Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

xris
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 10:07 am
@Alan McDougall,
Sorry Alan but even Pontius Pilot is hard to find as a historical figure.This jewish historian was not a contemporary of Jesus.I dont doubt that Jesus as a teacher must have existed but as a historic recorded figure there is no contemporary accounts.It is at least forty years after his death that we see him being given the press we would expect of a man of his renown.
Mithra's has been associated with miracles, resurrection and there are many other similarities with Christs life.He had a hierarchy of priests that had their sacred caves under the present basilica.Many of the early christian paintings are identical to the worship of Mithra's.The spread of christianity occurred as the mithras was in retreat, it appears they switched their allegiance and attributed many of their myths to jesus.Romans are well known for adopting and adjusting their gods to fit those who appear to be superior to theirs.When the priests saw their god in retreat they absorbed and adjusted the new one to theirs.It may still have the hand of god on this message but that is a matter of faith not history.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 10:52 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Sorry Alan but even Pontius Pilot is hard to find as a historical figure.This jewish historian was not a contemporary of Jesus.I dont doubt that Jesus as a teacher must have existed but as a historic recorded figure there is no contemporary accounts.It is at least forty years after his death that we see him being given the press we would expect of a man of his renown.
Mithra's has been associated with miracles, resurrection and there are many other similarities with Christs life.He had a hierarchy of priests that had their sacred caves under the present basilica.Many of the early christian paintings are identical to the worship of Mithra's.The spread of christianity occurred as the mithras was in retreat, it appears they switched their allegiance and attributed many of their myths to jesus.Romans are well known for adopting and adjusting their gods to fit those who appear to be superior to theirs.When the priests saw their god in retreat they absorbed and adjusted the new one to theirs.It may still have the hand of god on this message but that is a matter of faith not history.


XRIS they have found in archaeological digs stones clearly indicating that Pontius Pilot was a real Governor of Judea in the period of Christ walk on earth

I saw it on no less than a National Geological TV episode, but I will return with solid facts becuase the existence of Pilot is an indisputable fact of history

I respectfully disagree that there was any switch from any belief or philosophy to the Christianity of Jesus. Jesus was unique, what about the biblical references I gave referring to the life and death of Jesus, centuries before he walked the earth?


Peace
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 11:13 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
XRIS they have found in archaeological digs stones clearly indicating that Pontius Pilot was a real Governor of Judea in the period of Christ walk on earth

I saw it on no less than a National Geological TV episode, but I will return with solid facts becuase the existence of Pilot is an indisputable fact of history

I respectfully disagree that there was any switch from any belief or philosophy to the Christianity of Jesus. Jesus was unique, what about the biblical references I gave referring to the life and death of Jesus, centuries before he walked the earth?


Peace
Alan the story was invented to fit the prophesies.Pilot was a historic figure but there is little recorded about his life.You would think that such a historic event would have been recorded but there is no such evidence.Contemporary historians dont even make slight comments about Jesus.The Jesus story is not unique! thats my point he reflects other gods and their stories.Virgin birth, miracles,disciples,treachery, sacrifice, resurrection are all present in the Mithra's story.The message is not diminished by the reality of the story,a teacher came and changed the world forever.If your faithful it could still be gods work Alan.Can you say how we make these advances? without guidance, is it the theatre or the message.Xris..
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 07:45 pm
@xris,
Xris, Jesus as a purely mythological figure is a minority view among scholars - and not a significant minority, either. The vast majority of historians agree that Jesus is a true historical figure.

Josephus is not the only writer to mention Jesus; in fact, the Josephus account is one of the least reliable. Tacitus mentions Jesus in his Annals, a completely secular work of history from the Roman statesman.

Are the Gospels historically accurate? There may be aspects which are historically accurate, but by and large they are not acceptable historic sources. However, given the number of other references to Jesus, or Christos or the Wise King of the Jews, regardless of our deficiency in knowing the precise details of his life, we can be confident that Jesus did live, teach, and was executed.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 08:31 pm
@xris,
As we start to focus more concentratedly on the biblical texts (as defined in OP) I would hope to encourage serious attention and discussion. The better conclusion, based on study, is that the Roman historian usually is more reliable a source on at least the fact that a cult had developed and had centered around an actual person who had been executed by the procurator of Judea (Pontius Pilate; and that inscription in stone was found in 1961). As xris has most correctly pointed out, by this information alone, we do not have a picture/description/biography of that very person from these sources; a fact without dispute.

