful people for such ignominious purposes. Paul did not appear to be humored but he did rejoice (twice) about such evil. Did you mean Dantes Inferno was waiting for all those who don't accept Jesus as their savior?

Read what I post. Paul was a Jew. In fact, before changing his name from Saul to Paul and starting his ministry, he was one of the most feared members of the Jewish church.

Was Jesus Christ also a member of the same JEWISH CHURCH as was St. Paul?

He was the prime persecutor of Christians and was present at the stoning of the first Christian martyr (unless you count Jesus, which I consider a special case),

You do? A special case?

Stephen (try reading Acts, sometime). What Paul is saying in this verse is, now listen carefully now, because I'm only going to say it one more time, is that in order to reach people, you have to try to fit in with them. Paul was basically restating the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

So St. Paul was quoting the old sayings of St. Augustine of Hippo. (354-430 ACE). That would be a quote about three to four hundred years after Paul's untimely death. Quite a trick.

"When In Rome, Do As The Romans.

St. Augustine tells the story of how his mother, St. Monica once asked St. Ambrose: "At Rome they fast on Saturday, but not at Milan; which practice ought to be observed?" St. Ambrose replied: "When I am at Milan, I do as they do at Milan; but when I go to Rome, I do as Rome does."

What a guy...

His beliefs differed from Orthodox Jews, but when he was around Jews, he followed and respected their customs, since disrespecting them would only make them hostile.

So at the time of Jesus there were other branches of Judaism? Where were the Jewish churches for the reform, conservative or constructionists located. It seems that in Jesus time there was only Jewish orthodoxy as the other branches of Judaism came about in late 19th century.

He goes on later to say (if you'd ever bother actually reading more than one verse at a time, or even the whole verse), "...to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I mgith by all means save some." He's saying that you have to try to fit in with people in order to reach them. For example, I live in the south, and if some guy from New England came down here to try to preach some stuff to us, but he always talked about how the seafood's not as good here, and never would try our food, and refused to acknowledge anything southern, I'd be disinclined to listen to him. Now, if he came down here and tried the food, adopted some of the slang, and in other ways tried to fit in, I'd like him. It's not deception or "LIES," as you like to claim, since he won't fool anyone into thinking he's a southerner. However, his effort to fit in will show that he really cares more for us than himself and that he respects our ways. It's just like when I went to Jamaica. I wasn't going to fool anyone into thinking I was Jamaican, so there was no trickery or deception involved. However, I learned some of the lingo, tried the local cuisine, played soccer on their field by their rules, and even listened to their music. When it was all said and done, they told us they admired us for our desire to connect with them and that they thought we were 'more real' than even the professional missionaries that came to them. That's what Paul meant. If you want to be friends with Mexicans, you'll have to learn to hit Pinatas and eat Tacos. If you want to be friends with Canadians, you'll probably have to learn some hockey. If you want to befriend a Jamaican, you'll have to try some codfish with akee and breadfruit. If you want to befriend a Brazilian, learn about soccer. That's what it means, and don't ask for further elaboration, as I can't make it much clearer than that.

Your form of logic is quite extraordinary. In your learned opinion, St. Paul/Saul was just trying to blend into the community of pagans, weak folks, Jews and just anybody to convert them to a belief in this new man-god religion. Kind of shady behavior to be a sort of Judas trying to fool the populace with St. Paul's real motive to convert? St. Paul was a real evangelizing missionary don't you think? Like the reverends Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts or Jim Bakker. For St. Paul, cash was king as he did raise the coin of the realm in his churches with which to buy both his Roman and Jewish citizenship papers.

What a guy......

I tend to find the evidence other than the texts themselves to be quite compelling, like the fact that St. Andrew, one of the apostles, founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. There's also the fact that when a lot of people like you claim these documents were 'fabricated,' Roman records show that the Christian movement had been around since the death of Christ.

Where are these records you speak about? Can you tell us where to find them?

However, there was no need for the written account until the time that the documents can be dated because the apostles were STILL ALIVE TO TELL THE TALE for quite some time, and then their immediate followers were there. It was all compiled before it could be distorted by age.

Really. The Gospels are pretty well now accepted to be written at the earliest 60 AD. That would make the apostles of Christ (saying they were in their 20s during Christ's life) about 80 + years old. Not very common during a period without high blood pressure medications, antibiotics or cancer meds. The average life time during Christ's time was between 40 and 50 years. These were really old men with wonderful memories about the word of just one of the messianic claimaints.

As for Paul not being a Jew, if you'd actually read the whole Bible, such as Acts 8 and 9, you'd find out that Paul worked for the Jewish church in rounding up the Christian 'heretics' to bring them to justice. Just because you misinterpereted scripture doesn't change history. I can read "All men are created equal" as an anti-slave statement all day, but that doesn't change the fact that Jefferson owned slaves, now try learning a bit more about what is probably the most important and undisputedly the most read book in history before you start making any more wild claims, and I don't ever want to see you quote anything without having at least read the surrounding chapter. Taking apart supposed contradictions and hypocracies is more fun when I actually have to look farther than two lines from where you quoted for an explanation.

