Total posts: 8,177
Posted in:
-->
@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 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)
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.
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)
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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. #14Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14Stephen 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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
That is so great, what is disgusting is that he has that kind of money from being a whackjob lunatic, sad comentary on our society.
Trump is being investigated for being more than just a lunatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
--> @zedvictor4Actually you are wrong, there are ugly people and there are attractive people in appearance. It is absolute undeniable fact. It isn't some made up social construct.
Are you giving more reasons why racism goes beyond white and black?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
--> @Best.Korea- Take a deep breath there buddy
You are rather quiet on this subject. Are you on the side of the Iranian Morality police?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical fact.
I know that you clown!!!
The fewer members who dispute my case for the historical Jesus the more successful by case will be viewed.
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.
Read your post,
Stephen wrote: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. “
Simply repeating and presenting the same argument that I have already challenged won't get us anywhere.
You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.
So using Josephus as one of my evidence for the case of the Historical Jesus was well founded.
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.Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.
You have contributed 198 threads. But not a single case for the Historical Jesus. Well you have one now!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
--> @ShilaSo you are disputing the spelling of Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jesus. But you are not disputing the person is a historical person behind the name/names.I am not commenting at all about the historical existence of anyone, nor am I disputing the spelling of anything -- just the claims made in your statement.
My claims are simply the case for the historical Jesus.
You must be pleased the name Jesus further separates the man from his Jewish roots more than yehoshua would.
Must I be? Because I don't really care.
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.
I did, notice, though, that you couldn't counter the statements I made so you are changing course. Did that website not have anything for you to copy and paste in response?
Your post was addressed.
So you are disputing the spelling of Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jesus. But you are not disputing the person is a historical person behind the name/names.
Just a side note, the following statement was made:"Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua"that statement is wrong on at least 3 different levels.The biblical nickname Yay-shOO-ah is a shortened form of Yehoshua. That name, Yehoshua, is generally rendered into English as Joshua.So the name "Jesus" would not have been written in Hebrew as "Yeshua" because it was not a formal name, just a nickname. The sound of the Hebrew nickname is the same as for the word Y'shu'ah, which means "being saved" and it figures that someone would conflate them over time and through the lens/agenda of theology.
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.”
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @Shila @StephenAnd 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical fact.
And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. But I cannot prove it on the bases of there is so little evidence. It's called being honest with myself.You on the other hand have offered nothing more than extremely flimsy so-called "evidence".
You were not asked to prove anything.
So what is the whole point of your thread if not to prove an "historical biblical Jesus" existed?
Shila has already built a case for the historical Jesus. You were not asked to prove anything.
The evidence was a collection of accounts written by those who lived during Jesus’s time and followed him.
But there is absolutely no evidence that any of them were alive at the time as the Christ. We only have stories passed down to us that have gone through many translations.
There were also accounts by historians who reported these events.
What events? And what historians? The same historians that didn't live at the time of Christ in 1st century Palestine.
We are talking about the Historical Jesus. Historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life.
All you had to do was accept the case for the Historical Jesus built by Shila in this thread which you did.
But we have to face facts at the same time. And I do not accept the New Testament as it has been passed down to us. AND I don't accept your ( or as you put it, shila's ) case as "evidence" enough for the existence of a biblical Jesus either.
We are discussing the case for the Historical Jesu.
The gospels are another source of evidence for the historical Jesus.
The case for the Historical Jesus was built by Shila in this thread
Why are you speaking in the second person? Am I conversing with someone other than shila herself?
You are talking to the author of. The case for the Historical Jesus.
You said: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine.”
I do. But you omitted from my quote "minus the miracles". Here> #15 So please, if you are going to use a quote of mine, use the whole quote.
That is good enough for now. We can deal with other specifics later.
I don't agree. These flaws have to be ironed out as the conversation moves forward.You should be prepared to be challenged on your comments, theories, ideas and most of all your "evidence".If it is of any consolation to you, I don't believe that you will find many here that do not dispute the possibility that the biblical Jesus existed. So, the quicker we do get to the specifics the better for your thread and the conversation. imo
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical fact.
The fewer members who dispute my case for the historical Jesus the more successful by case will be viewed.
More specifics on other aspects of Jesus which are of interest mostly to Christians will be revealed as the thread gains momentum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wow, if you’re not President of the United States (Trump) lying can cost you a lot of money.
