U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Unread 01-20-2011, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,057 posts, read 1,209,817 times
Reputation: 236
Rafius posted:

>>The genealogy of the New Testament is inconsistent. While it gives two accounts of the genealogy of Joseph, it states clearly that he is not the biological father of Jesus. One of the genealogies is through Nathan and not Solomon altogether!<<

RESPONSE:

No. You are using the wrong term. You mean "contradictory." But thanks for pointing that out.()

Last edited by ancient warrior; 01-20-2011 at 05:19 PM.. Reason: typo
Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 01-20-2011, 06:56 PM
 
9,248 posts, read 3,911,968 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE

This is a very easy contradiction to understand. Jesus either answered no questions at all according to Matthew's gospel.

Or he did answer questions according to Mark's and John's gospel.

Try to dance around it all you want, but there are only two alternatives. Therefore, one didn't happen. A contradiction.

Mark 14:61
“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Manseated at the right hand of the Power”,and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’(NRSV)
Eusebius replied: Umm, sorry to have to be the one to break this to you but the interrogation in Mark 14:61 was before Caiaphas. Before Ciaaphas He opened His mouth.

Before Pilate when the chief priests accused Him He opened not His mouth to their accusations.

Tell you what ancient warrior, private message me and I'll give you my email. Then you can e-mail me with your supposed contradictions and I'll show you in private how they are not contradictions. This way you won't look like a tiro in front of all your buds here. Hey, I'll do it for free just to help a friend.




Quote:
eusebius wrote>>If Jesus said it, then it will happen. There is coming a resurrection of the just and unjust according to Daniel in which they will see the fulfillment of Jesus' prophetic statement to them.<<


Quote:
RESPONSE:

No. It would have already happened during the high priest's lifetime .

The high priest is long since dead.

Claiming prophecies that were not fulfilled by Jesus will be fulfilled in the Second Coming is an obvious ploy. That can be applied to any "unfullied prophecy."
Eusebius replied:
It is like the prophecy given to Adam and Eve. God said the seed of the woman would be at enmity to the seed of the serpent thus prophecying the Messiah. It took thousands of years to be fulfilled in Christ Jesus.
Jesus never said during the high priest's lifetime he would see Jesus return. You are just making things up as you go along.


Quote:

AW wrote: But you overlook that the Second Coming wa supposed to happen during the lifetime of Jesus' generation "Some standing here will see...etc"


Or as Paul claimed in 1 Thes 4:15:
"Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep

Paul didn't lie. Those who are left until the coming of the Lord will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep.

The Lord has not come yet and they did not precede those who have fallen asleep (died). We who are alive in 2011 have not preceded those who died to the coming of the Lord as well.

Last edited by Eusebius; 01-20-2011 at 07:19 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-20-2011, 07:18 PM
 
9,248 posts, read 3,911,968 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Here is a list of ancient sources which are pertinent to our discussion from a Catholic source:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Early Historical Documents On Jesus Christ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Yep, same old names that keep coming up...Pliny, Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus et al. All debunked by learned scholars for hundreds of years. The only people that still believe that these historians are evidence for JC are rabid evangelists. They are so easily debunked that it really isn't worth the typing time. However, I shall do so if you wish.
Rafius, the Roman Catholic Church showed the non-christian sources in the link I provided. I provide it again:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Early Historical Documents On Jesus Christ
Since when is the Roman Catholic Church "rabid evangelists"?

Jesus is the Messiah. He fulfilled all the Messianic prophecies. He fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel that from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem till the Messiah would be so many years. Jesus fulfilled that prophecy. Like it or lump it, you are just patently wrong.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-21-2011, 01:21 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,019,023 times
Reputation: 1499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Rafius, the Roman Catholic Church showed the non-christian sources in the link I provided.
Well I 'd hoped I wouldn't have to type all this out but here goes.

The following are secular historians that apologists claim mentioned Jesus and therefore prove that he existed:


JOSEPHUS
The Testamonium Flavianum (TF) in which Josephus is claimed to have mentioned Jesus is considered by serious scholars on both sides of the argument to be an outright forgery. As it stands, it uses clearly Christian phrases and names Jesus as 'Messiah'. Now as you probably know Eusebius, Josephus was a Jew so the passage in TF could not possibly have been written by Josephus because, as a Jew, he would not have referred to anyone as "messiah".

The TF was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus. This fact is important because Origen's main duty was to scour the works of historians to find evidence for Jesus. If Josephus had really mentioned Jesus then Origen would have shouted it from the rooftops. He didn't...because at the time of Origen, it wasn't there. Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.

