- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Nov. 17 2007,17:20) Quote The gospels foretold that you, David, would do preaching work? What an astonishing prophecy! Typically non-believers make up to 25-30% of the population in Western countries. You can't be taking your evangelical obligations very seriously if you have only met a few of them!
MATTHEW 24:14
“And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”I didn't say that it fortold that I specifically would be doing it!
If 25-30% don't believe in God, it's not where I live. I've spoken to hundreds of people, and only a few have told me they were athiests. Perhaps the hundreds who simply said “I'm not interested” had most of the athiests in them.
Do you think the “End” will come as a result of your evangelism?Stuart
Quote (david @ Nov. 17 2007,17:29) As a result of? No.
So you think the End will come. If it's not you, what will cause that (presumably global) event?Stuart
Quote Hey and I bet that no one discusses Jesus on an adult swingers forum either. –tow
You figured it out. Congradulations. An adult swingers forum has little reason to disuss Jesus. You've actually shown me that you understand the concept.
Now, we apply that to the people you call “historians” of the first century and we find a very similar situation, with the exception of Josephus (who as it turns out, did mention him.)Quote Can you therefore show me where Gamaliel ever did anything that (1) drew multitudes from many cities (20 or more in some accounts)
(2) caused the whole land to go dark for 3 hours
(3) caused not one but 2 earthquakes (at death and when the stone was rolled away)
(4) caused dead people to raise and visit manyYou're right. Surely these things would have made it onto the news (much like Hannibal leading his elephants over the Alps), or on TV, or at the very least, the radio. (Maybe not the national channels, but the local ones)
Quote So you think the End will come. If it's not you, what will cause that (presumably global) event? Stuart
Killer robots.
Quote (david @ Nov. 17 2007,17:38) Quote So you think the End will come. If it's not you, what will cause that (presumably global) event? Stuart
Killer robots.
David Cute!!!!!!!Peace and Love Mrs.
Quote (david @ Nov. 17 2007,00:38) Quote Hey and I bet that no one discusses Jesus on an adult swingers forum either. –tow
You figured it out. Congradulations. An adult swingers forum has little reason to disuss Jesus. You've actually shown me that you understand the concept.
Now, we apply that to the people you call “historians” of the first century and we find a very similar situation, with the exception of Josephus (who as it turns out, did mention him.)Which turns out that the entries of Jesus by Josephus where spurious and not in the originals as far as the scholars can verify. Christians throughout the ages have gone to great lengths to perpetuate the big lie. Otherwise they would no longer be in power.
Actually, if you look at their past, the whole GT may be an allegory of the church fathers. They are the Pharisees in the Christian bible and Jesus is the reformer. In the end, Jesus is killed and the church fathers continue in their lie to gain more power. Someone else changed the words to “Jews” and now its not the church fathers who are hated but the Jewish nation. Pretty devious of them!
Quote Quote Can you therefore show me where Gamaliel ever did anything that (1) drew multitudes from many cities (20 or more in some accounts)
(2) caused the whole land to go dark for 3 hours
(3) caused not one but 2 earthquakes (at death and when the stone was rolled away)
(4) caused dead people to raise and visit manyYou're right. Surely these things would have made it onto the news (much like Hannibal leading his elephants over the Alps), or on TV, or at the very least, the radio. (Maybe not the national channels, but the local ones)
Glad you cut off the rest of the list. You got the idea.No, Jesus was as important to early historians as he is in an adult swingers forum. That is, not at all. He was a blip on the radar to them. The real Jesus will never be know but the Jesus of myth lives on.
Quote Which turns out that the entries of Jesus by Josephus where spurious and not in the originals as far as the scholars can verify.
–towLet's actually clarify your statement:
The majority opinion on Josephus is that the parts of the passage from book 18 of 'Jewish Antiquities' which are in bold below are the additions of a Christian scribe trying to make Jesus appear in a better light.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man ; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18, 3, 3These parts are considered by many to be added parts. But what of it? Still seems like the same guy to me, having “Christians” named “from him” having Pilate and the principle men putting him on a cross.
