The case for the Historical Jesus

Author: Shila

Posts

Total: 619
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Public-Choice : And all this time I thought you weren't actually Catholic.
I was accused of being a bot. But all this time you thought I was actually Catholic. I guess the mods had to make a choice. They banned the bot.

And I am not sure they got that correct. You keep referring to yourself in the second person..>>>
There are a number of places where Jesus refers to himself in the third person. The most common is when he uses the title 'Son of Man' (by my count, there are some 78 times Jesus uses that title in the gospels!). For example Matthew 16:13(NIV):

Shila wrote: You accepted Jesus as a historical person. The case built by Shila has achieved its objective.
You are here asking for more specifics. I have raised your curiosity. The case built by Shila has achieved its objective.
And I am not religious in the slightest.
My thread was not started for only the religious. It was started to build a case for the HistoricalJesus.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
And I have disputed the evidence that you put forward that was supposed to support your case for the existence of a biblical and historical Jesus. So simply stop repeating your flimsy evidence and either challenge my disputations or admit they are valid and accept them for what they are, and we can all move on.
Simply repeating and presenting the same argument that I have already challenged won't get us anywhere.And I have disputed the evidence that you put forward that was supposed to support your case for the existence of a biblical and historical Jesus. So simply stop repeating your flimsy evidence and either challenge my disputations or admit they are valid and accept them for what they are, and we can all move on.
You have accepted the historical Jesus.

YES, minus the miracles, !!FFS how many times?  But I have also said that I cannot prove the biblical Jesus existed.  And I have disputed your offering as any type of evidence for his existence too, which has gone completely unchallenged by YOU!.

If you want to derail your own thread by continuously repeating what you offer as evidence, then knock yourself out. But your thread will die a death before much longer.

You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.

 Stop telling lies you deceitful fkr.
I have said nor suggested any such thing. What I said was that Josephus was in a better position than both you and I to understand the theology of the times because he was given the temple scrolls after the fall of the city.  AND THAT HE WAS A PRIEST. I mention nothing about it being to do with Josephus "researching or search for the historical Jesus".  If this is how you mean to go on you may as well throw in the towel now, you clown because you won't win a argument by being deceitful and blatantly lying.

If you are going to tell blatant lies such as this by attempting to put words in my mouth, you can fk right off.  Here is my full quote and what caused me to say it:

shila wrote: Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Stephen wrote: Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city. #14
Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14


stephen wrote: And I am not religious in the slightest.
My thread was not started for only the religious. It was started to build a case for the HistoricalJesus.
And so far, you have failed

You have contributed 198 threads. But not a single case for  the Historical Jesus. Well you have one now!!

 Wrong again you clown.  In many of those threads of mine I have clearly stated that I believe that a man called Jesus existed but that I can never prove my belief...... and neither can YOU! and my position hasn't changed or waivered since the day I joined here.

You have contributed 198 threads.
To your one.

Off you go now you deceitful little fkr.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Shila

.
Shila,

CEASE AND DESIST NOW!!!

How dare you go against Jesus' inspired words by being a woman and preaching to men?!  Just who in the hell do you think you are?!  Remember, you are nothing but a 2nd class pseudo-christian citizen in being a mere woman, where the man rules over you at all times!  

You have RAN AWAY from the following Jesus inspired passages THREE TIMES NOW in embarrassment not only to you, but to this Religion Forum and Jesus the Christ!  ENOUGH OF YOUR BLASPHEME!



You are in complete violation to Jesus' words shown below in what He thinks about your unsatisfactory gender of being a woman, by not following His doctrine regarding you being a defective women!  Therefore, where do you get the authority to slap Jesus in the face with you creating a thread about Him as a 2nd class woman that is not to "try" and teach men in any way whatsoever along with other demeaning biblical facts of your female gender?!

1.  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

2.  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

3.  “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

4.  "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

5.  "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)

6.  "It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9)

7.  "It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman." (Proverbs 21:19)

8.  “ It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)

9.  "A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16) 

10.  " Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." (1 Timothy 2:9)

11.  "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:23)

12.  "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)



Shila dear, do you want to call Jesus' inspired words above towards demeaning women as LIES?  Then you dig yourself deeper into the hole you have provided for yourself because of the following JESUS INSPIRED passages: 

EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5).

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4)

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)

Therefore, every word of Jesus is to be followed, and a TRUE Christian does what it says to do relative to the two-bit woman, period! Understood Bible fool SHILA?!