The likelihood that that particular section of book 18--namely, passage 3 of chapter 3 in Antiquities of the Jews--is spurious is high enough that we can discount the content. Besides the understood textual history, and all, even by the contextual flow and tone of that section, we can determine that there is a break--as though by insertion. And since Alan has diligently provided the Greek, you can see there how in line 2 ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. (ho kristos autos hen) that Yeshua is being called he messiah--which Flavius Josephus would very hardly have written based on the bulk of his writings and his more obviously intended audience. 'Kristos' is the LXX rendering of usually 'messiah,' or as an attributive-like word for 'king.' That short section was more likely added a Christian scribe, and thus is not trustworthy for historical accuracy. (of course the quote Alan had pasted said as much, but just to recap)

There are seven documents (letters) which are seen by scholarship as being authentically from Paul, and which can be fairly placed on the time line of having been originally penned in the stretch from around 50 CE (1 Thessalonians) to 62 CE (at latest; Philemon). Other letters have been either edited, or are from different hands. Before going into the gospel narratives, then, I'd like to lay out some points in and about these documents which will have bearing on our conclusion as to inspiration and other questions. I'll put that in a following post.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

This may get automerged, let's see...I purposely waited just a bit.

1 Thessalonians

We come upon the written document and need to firstly determine what genre of document it lends itself to being. We take that into consideration firstly. (and I am mostly going to give skeleton outline here, so if anyone wishes further discussion on any point and asks, I will gladly provided English translations and/or transliterations of the Greek; and aparatus notes)

[indent]By looking at verses 1:1~3; 2:1~4, 9, 13, 17, 18; 3: 1~13; 4:1, 2, 13; 5:1, 12, 23~28, it is determined that the document is correspondence--a letter written by one to one (or group to group). [/indent]

Having determined that it is correspondence, we should check for sender and recipient.

[indent]Holding arguments as to the historicity of Paul on the side (I find them quite weak, and not in need of even bringing up), we can see that most likely (if not THE actual case) the letter's source is Paul; in office as troupe leader (which is why, as best can be determined, Silvanus and Timothy are mentioned in the opening greeting. [vs.1:1]).

From verses 1:1~10; 2:1~20; 3:1~13; 4:1, 2, 9, 10, 17, 18; 5:1~11, 14, 25~28, we can determine that there was a direct and immediate audience. (I have stessed this here because of the importance of the notion/fact)[/indent]

Next, we can consider the nature of the letter--and it is quite easy to see (so I'll skip the outline) that it is of a religious belief-system nature. With this much in mind, therefore, it would be useful to test for time reference. I will treat this, in general, as 'relevancy of time,' and will label it universality and timelessness. In this letter, we will find that there is a very high degree of specificity towards the direct and immediate audience, thus giving the document a great lack of universality and timelessness. Only in chapters four and five can even the least bit of universality and timelessness be drawn out, such as 4:3~6; 5:15.

The results of this investigation provide us with the understanding that the document is a closed instrument. It is a letter with a specific purpose in a closed time frame, whose author and recipients most obviously had exact understanding of purpose and reason, and content of the letter. There is so little room to give consideration that any universal and timeless intent had been behind, or included in, the content and purpose for the letter, that we can claim that once the letter had been delivered, and read by the intended audience, its purpose had been served and all other relevancy (other than historical document value) had ended. Also, there is no reason at all to consider its having been penned through supernatural superintendence--especially is this true in that information contained in the letter about the parousia (which probably means the state of having arrived at a location) is most likely false--to put it most softly. I'll expound on that in up coming posts.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:14 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Xris, Jesus as a purely mythological figure is a minority view among scholars - and not a significant minority, either. The vast majority of historians agree that Jesus is a true historical figure.

Josephus is not the only writer to mention Jesus; in fact, the Josephus account is one of the least reliable. Tacitus mentions Jesus in his Annals, a completely secular work of history from the Roman statesman.

Are the Gospels historically accurate? There may be aspects which are historically accurate, but by and large they are not acceptable historic sources. However, given the number of other references to Jesus, or Christos or the Wise King of the Jews, regardless of our deficiency in knowing the precise details of his life, we can be confident that Jesus did live, teach, and was executed.
I will grant you that it is extremely likely that this man Jesus did teach and was executed even if we have no contemporary history.Its the invention that followed that i dispute.
 
click here
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:20 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I will grant you that it is extremely likely that this man Jesus did teach and was executed even if we have no contemporary history.Its the invention that followed that i dispute.