Besides that one, there is also this from Josephus:
Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.Again, it is the bold part that is questioned: “the so-called Christ.”
There is no textual evidence against this passage. It is found in every copy of the Antiquities we have, as does the other passage. Some will assert as a counter that there was still sufficient time for an interpolation to occur and not enough textual evidence to prove that it didn't, but this amounts to an admission that the textual data, as it stands, favors authenticity. Anything beyond that in these terms is speculation and question-begging!
Second, there is a specific use of non-Christian terminology: The designation of James as the “brother of Jesus” contrasts with Christian practice of referring to him as the “brother of the Lord” or “brother of the Savior.” (as in Gal. 1:19 in the NT and Eusebius in later history). The passage squares neither with New Testament nor with early patristic usage.We may note the emphasis of the passage. It is not on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest and the turbulence he caused. There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation.
Josephus' account of James being stoned is different from the account given by the church historian Hegesippus, who has James being thrown from the roof of the Temple. This would be an unlikely move for an interpolator.
Quote Actually, if you look at their past, the whole GT may be an allegory of the church fathers.
The snake was an allegory that God spoke to. The whole GT is an allegory. How do I know you are not an allegory?Quote Jesus was as important to early historians as he is in an adult swingers forum. That is, not at all. –towshab
So you're saying for some reason, Jesus wasn't “important” to the satirists, poets, novelists, cookbook writers (“historians”) of his time.
Wow. You finally get it. I knew there was hope for you.
The only guy that had any real reason to write about Jesus is spoken of above: Falvius Josephus….and he did.david
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2007,21:54) Quote Which turns out that the entries of Jesus by Josephus where spurious and not in the originals as far as the scholars can verify.
–towLet's actually clarify your statement:
The majority opinion on Josephus is that the parts of the passage from book 18 of 'Jewish Antiquities' which are in bold below are the additions of a Christian scribe trying to make Jesus appear in a better light.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man ; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18, 3, 3From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum
===========================================
The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was clearly familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, since he mentions the less significant reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist. Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ” [2] “he did not accept Jesus as Christ” [3], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Because of these arguments, some scholars believe that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not mention Jesus at this point at all.
=========================================According to that same wikipedia page, Justin Martyr also fails to mention that entry although he seemed to be familiar with Josephus' works.
Quote These parts are considered by many to be added parts. But what of it? Still seems like the same guy to me, having “Christians” named “from him” having Pilate and the principle men putting him on a cross. An acknowledgment of early Christians is acknowledgment of the pagan god-man Jesus found in the Christian bible? I think not. It could more easily be seen that this is the result of the ramblings of one Jew turned self-loather Saul of Tarsus.
Quote Besides that one, there is also this from Josephus:
Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.Again, it is the bold part that is questioned: “the so-called Christ.”
Again this does nothing to prove that the mythical Christian bible Jesus was real. It only states that James was the brother of a guy name Jesus. Why, it seems that Josephus thought more of James than he did Jesus!
Quote There is no textual evidence against this passage. It is found in every copy of the Antiquities we have, as does the other passage. Some will assert as a counter that there was still sufficient time for an interpolation to occur and not enough textual evidence to prove that it didn't, but this amounts to an admission that the textual data, as it stands, favors authenticity. Anything beyond that in these terms is speculation and question-begging! The 'supposed Christ'. So Josephus just lumps him in with all the other messiah wannabees of the first few hundred years of the common era. Wow, I'm convinced!
Quote Second, there is a specific use of non-Christian terminology: The designation of James as the “brother of Jesus” contrasts with Christian practice of referring to him as the “brother of the Lord” or “brother of the Savior.” (as in Gal. 1:19 in the NT and Eusebius in later history). The passage squares neither with New Testament nor with early patristic usage. And? I'm guessing this means something to the Christian who is teetering on the brink of atheism?