Shila, Close this thread of yours to save you from further embarrassment in front of Jesus as He watches you discard His words relative to what He thinks of the lower class woman!   "And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)


NEXT STUPID AND IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE SHILA THAT GOES AGAINST JESUS' TRUE WORDS REGARDING THE INFERIOR WOMAN WILL BE ...?


.






Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
#33 CEASE AND DESIST NOW!!!

You can guarantee that she will avoid your post and ignore these strict rules set out in the bible concerning women knowing their place. 

Well worth the thumbs up for the detail in your post Brother D.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
You have accepted the historical Jesus.

YES, minus the miracles, !!FFS how many times?  But I have also said that I cannot prove the biblical Jesus existed.  And I have disputed your offering as any type of evidence for his existence too, which has gone completely unchallenged by YOU!.

If you want to derail your own thread by continuously repeating what you offer as evidence, then knock yourself out. But your thread will die a death before much longer.
You accept the Historical Jesus.  This thread is titled: The case for  the Historical Jesus.

You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.

 Stop telling lies you deceitful fkr.
I have said nor suggested any such thing. What I said was that Josephus was in a better position than both you and I to understand the theology of the times because he was given the temple scrolls after the fall of the city.  AND THAT HE WAS A PRIEST. I mention nothing about it being to do with Josephus "researching or search for the historical Jesus".  If this is how you mean to go on you may as well throw in the towel now, you clown because you won't win a argument by being deceitful and blatantly lying.

here is my full quote and what caused me to say it:
Read your argument. You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus. After all Josephus was in a better position than both you and I to understand the theology of the times because he was given the temple scrolls after the fall of the city.  AND THAT HE WAS A PRIEST.

Stephen wrote: “What I said was that Josephus was in a better position than both you and I to understand the theology of the times because he was given the temple scrolls after the fall of the city.  AND THAT HE WAS A PRIEST.”
shila wrote: Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Stephen wrote: Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city. #14
Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14
Stephen wrote: If you are going to tell blatant lies such as this, you can fk right off.
Those were your arguments affirming Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST. “And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city.”

You have contributed 198 threads. But not a single case for  the Historical Jesus. Well you have one now!!

 Wrong again you clown.  In many of those threads of mine I have clearly stated that I believe that a man called Jesus existed but that I can never prove my belief...... and neither can YOU! and my position hasn't changed or waivered since the day I joined here.
So you could not build a case for Jesus. But Shila did in this thread.

You have contributed 198 threads.
To your one.

Off you go now you deceitful little fkr
Your main struggle is with miracles. So what hope do you have of change?

BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Shila


Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: "You can guarantee that she will avoid your post and ignore these strict rules set out in the bible concerning women knowing their place. "

Yes, all Bible inept pseudo-christians, especially the Bible inferior woman gendered as Shila, will run away and try to hide from their outright Bible stupidity!  BUT, in prayer with Jesus last night, He told me to make an example of this Biblical fool named Shila for all to see in how she is trampling over Jesus' inspired words regarding the 2nd class woman, praise!

I haven't even started yet in making Shila the true Bible fool that she is. Tradesecret learned the hard way, and now Shila will experience the wrath of Jesus in my behalf if she doesn't close this disrespectful thread against Jesus, praise!

"In this way they can train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." (Titus 2:4-5)


.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
Your main struggle is with miracles.

I don't have any struggles at all. I have many problems with much of the NT and not just the so-called miracles.

 Wrong again you clown.  In many of those threads of mine I have clearly stated that I believe that a man called Jesus existed but that I can never prove my belief...... and neither can YOU! and my position hasn't changed or waivered since the day I joined here.
So you could not build a case for Jesus.

Correct, and neither can you.

I simply believe a man named Jesus existed. He believed himself to be- or was led to believe himself to be rightful heir to the throne of David as king of the Jews and Jerusalem. And that it was this belief that got him executed. He performed no miracles and failed miserably to fulfil the requirements of an expected messiah as many messiahs had before him and since.



But Shila did in this thread.

Speaking in the second person again!?


You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.

 I have just covered this blatant lie told by you. And I have shown that I said no such thing. HERE>>

shila wrote: Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Stephen wrote: Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city. #14
Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14
Do you see that clown?  No mention at all concerning Josephus' reasons for having the scrolls at all is there? I mention nothing at all of researching Jesus or research at all.

