quote:

Originally posted by AKinNC:
What changes do you think he would want made? Do you think he would be satisfied with the product as it stands now?

Thoughts?

We know that the Bible was composed many years after the death of the historical Jesus by a collaboration of people (none of whom where alive during the time of Jesus). What do you think Jesus would think of what is essentially a story about him?

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by AKinNC:
What changes do you think he would want made? Do you think he would be satisfied with the product as it stands now?

Thoughts?

We know that the Bible was composed many years after the death of the historical Jesus by a collaboration of people (none of whom where alive during the time of Jesus). What do you think Jesus would think of what is essentially a story about him?

Matthew, Mark, John, I II III John and Revelations were written by men who knew Him personally. All the rest of the New Testament was written by men who knew them personally.

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
QUERY;

Everyone of the disciples, save one, was killed for thier belief on Jesus as Massiah,Annointed of God as the living aspect of God that was, and is, FULLY HUMAN, or in simpler terms....The Son of God.

Would they have knowingly died, in ways that are horrible to contemplate, after being told they would, and then witnessed for almost forty years, for what they KNEW TO BE A LIE??!!??

Now give this a few minutes of consideration. Most in the modern world, we enlightened souls, won't cross the street to pour water on somebody who's on fire, to put them out!!

It is demonstrably provable, that people, by and large, are no different today than they were then, correct??

How would all these men, NOT JUST THE TWELVE But all the many who knew and withessed, Jesus's life, ministry, miracles and death, and RESURRECTION, All died KNOWINGLY for a LIE!!!??

Your answer ,please.

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
How would all these men, NOT JUST THE TWELVE But all the many who knew and withessed, Jesus's life, ministry, miracles and death, and RESURRECTION, All died KNOWINGLY for a LIE!!!??

Your answer ,please.

T

quote:

Would they have knowingly died, in ways that are horrible to contemplate, after being told they would, and then witnessed for almost forty years, for what they KNEW TO BE A LIE??!!??

quote:

Originally posted by AKinNC:
What changes do you think he would want made? Do you think he would be satisfied with the product as it stands now?

Thoughts?

We know that the Bible was composed many years after the death of the historical Jesus by a collaboration of people (none of whom where alive during the time of Jesus). What do you think Jesus would think of what is essentially a story about him?

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
I can not recreate reality for you, only politicians can do that, they and history teachers of the current brand.

I asked a simple question or rather a series of them all linked to one thing you all have complicated it by not answering the question but by posing one of your own. Common fare in this day and age.

So a simple lesson in logic is in order.
POSIT; The questions asked, can they be answered in the framework posited in which they were asked?
ANSWER TO POSIT ONLY; YES.

Would those men and women who knew Jesus the man, who witnessed his ministry, miracles of healing, death on the cross, resurrection, visiting with the disciples on more than one occasion, experiencing Pentacost as Jesus told them they would and being enlightened as He said they would then lay down their lives if this was all a lie as so many today insist it was?

ANSWER in logic only; no they would not they ALL were tortured first THEN killed. Logic states that some or ALL will eventually break under such conditions none did!!
POSIT; There fore, what they witnessed and bore testimony to, was true. There is no other logical conclusion.

Now if you want to refute all the facts of their testimony, all the things we know to be a witness, then be my guest. There is no logical reason for my doing so. You are the ones with the need to disprove it, to ensure your world view of self suffiency remains intact. Is this not correct?

If you are so all fired self sufficient, why have most of you just instituted the mechanism for the beginning of a nanny state, to provide you with the things you can't seem to provide yourselves. But expect others to provide them for you. I thought you were self sufficient??!!??

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
I can not recreate reality for you, only politicians can do that, they and history teachers of the current brand.

I asked a simple question or rather a series of them all linked to one thing you all have complicated it by not answering the question but by posing one of your own. Common fare in this day and age.

So a simple lesson in logic is in order.
POSIT; The questions asked, can they be answered in the framework posited in which they were asked?
ANSWER TO POSIT ONLY; YES.

Would those men and women who knew Jesus the man, who witnessed his ministry, miracles of healing, death on the cross, resurrection, visiting with the disciples on more than one occasion, experiencing Pentacost as Jesus told them they would and being enlightened as He said they would then lay down their lives if this was all a lie as so many today insist it was?