The suspect passage in TF first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.

Perhaps most damning of all is the fact that the suspect passage did not appear in the TF until Josephus had been dead for 300 years.

Josephus is dismissed.


TACITUS
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events. Tacitus uses the title "Procurator" for Pilate when in fact, Pilate's title was "Prefect". Tacitus was an Imperial historian and would have know exactly what Pilate's official title was. By the time this Christian forgery was introduced into the works of Tacitus, the title "Prefect" had been changed to "Procurator". This is where the forger made his mistake. He used the title that was used in his time but not at the time of Pilate.

Tacitus' work names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)

The passage in question is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus.

Tacitus, like all the other secular historians, related Christian stories that were circulating at the time. That Christians existed at the time is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether there was any basis for the stories of Christians.

Tacitus is dismissed as evidence for the man-god Jesus.

PLINY the Younger
So we move on to about 80 years after the alleged events. Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events. So Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped someone they referred to as 'Christ'. As I said, the fact that Christians existed is not disputed but evidence for Christians in not evidence for any 'Christ'.

Pliny is dismissed.

SUETONIUS
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos". This "Chrestus" character was apparently active in Rome, your Jesus never was. So, this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus, it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.

IGNATIUS
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107CE, yet:
Iit is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious, his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions. It is probable that at worst, his letters were later forgeries. At best, 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus gathered from Christians of his time.

THALLUS
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.

PHLEGON
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.

VALENTINUS
In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but he was several generations after the alleged events, he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ, he mentioned no historical details about Jesus. So,Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

POLYCARP
Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but he is several generations after the alleged events, he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels), he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel events.
So, Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.

LUCIAN
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but this was several generations later, Lucian does NOT even mention any Jesus or Christ by name. So, Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.

GALEN
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians.
No evidence for any Jesus.


Quote:
Jesus is the Messiah. He fulfilled all the Messianic prophecies. He fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel that from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem till the Messiah would be so many years. Jesus fulfilled that prophecy. Like it or lump it, you are just patently wrong.
Then you need to sit down and explain just why, if your Jesus fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies, the Jews don't accept him as their messiah. It was the Jew's prophecies. It was their messiah. One would think that they, above all, would know whether or not Jesus fulfilled their own prophecies. The answer is as clear as day for those not blinded by 'faith'...he didn't fulfil the prophecies. He doesn't fit the bill.

I have given you the requirements for the Jewish messiah. Please go through them one by one and tell me how your Jesus fulfils those requirements.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-21-2011, 04:52 AM
 
9,248 posts, read 3,911,968 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Well I 'd hoped I wouldn't have to type all this out but here goes. *Rafius' snipped to make room for the truth*
And I am glad I can post this. The below is taken from the Catholic web site CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Early Historical Documents On Jesus Christ :

Suetonius
Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church.

Pliny the Younger
Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere).

Other pagan writers
The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, Against Celsus IV.51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon (Origen, Against Celsus II.14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Celsus, passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion.

Jewish sources
Philo
Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Church History II.4) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends.

Josephus
The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disapproves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ. Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation:

About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.

A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each.

Those who regard the passage as spurious
First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:

•Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;

•the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;

•its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Church History II.6) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.

But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings.

Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions
A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two:

•Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated.

•Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; Against Celsus I.47).

Whatever force these two arguments have is lost by the fact that Josephus did not write for the Jews but for the Romans; consequently, when he says, "This was the Christ", he does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the Christ considered by the Romans as the founder of the Christian religion.

Those who consider it to be completely genuine
The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following:

•First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way.

•Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition.

•Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Church History I.1), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.

•Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity.

All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of possible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity.

Other Jewish sources
The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, Against Celsus I.28 and I.32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century.

The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr. Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, Against Celsus II.48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op. cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, Against Celsus I.28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699 700; cf. "Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, Against Celsus II.55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.

Quote:
Jesus is the Messiah. He fulfilled all the Messianic prophecies. He fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel that from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem till the Messiah would be so many years. Jesus fulfilled that prophecy. Like it or lump it, you are just patently wrong.
Quote:
Then you need to sit down and explain just why, if your Jesus fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies, the Jews don't accept him as their messiah. It was the Jew's prophecies. It was their messiah. One would think that they, above all, would know whether or not Jesus fulfilled their own prophecies. The answer is as clear as day for those not blinded by 'faith'...he didn't fulfil the prophecies. He doesn't fit the bill.

