Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

LetsGetReal wrote: Yes, because Jefferson is good at taking other peoples work making it his own and claiming he's a Genius. He was very intellectual but most, if not all his ideas can be found from another source. :roll:

Eh.. dude what i meant is, take out the mircales and ressurection and leave the ethical and theological teaching and you've probally got the closet picture of what happened around 27-31ad in palestine.

[cap'n queasy]

I'm just reporting what the text says.

which is to whit;
Quote: At this time was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was know to be virtous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had apeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

That is a verbatim quote I copied from "Josephus, The Essential works" Translated by Dr. Paul Maier, found on pg. 269-270.

Dr. Maier reports the controversy on page 284, 5 and states that he favors the view that they are not redacted, in view of the newly discovered Agapian text, which he says show no sign of interpolation.

So if you want to call someone a liar, take it up with Dr. Maier, eh?

Personally I find this view to be the most likely one. There is no reason to suppose otherwise. As Josephus merely reported information that dates from that period and offers no personal opinion of it.

[LetsGetReal]

Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

[thefranzkafkafront]

LetsGetReal wrote: Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

Jesus never claims hes the son of god in the synoptics, and im hazy about john, but im pretty sure he never direclty admits to being the son of god nor claims that he is. (could be proved wrong on that, but john is far from biographical)

[Random Evil Guy]

LetsGetReal wrote: Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

now, i doubt the historical jesus ever really existed, but the gospels were written at least 30-60 years after jesus' death. they're aren't even close to being historical accurate. for all you know, the authors added whatever they saw fit to the stories...the gospels themselves differ on what happened when and how it happened. i don't think for example jesus refered to himself as the 'son of god' in the synoptics.

[mattwa33193]

Random Evil Guy wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

now, i doubt the historical jesus ever really existed, but the gospels were written at least 30-60 years after jesus' death. they're aren't even close to being historical accurate. for all you know, the authors added whatever they saw fit to the stories...the gospels themselves differ on what happened when and how it happened. i don't think for example jesus refered to himself as the 'son of god' in the synoptics.

The gospels were (supposedly, we may never know what actually happened) written by the guys who's names are on them. They were edited and compiled much later by SPaul and hiws followers.

I believe Jesus lived, if for no other reason than I doubt SPaul could have written the things Jesus said in the Bible, or would have since most seem to be counter to the purposes of his church.

I don't believe that Jesus was divine or ever claimed to be. And I think His accomplishments are all the more impressive for that. If a man could live a life that exemplary - and I also believe He was married and had children - then we can do it too, which is the whole point of everything He ever said. Claiming He was a divinity is a cop out.

[John]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

Jesus never claims hes the son of god in the synoptics, and im hazy about john, but im pretty sure he never direclty admits to being the son of god nor claims that he is. (could be proved wrong on that, but john is far from biographical)


Matthew 3
16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."



Matthew 26
63 But Jesus kept silent And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;

66what do you think?" They answered, "He deserves death!"

[Random Evil Guy]

mattwa33193 wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

now, i doubt the historical jesus ever really existed, but the gospels were written at least 30-60 years after jesus' death. they're aren't even close to being historical accurate. for all you know, the authors added whatever they saw fit to the stories...the gospels themselves differ on what happened when and how it happened. i don't think for example jesus refered to himself as the 'son of god' in the synoptics.

The gospels were (supposedly, we may never know what actually happened) written by the guys who's names are on them. They were edited and compiled much later by SPaul and hiws followers.



eh, no. they were not. no one knows who wrote them. the fact that they differ so much, is evidence that the authors weren't eye witnesses...

[Iriemon]

John wrote:

Matthew 3
16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."



Matthew 26
63 But Jesus kept silent And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;

66what do you think?" They answered, "He deserves death!"

Where did Jesus first appear to the apostles after his resurrection?

[John]

Iriemon wrote: John wrote:

Matthew 3
16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."



Matthew 26
63 But Jesus kept silent And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;

66what do you think?" They answered, "He deserves death!"

Where did Jesus first appear to the apostles after his resurrection?

In a room at Jerusalem, as reported by John, Luke and Mark. Matthew 28:16-20 is a later appearance.


Funny thing is...if the Bible has been edited so....why are there "apparent" contradictions?