You just said earlier when I asked you 'miracles asside' do you believe that Jesus was a historical figure. You said:

"There is no historical evidence of the man they called Jesus."

So which is it? Do you believe that he existed and you deny the miracles? Or do you deny his existence entirely like you did on the 4th page of this thread.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:23 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin wrote:
As we start to focus more concentratedly on the biblical texts (as defined in OP) I would hope to encourage serious attention and discussion. The better conclusion, based on study, is that the Roman historian usually is more reliable a source on at least the fact that a cult had developed and had centered around an actual person who had been executed by the procurator of Judea (Pontius Pilate; and that inscription in stone was found in 1961). As xris has most correctly pointed out, by this information alone, we do not have a picture/description/biography of that very person from these sources; a fact without dispute.

The likelihood that that particular section of book 18--namely, passage 3 of chapter 3 in Antiquities of the Jews--is spurious is high enough that we can discount the content. Besides the understood textual history, and all, even by the contextual flow and tone of that section, we can determine that there is a break--as though by insertion. And since Alan has diligently provided the Greek, you can see there how in line 2 ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. (ho kristos autos hen) that Yeshua is being called he messiah--which Flavius Josephus would very hardly have written based on the bulk of his writings and his more obviously intended audience. 'Kristos' is the LXX rendering of usually 'messiah,' or as an attributive-like word for 'king.' That short section was more likely added a Christian scribe, and thus is not trustworthy for historical accuracy. (of course the quote Alan had pasted said as much, but just to recap)

There are seven documents (letters) which are seen by scholarship as being authentically from Paul, and which can be fairly placed on the time line of having been originally penned in the stretch from around 50 CE (1 Thessalonians) to 62 CE (at latest; Philemon). Other letters have been either edited, or are from different hands. Before going into the gospel narratives, then, I'd like to lay out some points in and about these documents which will have bearing on our conclusion as to inspiration and other questions. I'll put that in a following post.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

This may get automerged, let's see...I purposely waited just a bit.

1 Thessalonians

We come upon the written document and need to firstly determine what genre of document it lends itself to being. We take that into consideration firstly. (and I am mostly going to give skeleton outline here, so if anyone wishes further discussion on any point and asks, I will gladly provided English translations and/or transliterations of the Greek; and aparatus notes)
[INDENT]By looking at verses 1:1~3; 2:1~4, 9, 13, 17, 18; 3: 1~13; 4:1, 2, 13; 5:1, 12, 23~28, it is determined that the document is correspondence--a letter written by one to one (or group to group).
[/INDENT]Having determined that it is correspondence, we should check for sender and recipient.
[INDENT]Holding arguments as to the historicity of Paul on the side (I find them quite weak, and not in need of even bringing up), we can see that most likely (if not THE actual case) the letter's source is Paul; in office as troupe leader (which is why, as best can be determined, Silvanus and Timothy are mentioned in the opening greeting. [vs.1:1]).

From verses 1:1~10; 2:1~20; 3:1~13; 4:1, 2, 9, 10, 17, 18; 5:1~11, 14, 25~28, we can determine that there was a direct and immediate audience. (I have stessed this here because of the importance of the notion/fact)
[/INDENT]Next, we can consider the nature of the letter--and it is quite easy to see (so I'll skip the outline) that it is of a religious belief-system nature. With this much in mind, therefore, it would be useful to test for time reference. I will treat this, in general, as 'relevancy of time,' and will label it universality and timelessness. In this letter, we will find that there is a very high degree of specificity towards the direct and immediate audience, thus giving the document a great lack of universality and timelessness. Only in chapters four and five can even the least bit of universality and timelessness be drawn out, such as 4:3~6; 5:15.

The results of this investigation provide us with the understanding that the document is a closed instrument. It is a letter with a specific purpose in a closed time frame, whose author and recipients most obviously had exact understanding of purpose and reason, and content of the letter. There is so little room to give consideration that any universal and timeless intent had been behind, or included in, the content and purpose for the letter, that we can claim that once the letter had been delivered, and read by the intended audience, its purpose had been served and all other relevancy (other than historical document value) had ended. Also, there is no reason at all to consider its having been penned through supernatural superintendence--especially is this true in that information contained in the letter about the parousia (which probably means the state of having arrived at a location) is most likely false--to put it most softly. I'll expound on that in up coming posts.
I think you have a problem here my friend all those who are willing to dispute you are not capable of doing so.The only one who might have is not present.I will just observe as my knowledge of scriptures is very low.Thanks xris..