I have given you the requirements for the Jewish messiah. Please go through them one by one and tell me how your Jesus fulfils those requirements.
Where have you been the last 2,000 years? I don't know why you ask "why the Jews don't accept Him?" In the beginning, when Christ proved to the Jewish nation He truly was the promised Messiah there were many tens of thousands who accepted Him as the true Messiah Who fulfilled the Messianic promises of the Scriptures. Read the book of Acts. Then their city Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews went into the great diaspora. Since that day there have been many many thousands who have believed till today we have such Messianic groups as Jews for Jesus, Completed Jews, Hebrew Christians etc.

Why don't you go to the Jews for Jesus message board and ask them to prove Jesus is the Messiah?
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-21-2011, 05:02 AM
 
9,248 posts, read 3,911,968 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Rafius posted:

The genealogy of the New Testament is inconsistent. While it gives two accounts of the genealogy of Joseph, it states clearly that he is not the biological father of Jesus. One of the genealogies is through Nathan and not Solomon altogether!
No, there are two genealogies, one of Joseph and one of Mary and each prove Jesus is the rightful heir to the throne.

The Jewish chief priests had full access to Christ's genealogies and if there was anything in them that precluded Jesus from being the rightful heir to David's throne you can best bet they would have brought it up.

It does not make a lick of sense that Matthew and Luke would provide Christ's genealogies if they proved He was not the rightful heir to the throne.

Ancient Warrior, my offer is still open. PM me and I'll help you. I don't mean that as a slam. I just like helping people.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-21-2011, 05:26 AM
 
4,703 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Where have you been the last 2,000 years? I don't know why you ask "why the Jews don't accept Him?" In the beginning, when Christ proved to the Jewish nation He truly was the promised Messiah there were many tens of thousands who accepted Him as the true Messiah Who fulfilled the Messianic promises of the Scriptures. Read the book of Acts. Then their city Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews went into the great diaspora. Since that day there have been many many thousands who have believed till today we have such Messianic groups as Jews for Jesus, Completed Jews, Hebrew Christians etc.
I doubt that. Those early followers were looking for a free lunch and we get hints of that in the NT. The Jews of that day were looking for ANYONE who could deliver them from the Roman oppression, feed them and heal them of infirmities. He could have come from Mars for all they cared. Once that did not pan out, reflection over the years, no doubt, proved that the Jesus character could not be the messiah.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-21-2011, 05:27 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,057 posts, read 1,209,817 times
Reputation: 236
[quote=Eusebius;17506475]Eusebius replied:

>>Umm, sorry to have to be the one to break this to you but the interrogation in Mark 14:61 was before Caiaphas.Before Ciaaphas He opened His mouth.<<

RESPONSE:

"Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you," but you've failed to read ALL the words once again.

Matt 27:12-14
But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. Then Pilate said to him, ‘Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?’ But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.”(NRSV)


But then

Mark 14:61
“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”,and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’(NRSV)

That remains a contradiction!
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-21-2011, 05:31 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,057 posts, read 1,209,817 times
Reputation: 236
[quote=Eusebius;17506475]

>>Tell you what ancient warrior, private message me and I'll give you my email. Then you can e-mail me with your supposed contradictions and I'll show you in private how they are not contradictions. This way you won't look like a tiro in front of all your buds here. Hey, I'll do it for free just to help a friend.<<



RESPONSE:

Tell you what, Eusebius, let's let the general readership read your arguments so they can assess their credibility.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-21-2011, 05:43 AM
 
9,248 posts, read 3,911,968 times
Reputation: 682
[quote=ancient warrior;17510822]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Eusebius replied:

>>Umm, sorry to have to be the one to break this to you but the interrogation in Mark 14:61 was before Caiaphas.Before Ciaaphas He opened His mouth.<<

RESPONSE:

"Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you," but you've failed to read ALL the words once again.

Matt 27:12-14
But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. Then Pilate said to him, ‘Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?’ But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.”(NRSV)


But then

Mark 14:61
“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”,and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’(NRSV)

That remains a contradiction!
No, there is no contradiction. My gosh, ancient warrior, how desparate are you?
In Mark account Jesus was before Caiaphas the chief priest and it was before Him that He made a statement.

Before Pilate when the chief priests brought accusations to Pilate He opened not His mouth against their false charges.

There is no contradiction between Matthew's account and Mark's account.

Please! Please PM me. I'm willing to help you in private. It does not make me feel good to have to correct you in public.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top