You should really read the book, "The Mythmaker, Paul." There is no proof that a PRETENDER and one who rejoiced at his blending in as like a spy, was ever a Jew or even knew about the faith of Judaism. Just because he put it into his long lost papers (epistles) has about as much validity as the Pope in Rome being a Hindu.

Maybe you should take your own advice and look further than two lines written in clear English to understand a Tarsian who never visited England or spoke the English language.

Out of context indeed!!!

What? Are you implying that someone convinced Jesus he was God and that's what started the religion. I'll take a few honest, even if they are offensive and uninformed, questions, but this is outright blasphemy. Even if I did want to entertain this rather offensive question, I'd have to say it was moot, since the Christian faith believes that Jesus always knew his purpose from the beginning of time. The idea of Jesus being God on foot also includes the idea that Jesus existed long before his birth to Mary.

Who was Jesus' father? Joseph or the Holy Spirit. Do you have his family bible or a copy of his DNA parentage proof? I am not trying to say that someone tried to convince Jesus of anything? I am saying that a pretender and Judas put words into the mouth of the long dead Jesus (whom he never met) and made him from some man into a man-god. A part of a trinity of gods. The same pagan gods that Paul was familiar with from his childhood in Tarsus. Even a cursory reading of Mythra gods perfectly parallel Paul's new formed god theory.

Keep you faith for it will save you from your original sin.

 

[5stringJeff]

Let's look at a few things so I can make sure we are on the same grounds here.

I understand the first statement quoted, "I and my Father are one", to refer to the fact that they are, indeed united, though physically separate entities.

The second quote, "before Abraham was, I Am" is a declaration by Jesus, saying that He is indeed the great I Am, aka, Jesus Christ is Jehovah (neither of which is the Father).

I'm beginning to think you are a Jehovah's Witness... is that so?

Jehovah comes from the Latin word which was the direct translation of the tetragram YHWH (in most Bibles, it appears as the LORD. in all caps). This name was used hundreds of times in the OT in direct reference to God. In fact, God uses it to describe himself (see Exodus 34 for a great example). So I don't know where you get the idea that God the Father is somehow not equivalent to YHWH.

The third quote, being a conversation between the High Priests and Jesus only illustrates to us the fact that Jesus did (on many occasions, actually) proclaim His own divinity, in that He is the Son of God. That is no proclamation that He is God the Father. Jesus even says how the "Son of Man" (Jesus) will be seen "sitting at the right hand of power" (at the right hand of the Father). Jesus taught that He was/is the Son of God...never that He was/is God the Father himself.

That part is correct. To clarify my position (which is really the position of evangelical Christianity), Trinitarian doctrine, which the Bible as a whole attests to, states that while the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, the three compose one God, and are all fully God, though they are all distinct from one another.

 

[Hobbit]

Interesting that you should know the circumstances of the destruction of the ORIGINAL Gospels. I wonder if you could share the source of this information with the rest of us? If there is 'little evidence left' could you point this evidence out and where to find this proof? The whole world waits with anticipation of this little proof of the Gospels.

There actually does appear to be some historical documents about Christ found early in the last century. In a small churchyard in Rennes le Chateau, a local parish priest by the name of Béranger Saunière found some ancient documents that made him suddenly very wealthy after taking these mysterious documents to the Roman Church. Many wonder why the Catholic Church decided to make this priest extremely wealthy but these early documents never surfaced.



You were making a comparison about Jules Vernes and his books being published after his death. What was your point?



WHAT??? So Joseph, son of Jacob, was based on using pretence and deceit in order to work out for good for those who love G-d? Out of context??? What the heck are you talking about? (by the way, Philippians 1:18 and deceit to garner converts was perfectly in context with the entire first chapter of Philippians.



Exactly which direction is hell? It 'humored' Paul to see deceitful or envious people teach and convert people to a G-d who has never used lies to convert anyone. Why would Truth need lying, deceit or pretence to get people to believe in Him? Why would such a god be all good when he had to use deceitful people for such ignominious purposes. Paul did not appear to be humored but he did rejoice (twice) about such evil. Did you mean Dantes Inferno was waiting for all those who don't accept Jesus as their savior?



Was Jesus Christ also a member of the same JEWISH CHURCH as was St. Paul?



You do? A special case?



So St. Paul was quoting the old sayings of St. Augustine of Hippo. (354-430 ACE). That would be a quote about three to four hundred years after Paul's untimely death. Quite a trick.

"When In Rome, Do As The Romans.

St. Augustine tells the story of how his mother, St. Monica once asked St. Ambrose: "At Rome they fast on Saturday, but not at Milan; which practice ought to be observed?" St. Ambrose replied: "When I am at Milan, I do as they do at Milan; but when I go to Rome, I do as Rome does."