ANSWER in logic only; no they would not they ALL were tortured first THEN killed. Logic states that some or ALL will eventually break under such conditions none did!!
POSIT; There fore, what they witnessed and bore testimony to, was true. There is no other logical conclusion.

Now if you want to refute all the facts of their testimony, all the things we know to be a witness, then be my guest. There is no logical reason for my doing so. You are the ones with the need to disprove it, to ensure your world view of self suffiency remains intact. Is this not correct?

If you are so all fired self sufficient, why have most of you just instituted the mechanism for the beginning of a nanny state, to provide you with the things you can't seem to provide yourselves. But expect others to provide them for you. I thought you were self sufficient??!!??

T

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
I can not recreate reality for you, only politicians can do that, they and history teachers of the current brand.

I asked a simple question or rather a series of them all linked to one thing you all have complicated it by not answering the question but by posing one of your own. Common fare in this day and age.

So a simple lesson in logic is in order.
POSIT; The questions asked, can they be answered in the framework posited in which they were asked?
ANSWER TO POSIT ONLY; YES.

Would those men and women who knew Jesus the man, who witnessed his ministry, miracles of healing, death on the cross, resurrection, visiting with the disciples on more than one occasion, experiencing Pentacost as Jesus told them they would and being enlightened as He said they would then lay down their lives if this was all a lie as so many today insist it was?

ANSWER in logic only; no they would not they ALL were tortured first THEN killed. Logic states that some or ALL will eventually break under such conditions none did!!
POSIT; There fore, what they witnessed and bore testimony to, was true. There is no other logical conclusion.

Now if you want to refute all the facts of their testimony, all the things we know to be a witness, then be my guest. There is no logical reason for my doing so. You are the ones with the need to disprove it, to ensure your world view of self suffiency remains intact. Is this not correct?

If you are so all fired self sufficient, why have most of you just instituted the mechanism for the beginning of a nanny state, to provide you with the things you can't seem to provide yourselves. But expect others to provide them for you. I thought you were self sufficient??!!??

T

If you want to use faulty logic try Zeno's paradox.

If the framework of my rebuttal confused you by putting a question mark at the end, try this. Religious leaders put their own spin on the message of their deity/prophet. Among the earliest Christian examples of this was the elimination of circumcision as a requirement for conversion. This comittment was only lifted after Jesus was safely dead.

quote:

Originally posted by all4truth:

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
I can not recreate reality for you, only politicians can do that, they and history teachers of the current brand.

I asked a simple question or rather a series of them all linked to one thing you all have complicated it by not answering the question but by posing one of your own. Common fare in this day and age.

So a simple lesson in logic is in order.
POSIT; The questions asked, can they be answered in the framework posited in which they were asked?
ANSWER TO POSIT ONLY; YES.

Would those men and women who knew Jesus the man, who witnessed his ministry, miracles of healing, death on the cross, resurrection, visiting with the disciples on more than one occasion, experiencing Pentacost as Jesus told them they would and being enlightened as He said they would then lay down their lives if this was all a lie as so many today insist it was?

ANSWER in logic only; no they would not they ALL were tortured first THEN killed. Logic states that some or ALL will eventually break under such conditions none did!!
POSIT; There fore, what they witnessed and bore testimony to, was true. There is no other logical conclusion.

Now if you want to refute all the facts of their testimony, all the things we know to be a witness, then be my guest. There is no logical reason for my doing so. You are the ones with the need to disprove it, to ensure your world view of self suffiency remains intact. Is this not correct?

If you are so all fired self sufficient, why have most of you just instituted the mechanism for the beginning of a nanny state, to provide you with the things you can't seem to provide yourselves. But expect others to provide them for you. I thought you were self sufficient??!!??

T

If you want to use faulty logic try Zeno's paradox.

If the framework of my rebuttal confused you by putting a question mark at the end, try this. Religious leaders put their own spin on the message of their deity/prophet. Among the earliest Christian examples of this was the elimination of circumcision as a requirement for conversion. This comittment was only lifted after Jesus was safely dead.

I will speak here of something that I do know and something that I do not know.

Jesus was a descendant of Abraham. As such he was under the law regarding his circumcision (as are Jews today). I believe Paul was writing to Gentiles and was discussing the requirements that these NEW followers were unnder. If I remember correctly, Paul even supported the circumcision of a half Jewish helper who was working with the Jews of his day. Since Paul left off "preaching" to Jews and was sent to the Gentiles, your statement is logically and factually incorrect in context.