If the judge knows you don’t have money the fines could be lower. Why Trump gets away is simply because he claims a bankruptcy every time.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Finally the proper and just outcome of an officer falsely charged for killing a so-called “unarmed” arrestee who was resisting arrest and armed with the officer’s own taser.But as usual and like clockwork, some within the black community are calling for protests (which we all know will only result in more rioting and violence directed at law enforcement) in the wake of the “not guilty” verdict.Some commentary on various social media platforms include statements like the judicial system is “fixed.” That simply couldn’t be any further from the truth. A random selection of community members were selected to serve on the jury of no personal relations to the defendant. They heard the evidence and agreed the state failed to meet its burden of proof. Thus, the not guilty verdict.Claiming the deceased had a mental disorder isn’t a get out of jail free card. And neither is having several so-called run-ins with the accused either. They lived in the same apartment complex where she assaulted the property manager, which is what the warrant was for. The officer knew her and attempted to serve the warrant. But many in the black community feel entitled to be combative with police, resist arrest and attempt to take their tools off their utility belt and use them against the officer as she did in this case.Pamela Turner reaped what she sowed. Her fault. Not the officer’s just trying to do his job. Like all officers who just try to do their job. It’s the citizenry with an attitude that’s the tried and true problem in these all too familiar scenarios that place the officer in a position to defend their life and potentially the lives of others.What are you thoughts on this case?
If he knew she was grabbing for his taser and he had a gun. There would be no need to kill her. Another poorly trained police officer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
An Asian person would comprehend the comment. A chat bot would not. But thanks for yet another non-sequitur.
A pardon would stop Alex Jones from committing more serious crimes against the Sandy Hook families.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
--> @bibliobibulimaniacDoes it matter if,Fellow in the South lynched someone because he hated Blacks, and thought he was decreasing their number in his land as good,orFellow in the South lynched someone because everyone else in the mob was doing it?Seems more likely than not,That the instigator was hateful, than noncaring,Shouldn't the leader who led and incited, ordered and planned be 'most responsible?Not that the go alongs were 'good.
You are rehashing the confusion the South was going through regarding the proper treatment of blacks. It took a civil war to resolve it.
Created:
-> @TarikYou can agree with something without it being your word.K_Michael: If the Bible isn't the word of God, then what indication do you have that He agrees with it?
Are you seeking Tarik’s help to guide you through your Bible study?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?
The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.
None of which are eyewitness accounts. Although I have no actual reason to deny a man, believing himself to be rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem existed.
The Gospel authors recorded the accounts of eyewitnesses who followed Jesus everywhere in their Gospels and even referenced these eyewitnesses in their titles. Eg. Gospel of Matthew according to Matthew.
Ok I can see this going circular, so, show us all the evidence.
You accepted Jesus as a historical person. The case built by Shilahas achieved its objective.
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.
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.And as it is you that mentions historian Flavius Josephus, he relates to us a very interesting story that causes me to doubt the whole of the crucifixion story and its timing in particular. It may sound very familiar to many readers of the New Testament:And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered...'The Life' of Flavius Josephus.Two died where one recovered! An interesting coincidence when we read the account of and Joseph of Arimathea from the gospels:“And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus”. John 19:38-42.KJVThe similarities cannot be denied. Isn’t Josephus’ crucifixion story identical to what happened in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion where we are told that there was only one survivor of three and that survivor’s body was asked for by a man we know as a “secret” disciple of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea?Is it at all possible that historian Flavius Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea are one and the same person regardless of what we are supposed to know of these apparently two different people?? I suggest that you study and research the origins of the names of both historian Flavius Josephus' and Joseph of Arimathea, you may be surprised what you discover.
We are talking about the Historical Jesus. Historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life.
No, 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 more than a handful of lines, don't you?Please read my replies to your comments. It will save me having to continuously repeat myself.
Being a Historian, Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life.
This is why he remained objective in his record.
Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.
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.Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.
Flavius Josephus is recognized for his historical records and not for his theology.
Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?