What a guy...



So at the time of Jesus there were other branches of Judaism? Where were the Jewish churches for the reform, conservative or constructionists located. It seems that in Jesus time there was only Jewish orthodoxy as the other branches of Judaism came about in late 19th century.



Your form of logic is quite extraordinary. In your learned opinion, St. Paul/Saul was just trying to blend into the community of pagans, weak folks, Jews and just anybody to convert them to a belief in this new man-god religion. Kind of shady behavior to be a sort of Judas trying to fool the populace with St. Paul's real motive to convert? St. Paul was a real evangelizing missionary don't you think? Like the reverends Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts or Jim Bakker. For St. Paul, cash was king as he did raise the coin of the realm in his churches with which to buy both his Roman and Jewish citizenship papers.

What a guy......



Where are these records you speak about? Can you tell us where to find them?



Really. The Gospels are pretty well now accepted to be written at the earliest 60 AD. That would make the apostles of Christ (saying they were in their 20s during Christ's life) about 80 + years old. Not very common during a period without high blood pressure medications, antibiotics or cancer meds. The average life time during Christ's time was between 40 and 50 years. These were really old men with wonderful memories about the word of just one of the messianic claimaints.



You should really read the book, "The Mythmaker, Paul." There is no proof that a PRETENDER and one who rejoiced at his blending in as like a spy, was ever a Jew or even knew about the faith of Judaism. Just because he put it into his long lost papers (epistles) has about as much validity as the Pope in Rome being a Hindu.

Maybe you should take your own advice and look further than two lines written in clear English to understand a Tarsian who never visited England or spoke the English language.

Out of context indeed!!!



Who was Jesus' father? Joseph or the Holy Spirit. Do you have his family bible or a copy of his DNA parentage proof? I am not trying to say that someone tried to convince Jesus of anything? I am saying that a pretender and Judas put words into the mouth of the long dead Jesus (whom he never met) and made him from some man into a man-god. A part of a trinity of gods. The same pagan gods that Paul was familiar with from his childhood in Tarsus. Even a cursory reading of Mythra gods perfectly parallel Paul's new formed god theory.

Keep you faith for it will save you from your original sin.

It has become clear to me that either you do not read my entire posts, or you selectively ignore parts in order to make me look bad. You don't listen to the points I made. You constantly take verses out of context and either you refuse to understand what I'm saying (what I believe) or you're too dense to grasp the concept. As such, I am through talking with you, and don't go around talking about how you won the argument, because I could do this all day if I thought you would ever listen to me. In short, I'm taking my father's advice, so I'm not going to argue with you until you can a) make an attempt to understand what I'm saying and b) read enough of the Bible that you can understand what it's actually saying instead of trying to make it say what you want.

 

[ajwps]

It has become clear to me that either you do not read my entire posts, or you selectively ignore parts in order to make me look bad. You don't listen to the points I made. You constantly take verses out of context and either you refuse to understand what I'm saying (what I believe) or you're too dense to grasp the concept. As such, I am through talking with you, and don't go around talking about how you won the argument, because I could do this all day if I thought you would ever listen to me. In short, I'm taking my father's advice, so I'm not going to argue with you until you can a) make an attempt to understand what I'm saying and b) read enough of the Bible that you can understand what it's actually saying instead of trying to make it say what you want.

I could say the same for you. Unable to respond to my post so you decide that I ignore your opinions as to what you find to be valid in NT.

So you cede to my posts. Actually I read each of your points and countered each of them with logic.

In short, I'm taking my mater's advice, so I'm not going to argue with you until you can a) make an attempt to understand what I'm saying and b) read enough of the Bible that you can understand what it's actually saying instead of trying to make it say what you want.

Check and Mate

 

[Hobbit]

I could say the same for you. Unable to respond to my post so you decide that I ignore your opinions as to what you find to be valid in NT.

So you cede to my posts. Actually I read each of your points and countered each of them with logic.

In short, I'm taking my mater's advice, so I'm not going to argue with you until you can a) make an attempt to understand what I'm saying and b) read enough of the Bible that you can understand what it's actually saying instead of trying to make it say what you want.

Check and Mate

I said I was done with you. You childishly ignore my arguments, and if you're not ignoring my arguments, then you're a lot dumber than I gave you credit for. Either way, there's not reasoning with you, and that checkmate remark is extremely childish. You're like a stubborn little kid who keeps saying "is not" until I get fed up and leave and then you proclaim to the world that you won, but since you insist that I never countered anything, let me try ONE more time.

Interesting that you should know the circumstances of the destruction of the ORIGINAL Gospels. I wonder if you could share the source of this information with the rest of us? If there is 'little evidence left' could you point this evidence out and where to find this proof? The whole world waits with anticipation of this little proof of the Gospels.