I will await a different suggestion as to what was changed in the messages "after Jesus" was safely dead as you contend.

BTW, for believing Christians, Jesus has risen and is not dead. So it would be unwise to change the teachings of one's Lord who is STILL ALIVE and now has been given authority over Heaven and Earth.

LJ

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
After pauls first missionary journey, there was contention in the temple over the dietary restrictions and circumcision.
Paul confronted Peter about his hypocrisy in RE eating with gentiles, after he had his vision of the descending foods and when he ate with the Jews. If there were Jews around, he was very careful to adhere to the restrictions. If there were not, he ate what he pleased. Both men Peter and Paul approached James as the leader of the Jerusalem congregation and at that time the leader of the church. The three of them spent about three months with the others of the brethren discussing and debating over these items.

It was decided due to the theories of Grace and the theories of The Law that for gentiles to join the brotherhood they did not have to undergo circumcision and the dietary restrictions were confined to not eating food contaminated with blood or meat that had been sacrificed to idols and the jews could still adhere to the laws.

A time progressed the offer of grace by God supplanted the law as the law could NOT salvage a man but justification by faith, sanctification by
Grace and moving toward Christian perfection would assure salvation. All these things are written of by Peter, Paul and James, in great detail.

All of this occured within four years of Jesus' death and ascension.

L.J.'s disposition is correct, the laws were for Jews, not gentiles, therfore Jesus' conversion of Paul and Pauls visions, instruction by Ananias, and the rest of the brethren and his completion of his first pilgrimage and subsequent study, with James, Peter and the rest of the church established the concepts.

This concept of remaining within the confines of your own church and not chastising others of different churches is sadly lacking in the world today and is one of the most destructive elements of Christianity in the modern world.

Also one other thing to be aware of Jesus' admonition of render unto Ceasar those things which are Ceasars and render unto God those things which are God's was a very serious consideration in the very early formative days of the church. politics did not enter into their considerations. Jesus was killed because of politics and the disciples were very aware of that, much more so than are we today.

The fact that they worshipped in the Temple is astonishing to a great degree when you think about it and it was not long before they were removed beginning with the murder and Martyrdom of St. Stephan, the first Christian Martyr.

Also you your question about them left one thing out as most usually do.

These men and women saw WITH THEIR OWN EYES what Jesus did!! Nobody told them about it nobody put a spin on it they COULDN'T HAVE, these people SAW IT!! So your off hand dismissal does not hold water these people saw it. Now you don't have to believe it, that is your right. But, this should make it somewhat easier to understand why some do.

Answer enough??

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
I will speak...slowly...so ....you ....can...understand.....more.....readliy..........

THE....HEBRAIC......LAWS.....DID....NOT.....AND....DO.....NOT.......APPLY.....
TO.....THE......GENTILES.......THEY....NEVER......DID.......THEN......OR.....NOW........
THE......TEMPLE......CONVERTED.......JEWS......CHOSE......TO....CLING.....TO....THE
....LAWS.....OUT....OF......TRADITION......POLITICS.......HAD......NOTHING.....TO.....
DO.....WITH.....IT.....!!!!.......IS......THIS....CLEAR.....TO ....YOU....NOW.....?

GOD!!! I hope so, typing like that is a pain in the AZZ.........

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
Let's be a little more accurate here.

The epistles of James, they were written by the Brother of Jesus.

The epistles of Peter, they were written by Peter before he was killed.

The epistles of John written By John disciple of Jesus.

Acts, written in large part by Luke,disciple of Jesus and John Mark, disciple of Jesus.

Jude, written by the other, Brother of Jesus.

All the epistles of Paul written by the most prolific author of the entire Bible, formerly Saul of Tarsus, converted on the road to Damascus, examined by Baptised and taught by Ananias of Damascus, he then journeyed to Jerusalem and was examined by the disciples and sanctified, in His name, with laying on of hands, when after prayer and discernment, they determined him to be filled with the marks of the spirit.

In short EVERY THING in the New Testament was written by men who knew Jesus personally save one...Paul. You can be assured he was thoroughly examined for his fruits and the blessings of ministry, by those men.

All of this "Mattress filler" that has, and is being spewed out now, and through the last two hundred years is wrong, plain and simple, wrong!