 It appears to me that you have run out of steam and can only repeat what you have already said and are now reduced to simply repeating your lies and no doubt you will invent new lies. I honestly believed I was going to have a decent conversation on this thread.  You simply couldn't stand the pace you fkn amateur.

I have made my position more than clear and more than once.

I will only respond if I feel it is necessary.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"In this way they can train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." (Titus 2:4-5)

 Well, she appears to have ignored that strict rule many times over on this thread alone, Brother D.👍
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
--> @Shila

.
Shila,

CEASE AND DESIST NOW!!!

How dare you go against Jesus' inspired words by being a woman and preaching to men?!  Just who in the hell do you think you are?!  Remember, you are nothing but a 2nd class pseudo-christian citizen in being a mere woman, where the man rules over you at all times!  

You have RAN AWAY from the following Jesus inspired passages THREE TIMES NOW in embarrassment not only to you, but to this Religion Forum and Jesus the Christ!  ENOUGH OF YOUR BLASPHEME!



You are in complete violation to Jesus' words shown below in what He thinks about your unsatisfactory gender of being a woman, by not following His doctrine regarding you being a defective women!  Therefore, where do you get the authority to slap Jesus in the face with you creating a thread about Him as a 2nd class woman that is not to "try" and teach men in any way whatsoever and other demeaning biblical facts of your female gender?!

1.  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)
It is logical God would not want Adam’s rib (Eve) to be smarter than Adam.
But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge first and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.

2.  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 
It is logical God would not want Adam’s rib (Eve) to be smarter than Adam.
But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.


3.  “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)
The weakness here is in man.
4.  "The women should keep silent in the churchesFor they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
It is logical God would not want Adam’s rib (Eve) to be smarter than Adam.
But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.
5.  "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)
Women are needed so a man’s prayers may not be hindered. Sounds like a dependency.
6.  "It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9)
It is now called man cave. Small space reserved for the man of the house. women get the rest.
7.  "It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman." (Proverbs 21:19)
God gave the man limited choices.
8.  “ It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)
God gave the man limited choices.
9.  "A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16) 
Women are unstoppable. It’s biblical.
10.  " Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." (1 Timothy 2:9)
Women should be prepared to accept men with low means.
11.  "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:23)
Aren’t women glad Jesus did not marry. Jesus remained unemployed throughout his life.
12.  "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

 That contradicts Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Shila dear, do you want to call Jesus' inspired words above towards demeaning women as LIES?  Then you dig yourself deeper into the hole you have provided for yourself because of the following JESUS INSPIRED passages: 
I checked my red letter Bible. None of the quotes above came from Jesus. Jesus was never an authority on women. Even at 30 he remained single. But hung around with 12 men. One lied to him the other betrayed him.

EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4) 

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)

Therefore, every word of Jesus is to be followed, and a TRUE Christian does what it says to do relative to the two-bit woman, period! Understood Bible fool SHILA?!

Jesus was crucified and the 12 disciples were eventually killed. It was always a man’s club.


ShilaClose this thread of yours to save you from further embarrassment in front of Jesus as He watches you discard His words relative to what He thinks of the lower class woman!   "And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)
Shila was the first on DebateArt to built the case for the Historical Jesus. No woman betrayed Jesus in the Bible.

NEXT STUPID AND IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE SHILA THAT GOES AGAINST JESUS' TRUE WORDS REGARDING THE INFERIOR WOMAN WILL BE ...?
But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge first and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.
But the delay could not be avoided. Nor could circumcision restore the differences in IQ.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 805
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
My claims are simply the case for the historical Jesus.

You made a different claim as well and I was responding to it. If you wish to keep this thread focused, then you shouldn't make unrelated claims.

Another uncaring Jew. It’s 2000 years since Jesus was crucified. Jesus’s crucifixion was demanded by the Jews of his time. Yet to continue to harbour the same strong Jewish resentment whenever Yehoshua is mentioned.

Ah, so either you say that I must be happy about what you think I should be happy about or I am "uncaring" as if that's synonymous with "I don't care." And you then reference the gospels which have no value to me to make some sort of statement. Finally, you invoke some phantom "Jewish resentment" when not only isn't that an extant concept, but I never made any statement that would lead to that conclusion. In fact, if you were to use the name "Yehoshua" at least then you wouldn't be making the other errors you made.  Why would I resent that?

Your post was addressed.
No, it wasn't. You ignored the corrections I offered and moved to an unrelated statement about how I must feel.