---------- Post added at 04:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 AM ----------

click here wrote:
You just said earlier when I asked you 'miracles asside' do you believe that Jesus was a historical figure. You said:

"There is no historical evidence of the man they called Jesus."

So which is it? Do you believe that he existed and you deny the miracles? Or do you deny his existence entirely like you did on the 4th page of this thread.
There is no contemporary history of Jesus.
 
click here
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 04:48 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
There is no contemporary history of Jesus.


What do you mean by that? That doesn't make any sense to me.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 05:10 am
@click here,
click here wrote:


What do you mean by that? That doesn't make any sense to me.
How can it not make sense?Any recorded mention of Jesus is long after his death.Contemporary...definition..one existing of the same time.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 05:34 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Xris, Jesus as a purely mythological figure is a minority view among scholars - and not a significant minority, either. The vast majority of historians agree that Jesus is a true historical figure.

Josephus is not the only writer to mention Jesus; in fact, the Josephus account is one of the least reliable. Tacitus mentions Jesus in his Annals, a completely secular work of history from the Roman statesman.

Are the Gospels historically accurate? There may be aspects which are historically accurate, but by and large they are not acceptable historic sources. However, given the number of other references to Jesus, or Christos or the Wise King of the Jews, regardless of our deficiency in knowing the precise details of his life, we can be confident that Jesus did live, teach, and was executed.


I agree with you, Jesus really lived and was the most remarkable person ever to walk on planet earth

The Gospels and were not intended to be historical, the content , and the eternal truths are what is important

For a person who never existed,this imaginary person was the most influential person in all of human history

And he did not exist?
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 07:16 am
@Alan McDougall,
Thanks for the 'heads-up' there,xris. As it is, nevertheless, I do hope that those interested, or following, can at least check the methodology of the investigation--and perhaps double check by verifying the English translation or version they may have on hand. I am willing to take, and handle, as best I can, any disputing of what I have learned, or reason, or present, and such, but it is not necessarily dispute or debate that I am trying to get.


Alan McDougall;63705 wrote:
The Gospels and were not intended to be historical the content , and the eternal truths are what is important . . .
(bold mine)

While, as mentioned in an earlier post, we will find universal and timeless 'truths' in the gospel stories, we will very soon run into problems if we were to attempt to hold that the narrative accounts had not been written so as to relate what was to have been taken as having been historical acts, events, and occurances for the most part; except for much of John.

I'll be back with more, soon enough. KJ
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 12:59 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin wrote:
Thanks for the 'heads-up' there,xris. As it is, nevertheless, I do hope that those interested, or following, can at least check the methodology of the investigation--and perhaps double check by verifying the English translation or version they may have on hand. I am willing to take, and handle, as best I can, any disputing of what I have learned, or reason, or present, and such, but it is not necessarily dispute or debate that I am trying to get.


(bold mine)

While, as mentioned in an earlier post, we will find universal and timeless 'truths' in the gospel stories, we will very soon run into problems if we were to attempt to hold that the narrative accounts had not been written so as to relate what was to have been taken as having been historical acts, events, and occurances for the most part; except for much of John.

I'll be back with more, soon enough. KJ



Jewish opponents of Jesus had the most to gain by denying Jesus' existence. But the evidence points in the opposite direction. "Several Jewish writings also tell of His flesh-and-blood existence. Both Gemaras of the Jewish Talmud refer to Jesus. Although these consist of only a few brief, bitter passages intended to discount Jesus' deity, these very early Jewish writings don't begin to hint that he was not a historical person."5

Flavius Josephus was a noted Jewish historian who began writing under Roman authority in a.d. 67. Josephus, who was born just a few years after Jesus died, would have been keenly aware of Jesus' reputation among both Romans and Jews. In his famous Antiquities of the Jews (a.d. 93), Josephus wrote of Jesus as a real person. "At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah."6 Although there is dispute about some of the wording in the account, especially the reference to Jesus being the Messiah (scholars are skeptical, thinking that Christians inserted this phrase), certainly Josephus confirmed his existence.