Do any of you really think, that the original writers of these passages would have done as they are accused of, when there was nothing to gain at the time but death, at the hands of almost all around them? And, later when these tracts were compiled by scribes, monks and many other pious men and women, that they would have changed a thing?

Obviouly some do, but to them I say, it is NOT for us the faithful to prove.

It is for you to prove to the faithful, that they are untrue.

As early as 90 A.D. these things were being discussed. WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED if these treatises DID NOT EXIST???

The convocation of Presbyters in 165 A.D.?? WHAT WERE THEY TALKING ABOUT, IF THESE THINGS DID NOT EXIST!!??

I have raised this question several times, NO-ONE has EVER answered me, no -one of UN-belief, or for that matter, any-one of faith either...WHY??

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
I will speak...slowly...so ....you ....can...understand.....more.....readliy..........

THE....HEBRAIC......LAWS.....DID....NOT.....AND....DO.....NOT.......APPLY.....TO.....THE......GENTILES.......THEY....NEVER......DID.......THEN......OR.....NOW........

THE......TEMPLE......CONVERTED.......JEWS......CHOSE......TO....CLING.....TO....THE....LAWS.....OUT....OF......TRADITION......POLITICS.......HAD......NOTHING.....TO.....DO.....WITH.....IT.....!!!!.......IS......THIS....CLEAR.....TO ....YOU....NOW.....?


GOD!!! I hope so, typing like that is a pain in the AZZ.........

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:
Here's something for those of you who are questioning the validity of the New Testament scriptures to consider:

Those were nearly all written as letters, not books, and nobody at the time had any idea they would later be collected into a single volume. They were letters written to individuals or congregations and carried either by the Roman postal service, such as it was, or by messenger.

Since there was no radio, newspapers or TV back then, letters and messengers were the means of receiving news. Consequently, those letters were typically read to congregations or family and often passed along to other groups or individuals. They became, in effect, circulars and pamphlets which sometimes reached places far distant from where they were intended.

So, the authors knew a couple of things before they wrote them:

1. That they would recieve wide distribution, so they were never meant to be private communications.

2. Because of that, they also knew that whatever they wrote, particularly in regards to the the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, would probably be heard by someone who had witnessed some or all of it.

There were literally thousands upon thousands of people, from all over the Empire, who saw and heard Jesus and thousands who were there as witnesses when he died and hundreds more who saw him alive after they'd seen him die on the cross.

Consequently, if any of those missives had contained any untruths, it would have been immediately pointed out by those in the crowd who saw it with their own eyes and would have promptly been thrown into the trash.

But, that didn't happen and the letters were transcribed, usually by paid, professional scribes, and sent on to other congregations.

What happened to the original letters is mostly unknown, but enough copies survived, often with margin notes testifying to their exactness, that when what we call The Bible was put together, those who did it had no doubts about their authenticity or truthfulness. Any they DID doubt, were either not put in at all or collected into files which might be labeled "unsure." Those would include the Aprocrypha.

quote:

The exact same claims are made to validate the Koran.

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:


The exact same claims are made to validate the Koran.

quote:

Originally posted by sweetsuds:
The accuracy of the Gospels aside, it's often odd to read another's account of your actions. I've read news stories and accounts in two books about my troublemaking, and it's always surprised me to note what others focus in on. Perhaps Jesus would be surprised at what got emphasized and what got glossed over, and wonder why in the world the gospel authors thought certain aspects were important, when they were merely happenstance.
Should we instead be wondering where we stand in relation to Scripture? How much of the texts and traditions we hold dear gets reflected in our own words and deeds? We can quote sacred texts, but what do our actions say?

quote:

Originally posted by AKinNC:
What changes do you think he would want made? Do you think he would be satisfied with the product as it stands now? The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and He will show them His covenant.

Thoughts?John 3:11 'In all truth I tell you, we speak only about what we know and witness only to what we have seen and yet you people reject our evidence. 12 If you do not believe me when I speak to you about earthly things, how will you believe me when I speak to you about heavenly things?
13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man;
14 as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up
15 so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.


We know that the Bible was composed many years after the death of the historical Jesus by a collaboration of people (none of whom where alive during the time of Jesus). What do you think Jesus would think of what is essentially a story about him?...and us...through Him, with Him, in Him...take up your cross and follow Him.