We read “Jesus” in our English Bibles, but what is Jesus’ name in Hebrew?

Jesus’ name in Hebrew is Yehoshua (Yeh-HO-shoo-ah), which, over time, became contracted to the shorter Yeshua (Yeh-SHOO-ah). Yehoshua, and therefore Yeshua as well, means “the Lord is salvation.”
It did not become contracted over time if it was the accepted biblical nickname (which it is) for Yehoshua. And the nickname doesn't mean the same as the full name because the nickname omits certain parts which contribute to the meaning.


In the Greek New Covenant, the word used for Jesus is Iesous (ee-ay-SOOS). Iesous is not a translation of Jesus’ name in Hebrew, but rather it is a transliteration.

A translation takes the meaning of a word in one language and assigns it the equivalent word with the same meaning in a different language. For instance, translated into Spanish, the English word “red” is “roja.”

A transliteration takes the letters of a word from one language and finds like-sounding letters of the second language to create a new word in that language. For example, the English word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo (bap-TID-zo), meaning to immerse.

In the late 4th century, Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, a manuscript known as the Vulgate. In it, the Greek Iesous became the Latin Iesus. The English Bible eventually changed the Y sound of the Latin I to the letter J, which we now have in Jesus.

So, from Yehoshua/Yeshua – Jesus’ name in Hebrew – we get the Greek transliteration Iesous, which was transliterated into Latin as Iesus and later became the English name, Jesus.


Great, so you found a webpage which addresses the problems you made and you copy/paste from it even though it disproves your claim. Finally, jewishvoice.org is useful for something.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen

--> @Shila
Your main struggle is with miracles.
You have accepted the historical Jesus.
YES, minus the miracles,
So your problem is with the miracles in the Bible.
I don't have any struggles at all. I have many problems with much of the NT and not just the so-called miracles.
Now you are admitting you have many problems with much of the NT and not just the so-called miracles.

 Wrong again you clown.  In many of those threads of mine I have clearly stated that I believe that a man called Jesus existed but that I can never prove my belief...... and neither can YOU! and my position hasn't changed or waivered since the day I joined here.
So you could not build a case for Jesus.

Correct, and neither can you. 

I simply believe a man named Jesus existed. He believed himself to be- or was led to believe himself to be rightful heir to the throne of David as king of the Jews and Jerusalem. And that it was this belief that got him executed. He performed no miracles and failed miserably to fulfil the requirements of an expected messiah as many messiahs had before him and since.
But Shila did in this thread.

Speaking in the second person again!?
You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.

 I have just covered this blatant lie told by you. And I have shown that I said no such thing. HERE>>
shila wrote: Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Stephen wrote: Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city. #14
Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14
Do you see that clown?  No mention at all concerning Josephus' reasons for having the scrolls at all is there? I mention nothing at all of researching Jesus or research at all.

 It appears to me that you have run out of steam and can only repeat what you have already said and are now reduced to simply repeating your lies and no doubt you will invent new lies. I honestly believed I was going to have a decent conversation on this thread.  You simply couldn't stand the pace you fkn amateur.

I have made my position more than clear and more than once.

I will only respond if I feel it is necessary.
Stephen wrote: “What I said was that Josephus was in a better position than both you and I to understand the theology of the times because he was given the temple scrolls after the fall of the city.  AND THAT HE WAS A PRIEST.”

Those were your arguments affirming Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST and had access to the temple scrolls. 
So Josephus)s account of Jesus had to be even more accurate than just a Historian.

Shila used Josephus as evidence in the case for the historical Jesus.
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@Shila
Great post!
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,058
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Did you get your theology diploma from a cracker jack box?

If you go to the Greek and Hebrew you'll find that your analysis is completely uncalled for and taken entirely out of context from its original purpose.

Shila isn't preaching a sermon or leading a church right now. This is a public forum where a discussion is being had. There is nothing in the Bible that says sharing the gospel is a sin.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,920
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Yep, as I stated Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua is/was a character recorded in historical narratives and we know roughly where he was said to have lived, there's no denying that.

And that's about all one can say for certain.

And yep 1632, that's the point I try to get across. All is made up after the event.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila

So you could not build a case for Jesus.[ever actually existing]

Correct, and neither can you. 
I simply believe a man named Jesus existed. He believed himself to be- or was led to believe himself to be rightful heir to the throne of David as king of the Jews and Jerusalem. And that it was this belief that got him executed. He performed no miracles and failed miserably to fulfil the requirements of an expected messiah as many messiahs had before him and since.
But Shila did in this thread.
Nope. neither you nor shila- in the second person - have proven anything.


