Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: 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.

I'm not NIV positive.

[psholtz]

mattwa33193 wrote: 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)
Yes, but there were dozens, if not hundreds, of other competing "Scriptures' floating around Palestine at the time. Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Odes of Solomon, Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of St. Peter, etc.. You get the picture. John (our John, not Biblical John) would reject these writings out of hand (simply b/c some Church Father said so, and for no other reason), but the fact is, things we're so clear cut in the first and second century AD in Palestine. Things didn't start condensing down into the modern "Bible" until hundreds of years after the fact.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: 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.

Besides even if you use the NIV, these points are still valid. You have a predilection for making statements that don't really mean anything.

You're just trying to baffle'em with bulls**t. For a lack of brilliance.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Odes of Solomon, Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of St. Peter,

None of those date from that period.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Odes of Solomon, Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of St. Peter,

None of those date from that period.
Some of them can be dated to before the Apocalypse of St. John, including:

* Gospel of Thomas
* Gospel of Peter
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
* Gospel of the Egyptians
* Gospel of the Hebrews
* First Epistle of Clement
* Christian Sibyllines

and yet none were included in the canon.

I'm sure there were good reasons, but my point is that there were all these competing "Scriptures", and in the following decades and centuries, their number blossomed even further. A hardbound book, Old and New Testaments, w/ the name "Bible" printed on it, did not evolve until hundreds of years after Christ lived.

You can find a short list here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[mattwa33193]

LetsGetReal wrote: 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.

He claimed that we are ALL the children of God, and should behave as and treat each other as such.

To deny that you are interpreting interpretations is ridiculous. The entire New Testament was written under the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah, and everything in it is interpreted by the authors in that light. Everything included is there to support the initial premise - only a few months out of 33 years are in there. It's a book, and it shares those things in common with every book ever written. And Christians today interpret those interpretations in the same light.

Believing that Jesus is neither the Messiah or a lunatic is not ridiculous, regardless of what Lewis Carroll thought. Revolutionaries are often seen as either or both, but in the end they are just people with a new idea.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The Gospels were written between 70-110 AD

They written from 40 AD to 90 AD.

Matthew 40-50 AD
Mark 50-60 AD
Luke 60 AD
John 85-90 AD

Paul quotes Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, for example. There is other textual evidence that the Gospel preceded the epistles and were considered scripture, as well.

But that is sufficient to prove it.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The entire New Testament was written under the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah

Yeah, that's right. It wouldn't have even ever been written if that weren't the case.

:lol:

What kind of point is that supposed to make?

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The Gospels were written between 70-110 AD

They written from 40 AD to 90 AD.

Matthew 40-50 AD
Mark 50-60 AD
Luke 60 AD
John 85-90 AD

Paul quotes Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, for example. There is other textual evidence that the Gospel preceded the epistles and were considered scripture, as well.

But that is sufficient to prove it.
It's sufficient to prove something, but it's not sufficient to prove that you had a neatly bound hardcover book called the Bible, w/ neatly segmented Old and New Testaments and an agreed upon canon of books, floating around Palestine in 90AD. The fact is you didn't, you wouldn't for hundreds of years.. In fact, you woudn't even have agreement over what was and what was not "Scripture" for hundreds of years.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Believing that Jesus is neither the Messiah or a lunatic is not ridiculous, regardless of what Lewis Carroll thought.

I think you mean CS Lewis.

[mattwa33193]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The entire New Testament was written under the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah

Yeah, that's right. It wouldn't have even ever been written if that weren't the case.

:lol:

What kind of point is that supposed to make?

That the initial assumption may have been wrong.

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The Gospels were written between 70-110 AD

They written from 40 AD to 90 AD.

Matthew 40-50 AD
Mark 50-60 AD
Luke 60 AD
John 85-90 AD

Paul quotes Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, for example. There is other textual evidence that the Gospel preceded the epistles and were considered scripture, as well.

But that is sufficient to prove it.
It's sufficient to prove something, but it's not sufficient to prove that you had a neatly bound hardcover book called the Bible, w/ neatly segmented Old and New Testaments and an agreed upon canon of books, floating around Palestine in 90AD. The fact is you didn't, you wouldn't for hundreds of years.. In fact, you woudn't even have agreement over what was and what was not "Scripture" for hundreds of years.

It proves the Gospels existed prior to the Pauline epistles, and that is enough. The epistles of Paul are only counted as canon because Peter classified them as such.
2 Peter 3:15-16.

[mattwa33193]

John wrote: 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?

That could very well be, and then you would all be right.

The point is that the Bible is constantly being used to support the premise that the Bible is based on. Circular logic. The book was written to support that premise, so it's not suprising that it actually supports it.

[mattwa33193]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Believing that Jesus is neither the Messiah or a lunatic is not ridiculous, regardless of what Lewis Carroll thought.

I think you mean CS Lewis.

You're right, I did.

[John]

mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: 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?

That could very well be, and then you would all be right.

The point is that the Bible is constantly being used to support the premise that the Bible is based on. Circular logic. The book was written to support that premise, so it's not suprising that it actually supports it.

The Bible isn't one book. It's 66 books written over 1500 years...

It's anything BUT circular logic.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The Gospels were written between 70-110 AD

They written from 40 AD to 90 AD.

Matthew 40-50 AD
Mark 50-60 AD
Luke 60 AD
John 85-90 AD

Paul quotes Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, for example. There is other textual evidence that the Gospel preceded the epistles and were considered scripture, as well.

But that is sufficient to prove it.
It's sufficient to prove something, but it's not sufficient to prove that you had a neatly bound hardcover book called the Bible, w/ neatly segmented Old and New Testaments and an agreed upon canon of books, floating around Palestine in 90AD. The fact is you didn't, you wouldn't for hundreds of years.. In fact, you woudn't even have agreement over what was and what was not "Scripture" for hundreds of years.

It proves the Gospels existed prior to the Pauline epistles, and that is enough. The epistles of Paul are only counted as canon because Peter classified them as such.
2 Peter 3:15-16.
If proves what you're saying, but it doesn't prove what I'm saying, which is that what constitutes the "Bible" was not agreed upon for a long time.

[John]

Quote: That could very well be, and then you would all be right.


And IF I am right...you're gonna really regret being wrong.

[mattwa33193]

John wrote: Quote: That could very well be, and then you would all be right.


And IF I am right...you're gonna really regret being wrong.

So I should base my beliefs on Pascal's Wager?

[cap'n queasy]

You should base your beliefs on what is in your heart. If you don't want to believe then you shouldn't.

[John]

mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: Quote: That could very well be, and then you would all be right.


And IF I am right...you're gonna really regret being wrong.

So I should base my beliefs on Pascal's Wager?

If you're a betting man...it's the smart choice. My advice is to sincerely pray and ask God to guide you in Truth (and mean it). And then base your belief on that.