Quote We may note the emphasis of the passage. It is not on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest and the turbulence he caused. There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation. Now you are delving into speculation.
Quote Josephus' account of James being stoned is different from the account given by the church historian Hegesippus, who has James being thrown from the roof of the Temple. This would be an unlikely move for an interpolator. Maybe you need to read up on how 'stoning' was changed. 'Stoning' consisted of throwing someone from a building to the ground.
From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=128&letter=C
=======================================
Stoning (): With reference to two offenders subject to this penalty, the Pentateuch says, “Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people” (Deut. xiii. 10 [A. V. 9]), and again (ib. xvii. 7), “The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.” Rabbinic law follows this injunction literally, but confines its consummation within narrow limit
s. The convict having been placed on a platform twice his height, one of the witnesses throws him to the ground. If the concussion does not produce instant death, the second witness hurls a heavy stone at his chest; and only when this also proves insufficient to end his misery, the bystanders throw stones at the prostrate body until death ensues (Sanh. vi. 4; 45a et seq.; Sifra, Emor, xix.; Sifre, Num. 114; ib. Deut. 89, 90, 149, 151).
=======================================Quote Quote Actually, if you look at their past, the whole GT may be an allegory of the church fathers.
The snake was an allegory that God spoke to. The whole GT is an allegory. How do I know you are not an allegory?Cause my mirror says otherwise as does my paycheck and loved ones. However you may be just an allegory to me since I have never seen you.
Really that was a dumb statement. Are you really getting that desperate?
Quote Quote Jesus was as important to early historians as he is in an adult swingers forum. That is, not at all. –towshab
So you're saying for some reason, Jesus wasn't “important” to the satirists, poets, novelists, cookbook writers (“historians”) of his time.
Yes because he was just a failed Jewish rebel who hung on a cross like hundreds of others like him. Shekel a dozen.
Quote Wow. You finally get it. I knew there was hope for you.
The only guy that had any real reason to write about Jesus is spoken of above: Falvius Josephus….and he did.
As a matter of hearsay. Josephus wasn't even born until 37 CE. If I wrote about someone in passing that supposedly died years before I was even born what proof is that?ISAIAH 53:3
“He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness. And there was as if the concealing of one’s face from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account.”Tow, I wonder how this fits in with your thinking?
ISAIAH 53:3-9
“He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness. And there was as if the concealing of one’s face from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account. Truly our sicknesses were what he himself carried; and as for our pains, he bore them. But we ourselves accounted him as plagued, stricken by God and afflicted. But he was being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors. The chastisement meant for our peace was upon him, and because of his wounds there has been a healing for us. Like sheep we have all of us wandered about; it was each one to his own way that we have turned; and Jehovah himself has caused the error of us all to meet up with that one. He was hard pressed, and he was letting himself be afflicted; yet he would not open his mouth. He was being brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering; and like a ewe that before her shearers has become mute, he also would not open his mouth. Because of restraint and of judgment he was taken away; and who will concern himself even with [the details of] his generation? For he was severed from the land of the living ones. Because of the transgression of my people he had the stroke. And he will make his burial place even with the wicked ones, and with the rich class in his death, despite the fact that he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth.”Actually, any of it. What do you make of this?
ISAIAH 53:12
“For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.”Is this talking about the “messiah” pouring out his soul to the very death and carrying the sin of other people?
And if not, who is it talking about and how did they carry others sins?Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2007,16:44) ISAIAH 53:3
“He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness. And there was as if the concealing of one’s face from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account.”Tow, I wonder how this fits in with your thinking?
I already showed you in another post. Jews have been one of the most hated people in world history. But Jesus was said to have attracted many people. How then would this fit Jesus? If thousands came to hear him he certainly was not avoided.Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2007,16:46) ISAIAH 53:3-9
“He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness. And there was as if the concealing of one’s face from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account.Who despised him? Seems over 2 billion people believe in him.
Quote Truly our sicknesses were what he himself carried; When did Jesus 'carry' a sickness? He supposedly cured sickness but never carried any.