Because it hasn’t been changed and the truth can be complicated. :wink:

[psholtz]

John wrote: Funny thing is...if the Bible has been edited so....why are there "apparent" contradictions?
Funny thing is, the Bible didn't even come into existence until ~300 years after these events were recorded..

[John]

psholtz wrote: John wrote: Funny thing is...if the Bible has been edited so....why are there "apparent" contradictions?
Funny thing is, the Bible didn't even come into existence until ~300 years after these events were recorded..

Nothing funny about bold face lies.

[mattwa33193]

psholtz wrote: John wrote: Funny thing is...if the Bible has been edited so....why are there "apparent" contradictions?
Funny thing is, the Bible didn't even come into existence until ~300 years after these events were recorded..

Paul's letters were wriiten about 50-60 AD. The Gospels were written between 70-110 AD (Random Evil Guy was right about the authors)

[cap'n queasy]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

Jesus never claims hes the son of god in the synoptics,
Incorrect.


To summarize.
# To be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah
# To be the divine, eschatological Son of Man of Daniel 9 (considered blasphemous)
# To be the UNIQUE Son of God (considered blasphemous)
# To be Lord of the Sabbath
# To be able to forgive sins (considered blasphemous)
# To be an appropriate object of religious faith
# To be the Heir to God
# To be greater than King David, Solomon, Jonah, the Temple
# To be 'owner' of the angels and the Elect
# To speak eternally binding and existent sayings--own His OWN authority
# To be "able" to abolish the OT scriptures
# To be the authoritative interpreter of the OT
# To be the issue upon which the eternal destinies of humans depend(!)
# To be worth higher loyalty and commitment that the family
# To have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father, and the SOLE 'dispenser' of that knowledge
# To send prophets
# To be omnipresent
# To be of equal status with the Father and the Spirit, and to share 'the Name' with them
# To be able to grant derivative authority over evil spirits
# To be able to grant kingdom authority IN THE SAME WAY the FATHER does(!)
# To be "God" visiting them (as promised in the OT messianic prophecies)
# To be co-operative/interchangeable in some operations with the Spirit
# To have special knowledge of heavenly events
# To have ALL authority in HEAVEN
# To have authority over the Holy Spirit(!)

More info.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03b.html

[Clara Listensprechen]

DwightEisenhower wrote: JLChrista wrote: First of all there is no proof Jesus as described in the bible actually existed. Not that there weren't a few Jesus's running around, but no proof has ever been found that confirms "JesusChrist's" existence. Therefore your point to this atheist is moot. I don't have to concern myself with his body after death till I have proof he existed in the first place AND then in the second place, I would have to have proof that the tales of him in the NT which were written between 70-100 years later, were accurate not just legend. Since his birth and life aren't for sure, his supposed body after death isn't for my concern.

Then how did the New Testament stories begin? Why did the authors write them if their works supposidely did the convincing?

There are at least 10 Gospels in addition to the Canonical Gospels, each independently written, each at least confirming Jesus' existance.

They were not independently written, sorry. Of the ones in The Bible (canonical), 2 of the 4 were written by PaulCo (members of the Saul/Paul machine: Luke, Mark). And when you take into consideration the non-canonicals one finds that Saul/Paul was a Gnostic...and along with his writings are other Gnostic authors including Peter...which brings into the fold such canonical writers as John, Jude, and James.

No independence to speak of, really. It was an organized effort.

[mattwa33193]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: JLChrista wrote: First of all there is no proof Jesus as described in the bible actually existed. Not that there weren't a few Jesus's running around, but no proof has ever been found that confirms "JesusChrist's" existence. Therefore your point to this atheist is moot. I don't have to concern myself with his body after death till I have proof he existed in the first place AND then in the second place, I would have to have proof that the tales of him in the NT which were written between 70-100 years later, were accurate not just legend. Since his birth and life aren't for sure, his supposed body after death isn't for my concern.

Then how did the New Testament stories begin? Why did the authors write them if their works supposidely did the convincing?

There are at least 10 Gospels in addition to the Canonical Gospels, each independently written, each at least confirming Jesus' existance.

