Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus Christ changed the world he lived in.
It is not unusual to see another with the same first name
speak of the coming fall of Jesusalem over 30 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
Yet another Jesus was a temple priest.
The majority of Judeans knew something bad was going to happen
by the time the 60s came.
Nothing to see here, folks. Just another ridiculous topic by a mudslinger.
We disagree a lot, but this also what I tend to think. There were many people called Jesus and I doubt that the Gospel Jesus and Jesus ben Ananias are at all connected.
@thrillobyte: I certainly don't think that there is any way to know the familial connections of many of the obscure figures from 1st century Palestine. Just happened to notice the Ananias name pop up again when I was reading through Paul's letters:-) You have sparked quite the discussion on this board.
I listened to an audio version of Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" from the Great Courses, but I don't think that it was the same book that was referenced above as no mention of our this topic came up. It was a series of lectures. However, it was a fascinating read (or listen rather). He points out some very interesting verses that I had not really considered at length in my readings of the NT.
For the record, I do not doubt for a moment that Jesus existed and ministered in the early part of the 1st century. What I do doubt is that he walked on water, controlled the weather, and physically healed so many ill people (psychological therapy is a different matter). I do 100% believe that he was crucified by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate as dates for this reconcile very well in virtually all sources. What I do not believe is that he came back to life. First, as is often pointed out, and in my opinion has never been satisfactorily explained, each Gospel gives differing details of who was present at Jesus' tomb and what they saw. Considering that this was the seminal event in the history of Christianity, the inconsistencies take on a high level of importance. Secondly, and more importantly, the odds of the Romans allowing a crucified criminal to be taken down and buried in a marked, sealed tomb are virtually zero given the policies of the Romans in such cases as recorded by history.
There must have been two Jesus in the Jewish Antiquities from Josephus , as in 18.3.3&63 says from Josephus .................``About this time there lived Jesus , a wise man , if indeed one ought to call him a man ..............For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. . ....He won over many Jews and many Greeks ............He was the Messiah .............And when upon the accusation of the principal men among us , Pilate had condemned him to the cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease...He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life , for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him ...........and the tribe of the Christians , so called after him still to this day not disappeared ...``........See this the rare history of Jesus from the first century historian Josephus
That is an interpolation...Where in his earthly ministry did he win over the Greeks?...His sole mission was to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel...It was after his ascension, when G-d let Peter know through a vision that the Gospel was now open to the Gentiles...
I suggest that Mark was in fact familiar with Jesus personally. Further, that he was the son of Mary of Jerusalem, the woman who owned the house where the Last Supper occurred, that he was a long time friend and companion to Peter, and so wrote based upon first hand experience.
The Gospels were written as the followers of Jesus came to realize that the world was not going to end, that those who knew Jesus personally were dying off, and that the evangelists wanted to record and document Jesus' life and mission while there were still living witnesses.
One important piece of information for anyone who is interested is that in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes Luke 10:7.
1 Tim. 5:18For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wage.”
Luke 10:7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wage. Do not keep moving from house to house.
1 Tim. 5:18; kai Axios ho ergatés tou misthou autou - and worthy [is] the workman of the wage of him.
Luke 10:7 Axios gar ho ergatés tou misthou autou - for worthy [is] the workman of the wage of him.
Paul writes, 'the Scripture says' and then references Luke 10:7 where the phrase is found. Since 1 Timothy was probably written approximately A.D. 63-66, that means that the Gospel of Luke had to have been written before that.
Of course the skeptic and the liberal will pipe up and say that the authorship of 1 Timothy is disputed, but for the believer who recognizes the inerrancy of the Bible, there is no question that Paul is the author because it says that it is. Luke of course was a close associate of Paul.
One important piece of information for anyone who is interested is that in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes Luke 10:7.
1 Tim. 5:18For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wage.”
Luke 10:7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wage. Do not keep moving from house to house.
1 Tim. 5:18; kai Axios ho ergatés tou misthou autou - and worthy [is] the workman of the wage of him.
Luke 10:7 Axios gar ho ergatés tou misthou autou - for worthy [is] the workman of the wage of him.
Paul writes, 'the Scripture says' and then references Luke 10:7 where the phrase is found. Since 1 Timothy was probably written approximately A.D. 63-66, that means that the Gospel of Luke had to have been written before that.
Of course the skeptic and the liberal will pipe up and say that the authorship of 1 Timothy is disputed, but for the believer who recognizes the inerrancy of the Bible, there is no question that Paul is the author because it says that it is. Luke of course was a close associate of Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Both of them quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 ...
While the first part of 1 Tim. 5:18 - 'For the Scripture says,''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing'' quotes Deut. 25:4 - ''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.,'' the second part of 1 Tim. 5:18 - 'and ''The laborer is worthy of his wages., '' does not quote Deut. 25:4.Deut. 25:4 does not contain the phrase ''The laborer is worthy of his wages.'' While passages such as Leviticus 19:13 and Deut. 24:15 contain references to a hired man's wages, the wording of 1 Tim. 5:18 is that of Luke 10:7.
Since the wording of 1 Tim. 5:18 is that of Luke 10:7, and since 1 Tim. 5:18 says, ''For the Scripture says,'' with reference to the phrase ''The laborer is worthy of his wages,'' this would seem to indicate that Paul was quoting Luke.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-07-2015 at 09:33 AM..
Nobody ever asks logical questions like, "If the apostles were truly out obeying Jesus' command to make disciples of ALL nations and wandering throughout the world, then how is it that copies of their gospels don't surface in countries like India, Germany, Sweden, Africa, and China. Such routes to these countries were known in the time of Christ, yet the only copies ever found were almost exclusively in Greek (a few in Latin), discovered within the Roman empire, and the apostles never had the education to know how to write Greek nor, with their traveling and preaching duties, did they have time to learn it. Moreover, if the Holy Spirit were dictating to them what to write surely the Holy Spirit had the power to dictate these gospels in Swedish, Russian, German and Chinese, yet no such copies of manuscripts in these languages have ever been found---against roughly 56,000 copies in Greek that have survived. Why is that?