All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.But I have always found this particular recruitment story more than suspicious. Have you actually read the sequence of events. Well no you haven't because there is no sequence. We are simply asked to believe this in itself was a miracle of sorts. Tell me would you just drop everything leaving your home, employment or business, wife and children simply because a complete stranger, that you know nothing at all about, simply walked up to you and said " follow me" without a by you leave? It makes no sense at all on the face of it does it? But we are asked to suspend simple common sense and believe this is exactly what happened.
Did Paul and Peter start the church in Rome?
Irrelevant, it neither addresses my point and neither does it prove yours.
We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century.
Ah yes, Eusebius again, putting words into the mouth of someone that lived hundreds of years before himself.
We are talking about history which is a study of past events.
Stop being so patronising. And we don't even know who wrote these unreliable ambiguous half stories that make up the scripture. Many theological scholars agree that they are the work of "unknown authors".
Did Jesus claim he was God?
No. In fact it appears while everyone around him was speculating who he might be, Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject and repeatedly refers to himself as"the son of man" i.e very human. He didn't even say that he was the son of god, although, IF he was the rightful heir to the throne of David then he would have also inherited the title -son of god- as other Hebrew kings did before him.
The thread was to first establish the fact Jesus was a historical person , that he existed and left am impression behind.
I know why you created the thread. And it was YOU that brought the question of if or not Jesus made the claim that he was god.And let's be perfectly honest, with what you have offered in the way of proof thus far concerning a HISTORICAL Jesus amount to nothing.
Today 2 billion Christians believe Jesus is God. All the modern science and research has not diminished the Christian position.
And billions of Muslims believe Jesus was only a prophet and not a god or even a son of god. Appealing to numbers is not evidence.
[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.”
This more than likely means that he and his god are in agreement. Jesus understood the scriptures by all accounts and hadn't come to change them, if the bible is to be believed.If this is not the case then it is a baffling statement that Jesus made here. Because he also says many things that contradict his own statement. Such as here>“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. “ (Matthew 24:36) , clearly showing the two to be separate entities and clearly talking about what he knows and what only his god knows.
Jesus did not want his disciples to get ahead of themselves and for good reasons. More was to come before that dreadful day. We saw the destruction of the Holy Temple and city Jerusalem in 70AD.
It was also time to spread his teachings to the world and not just the Jews to save the Gentiles.
This hasn't explained this particular clear contradiction of which there are others. . If Jesus didn't want " his disciples to get ahead of themselves", wouldn't it have been better to stop offering to them ambiguous statements and to keep things on a need-to-know basis? So your reasoning behind this particular contradiction makes no sense whatsoever.Please do not repeat yourself unless it is necessary. Is all this does is stifle the conversation.
Jesus wanted his disciples to show faith and let the Holy Spirit guide them after he was gone.
John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
-> @ShilaThe objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical fact.And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. But I cannot prove it on the bases of there is so little evidence. It's called being honest with myself.You on the other hand have offered nothing more than extremely flimsy so-called "evidence".
You were not asked to prove anything. The evidence was a collection of accounts written by those who lived during Jesus’s time and followed him. There were also accounts by historians who reported these events.
All you had to do was accept the case for the Historical Jesus built by Shila in this thread which you did.
You said: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine.”
That is good enough for now. We can deal with other specifics later
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Just a side note, the following statement was made:"Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua"that statement is wrong on at least 3 different levels.The biblical nickname Yay-shOO-ah is a shortened form of Yehoshua. That name, Yehoshua, is generally rendered into English as Joshua.So the name "Jesus" would not have been written in Hebrew as "Yeshua" because it was not a formal name, just a nickname. The sound of the Hebrew nickname is the same as for the word Y'shu'ah, which means "being saved" and it figures that someone would conflate them over time and through the lens/agenda of theology.
So you are disputing the spelling of Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jesus. But you are not disputing the person is a historical person behind the name/names.
You must be pleased the name Jesus further separates the man from his Jewish roots more than yehoshua would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @ShilaWould you really have been happy if the 1st pardon ever for a civil infraction happened?Mashing X for doubt.
With a billion dollar fine a pardon is justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
--> @ShilaThank you so very much for being nothing but annoying in every forum I see your name.If you have nothing useful to contribute to this conversation, then why bother to post.
Can you decipher your title. bibliobibulimaniac?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
--> @Intelligence_06No sense of humor huh, that's OK, You don't have to look at them. Its a free country.