Stephen wrote: I have just covered this blatant lie told by you. And I have shown that I said no such thing. HERE>>

shila wrote: Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.


Stephen wrote: Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city. #14
Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14
Do you see that clown?  No mention at all concerning Josephus' reasons for having the scrolls at all is there? I mention nothing at all of researching Jesus or research at all.

 It appears to me that you have run out of steam and can only repeat what you have already said and are now reduced to simply repeating your lies and no doubt you will invent new lies. I honestly believed I was going to have a decent conversation on this thread.  You simply couldn't stand the pace you fkn amateur.

I have made my position more than clear and more than once.

I will only respond if I feel it is necessary.


Those were your arguments affirming Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST and had access to the temple scrolls. 
So Josephus)s account of Jesus had to be even more accurate than just a Historian.


And therein lies your problem. It has not ever been established that these few inserted lines were written by Josephus as I wrote in my very first post here> #3

shila wrote: The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

Stephen wrote:  This will be the very much debated The Testimonium Flavianum, which other scholars believed was added by the Christian apologist Eusebius. Indeed many modern scholars reject it altogether. And further, Josephus doesn't refer to him as a god.
I also wrote : 
 What Josephus appears to say is extremely very little concerning the biblical Jesus which amounts to just a handful of questionable lines, and these are rejected by many scholars. I am sure Josephus - a priest himself- would have afforded the son of god a little more than a handful of lines, don't you? #14


And I have also written -  It appears to me that you have run out of steam and can only repeat what you have already said and are now reduced to simply repeating your blatant lies and no doubt you will invent new lies. I honestly believed I was going to have a decent conversation on this thread. 
I will only respond if I feel it is necessary.
You simply couldn't stand the pace you deceitful fkn amateur.





Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Vici

-->@Shila
Great post!



Says the 92-year-old Sikh from Tonga aka Vici. That has now completely changed his profile. 😂 I have the screenshot of your original profile you idiot.


file:///C:/Users/Steve/Pictures/Screenshots/Screenshot%20(3).png


Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@Stephen
why are you screenshooting my profile you weirdo wtf. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Vici
why are you screenshooting my profile you weirdo wtf. 

 Because, you thick fkr, I knew you would have to change it. It was so ridiculous.😂

 Would you like to see again your old self? Here you go thicky.

file:///C:/Users/Steve/Pictures/Screenshots/Screenshot%20(3).png
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Vici


And here is your brand new profile
file:///C:/Users/Steve/Pictures/Screenshots/Screenshot%20(5).png  🤣
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,570
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
@shila Great, so you found a webpage which addresses the problems you made and you copy/paste from it even though it disproves your claim.

 This is how thick she really is, rosi.  And I am sure there will be lies and contradictions ahead.

@shila If you wish to keep this thread focused

 No chance of that, either.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@Shila


.
SHILA, the Bible fool that is vying to take over Tradesecret’s position as being the #1 Bible fool at DEBATEART Religion Forum,

In addressing your ever so weak post #39:

JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS STATED:  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Your Bible inept response to the passage above in your weak post #39 was: “It is logical God would not want Adam’s rib (Eve) to be smarter than Adam.
But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge first and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.”

WRONG! What has your child-like response relative to 1 Timothy 2:11-14 have to do with the biblical axiom that you are an inferior woman that is NOT to teach or exercise the authority over man as you are embarrassingly doing in your pathetic thread, but where you are only to remain QUIET as Jesus proposes in said passage?!  Huh?

Relative to your continued Bible stupidity, yes, it was Eve that ate from the Tree of Knowledge FIRST, where Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, had forbidden Adam and Eve to eat from this tree, remember Bible inept fool?

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:14)

Therefore, Eve started Original Sin, thankyouverymuch, and man has been paying for Eve going against Jesus’ command ever since, understood Bible stupid fool?  Therefore, since Eve was the transgressor, Jesus punished her with the following: To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16) 

In the Creation narrative, this is where it started that the woman is looked down upon in the Bible, and became a second class citizen to this day,  period!


As I have told you before many times, take your insidious “dog and pony show” to a Children’s Christian Forum where you belong because of your complete Bible ignorance!  In doing so, this will save  you from further embarrassment within this esteemed Religion Forum, understood you complete Bible stupid fool?!


