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.
That is what is called "grasping".
So you think a man literally walked on water (not ice)?
NO, what you are doing is called grasping. You go to some extreme non-sequitur as if it supports your position. The fact is you can NOT relegate entire ancient writings to the category of fiction based on what you consider unlikely content. You have no way of knowing the author's intent - idiom, figurative language, hyperbole, etc. If someone says someone "walks on water" today, we do not take it literally. Story-telling is one way these types of memes established themselves in our collective psyches.
NO, what you are doing is called grasping. You go to some extreme non-sequitur as if it supports your position. The fact is you can NOT relegate entire ancient writings to the category of fiction based on what you consider unlikely content. You have no way of knowing the author's intent - idiom, figurative language, hyperbole, etc. If someone says someone "walks on water" today, we do not take it literally. Story-telling is one way these types of memes established themselves in our collective psyches.
Extreme. Does the bible not teach that Jesus walked on water? Is that not what people who believe in the bible will tell you?
Ah -- you admit that "You have no way of knowing the author's intent - idiom, figurative language, hyperbole, etc.". Therefore, nothing in the bible can be taken as fact. Period.
Extreme. Does the bible not teach that Jesus walked on water? Is that not what people who believe in the bible will tell you?
Ah -- you admit that "You have no way of knowing the author's intent - idiom, figurative language, hyperbole, etc.". Therefore, nothing in the bible can be taken as fact. Period.
You really seem to have a problem understanding non-sequiturs. "Not knowing" permits no such blatant and blanket assertions.
You really seem to have a problem understanding non-sequiturs. "Not knowing" permits no such blatant and blanket assertions.
You seem to have a problem understanding common sense.
It's sort of like a person who lies fairly often. Once you realize it, then you can't ever really trust him. As opposed to a person who always tells the truth.
No-sequiturs are in the eye of the beholder, and we already know that you don't reality too clearly.
You can't say that the bible is full of “idiom, figurative language, hyperbole, etc.” (let’s see…who wrote that?), and then turn around and say you can believe everything in the bible.
Now go worship god by handling venomous snakes (after all, those who do that cite the bible).
Extreme. Does the bible not teach that Jesus walked on water? Is that not what people who believe in the bible will tell you?
Ah -- you admit that "You have no way of knowing the author's intent - idiom, figurative language, hyperbole, etc.". Therefore, nothing in the bible can be taken as fact. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You really seem to have a problem understanding non-sequiturs. "Not knowing" permits no such blatant and blanket assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
You seem to have a problem understanding common sense.
It's sort of like a person who lies fairly often. Once you realize it, then you can't ever really trust him. As opposed to a person who always tells the truth.
No-sequiturs are in the eye of the beholder, and we already know that you don't reality too clearly.
You can't say that the bible is full of “idiom, figurative language, hyperbole, etc.” (let’s see…who wrote that?), and then turn around and say you can believe everything in the bible.
You really want to stop bouncing between extremes - nothing and everything - in your views. It bespeaks an untrained and uncritical mind.
...and what makes you think that the Bible is correct and the Qur'an or Talmud isn't? Wait! Let me guess. Christianity is the religion you were raised in or it's the predominant religion in the country that you have lived all your life...right?
You still don't seem to be understanding. Because books mention places that existed, does not make the book true, no more than the existence of 221a Baker street proves the existence of Sherlock Holmes. Just because books mention people, it doesn't mean that the people are real
Well, Jesus in the Bible had interacted a lot with the Pharisees. The Pharisees are the ones that recorded to further generations on their perspective of Jesus and in time it was written down in the Talmud. The Talmud is not a secular source of Jesus Christ, but it scholarly information that has some of its roots in the 1st century.
I did not come here to debate if the Bible is right and the Koran and Talmud is not. I pointing out non-Christian sources that have its roots in the 1st century that mention the name of Jesus.
Well, Jesus in the Bible had interacted a lot with the Pharisees. The Pharisees are the ones that recorded to further generations on their perspective of Jesus and in time it was written down in the Talmud. The Talmud is not a secular source of Jesus Christ, but it scholarly information that has some of its roots in the 1st century.
I did not come here to debate if the Bible is right and the Koran and Talmud is not. I pointing out non-Christian sources that have its roots in the 1st century that mention the name of Jesus.
Here's the problem with the bolded, herenow1: there ARE no non-Christian sources from the 1st century that mention Jesus. I pointed out to you in post No. 233 that there are many Jesuses mentioned in the Talmud and none of them have the specifics found in the gospels regarding Jesus. I might have to repeat them for you and the audience.