Busted again. Stick to the script, you are still being evaluated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I don’t know if I have stated it here, but if I haven’t, now I have.The concept of sandwich should be interpreted abstractly. It should refer to anything in which one edible ingredient encases at least 180 degrees radially another edible ingredient. In this case, a hot dog, a tortilla taco, they all count as sandwiches. This is the expanded definition. Pasting PB&J on one slice of bread at one side also counts, as some sandwiches are topographically exactly the same. In fact, that is what a hot dog is, only with a much shallower trough and a substitute for a hot dog, albeit extremely different in taste. This also enables pizzas and pies to be sandwiches but if a hot dog is one, they are.But if you consider pizzas and hot dogs non-sandwiches, we can define x as a continuous variable(but in intervals) where the encased(not the encasing) edible ingredient is visible from the outside from certain angles, in which if x is in 2 intervals and both of those intervals are less than a given value, it is indeed a sandwich. This model can rule out absurd combinations such as covering a hot dog with green sauce, if we add a time variable t: where for a given continuous interval of t, X satisfy criteria that makes f(x, t) a sandwich. What this means is that if a sandwich cannot hold itself together stabily for a long time, it is not one. Covering a hot dog with green sauce does not work as the green liquid does spill. On the other hand, a ham within 2 slices of bread remains structurally the same even if any part of the combination goes rotten.
We were expecting some random though from you. Instead you decided to dissect a sandwich. Then went into other absurd combinations. Just order a Mac burger!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
--> @ILikePie5I'm just hoping I can keep up this time lmao
With your long deserved rest you should do better.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The actual "big lie" that people are waking up to is the lie that the government actually fulfills their end of the social contract to protect American Citizens. Increasingly, from both the neolibs and the neocons, it is apparent that the government has abused the authoritative power given to them from the people with the social contract to promote global interests over American citizen interests. See Ukraine for exhibit A; illegal immigration for Exhibit B and the wholesale destruction of the American economy for corporate pharmaceutical and green energy interests for Exhibit C.
After America withdrew from Afghanistan and Iraq they have very little global influence left as a superpower. They withdrew in disgrace from every country they invaded.
Now the leaders are turning on the American people. America needs wars to fund their vast military complex and having exited from the Middle East and Asia they need to create other distractions or maybe even another civil war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
--> @ShilaJesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.Yes, you are right, I used the English translation.
I was right about the translation too!
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
--> @ShilaGenesis 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”You've argued that the Genesis story is literal, if that is the case, then please explain the literal physical existence of a "tree of knowledge"?
We all know about the medicinal characteristics found in trees. Chemical found in trees help restore memory, cure cancer, induce a feeling of Ecstasy or spiritual high. The closest we are coming to this tree of knowledge is Marijuana. Unfortunately God blocked access to both the tree of life and knowledge after he banished Adam and Eve from the garden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
--> @ElliottDid Jesus actually exist or is he a mythological figure.I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church
You have given your 2 beliefs of Jesus. Since I am new here I am assuming these are your first admissions after reading the case for the Historical Jesus that you now believe.
According to your post #5:
1. I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles.
2. I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical fact.
You have made such an admission here, “ I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.”
Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
--> @StephenI believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.I agree, that’s certainly possible. I personally think there is a real person behind the story but ignoring the miracles I wonder how much of the end result was distorted through oral tradition and the imagination of the gospel writers.There is one thing that makes me think Jesus was a real person and that is his name. A lot of work in the creation of the New Testament involved the fulfilling of Old Testament messianic prophecies. This is one of them and I would think an important one.Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”This to me this suggests Jesus existed as a real person and was reasonably well known by the name Jesus, so they were not able to change it to Immanuel.
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical fact.
You have made such an admission here, “ that makes me think Jesus was a real person”. The case for the Historical Jesus has made you think and you went further, you now “think Jesus was a real person” .
Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Did Jesus actually exist or is he a mythological figure. Outside of the gospels there is no contemporary evidence and even the gospels were written after the events portrayed and were probably derived from oral tradition.The thing is, it doesn’t matter. Jesus is a god or a god incarnate, he is not totally human because he has powers that make him superhuman and like all gods he exits through belief and belief is all that is necessary for him to exist, and the actual human Jesus or Joshua to give him his real name is unnecessary.Even if some ancient scrolls were discovered that proved Jesus and his life was simply a work of fiction, I don’t think that would influence Christian beliefs one iota.
Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.
When did Yeshua change to Jesus?
The first time that name was ever used was in June of 1632. Jesus, which is the name used by most English-speaking people today, is an English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation, of a Latin transliteration, of a Greek transliteration of an originally Hebrew name, that is simply Yeshua.
Ehrman, a former fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic atheist, has written numerous books challenging traditional views of the Bible himself. Did Jesus Exist?, however, contains scathing criticism of the "writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists". Ehrman says that they do not define what they mean by "myth" and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.He discusses leading contemporary mythicists by name and dismisses their arguments as "amateurish", "wrong-headed", and "outlandish".
The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116),
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. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.
There is plenty of evidence Jesus was a historical figure. Even the 2 major religions Islam and Christianity accept Jesus as a historical person. That is 4 billion followers of Islam and Christianity combined accept Jesus as a historical person that existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.None of which are eyewitness accounts. Although I have no actual reason to deny a man, believing himself to be rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem existed.
The Gospel authors recorded the accounts of eyewitnesses who followed Jesus everywhere in their Gospels and even referenced these eyewitnesses in their titles. Eg. Gospel of Matthew according to Matthew.
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.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.And as it is you that mentions historian Flavius Josephus, he relates to us a very interesting story that causes me to doubt the whole of the crucifixion story and its timing in particular. It may sound very familiar to many readers of the New Testament:And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered...'The Life' of Flavius Josephus.Two died where one recovered! An interesting coincidence when we read the account of and Joseph of Arimathea from the gospels:“And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus”. John 19:38-42.KJVThe similarities cannot be denied. Isn’t Josephus’ crucifixion story identical to what happened in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion where we are told that there was only one survivor of three and that survivor’s body was asked for by a man we know as a “secret” disciple of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea?Is it at all possible that historian Flavius Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea are one and the same person regardless of what we are supposed to know of these apparently two different people?? I suggest that you study and research the origins of the names of both historian Flavius Josephus' and Joseph of Arimathea, you may be surprised what you discover.
We are talking about the Historical Jesus. Historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life. Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian. His accounts covered the historical Jesus.
Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.But I have always found this particular recruitment story more than suspicious. Have you actually read the sequence of events. Well no you haven't because there is no sequence. We are simply asked to believe this in itself was a miracle of sorts. Tell me would you just drop everything leaving your home, employment or business, wife and children simply because a complete stranger, that you know nothing at all about, simply walked up to you and said " follow me" without a by you leave? It makes no sense at all on the face of it does it? But we are asked to suspend simple common sense and believe this is exactly what happened.
Did Paul and Peter start the church in Rome?
Consequently, churches composed of both Jews and Gentiles were formed at Rome. According to Irenaeus, a 2nd-century Church Father, the church at Rome was founded directly by the apostles Peter and Paul.
We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century.Ah yes, Eusebius again, putting words into the mouth of someone that lived hundreds of years before himself.
We are talking about history which is a study of past events. Past events place Jesus as a historical figure.
Did Jesus claim he was God?No. In fact it appears while everyone around him was speculating who he might be, Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject and repeatedly refers to himself as"the son of man" i.e very human. He didn't even say that he was the son of god, although, IF he was the rightful heir to the throne of David then he would have also inherited the title -son of god- as other Hebrew kings did before him.
The thread was to first establish the fact Jesus was a historical person , that he existed and left am impression behind.
Today 2 billion Christians believe Jesus is God. All the modern science and research has not diminished the Christian position.
[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.”This more than likely means that he and his god are in agreement. Jesus understood the scriptures by all accounts and hadn't come to change them, if the bible is to be believed.If this is not the case then it is a baffling statement that Jesus made here. Because he also says many things that contradict his own statement. Such as here>“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. “ (Matthew 24:36) , clearly showing the two to be separate entities and clearly talking about what he knows and what only his god knows.
Jesus did not want his disciples to get ahead of themselves and for good reasons. More was to come before that dreadful day. We saw the destruction of the Holy Temple and city Jerusalem in 70AD.