What about secular historians-those who lived in ancient times but weren't religiously motivated? There is current confirmation of at least 19 early secular writers who made references to Jesus as a real person.7


One of antiquity's greatest historians, Cornelius Tacitus, affirmed that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. Tacitus was born around 25 years after Jesus died, and he had seen the spread of Christianity begin to impact Rome. The Roman historian wrote negatively of Christ and Christians, identifying them in a.d. 115 as "a race of men detested for their evil practices, and commonly called Chrestiani. The name was derived from Chrestus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, suffered under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea."8


An important distinction between a myth and a real person is how the figure impacts history. For example, books have been written and movies produced about King Arthur of Camelot and his Knights of the Roundtable. These characters have become so notorious that many believe they were real people. But historians who have searched for clues to their existence have been unable to discover any impact they have had on laws, ethics, or religion. A kingdom with the grandeur of Camelot should certainly have left its footprints on contemporary history. This lack of historical impact indicates King Arthur and his Knights of the Roundtable are simply mythical.


The historian Thomas Carlyle said, "No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great people

Today, ancient Rome lies in ruins. Caesar's mighty legions and the pomp of Roman imperial power have faded into oblivion. Yet how is Jesus remembered today? What is his enduring influence?

  • More books have been written about Jesus than about any other person in history.
  • Nations have used his words as the bedrock of their governments. According to Durant, "The triumph of Christ was the beginning of democracy."12
  • His Sermon on the Mount established a new paradigm in ethics and morals.
  • Schools, hospitals, and humanitarian works have been founded in his name. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Oxford are but a few universities that have Christians to thank for their beginning.
  • The elevated role of women in Western culture traces its roots back to Jesus. (Women in Jesus' day were considered inferior and virtual nonpersons until his teaching was followed.)
  • Slavery was abolished in Britain and America due to Jesus' teaching that each human life is valuable.
  • Former drug and alcohol dependents, prostitutes, and others seeking purpose in life claim him as the explanation for their changed lives.
  • Two billion people call themselves Christians. While some are Christian in name only, others continue to impact our culture by teaching Jesus' principles that all life is valuable and we are to love one another. Remarkably, Jesus made all of this impact as a result of just a three-year period of public ministry.
  • If Jesus didn't exist, one must wonder how a myth could so alter history. When world historian H. G. Wells was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, he replied, "By this test Jesus stands first."13

    Documentary evidence and historical impact point to the fact that Jesus did exist. If Jesus did really exist, we also would expect to discover his footprints imprinted within the details of history. Myths don't leave such confirming details.



Archaeologists in 1962 confirmed Pilate's existence when they discovered his name included in an inscription on an excavated stone.
Likewise, the existence of Caiaphas the high priest than condemned Jesus was uncertain until 1990, when an ossuary (bone box) was discovered bearing his inscription.




Archaeologists have also discovered what they believe to be Simon Peter's house and a cave where John the Baptist did his baptizing.

Finally, perhaps the most convincing historical evidence that Jesus existed was the rapid rise of Christianity. How can it be explained without Christ? How could this group of unschooled fishermen and other workingmen invent Jesus in a scant few years?


The light came into the darkness and the dark knew him not
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 01:46 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan considering Josephus was a roman stooge, Tacitus only mentions the Christians and why they are Christians and both where born fifty to sixty years after Jesus died they cant be called eye witnesses can they?
No ones denying that a man called Jesus a teacher preached his wonderful new message of love and mercy.His life and execution would not have been significant to those who destroyed him , it was daily occurrence in a Roman province.The hills every morning would be covered with crosses of the crucified, life was cheap.Jesus the man teached mercy when it was unknown,he taught love and redemption to those who craved it.It must be his message otherwise his story would not have survived.
My claim is that the theatre that followed was not about Jesus but the cult that certain men built around his fame.His message to me is not about his written story or men's wish for him to be sacred, its the message.
Do i have to worship him to appreciate his contribution to the advance of mankind? cant i just love him for his own sake?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 02:49 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:

My claim is that the theatre that followed was not about Jesus but the cult that certain men built around his fame.His message to me is not about his written story or men's wish for him to be sacred, its the message.


To an extant you are right. Much of what happened to Jesus' ministry after his death revolved around political ambition.

You are absolutely correct, I think, when you say that his spiritual significance rests solely on the teachings of Jesus. However, if Jesus' spiritual significance rests upon his teachings, then his message is inextricably tied up in the written story of his ministry because we find his teachings in the written record.

xris wrote:
Do i have to worship him to appreciate his contribution to the advance of mankind? cant i just love him for his own sake?