There actually does appear to be some historical documents about Christ found early in the last century. In a small churchyard in Rennes le Chateau, a local parish priest by the name of Béranger Saunière found some ancient documents that made him suddenly very wealthy after taking these mysterious documents to the Roman Church. Many wonder why the Catholic Church decided to make this priest extremely wealthy but these early documents never surfaced.

It's more feasible and easier to prove than many scientificly accepted theories. Just because you believe it never happened doesn't make it so. Now if you want me to say that I can't prove the gospels were written by the apostles, then I believe I already said it, but then again, you can't prove they weren't, so stop pretending you're somehow more right, because you can't offer me anything more concrete than what I offer you.

You were making a comparison about Jules Vernes and his books being published after his death. What was your point?

My point is that you were claiming to prove that the apostles didn't write the gospels because the final version wasn't compiled and distributed until after their death, and that proves nothing. It only proves that somebody else put it together and distributed it, not that somebody else wrote it. If that isn't plain enought for you, then there's no point in repeating it.

WHAT??? So Joseph, son of Jacob, was based on using pretence and deceit in order to work out for good for those who love G-d? Out of context??? What the heck are you talking about? (by the way, Philippians 1:18 and deceit to garner converts was perfectly in context with the entire first chapter of Philippians.

No no no no NO! If you had read my post like you claimed, you would know that the point of the argument had nothing to do with pretense or deception. Let me say it again so you'll catch it. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PRETENSE OR DECEPTION. NOTHING AT ALL! The point of BOTH of those passages is that, now listen closely, all things work together for good. That was the point. That's it. If you would read the whole thing, you might know that, but all you seem to be able to do is take quotes out of context, redefine them to your liking, and then pretend that everybody ought to recognize your definition as the only feasible one for those words, and that's childish and bullcrap. Once again, that verse has nothing to do with pretense or deception, it says that all things work together for good, okay. Now, I've said it so many times that if you still claim that I'm conceding that the verse is about pretense and deception, I'll know that you're only skimming my posts and that you only hear what you want.

Exactly which direction is hell? It 'humored' Paul to see deceitful or envious people teach and convert people to a G-d who has never used lies to convert anyone. Why would Truth need lying, deceit or pretence to get people to believe in Him? Why would such a god be all good when he had to use deceitful people for such ignominious purposes. Paul did not appear to be humored but he did rejoice (twice) about such evil. Did you mean Dantes Inferno was waiting for all those who don't accept Jesus as their savior?

I won't respond to this because the entire statement is based on the false assumption that Paul was rejoicing in these things for those reasons. The reason Paul rejoiced is because those PREACHING those words would hear the truth of them and come to Christ, not that the word was being spread through deciet, making your entire point pointless and moot. He rejoiced because he believed the truth would speak for itself, not because somebody was spreading the word through pretense.

Was Jesus Christ also a member of the same JEWISH CHURCH as was St. Paul?

Yes, actually. In fact, Jesus said many times that he came for the benifit of the Jews, but was also extending his grace to the Gentiles, partially because the Jews rejected him. Jesus participated in Passover (The Last Supper was Passover), attended religious services at the temple, ate kosher, and honored the Sabbath as it was written (even though some of the Jewish leadership disagreed with his interpretation). There's even a story in the Bible of Jesus having civilized religious discussions with the priests at age 12. Most of the major people in the NT were Jewish. In fact, Christianity was originally classified as a new Jewish sect, then an offshoot, then a splinter, and it wasn't until Constantine that Christianity was thought of as a seperate religion.

You do? A special case?

Now you're just trying to aggrivate me. Jesus could be considered the first Christian martyr, but since Christianity didn't really start until after his resurrection, and since Jesus wasn't really human, Stephen is considered the first Christian martyr.

So St. Paul was quoting the old sayings of St. Augustine of Hippo. (354-430 ACE). That would be a quote about three to four hundred years after Paul's untimely death. Quite a trick.

"When In Rome, Do As The Romans.

St. Augustine tells the story of how his mother, St. Monica once asked St. Ambrose: "At Rome they fast on Saturday, but not at Milan; which practice ought to be observed?" St. Ambrose replied: "When I am at Milan, I do as they do at Milan; but when I go to Rome, I do as Rome does."

What a guy...

I'm not saying Paul was quoting the guy, just that the point is the same. Now, if you don't think it's appropriate to try and fit in when you go somewhere new, then I can imagine you have a hard time making friends. For the last time, Paul was not trying to trick people into thinking he was one of them. What Paul was trying to do was respect their beliefs and customs so he wouldn't offend and alienate them. It's not an attempt at deception. It's just trying to be friendly and respectful.

So at the time of Jesus there were other branches of Judaism? Where were the Jewish churches for the reform, conservative or constructionists located. It seems that in Jesus time there was only Jewish orthodoxy as the other branches of Judaism came about in late 19th century.