It was also time to spread his teachings to the world and not just the Jews to save the Gentiles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
-> @ShilaJesus, fictional, mythical or otherwise is undeniably a historically recorded character.Whether the accounts of his life and activities are vaguely true or not, is impossible to know.Though I would suggest that most interpretations are embellished and exaggerated, such that we can only regard the biblical tales as myth or fantasy.For instance, would Jesus have been his given name?
Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.
When did Yeshua change to Jesus?
The first time that name was ever used was in June of 1632. Jesus, which is the name used by most English-speaking people today, is an English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation, of a Latin transliteration, of a Greek transliteration of an originally Hebrew name, that is simply Yeshua.
Ehrman, a former fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic atheist, has written numerous books challenging traditional views of the Bible himself. Did Jesus Exist?, however, contains scathing criticism of the "writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists". Ehrman says that they do not define what they mean by "myth" and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.He discusses leading contemporary mythicists by name and dismisses their arguments as "amateurish", "wrong-headed", and "outlandish".
The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116),
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. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.
There is plenty of evidence Jesus was a historical figure. Even the 2 major religions Islam and Christianity accept Jesus as a historical person. That is 4 billion followers of Islam and Christianity combined accept Jesus as a historical person that existed.
Created:
--> @Tarikso, FUNCTIONALLY each person needs to figure out FOR THEMSELVES what they believe is "right" and what is "wrong" ?Yes, if what they believe aligns with God.K_Michael: In other words, I can believe whatever I want so long as God says it's right?That's the equivalent of letting a child pick out a candy at the store except they only get the candy bar if they pick the one you decided they should choose. Either the Bible (or whatever informs your flavor of religion) has clear instructions on how you should live your life and you don't get to decide for yourself, or the Bible isn't the word of God.
The Garden of Eden was a candy store. God even declared it so.
Genesis 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Created:
-->
@coal
--> @ShilaYour guess is as good as mine. I am amazed by his subsequent behaviour. He seems to have some issues to work out though.
We should all be concerned how we react to Russian refugees who still idolize Putin.
Created:
The Five Worst Sports Cities, According To Futures Betting Odds · 5. Chicago · 4. Seattle · 3. Minneapolis/St. Paul · 2. Washington, D.C. · 1. Detroit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if determinism holds then whether we blame or punish wrobg-doers is iteself pre-determined, as is the outcome of this debate. 'Que Sera Sera'.Sorry i'm not very motiated by the 'free will' topic anymore. I'm faking it!My primary aim is to expose the underlying mechanisms that inform "how we should act".It appears that most of the identifiable "winners" of recorded history were primarily motivated by unadulterated self-interest (charismatic sociopaths).The law in particular seems to be a thinly veiled cudgel used to intimidate and destroy the challengers of those privileged to wield it.When I was young I thought the law was an unfeeling machine that grinds up anyone who crosses its path regardless of individual talent, wealth, or power.Now I only wish that were true.Ironically, the concepts of "objectivity" and "freewill" make us complacent slaves.
Have you considered the alternatives to "objectivity" and "freewill" that makes us complacent slaves?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
“The text message suggests that Arizona GOP leaders had no intention of using donations to help pay for the audit effort, despite what it had been telling its supporters in fundraising pleas. In the end, the $6 million audit was bankrolled through a separate fundraising effort by election denier groups, along with $150,000 in initial taxpayer money”“Pitch in to Help Us Finish America’s Audit!” and “Help America’s Audit” were among the dozens of pitches from the party.“The pattern was evident around the country. In total, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol found that more than $250 million was raised off fraudulent claims that the election was stolen. Trump’s campaign continued to raise money for an “Election Defense Fund” that did not exist. Trump’s PAC has raised more than $100 million, much of it on claims the election was stolen, and he has largely hoarded the money while spending some on candidates and some on his own lawyers”
Americans have been lied to throughout their history. America was built on lies from stealing land from the Native Indians to Black Slavery. From all the wars against communism to wars on Muslims. So paying to continue the big lie is American Democracy. Americans have bought into the system. Trump was very much a part of this system and all the fraud cases against him needs to be defended and Americans know that very well.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
--> @TheMorningsStarI do agree that technology was already diminishing healthy social interaction from a psychological POV, but I feel as if the Covid lockdowns dialed it up to 11. Also, what are your thoughts on the possible long term effects to the immune system via the hygiene hypothesis + lockdowns and over-sanitization?I feel like you watched too much news.Anyway it’s reasonable to assume an overwhelming majority of parents were sane enough to allow their kids to take their masks off at home.the strict mask requirements only lasted for a couple of years. When it comes to mental and immune development, children below the age of 5 would be most effected I would say. TV and smart devices were probably helpful in this circumstance for young kids seeing faces. Though this all just common sense to me.