NEXT?
.





Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Vici
--> @Shila
Great post!
Thank you. Let me repeat the great post.

Stephen wrote: “What I said was that Josephus was in a better position than both you and I to understand the theology of the times because he was given the temple scrolls after the fall of the city.  AND THAT HE WAS A PRIEST.”

Those were your arguments affirming Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST and had access to the temple scrolls.
So Josephus)s account of Jesus had to be even more accurate than just a Historian.

Shila used Josephus as evidence in the case for the historical Jesus.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @BrotherD.Thomas
Did you get your theology diploma from a cracker jack box?

If you go to the Greek and Hebrew you'll find that your analysis is completely uncalled for and taken entirely out of context from its original purpose.

Shila isn't preaching a sermon or leading a church right now. This is a public forum where a discussion is being had. There is nothing in the Bible that says sharing the gospel is a sin.
Thank you. 
Shila was building a case for the Historical Jesus. I am surprised at the interest it is generating.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @Shila
Yep, as I stated Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua is/was a character recorded in historical narratives and we know roughly where he was said to have lived, there's no denying that.

And that's about all one can say for certain.

And yep 1632, that's the point I try to get across. All is made up after the event
So I can count you as one who accepts the case of the Historical Jesus. Thank you.

BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Shila


.
Shila, is now taking over in being the #1 Bible fool over Tradesecret's former position,

In addressing your double-speak and complete Bible runaway responses in your ever so embarrassing post #39, you do not have the wherewithal to understand in just how Bible stupid you truly are!  Look at your pathetic responses to actual Biblical axioms in said post, where you continue to repeat yourself over and over with your child-like assumed logical responses, how embarrassing can you get?!  

You're an embarrassment to Christianity and this prestigious Religion Forum, and don't think that Jesus is not watching you perform your Satanic acts that you will pay for upon Judgment Day for sure!  (Hebrews 4:13) 


NEXT BIBLICALLY INFERIOR WOMAN LIKE "SHILA" THAT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST JESUS' TRUELY INSPIRED WORDS REGARDING THE SECOND-CLASS WOMAN WILL BE ...?


.


Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,058
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Shila
Why are you talking about yourself in third person? 

Is this a Seinfeld episode?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Those were your arguments affirming Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST and had access to the temple scrolls. 
So Josephus)s account of Jesus had to be even more accurate than just a Historian.

And therein lies your problem. It has not ever been established that these few inserted lines were written by Josephus as I wrote in my very first post here> #3
 But you said , “What I said was that Josephus was in a better position than both you and I to understand the theology of the times because he was given the temple scrolls after the fall of the city.  AND THAT HE WAS A PRIEST.”

Those were your arguments affirming Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST and had access to the temple scrolls.
So Josephus)s account of Jesus had to be even more accurate than just a Historian.

shila wrote: The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

Stephen wrote:  This will be the very much debated The Testimonium Flavianum, which other scholars believed was added by the Christian apologist Eusebius. Indeed many modern scholars reject it altogether. And further, Josephus doesn't refer to him as a god.
The thread is about the case for the Historical Jesus. That there is evidence Jesus existed as a person. Josephus provides such evidence.

I also wrote :  What Josephus appears to say is extremely very little concerning the biblical Jesus which amounts to just a handful of questionable lines, and these are rejected by many scholars. I am sure Josephus - a priest himself- would have afforded the son of god a little more than a handful of lines, don't you? #14
So you are not saying Josephus did not write about Jesus. You switch to comments by scholars who were not there  even though you affirm Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST and had access to the temple scrolls.
And I have also written -  It appears to me that you have run out of steam and can only repeat what you have already said and are now reduced to simply repeating your blatant lies and no doubt you will invent new lies. I honestly believed I was going to have a decent conversation on this thread.  
You appear stuck in your own contradiction first attacking the credibility of the Historian Josephus after affirming Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST and had access to the temple scrolls.
And second you attack Shila for building a case for the Historical Jesus with evidence from Historian Josephus even though you affirm Josephus was both a historian and PRIEST and had access to the temple scrolls.
I will only respond if I feel it is necessary.
You simply couldn't stand the pace you deceitful fkn amateur.

You have accepted the historical Jesus. That is the objective of  the case for the Historical Jesus to get people to accept Jesus existed as a person.