There were other branches of Judaism, just not the ones we had today. The Pharisee sect believed in strict adherance to the law as interpereted by the high priests. This ultimately failed, as the Pharisees were quite arrogant and abrasive. The Saducee movement was also a different sect, with their primary disagreement with the rest of the church being that they didn't believe in the afterlife. By 'Orthodox Jews,' I meant the mainstream, average common Jews of the time.

Your form of logic is quite extraordinary. In your learned opinion, St. Paul/Saul was just trying to blend into the community of pagans, weak folks, Jews and just anybody to convert them to a belief in this new man-god religion. Kind of shady behavior to be a sort of Judas trying to fool the populace with St. Paul's real motive to convert? St. Paul was a real evangelizing missionary don't you think? Like the reverends Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts or Jim Bakker. For St. Paul, cash was king as he did raise the coin of the realm in his churches with which to buy both his Roman and Jewish citizenship papers.

What a guy......

First off, fitting in the first step towards making friends in a new place. You obviously don't move a lot or you'd know that. Friendship is also the first step towards converting someone to your religion. Paul tried to fit in, not with pretense, but by showing a conscious effort to honor others' traditions. When people saw this, they didn't think he was being decietful, because he wasn't. What they saw is that he cared for them and was trying to fit in better so that they could relate. This made him some friends. Once he had friends, he would try to convert them to Christ. There was no lying or deception, none, nada, nothing. It was just Paul trying to make a few friends.

Oh and as for him being greedy and buying citizenship, that's bogus. Paul spent half of his ministry in prison and the rest of it either walking or trading work for a sea passage. He was quite poor. He was Jewish by blood and had at least one parent that had obtained Roman citizenship. That's how he was a citizen of both.

Where are these records you speak about? Can you tell us where to find them?

The Romans kept excellent records, and tracing them back, you can find the excecution of Jesus, along with many of his followers starting a few months later.

Really. The Gospels are pretty well now accepted to be written at the earliest 60 AD. That would make the apostles of Christ (saying they were in their 20s during Christ's life) about 80 + years old. Not very common during a period without high blood pressure medications, antibiotics or cancer meds. The average life time during Christ's time was between 40 and 50 years. These were really old men with wonderful memories about the word of just one of the messianic claimaints.

Did you miss the part where I said their immediate followers (ones who talked directly to them) were the ones still around when the gospels were compiled? I guess not (so much for having read all of my posts). My point was that up until then, there was no point in putting it on paper in one volume, since it was really easy to get the story otherwise and owning a written copy could get you tortured and executed.

You should really read the book, "The Mythmaker, Paul." There is no proof that a PRETENDER and one who rejoiced at his blending in as like a spy, was ever a Jew or even knew about the faith of Judaism. Just because he put it into his long lost papers (epistles) has about as much validity as the Pope in Rome being a Hindu.

Maybe you should take your own advice and look further than two lines written in clear English to understand a Tarsian who never visited England or spoke the English language.

Out of context indeed!!!

I've heard of this book. It's a revisionist history book aimed at discrediting the church. There have been many such books and I will never read them because I find them offensive. Obviously, you have read this book and you have swallowed the whole argument and there are so stubborn that even the best arguments cannot change your mind. I will never cede your posts as they are full of half-truths, misiterpretations, quotes out of context, and down right lies. However, as long as I keep arguing with you, you'll keep posting the same old bullcrap over and over until I get frustrated and leave. That's the way a 3-year old 'wins' an argument, by the way. If you still fail to see my points after I have repeated them several times here, then there's no point in arguing with you.

Who was Jesus' father? Joseph or the Holy Spirit. Do you have his family bible or a copy of his DNA parentage proof? I am not trying to say that someone tried to convince Jesus of anything? I am saying that a pretender and Judas put words into the mouth of the long dead Jesus (whom he never met) and made him from some man into a man-god. A part of a trinity of gods. The same pagan gods that Paul was familiar with from his childhood in Tarsus. Even a cursory reading of Mythra gods perfectly parallel Paul's new formed god theory.

Keep you faith for it will save you from your original sin.

I've heard these arguments before, and as much as you think they do, they really don't make sense. They were written by spiteful people wanting to thumb their noses at the Christian church by writing these things. I'd elaborate, but if I did, I'd be late for work.

 

[ajwps]

I said I was done with you. You childishly ignore my arguments, and if you're not ignoring my arguments, then you're a lot dumber than I gave you credit for. Either way, there's not reasoning with you, and that checkmate remark is extremely childish. You're like a stubborn little kid who keeps saying "is not" until I get fed up and leave and then you proclaim to the world that you won, but since you insist that I never countered anything, let me try ONE more time.

I see my apparent response has gotten to you even though you said you were done responding. It is easy to say that you stubbornly hold onto your beliefs even though they have been refuted point for point. Nothing is childish except your apparent attempt to rebut me again.