American children are used to seeing people in masks. In fact they were raised to accept people wearing masks as entertainment. It started with the cowboy bandits, then bank robbers and KKK.
American could understand why Trump refused to wear a mask during Covid pandemic. Trump did not want to look like all the other common criminals. He preferred to hide behind his lawyers.
Getting the entertainment value out of wearing masks will be the bigger challenge. Children know you can do a lot of naughty things if you wear a mask. Now we are forcing them to weak masks and therefore giving them permission to act like all the other mask wearing characters they saw on TV.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
--> @ShilaIt means you don’t know Asian children.I will neither confirm nor deny this. But what relevance does it have as it concerns the subject of this thread?Soon as you advised him, he got banned.Unless I advised him on his posts on the subject of pedophilia, then I don't see how I'm even remotely responsible for his getting banned. I don't know much on the circumstances that lead to his ban, so I won't state much on it.
You were communicating with him just before he got banned. Try to remember what you told him that altered his behaviour so radically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @ShilaNo one is white.White is just a discriminatory remark made by people who have darker skin
Are you then saying the White Supremacists movement is full of misguided delusional people? That white lives don’t matter because there are no whites. Should we recognized these people as Albinos?
Created:
-->
@coal
--> @Shilabest.korea is a weird
Wonder where he got the God complex? He started out praising communism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
--> @LemmingI understand it's a confusing question, and that is why I have brought it on here.I have a school assignment which is based around evaluating who was responsible for the Holocaust. I wanted to take a moral approach and analyse that area, and it lead me to that question.While I know it's confusing I have to tie it around responsibility as that is the assignment focus
It had to take both groups, the morally ambiguous and the intense fanatics to justify the extermination of 6 million Jews.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Biden has said many recorded racist comments.That’s a lie. He had gaffs but his statements were not meant to be prejudiced or hurtful or to advance white supremacy.Biden apologized for telling a radio host that black voters torn between voting for him and President Trump “ain’t black,” He was talking to Charlamagne Tha God, a host on “The Breakfast Club,” a nationally syndicated morning show popular with black millennials. It’s likely Republicans never even heard of this guy or black millennials for that matter.Some black people may like the Republican Party but the Party doesn’t like them. Just look at the makeup of the Republican Congress.
Biden worked for President Obama. He is aware of the high standards Blacks set for themselves and others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
--> @ShilaYou don’t seem to know Asian children.What does that matter?
It means you don’t know Asian children.
We get that from your advice to Best.Korea.You mean your erroneous inference?
Soon as you advised him, he got banned.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
-->@Shila@Stephen@TradesecretStephen,In my post #809 above, have you EVER seen such a Bible ignorant and stupid woman that Shila represents, other than Tradesecret? Watch Shila come up with a myriad of Satanic EXCUSES now to not bring forth her 2nd class woman Historical Jesus Thread! She will RUN and HIDE to prevent herself from myself and you, and the membership, in easily making Shila the continued pseudo-christian Bible fool regarding her proposed thread's topic!"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." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
You forget it was women that anointed Jesus.
Interesting Holy Bible Facts
Which Woman Anointed Our Lord Jesus Christ With Oil?
In the Holy Gospels, there are different accounts of women who anointed our Lord Jesus Christ with oil. The first one mentioned is in Luke 7:36-50. The second is mentioned in John 12:1-8. The third is mentioned in Mark 14:3-9 also recorded in Matthew 26:6-13.
+When we look closely into these three accounts, we find that they were actually three separate events that occurred on three separate days in three different places by three different women.
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ reveals Himself as our anointed King, Priest, and Prophet. He is God’s Holy and chosen Son, the Messiah. In fact, Messiah, which literally means “anointed one,” is derived from the Hebrew word for “anointed.” Christ (Gr. Christos) means “the anointed one.”
All this was possible because the women anointed Jesus thus fulfilling the prophesies.