Read your post, 
Stephen wrote: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. “

BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Public-Choice



.
Public-Choice, who is equal to Shila’s complete Bible ignorance,

YOUR QUOTE: “Did you get your theology diploma from a cracker jack box?”

No bible fool!  I got it out of the “as written” myriad of Bible variations that are printed and sold today, understood Bible stupid fool?  Where do you get the authority to state that what the Bibles today as printed, need a decoder ring, or addendums to be able to read them in their alleged true form? Huh? Therefore, for thousands of years, the as written Bibles are wrong?  BLASPHEME!  You go directly against this passage, or does this one need further explanation as well:   EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)


YOUR COMICAL AND EMBARRASSING QUOTE: “If you go to the Greek and Hebrew you'll find that your analysis is completely uncalled for and taken entirely out of context from its original purpose.”

Great!  Now, for you to save face within this forum, you will now provide the said Greek and Hebrew words TO EACH OF MY 12 GIVEN PASSAGES AS SHOWN IN JESUS' WORDS IN DEFAMING WOMEN IN MY POST #33 TO PROVE THEM WRONG!  You may begin, we're waiting in a timely manner whereas the clock is ticking in your behalf!


YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE TAKING SHILA’S POSITION OUT OF CONTEXT:   “Shila isn't preaching a sermon or leading a church right now. This is a public forum where a discussion is being had. There is nothing in the Bible that says sharing the gospel is a sin.”

OMG, the bible stupidity continues with you as well as Shila, whereas, you are mixing up your Bible passages, whereas Shila is going against Jesus’ inspired words in the following passage, irrelative to preaching and being within a church setting as you erroneously proposed in using 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, HELLO BIBLE FOOL! LOL!  “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14). GET IT, OR DO YOU NEED FURTHER EXPLANATION IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP AT YOUR EMBARRASSING EXPENSE?  


As explicitly shown, we have too many pseudo-christians like Public-Choice that are all vying to be more Bible stupid and ignorant amongst themselves! Priceless entertainment!


.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,058
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
need a decoder ring, or addendums to be able to read them in their alleged true form?
What languages are the Bible written in? It wasn't English. That's why there hundreds of TRANSLATIONS! They all differ based on INTERPRETATIONS of the Greek.

Honestly I would laugh at this troll account but some people actually believe the tripe you're joking about.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Public-Choice


.
Public-Choice,

YOUR PARTIAL ANSWER OF ADDRESSING MY POST #58:  "What languages are the Bible written in? It wasn't English. That's why there hundreds of TRANSLATIONS! They all differ based on INTERPRETATIONS of the Greek. Honestly I would laugh at this troll account but some people actually believe the tripe you're joking about."

Oh, oh, you forgot to address the additional embarrassments you made that I have shown the membership is my post #58 to you, whoops!


Here are the facts that you forgot to address in your RUNNING AWAY from them, where you may begin at this time to at least "try" and save yourself from further embarrassment within this forum. You may begin:

1.  YOUR COMICAL AND EMBARRASSING QUOTE: “If you go to the Greek and Hebrew you'll find that your analysis is completely uncalled for and taken entirely out of context from its original purpose.”

Great!  Now, for you to save face within this forum, you will now provide the said Greek and Hebrew words TO EACH OF MY 12 GIVEN PASSAGES AS SHOWN IN JESUS' WORDS IN DEFAMING WOMEN IN MY POST #33 TO PROVE THEM WRONG!  You may begin, we're waiting in a timely manner whereas the clock is ticking in your behalf! 


2.  YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE TAKING SHILA’S POSITION OUT OF CONTEXT:   “Shila isn't preaching a sermon or leading a church right now. This is a public forum where a discussion is being had. There is nothing in the Bible that says sharing the gospel is a sin.”

OMG, the bible stupidity continues with you as well as Shila, whereas, you are mixing up your Bible passages, whereas Shila is going against Jesus’ inspired words in the following passage, irrelative to preaching and being within a church setting as you erroneously proposed in using 1 Corinthians 14:34-35HELLO BIBLE FOOL! LOL!  “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14). GET IT, OR DO YOU NEED FURTHER EXPLANATION IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP AT YOUR EMBARRASSING EXPENSE?



Why are there so many RUNAWAY pseudo-christians like PUBLIC-CHOICE to laugh at within this forum when they step into a hole that they have dug for themselves, and then go into hiding rather than address them? LOL!



.