It's more feasible and easier to prove than many scientificly accepted theories. Just because you believe it never happened doesn't make it so. Now if you want me to say that I can't prove the gospels were written by the apostles, then I believe I already said it, but then again, you can't prove they weren't, so stop pretending you're somehow more right, because you can't offer me anything more concrete than what I offer you.

I never said that your proof never exist (that was in your mind) but I did say you couldn't produce any evidence of the original gospels. What is concrete is what is possible to see and examine rather than what is no longer present and only congecture. Remember the old saying, 'the proof is in the pudding' and that saying wasn't used by Paul of Tarsus.

My point is that you were claiming to prove that the apostles didn't write the gospels because the final version wasn't compiled and distributed until after their death, and that proves nothing. It only proves that somebody else put it together and distributed it, not that somebody else wrote it. If that isn't plain enought for you, then there's no point in repeating it.

You are refuting what mainstream Christianity admits. That no one sat down during Christ's missionary time on earth and wrote down any of his sayings, events or miracles. There just isn't any documentation to this effect. There is great debate in the Christian world as to just who were the authors of the 4 books of the gospel. You say that Christ's apostles wrote or compiled and distributed something about Christ but there is nothing to back this up. There was Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote immediately after the time of Christ and he wrote nothing about the events reported in the Gospels. Since Christ was supposedly Jewish and a claimant to the messiahship who performed miracles nad wonders, why would this very important historian omit something so important to the Jewish world and to the world in general. Later sentence inserts into Josephus histories have now been proved to be forgeries.

No no no no NO! If you had read my post like you claimed, you would know that the point of the argument had nothing to do with pretense or deception. Let me say it again so you'll catch it. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PRETENSE OR DECEPTION. NOTHING AT ALL! The point of BOTH of those passages is that, now listen closely, all things work together for good. That was the point. That's it. If you would read the whole thing, you might know that, but all you seem to be able to do is take quotes out of context, redefine them to your liking, and then pretend that everybody ought to recognize your definition as the only feasible one for those words, and that's childish and bullcrap. Once again, that verse has nothing to do with pretense or deception, it says that all things work together for good, okay. Now, I've said it so many times that if you still claim that I'm conceding that the verse is about pretense and deception, I'll know that you're only skimming my posts and that you only hear what you want.

Sorry but the words PRETENSE AND REJOICE used in Philippians 1:18 are very clear and unambiguous. You say that the meaning of the first Chapter of Philippians was meant to work together for good. WHAT good are you talking about? You mean converting people by good means when Paul said something totally different. You can't just say something and then say THAT'S IT. I have noted in the new editions of the NT that the word pretense has been removed for a more innocous word. Seems like others writers of the NT were also concerned just about what you deny!

I won't respond to this because the entire statement is based on the false assumption that Paul was rejoicing in these things for those reasons. The reason Paul rejoiced is because those PREACHING those words would hear the truth of them and come to Christ, not that the word was being spread through deciet, making your entire point pointless and moot. He rejoiced because he believed the truth would speak for itself, not because somebody was spreading the word through pretense.

Hobbit do you understand that words in English have definite meanings and especially the way they are used in sentences and also in the context of the entire chapter in which they are placed. You would like me to say that Paul was just jubilant that the word of Jesus was being preached FOR GOOD PURPOSE and the mode or method they were being preached was inconsequential. Paul in his Epistles could have said that the message of Jesus Christ of Nazareth was being preached to the gentiles. And that he was ecstatic that people were hearing the good news and changing to the god Jesus from their pagan beliefs. But no, that is not what he said in his Epistles. He said, whether by PRETENSE or truth (by those by evil or envy intent) was good and he rejoiced in it. Those words have meaning. A very defininite meaning. I'm sure you don't understand Paul and his word usage as yet.

Yes, actually. In fact, Jesus said many times that he came for the benifit of the Jews, but was also extending his grace to the Gentiles, partially because the Jews rejected him. Jesus participated in Passover (The Last Supper was Passover), attended religious services at the temple, ate kosher, and honored the Sabbath as it was written (even though some of the Jewish leadership disagreed with his interpretation). There's even a story in the Bible of Jesus having civilized religious discussions with the priests at age 12. Most of the major people in the NT were Jewish. In fact, Christianity was originally classified as a new Jewish sect, then an offshoot, then a splinter, and it wasn't until Constantine that Christianity was thought of as a seperate religion.

Actually Jesus didn't say anthing about coming for anything that was recorded at the time he said it. But the reality is that Jesus, the Jew, knew from his study at the Synagogue at age 12 that the prophetic verses of the Messiah coming was never meant to be god or any part of god coming to earth with all the body functions of humans. Christ would have been appalled to know what Paul and Constantine put in his mouth years to centuries later. So if Jesus attended synagogue, prayed from the Torah, kept kosher, had a Passover (last supper) and generally followed that which all Jews did, why doesn't the Christian world follow Christ's example? The answer is that your Christianity had nothing to do with Christ's claim of being the messenger sent from G-d to restore the Jewish people from their oppressor Roman empire.