They were not independently written, sorry. Of the ones in The Bible (canonical), 2 of the 4 were written by PaulCo (members of the Saul/Paul machine: Luke, Mark). And when you take into consideration the non-canonicals one finds that Saul/Paul was a Gnostic...and along with his writings are other Gnostic authors including Peter...which brings into the fold such canonical writers as John, Jude, and James.

No independence to speak of, really. It was an organized effort.

Plus the fact that all were influenced by Spaul's letters.

[Clara Listensprechen]

cap'n queasy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

Jesus never claims hes the son of god in the synoptics,
Incorrect.


To summarize.
# To be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah
# To be the divine, eschatological Son of Man of Daniel 9 (considered blasphemous)
# To be the UNIQUE Son of God (considered blasphemous)
# To be Lord of the Sabbath
# To be able to forgive sins (considered blasphemous)
# To be an appropriate object of religious faith
# To be the Heir to God
# To be greater than King David, Solomon, Jonah, the Temple
# To be 'owner' of the angels and the Elect
# To speak eternally binding and existent sayings--own His OWN authority
# To be "able" to abolish the OT scriptures
# To be the authoritative interpreter of the OT
# To be the issue upon which the eternal destinies of humans depend(!)
# To be worth higher loyalty and commitment that the family
# To have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father, and the SOLE 'dispenser' of that knowledge
# To send prophets
# To be omnipresent
# To be of equal status with the Father and the Spirit, and to share 'the Name' with them
# To be able to grant derivative authority over evil spirits
# To be able to grant kingdom authority IN THE SAME WAY the FATHER does(!)
# To be "God" visiting them (as promised in the OT messianic prophecies)
# To be co-operative/interchangeable in some operations with the Spirit
# To have special knowledge of heavenly events
# To have ALL authority in HEAVEN
# To have authority over the Holy Spirit(!)

More info.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03b.html

Actually you're not correct with respect to some versions of Bible. The NIV comes to mind immediately--and it must be pointed out that the NIV takes libertine license with "translation". It also claims that the Mediterranean is capable of having nor'easters when that particular phenomenon is a characteristic of coastlines on the Atlantic ocean.

[mattwa33193]

cap'n queasy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Well then Jefferson must have been stating Jesus was a lunatic, because a "man" who claims he's the son of God is not a sane man.

Jesus never claims hes the son of god in the synoptics,
Incorrect.


To summarize.
# To be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah
# To be the divine, eschatological Son of Man of Daniel 9 (considered blasphemous)
# To be the UNIQUE Son of God (considered blasphemous)
# To be Lord of the Sabbath
# To be able to forgive sins (considered blasphemous)
# To be an appropriate object of religious faith
# To be the Heir to God
# To be greater than King David, Solomon, Jonah, the Temple
# To be 'owner' of the angels and the Elect
# To speak eternally binding and existent sayings--own His OWN authority
# To be "able" to abolish the OT scriptures
# To be the authoritative interpreter of the OT
# To be the issue upon which the eternal destinies of humans depend(!)
# To be worth higher loyalty and commitment that the family
# To have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father, and the SOLE 'dispenser' of that knowledge
# To send prophets
# To be omnipresent
# To be of equal status with the Father and the Spirit, and to share 'the Name' with them
# To be able to grant derivative authority over evil spirits
# To be able to grant kingdom authority IN THE SAME WAY the FATHER does(!)
# To be "God" visiting them (as promised in the OT messianic prophecies)
# To be co-operative/interchangeable in some operations with the Spirit
# To have special knowledge of heavenly events
# To have ALL authority in HEAVEN
# To have authority over the Holy Spirit(!)

More info.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03b.html

All these points are interpretations of Jesus' words, mostly based on the idea that if He wasn't God, they would be blasphemy and He would never commit blasphemy.

If you don't accept the initial premise, they don't say much.

[LetsGetReal]

Mattawa this arguement about initial premise is getting old, if a guy claimed to be the Son of God he better be able to prove it. That or he is a lunatic. The belief that you can take Jesus as something other than the savior or a lunatic is ridiculous and you know it.

[John]

mattwa33193 wrote: All these points are interpretations of Jesus' words, mostly based on the idea that if He wasn't God, they would be blasphemy and He would never commit blasphemy.

If you don't accept the initial premise, they don't say much.

And just what IF Jesus is God? What then?