What is it to worship Jesus other than loving him for the sake of his teaching?
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:06 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
To an extant you are right. Much of what happened to Jesus' ministry after his death revolved around political ambition.

You are absolutely correct, I think, when you say that his spiritual significance rests solely on the teachings of Jesus. However, if Jesus' spiritual significance rests upon his teachings, then his message is inextricably tied up in the written story of his ministry because we find his teachings in the written record.



What is it to worship Jesus other than loving him for the sake of his teaching?
Extracting the truth from the myth is not denying his ministry but pointing out the message he would have us listen to.How could i not admire such a man.Thanks xris.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:14 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Extracting the truth from the myth is not denying his ministry but pointing out the message he would have us listen to.


I agree. But don't we also have to check to see if the myth also contains spiritual value?
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:35 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Alan considering Josephus was a roman stooge, Tacitus only mentions the Christians and why they are Christians and both where born fifty to sixty years after Jesus died they cant be called eye witnesses can they?
No ones denying that a man called Jesus a teacher preached his wonderful new message of love and mercy.His life and execution would not have been significant to those who destroyed him , it was daily occurrence in a Roman province.The hills every morning would be covered with crosses of the crucified, life was cheap.Jesus the man teached mercy when it was unknown,he taught love and redemption to those who craved it.It must be his message otherwise his story would not have survived.
My claim is that the theatre that followed was not about Jesus but the cult that certain men built around his fame.His message to me is not about his written story or men's wish for him to be sacred, its the message.
Do i have to worship him to appreciate his contribution to the advance of mankind? cant i just love him for his own sake?


I agree xris Jesus was just a roving Jewish teacher and unimportant one to the Roman authorities of the time. Crucifixion was the punishment for the most dangerous criminal, the cross carried a clear warning "look at him and don't dare to do likewise"

Erecting an expensive cross was just too expensive to the normal transgressor

1) "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"

2) "My God my God why have you forsaken me?"

3) " John look at this woman she is now your mother" (Mary his mother)

4) "I thirst"

5) To the thief next to him "Today you will be with me in paradise"

6) "Father into your hands and commit my spirit"

7) "It is finished"


What other person ever uttered words as beautiful, loving and forgiving as these, while dying in unspeakable pain and terrible shame?
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 05:19 pm
@KaseiJin,
Alan, one question here, please. I would like to ask you to introspect, and explain why you think it might be that in your post #53, you quoted my #52, while not entering any content in that #53 which responds in any manner, really, to my #52?

Then, we will find that the quotes you have quoted in your #58, above, which are not trustworthy historically, especially number one (which is spurious), are being given by yourself as though they were historical accounts--meaning as though the words spoken were actual historical events. This is what I had been pointing to in my #52 above, in response to your having stated that the gospel narratives had not been intended to have been historical (post at top of this page).

If we were to attempt to assert that the authors of those autographs (and the extra hands completing According to John) had not had the intention of writting historiographs, we'd soon run into trouble--because most obviously they had been.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 02:43 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin wrote:
Alan, one question here, please. I would like to ask you to introspect, and explain why you think it might be that in your post #53, you quoted my #52, while not entering any content in that #53 which responds in any manner, really, to my #52?

Then, we will find that the quotes you have quoted in your #58, above, which are not trustworthy historically, especially number one (which is spurious), are being given by yourself as though they were historical accounts--meaning as though the words spoken were actual historical events. This is what I had been pointing to in my #52 above, in response to your having stated that the gospel narratives had not been intended to have been historical (post at top of this page).

If we were to attempt to assert that the authors of those autographs (and the extra hands completing According to John) had not had the intention of writting historiographs, we'd soon run into trouble--because most obviously they had been.


I regret that it might appear to you that I have overlooked some of the content of your previous posts, it was not so, your posts are long and detailed and need some reflection before responding in the correct manner

Think if you were one of Jesus followers, looking up at your beloved master bleeding on the crucifix after being shamed, flogged and stripped naked suffering unspeakably for crimes he did not commit? (It was a terrible shame for a Jewish man was to be stripped naked in full view of public)

Would you remember the seven utterances? I quoted in the previous post. Of course you would, these words would be imprinted indelibly on your mind and when the first opportunity came you would write down these amazing words of love and forgiveness

These words are historical, many other event relating to Jesus in the Gospels might not be historically accurate

Peace
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 08:45:10