Now you're just trying to aggrivate me. Jesus could be considered the first Christian martyr, but since Christianity didn't really start until after his resurrection, and since Jesus wasn't really human, Stephen is considered the first Christian martyr.

So you think that Christ was never human and therefore could not be a martyr. Why do you think Christianity never started till after his crucifixion. He and his disciples were the actual early Christian church who followed the teachings of the Torah and G-d. Like Jesus said on the cross, "father forgive them for they know not what they do." How true this presumed quote of Jesus but not in the context of the Jews crucifying Jesus but in the context of the later creators of the now Chrisitian church who made a man into a man-god. I know it is frustrating to hear things that you have never even thought about before and questions the basic tenents of your faith.

I'm not saying Paul was quoting the guy, just that the point is the same. Now, if you don't think it's appropriate to try and fit in when you go somewhere new, then I can imagine you have a hard time making friends. For the last time, Paul was not trying to trick people into thinking he was one of them. What Paul was trying to do was respect their beliefs and customs so he wouldn't offend and alienate them. It's not an attempt at deception. It's just trying to be friendly and respectful.

If you pretend to be a Catholic, go into their churches and try to get them to come to your brand of Christianity are you respecting those Catholics by subtrifuge and deceit by pretense and trickery? Are you really showing them respect? I know its hard to imagine this concept but don't let it frustrate you. I am not trying to get you to question your faith. Just asking that you respect mine and avoid trying to steal the Jewish souls from the G-d of the Hebrew people.

There were other branches of Judaism, just not the ones we had today. The Pharisee sect believed in strict adherance to the law as interpereted by the high priests. This ultimately failed, as the Pharisees were quite arrogant and abrasive. The Saducee movement was also a different sect, with their primary disagreement with the rest of the church being that they didn't believe in the afterlife. By 'Orthodox Jews,' I meant the mainstream, average common Jews of the time.

It is funny that a Christian is trying to interpret the Saducees from the Pharisees based on the bible written by Paul and the gospel writers. To the Jewish people, this is a total disrespect for our faith. You have no idea of the true nature of the Jews of Jesus time and it isn't based on Paul's or Constantine's ideas. Jesus was a pharisee as shown by the gospel writers who inadvertently and without knowing it made his actions much like the ordinary orthodox pharissees of that time and none other than a religious Jew. You believe that Christ came to replace the original laws given to the Jewish people. So you choose to ignore the Father's laws and commandments given to mankind and follow Paul of Tarsus absenst of deeds and faith only to some form of salvation from sin. Jesus never beleived that for one instant for he was a religious Jew who knew the laws of his Father.

First off, fitting in the first step towards making friends in a new place. You obviously don't move a lot or you'd know that. Friendship is also the first step towards converting someone to your religion. Paul tried to fit in, not with pretense, but by showing a conscious effort to honor others' traditions. When people saw this, they didn't think he was being decietful, because he wasn't. What they saw is that he cared for them and was trying to fit in better so that they could relate. This made him some friends. Once he had friends, he would try to convert them to Christ. There was no lying or deception, none, nada, nothing. It was just Paul trying to make a few friends.

Yep Paul tried to convert the Jews and gentiles by friendship. He put words in the mouth of Christ making them 'the spawn of Satan' and responsible for all generations foward for his crucifixion by the Roman overlords who would never ever do what their captured Jewish population wanted. Never in a million years. History has shown Pilot not to be concerned with the guilt or innocence of any Jew. He was simply a viscious and cruel overseer of the land of the Jewish people.

Oh and as for him being greedy and buying citizenship, that's bogus. Paul spent half of his ministry in prison and the rest of it either walking or trading work for a sea passage. He was quite poor. He was Jewish by blood and had at least one parent that had obtained Roman citizenship. That's how he was a citizen of both.

How can one argue with such logic and knowledge? First he was a terrible persecutor of Christians, then all of a sudden, out of a flash on the road to Damascus he became poor, a Roman by birth (he worked for the Jewish Roman appointed High Priest) who was not accepted by any Jew of the time.

He went from place to place preaching Christ and raising large amount of funds from the different churches he established and had been well paid by the Roman appointed High Priest to persecute Jews. I don't think Paul could be trusted for any truth further than you can throw a mountain. In any case you can no more prove that Paul was good than I can prove he was evil. No evidence exists from his works to this very day.

The Romans kept excellent records, and tracing them back, you can find the excecution of Jesus, along with many of his followers starting a few months later.

That's funny. If such Roman records existed or could be 'traced back' you would have them copied for every Christian in the world to see and study right now. But alas, none can be found. Just the works of Josephus exists to this day. Remember thousands upon thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans all along the roads from town to town. If some special crucifixion occurred when the sky turned dark or the veil of the Temple rent apart, you would have had written evidence to this very day. But there is no record. I have asked you for the Roman records or any records but so far you haven't produced them.