Quote:
The identification of Yeshu as Jesus is problematic. For example, the Talmud mentions 1. Yeshu ben Pandera...who was executed at the climax of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. Furthermore, 2. Yeshu the Pharisee student is described as being a student of the second-century BCE. Additionally, 3. Yeshu the sorcerer was executed by the royal government which lost legal authority in 63 BC
Quote:
These events would place the lifetime of either Yeshu decades before or after the birth and death of Jesus.
Quote:
Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Jesus and his five disciples.[91] Here, Jesus is a sorcerer who has enticed other Jews to apostasy. A herald is sent to call for witnesses in his favour for forty days before his execution. No one comes forth and in the end he is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover. His five disciples, named Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are then tried.
Did Jesus ever have 5 disciples whose names were Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah???????
And you replied:
Quote:
So what the Talmud which was spoken in the 1st century and written a few centuries after that could have some slight or some significant differences.
Well..YES!!!
I would guess that Yeshu ben Pandera, Yeshu the Pharisee student and Yeshu the sorcerer who had 5 disciples named Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are more than "significant" differences--they are GLARING differences that would totally invalidate your claim that Jesus of Nazareth has ample representation in the Talmud that would legitimize the Talmud as a reliable source for proof Jesus is mentioned in non-Biblical sources in the 1st Century. As I said, I think you are being less than forthcoming about Jesus of Nazareth being in the Talmud and for a Christian this is a bit reprehensible. Aren't you the least bit ashamed of presenting this as factual stuff, herenow?
Here's the problem with the bolded, herenow1: there ARE no non-Christian sources from the 1st century that mention Jesus. I pointed out to you in post No. 233 that there are many Jesuses mentioned in the Talmud and none of them have the specifics found in the gospels regarding Jesus. I might have to repeat them for you and the audience.
And you replied:
Well..YES!!!
I would guess that Yeshu ben Pandera, Yeshu the Pharisee student and Yeshu the sorcerer who had 5 disciples named Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are more than "significant" differences--they are GLARING differences that would totally invalidate your claim that Jesus of Nazareth has ample representation in the Talmud that would legitimize the Talmud as a reliable source for proof Jesus is mentioned in non-Biblical sources in the 1st Century. As I said, I think you are being less than forthcoming about Jesus of Nazareth being in the Talmud and for a Christian this is a bit reprehensible. Aren't you the least bit ashamed of presenting this as factual stuff, herenow?
That is your claim that there is nothing found in that really link Gospels of Jesus in the Tamuld. However it states: When the Talmud, in Sanhedrin 100a, attributes to Rabbi Meir the saying: “The measure which one measures will be measured out to him”—a saying identical in phraseology as well as in spirit with that uttered by Jesus in Matthew 7:2: “The measure you give will be the measure you get,” Dr. Klausner elected to make of this a case for the rabbis. In the interest of historic accuracy it should be noted that Rabbi Meir was not yet born when Jesus gave wing to the above maxim.
Also three are some other examples on the enclosed website: https://jewsforjesus.org/publication...d-the-gospels/
That is your claim that there is nothing found in that really link Gospels of Jesus in the Tamuld. However it states: When the Talmud, in Sanhedrin 100a, attributes to Rabbi Meir the saying: “The measure which one measures will be measured out to him”—a saying identical in phraseology as well as in spirit with that uttered by Jesus in Matthew 7:2: “The measure you give will be the measure you get,” Dr. Klausner elected to make of this a case for the rabbis. In the interest of historic accuracy it should be noted that Rabbi Meir was not yet born when Jesus gave wing to the above maxim.
Also three are some other examples on the enclosed website: https://jewsforjesus.org/publication...d-the-gospels/
Herenow, I cannot figure how you continuously attribute things that have nothing to do with Jesus....WITH Jesus!!
Matthew 7:2 is just a rehash of an expression that has been around for at least hundreds of years before Jesus. Jesus didn't invent this expression. It's basically saying, "What goes around, comes around." Hindus have had the idea of karma for centuries before the gospels. Check this out:
Quote:
As a man himself sows, so he himself reaps; no man inherits the good or evil act of another man. The fruit is of the same quality as the action.
— Mahabharata, xii.291.22[53]
Recognize the bolded? You should. It's in the Bible
Quote:
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Do you actually think Paul thought that up by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit??? Maybe Paul had read that quote from the Mahabharata and decided to incorporate it into his epistle. The Mahabharata was around long before Paul. Here:
Quote:
The oldest preserved parts of the Mahābhārata are thought to fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE.
Jesus as recorded in the gospels said very little that is original. Most everything he said can be found in the Old Testament and other older sacred texts.
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.