While the first part of 1 Tim. 5:18 - 'For the Scripture says,''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing'' quotes Deut. 25:4 - ''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.,'' the second part of 1 Tim. 5:18 - 'and ''The laborer is worthy of his wages., '' does not quote Deut. 25:4.Deut. 25:4 does not contain the phrase ''The laborer is worthy of his wages.'' While passages such as Leviticus 19:13 and Deut. 24:15 contain references to a hired man's wages, the wording of 1 Tim. 5:18 is that of Luke 10:7.
Since the wording of 1 Tim. 5:18 is that of Luke 10:7, and since 1 Tim. 5:18 says, ''For the Scripture says,'' with reference to the phrase ''The laborer is worthy of his wages,'' this would seem to indicate that Paul was quoting Luke.
No...Why wouldn''t you muzzle the ox?...The second part is also from the Torah....
Last edited by Richard1965; 09-08-2015 at 10:41 AM..
One important piece of information for anyone who is interested is that in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes Luke 10:7.
1 Tim. 5:18For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wage.”
Luke 10:7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wage. Do not keep moving from house to house.
1 Tim. 5:18; kai Axios ho ergatés tou misthou autou - and worthy [is] the workman of the wage of him.
Luke 10:7 Axios gar ho ergatés tou misthou autou - for worthy [is] the workman of the wage of him.
Paul writes, 'the Scripture says' and then references Luke 10:7 where the phrase is found. Since 1 Timothy was probably written approximately A.D. 63-66, that means that the Gospel of Luke had to have been written before that.
Of course the skeptic and the liberal will pipe up and say that the authorship of 1 Timothy is disputed, but for the believer who recognizes the inerrancy of the Bible, there is no question that Paul is the author because it says that it is. Luke of course was a close associate of Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Both of them quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
While the first part of 1 Tim. 5:18 - 'For the Scripture says,''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing'' quotes Deut. 25:4 - ''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.,'' the second part of 1 Tim. 5:18 - 'and ''The laborer is worthy of his wages., '' does not quote Deut. 25:4.Deut. 25:4 does not contain the phrase ''The laborer is worthy of his wages.'' While passages such as Leviticus 19:13 and Deut. 24:15 contain references to a hired man's wages, the wording of 1 Tim. 5:18 is that of Luke 10:7.
Since the wording of 1 Tim. 5:18 is that of Luke 10:7, and since 1 Tim. 5:18 says, ''For the Scripture says,'' with reference to the phrase ''The laborer is worthy of his wages,'' this would seem to indicate that Paul was quoting Luke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
No...Why wouldn''t you muzzle the ox?...The second part is also from the Torah....
Again, contrary to your claim, they do not both quote Deut. 25:4. Only the first part of 1 Tim. 5:18 does. The second part of 1 Tim. 5:18 which is ''The laborer is worthy of his wages'' is not part of Deut. 25:4.
And Luke 10:7 does not contain the phrase ''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing'' and so does not quote Deut. 25:4 at all.
Deut.25:4 says only, - "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.''
@thrillobyte: I certainly don't think that there is any way to know the familial connections of many of the obscure figures from 1st century Palestine. Just happened to notice the Ananias name pop up again when I was reading through Paul's letters:-) You have sparked quite the discussion on this board.
I listened to an audio version of Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" from the Great Courses, but I don't think that it was the same book that was referenced above as no mention of our this topic came up. It was a series of lectures. However, it was a fascinating read (or listen rather). He points out some very interesting verses that I had not really considered at length in my readings of the NT.
For the record, I do not doubt for a moment that Jesus existed and ministered in the early part of the 1st century. What I do doubt is that he walked on water, controlled the weather, and physically healed so many ill people (psychological therapy is a different matter). I do 100% believe that he was crucified by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate as dates for this reconcile very well in virtually all sources. What I do not believe is that he came back to life. First, as is often pointed out, and in my opinion has never been satisfactorily explained, each Gospel gives differing details of who was present at Jesus' tomb and what they saw. Considering that this was the seminal event in the history of Christianity, the inconsistencies take on a high level of importance. Secondly, and more importantly, the odds of the Romans allowing a crucified criminal to be taken down and buried in a marked, sealed tomb are virtually zero given the policies of the Romans in such cases as recorded by history.
Everything you say, Roy, is consistent with logic and what the record says did and didn't happen, and not on fanciful stories concocted out of thin air by the writers of the gospels relying on their imaginations and not historical records (there aren't any, as a matter of fact). A Jesus likely lived, preached, made a lot of bad prophetic calls (if we are to believe the gospel writers) such as him returning in the clouds to judge the earth before the apostles die (he never did), said a lot and I mean a LOT of contradictory things such as he came to bring peace, then saying he came NOT to bring peace but a sword, and then take a look at this howler:
Quote:
Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
but obviously he had a change of heart because later he said:
Quote:
Matthew 26:52 "All who take up the sword will perish by the sword"
and then was crucified as a common criminal, died and was buried and rotted and that was that. It was a common occurrence for a Jesus to be an apocalyptic preacher, or a healer, or a shaman and then end up on a cross for sedition. There were probably a hundred such persons named Jesus ben somebody-or-other who came to a similar bad end. It was so common in fact that likely the scenario was picked up by the gospels writers who chose an amalgamation of all these Jesuses and formulated a passion story around which all these legends were based. I mean come on, could you really take a "son of God" seriously when they trip over their tongue so often?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