Did you miss the part where I said their immediate followers (ones who talked directly to them) were the ones still around when the gospels were compiled? I guess not (so much for having read all of my posts). My point was that up until then, there was no point in putting it on paper in one volume, since it was really easy to get the story otherwise and owning a written copy could get you tortured and executed.

Who were "THEIR IMMEDIATE FOLLOWERS" those ones who talked directly to "THEM" who were still around when the now non-existant Gospels were compiled? So if you had a copy of these gospels you would get tortured and executed when the Torah (Old Testament) was being studied by Christ and all the Jewish people every day but were not tortured for studying and learning from a Bible that had prophecies of a coming Messiah who would save the Jews from their oppressors. Not very credible to say the least.

I've heard of this book. It's a revisionist history book aimed at discrediting the church. There have been many such books and I will never read them because I find them offensive. Obviously, you have read this book and you have swallowed the whole argument and there are so stubborn that even the best arguments cannot change your mind. I will never cede your posts as they are full of half-truths, misiterpretations, quotes out of context, and down right lies. However, as long as I keep arguing with you, you'll keep posting the same old bullcrap over and over until I get frustrated and leave. That's the way a 3-year old 'wins' an argument, by the way. If you still fail to see my points after I have repeated them several times here, then there's no point in arguing with you.

Actually is not a revionist history book but a careful examination of existing evidence of those times. These scholars were not Jews but Christians who only reported on what they found. I really believe that you are older than 3 years but your arguements are knee-jerk reactions which discredits scholarship. Apparently the differnt versions of the NT were rewritten many times over the two centuries to make them conform to one another but for some unexplained reason, some revealing and tantilizing early evidence of the reality and not the revisionist versions you have today remain in the body of the 4 books. You can't believe these facts for you to begin to understand would mean that you life long held beliefs in your salvation from sin would be questioned. No such thing must be admitted to yourself.

I've heard these arguments before, and as much as you think they do, they really don't make sense. They were written by spiteful people wanting to thumb their noses at the Christian church by writing these things. I'd elaborate, but if I did, I'd be late for work.

Good for you. Go to work as to respsond to those 'spiteful people thumbing their nose at your truths and church would be difficult. Go make a living for yourself this Saturay evening.

 

[Shazbot]

I'm beginning to think you are a Jehovah's Witness... is that so?

No. JW's equate Jehovah with God the Father, not God the Son.

Jehovah comes from the Latin word which was the direct translation of the tetragram YHWH (in most Bibles, it appears as the LORD. in all caps). This name was used hundreds of times in the OT in direct reference to God. In fact, God uses it to describe himself (see Exodus 34 for a great example). So I don't know where you get the idea that God the Father is somehow not equivalent to YHWH.

Jehovah (Jesus Christ) was the God of Israel, in that He was and is our advocate with the Father. All revelations given unto mankind have been given through Jehovah, who acts more or less as a spokesman for the Father. This is seen as the God known as Jehovah spoke in the Old Testament under the pretense of being the Father at times, and the Son at other times. It was always the Son talking, though in many instances, He spoke as if He were the Father. Kind of like when prophets spoke the word of God in the first person. The prophet himself wasn't God, but he was speaking in His behalf. All in all, this isn't to undermine the divinity of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. He is still known as God the Son. He is still part of the Godhead, and therefore also receives the title of God, even though "God" who is worshiped is indeed the Father. Understand? I am horrible at explaining stuff.

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

No. JW's equate Jehovah with God the Father, not God the Son.


Jehovah (Jesus Christ) was the God of Israel, in that He was and is our advocate with the Father. All revelations given unto mankind have been given through Jehovah, who acts more or less as a spokesman for the Father. This is seen as the God known as Jehovah spoke in the Old Testament under the pretense of being the Father at times, and the Son at other times. It was always the Son talking, though in many instances, He spoke as if He were the Father. Kind of like when prophets spoke the word of God in the first person. The prophet himself wasn't God, but he was speaking in His behalf. All in all, this isn't to undermine the divinity of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. He is still known as God the Son. He is still part of the Godhead, and therefore also receives the title of God, even though "God" who is worshiped is indeed the Father. Understand? I am horrible at explaining stuff.

Douglas Jehovah was never G-d but Adon-a is the Creator of the universe. G-d is jealous and is no god-head nor does He have any human relatives. Jesus was a Jewish man who possibly lived for a short time but never preached himself to be a god.

All in all, this isn't to undermine the divinity of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. He is still known as God the Son. He is still part of the Godhead, and therefore also receives the title of God, even though "God" who is worshiped is indeed the Father. Understand?

No! The unknowable and unimaginable Eloh-m doesn't sit around praying to himself or pleading with himself for a reason why He has abandoned himself on a wooden cross. When those who saw Christ thought they were seeing G-d, they weren't.