Quote and as for our pains, he bore them. When?
Quote But we ourselves accounted him as plagued, stricken by God and afflicted. Huh? Since when has anyone accounted Jesus as plagued?
Quote But he was being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors. Crushed? How so? Was he pushed into a compactor?
Quote The chastisement meant for our peace was upon him, and because of his wounds there has been a healing for us. Like sheep we have all of us wandered about; it was each one to his own way that we have turned; and Jehovah himself has caused the error of us all to meet up with that one. He was hard pressed, and he was letting himself be afflicted; yet he would not open his mouth. He most certainly opened his mouth. Go back and read the accounts of his trial.
Quote He was being brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering; and like a ewe that before her shearers has become mute, he also would not open his mouth. See above.
Quote Because of restraint and of judgment he was taken away; and who will concern himself even with [the details of] his generation? For he was severed from the land of the living ones. Truly? Part of the Christian bible says Jesus raised himself. How can someone raise themself if they are truly dead? And if he was not truly dead how worthless is the supposed sacrifice?
Quote Because of the transgression of my people he had the stroke. Huh? The NWT has got to be the worst translation out there. Well next to the NIV. Did Jesus have a stroke?
Quote And he will make his burial place even with the wicked ones, He was buried in an unused tomb so how could he be be buried with wicked people?
Quote and with the rich class in his death, despite the fact that he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth.” No violence? He sure spoke of it.
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.Quote Actually, any of it. What do you make of this?
See above
.Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2007,16:49) ISAIAH 53:12
“For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.”Is this talking about the “messiah” pouring out his soul to the very death and carrying the sin of other people?
And if not, who is it talking about and how did they carry others sins?
All of the suffering servant passages in Isaiah are about Israel. Is 53 is not a messianic passage.Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 22 2007,15:38) Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2007,16:44) ISAIAH 53:3
“He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness. And there was as if the concealing of one’s face from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account.”Tow, I wonder how this fits in with your thinking?
I already showed you in another post. Jews have been one of the most hated people in world history. But Jesus was said to have attracted many people. How then would this fit Jesus? If thousands came to hear him he certainly was not avoided.
Was Jesus Christ really despised and avoided by men? Indeed, he was! Self-righteous religious leaders and their followers viewed him as the vilest of humans. They called him a friend of tax collectors and harlots. (Luke 7:34, 37-39) They spit in his face. They hit him with their fists and reviled him. They sneered and jeered at him. (Matthew 26:67) Influenced by these enemies of truth, Jesus’ “own people did not take him in.”—John 1:10, 11.You'll notice it doesn't say everyone despised him. It does show that remarkably, the Messiah, the one who would do so much was despised by the very people who should have recognized him, the ones who were supposed to know the law.
Jesus was despised by some simply because he did not have the status or prominence of the leaders of his day.
People in Jesus’ hometown refused to acknowledge that this “carpenter’s son” manifested such wisdom and performed such powerful works.
May we not make the same mistake.
Yes, many did accept him. Most, did not. Most rejected him. Remember that whole killing him thing? So you can't say he wasn't hated by many. Yes, some did put faith in him. The majority did not.
Most, as this prophetic scripture says, “held him of no account.”And this, is just as you, tow, have repeatedly said. You've repeatedly said that those “historians” didn't write about him because he wasn't worth writing about, that he wasn't viewed as noteworthy. Well, it is just as fortold!
You try to make it seem as though everyone loved him. Yet odd that they put him to death then, isn't it?
This scripture is undeniably true of Jesus.
So far, therefore, we have one scripture that matches him perfectly. Its funny how even you, without trying to, have made a case for him.
david
Quote Who despised him? Seems over 2 billion people believe in him. Silly rabbit. Many on here despise you. But does that not mean many more somewhere else do not love you?
You are very illogical. There is no denying that ““He was despised.” And there is no denying that many loved him.
Odd, for someone who was the messiah, don't you think. Yet, remarkably true.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