Your scriptural ignorance is very telling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
-> @Shila@ Brother D. ThomasFor your information I was asked by Stephen to start my own thread on the Religion forum. I have been doing research on the historical Jesus and thought it would be a great start to build a case for the historical Jesus so Christians would cease doubting and atheist start believing.Indeed. I encouraged you to do so. And what's more, I am looking forward to it.
I started a thread to build the case for the historical Jesus. It is just the start.
Created:
Posted in:
1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?
The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116),
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. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.
2. Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?
There is plenty of evidence that the twelve disciples were real people. In fact, no one who knows the evidence can seriously entertain the thought that these men were not real people. We have evidence from both Christian and non-Christian sources that the apostles were real people (I am assuming that by the 12 disciples you mean the 12 apostles). I was watching a video one time by Bart Ehrman, who is an atheist, but also one of the top scholars about things related to the Bible. A fellow atheist who was not well informed tried to tell Ehrman that he did not believe that Paul existed. Ehrman rebuked the man for making atheism look foolish. No serious person could claim that Paul did not exist. It would be like claiming that Cicero did not exist. This is crazy thinking.
We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century. He tells about all twelve of the apostles, plus Paul, relating where each ministered and how they died. Eusebius quotes his sources, such as second century historian Papias and Irenaeus and other Christian writers. The reliability of Eusebius varies somewhat, but he was a careful scholar and he quoted his sources. Some of the things he tells us about what happened to the twelve may be inaccurate, but what cannot be wrong is that there were twelve apostles. There is no way someone like Eusebius could have gotten the number of apostles wrong. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, tells us that he learned under Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally. Is it possible that Irenaeus got this wrong? I do not think so. If we go back to such books as the Didache and the Letter of Clement to the Romans, both written around the turn of the first century, that there were twelve apostles was assumed. This had been the tradition of the Christian church from the beginning of its existence. Is there any possible motivation for the church to make up the existence of twelve apostles? I cannot think of any.
The Didache, a very early Christian catechism dates from the very late first century. When it was written, some who had known the apostles were still alive, although they would have been quite old. The Didache is also known as “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles.” The unknown writer of the Didache assumes that there were twelve apostles because it was common knowledge that there were twelve apostles. The people who knew Jesus personally would have known how many apostles there were. It is irrational to believe that there were not twelve apostles of Jesus because every account of Christianity is unanimous on this account, including even Josephus who was not a friend of Christianity.
Did Jesus claim he was God?
Many contemporary New Testament scholars do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth ever actually claimed to be God.
According to C.S.Lewis’s we have three choices.
1. Liar: Jesus knew he wasn’t God, but he said he was;
2. Lunatic: Jesus thought he was God, but he actually wasn’t;
3. Lord: Jesus was who he said he was—God come in the flesh.
Bart Ehrman. This is how he responds to C. S. Lewis’s argument:
Jesus probably never called himself God…. This means that he doesn’t have to be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He could be a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity.
There are two occasions on which Jesus is almost stoned to death because of who he claims to be:
The Jews said to him, “…Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?…Who do you claim to be?”…Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they took up stones to throw at him. (John 8:52, 53, 58-59)
[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” The Jews answered him, “We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:30-33)
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @ShilaTo debate publicly one needs to be knowledgeable, eloquent and have a certain amount of charisma.
How do I test for Charisma?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
--> @Best.KoreaCartoons are for children. Are you children?Everyone is someone's child. And while anime are cartoons, like any work of fiction, they spark the imagination; they spark interest; they spark emotional entry. Your rationale is flawed. If one were to watch a political show, which is for the most part "fiction," how would that speak to one's age, or as you implied, "maturity," as opposed to watching "Black Lagoon," for those of you who know is an anime with themes which I'm fairly confident most parents would not want their children watching?If you don't like anime/cartoons, then you don't like them. But don't fool yourself into thinking that it's because you're more "mature" than those who do. Your statement in and of itself is a testament to that.
You don’t seem to know Asian children. We get that from your advice to Best.Korea.
Created:
Posted in:
Too bad Trump wasn’t there to pardon him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
--> @ShilaWhen left to one's thoughts the mind opens. What will you see? The true form of what you really are, or the empty shell of what you want to be? Are you afraid? Do you fear Silence?
No mention of fear, isolation or silence in my profile.
Created: