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.
Thank you. However the support (so to speak ) from Acts, Paul or indeed Josephus, is also legitimate. But I agree some of these posts would seem like a deliberate derail, were it not that i doubt they even bother to read the posts anyway. It all seems like Roll up and bash the \atheist, arguing that we are biased, we need Faith to understand, we do not see the 'Big Picture'. As I told my pal at work who dismissed my finding with that excuse, 'This IS the big picture'. It looks at ALL the gospels In Context, and explained pretty much everything.
Like I say; I may be wrong, but by God, it fits and delivers. It even makes predictions (e.g where 'Q' material should or should not be) and generally delivers.
Well, to be fair, two of the deleted posts were the garden-variety "bash the theists/if there was a God why would he...", but they had nothing whatsoever to do with the thread subject, so they went, too.
j) Paul was a real person; you couldn't make that fella up.
k) I believe that his letters (the earlier ones, anyway) are genuine.
l) Thus, when he talks about the disciples, specifically Peter and James, These people are real
Paul does not talk about disciples, he talks about people who are later described as disciples in the gospels. But Paul only ever says these apostles saw Jesus as he did, in a vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
m) Thus the talk of a crucified messiah, a Son of David according to the Flesh, a man who was 'handed over' to the 'Lords of the world' (Romans) who, Paul says, would not have executed him if they had known who he was;
Paul does not say who these Archons are. He does say in Romans 13 that the literal rulers (Romans) are following the will of God, but in 1 Corinthians 2:8 says they would not follow Gods will and crucify Jesus if they knew who he was. The Archons in 1 Corinthians 2:8 want to keep death and corruption in the world, something the Romans or Jews would not want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
a Jesus whom they no longer know in the flesh, means a real historical Jesus.
The text says he was a divine being, so if Paul thought Jesus was a divine being, he could have also believed Jesus became flesh, it does not necessarily men there was a flesh and blood Jesus. Would you really describe a man as being in the flesh, or manufactured of a woman? Try it the next time you are in a bar. No. These are strange terms to describe people, as is literally saying Jesus was manufactured from the literal seed of David.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
n) thus a real Jesus who was crucified and Tacitus (the only extra- Biblical reference I find anything like good evidence for Jesus) agrees with this. As well as the 'principle of embarrassment': if you are going to invent a messiah born in Bethlehem and whose death was really the doing of the Jews, why have him a Galilean and have to (demonstrably) invent a couple of contradictory stories to wangle a birth in Bethlehem?
Because the OT 'predicted' a messiah from Galilee and Bethlehem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Why not have him stoned by the Sanhedrin? Why have a Roman crucifixion and then have to jump through hoops to blame it on the Jews? Because it was a true story that, like it or not, they were stuck with.
Because the OT 'predicted' a death where Jesus would be pierced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Take the resurrection -claim. in 1 Cor. 15 5 Supposed to refer to the disciples seeing Jesus on the Resurrection night. But first to Cephas (Simon Peter)? Not in the gospels. Even though Luke 24.34 tries to wangle the account in line with this list of appearances in Paul. Jesus (resurrected) did not appear to Simon until all the disciples saw him at once.
Paul does not say they all saw Jesus at once, he just says they all saw Jesus. Paul could have meant at the same time, but it is not until the 500 / Pentecost event that he specifically says 'at the same time'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Moreover, after James (the 'Less', or Jesus' brother, who was surely one of the 12 and who took over leadership of the Jesus -group after the crucifixion, ...
Another thought about the Archons of this age, Paul (a flesh man born of a woman) says the power of the Archons was coming to nothing, present tense. This makes no sense with a successful, powerful Rome (full of flesh people born of women), but does with demons tricked into saving the world by killing Jesus.
That's an interesting view. But I ca't rule out that Paul says that he saw James and Peter in what seems to be being called to account for what he was teaching in his mission (depicted in Acts as a full hearing) and James issued his letter which shows that he was the leader or spokesman of these 'Saints'. I add to this, the whole idea of this messiah who was crucified, as otherwise how could such a story have been invented, and Tacitus reports this story of 'Christ' being executed by Pilate. I doubt that this could all have been invented.
I don't doubt that the visions of Jesus is correct, no matter whether it was done on an individual basis or, as Luke (in Acts) describes it as a collective experience.
Your point about 'archons' is a good one. I's taken it that the Romans were intended, but I'll look into your point.
"the power of the Archons was coming to nothing," can you give a verse number?
So it seems that Bapfun, after throwing out his bragging challenge and me picking it up is going to run away and post elsewhere.
What's that! BF running for the hills? I'm shocked!
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It's all about faith. Without it, it's impossible to understand the Bible. I know because I used to read it that way.
Please explain just why you would employ a method that can be proven to be the MOST unreliable way of ascertaining what is true, to ascertain what is true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by let455_
I think the general consensus from biblical scholars is that it's pretty clear the disciples did believe they saw Jesus after his death.
What they believed they saw and what they did is not necessary the same - and that's even if you take the giant leap of faith to believe they even existed to see anything!
That's an interesting view. But I ca't rule out that Paul says that he saw James and Peter in what seems to be being called to account for what he was teaching in his mission (depicted in Acts as a full hearing) and James issued his letter which shows that he was the leader or spokesman of these 'Saints'.
Paul says he saw the apostle (not disciple) Peter, and then mentions James, the brother of the Lord, but did he mean James was also an apostle, or did he mean James was just a brother, a term Paul uses for every baptized Christian? The text can be read both ways.
See 1 Corinthians 9:5 for two non-literal examples - "have we not the authority / right a sister (meaning a Christian) wife to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?".
If Paul (a flesh man born of a woman (sorry )) means this James is just a baptized Christian, then he is not James the pillar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Your point about 'archons' is a good one. I's taken it that the Romans were intended, but I'll look into your point.
"the power of the Archons was coming to nothing," can you give a verse number?
Paul says he saw the apostle (not disciple) Peter, and then mentions James, the brother of the Lord, but did he mean James was also an apostle, or did he mean James was just a brother, a term Paul uses for every baptized Christian? The text can be read both ways.
It is indeed not certain that James, (singled out as the brother of the Lord) was one of the '12', who may have been any number or just the zodiacal figure, and I suspect might have been more centred around his family that the gospels depict, but Paul taking the issue of this letter laying down conditions under which he could continue his ministry convinced me that the figure of Jesus' brother was head of the Jesus party in Jerusalem.
Quote:
See 1 Corinthians 9:5 for two non-literal examples - "have we not the authority / right a sister (meaning a Christian) wife to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?".
Good point. Perhaps Ive been crediting too much an 'oral tradition' of 12 disciples of Jesus. Perhaps this James was not actually related to Jesus, on the grounds that al were 'brothers of the Lord'. But then again James was not called 'a brother of the Lord' but the brother of the Lord. (you will know how this works in Koine Greek) while Peter wasn't and he was one of the 'brothers'. And while that might seem confusing, The actual situation was known to Paul.
Quote:
If Paul (a flesh man born of a woman (sorry )) means this James is just a baptized Christian, then he is not James the pillar.
The fact that James was head of the Jesus party asks why so, rather some other of the disciples/apostles (you may point out that not all the 'apostles' that Paul mentions was one f the followers of Jesus, according to the Gospels, anyway. But singling him out as The Lord's brother would suggest why he, (regarded as 'the Less, compared to James, son of Zebedee) became the man in a position to rubber stamp approval of missions by the Jerusalem Christians.
I similarly see the 'Tradition' of Jesus being the cousin of the Baptist as perhaps explaining why, after John was arrested and executed, Jesus appears to have begun his mission, while initially, despite the concerted gospel attempts to gloss over this, Jesus came to participate in John's repentance -revival'.i
Quote:
Corinthians 2:6.
Ta. I'll check that.
Ok. I'll tell you how I see it.
The wonderful, truly beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, tale of the one Corinthian. 2.
"6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
The mention is talking about temporal rulers who are mortal, or who may be deposed or killed, even Roman Emperors. Yet they rule the 'known' world and they (of all other kings and rulers, for the Roman emperors weren't the only rulers), were ones who put Jesus to death which (Paul opines) they would not have done if they had known who Jesus was. But, Paul makes it clear, they did put him to death, and they did (I reckon) know exactly who and what Jesus was, and they topped him accordingly; and if the Sanhedrin had any part in that (and they might have done) it was as part of the Roman administration, not as representatives of Judaism as a whole is order to get Rome of the hook of Deicide.
P.s There's a Context, too. The temporal authority of the Romans (limited by inevitable mortality) and the wisdom (philosophy) of the Greeks, is contrasted defiantly (these days, since Christianity has the power, deprecatingly) with Faith, to the wise, foolishness. Thus setting rolling the ever - circular argument of Faith, claimed as wisdom, and Wisdom decried as mere 'Opinion'.
The reason why the Believers think in terms of 'Beleiie - or not' and the sliding sale of evidential credibility is ignored, understandably because in their Faith -brained mindset, the only purpose of Evidence is to support the Faith, even it is means that the faith has to be misrepresented, fiddles and even denied and replaced by what Faith requires.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-23-2020 at 10:12 AM..
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.
) from Acts, Paul or indeed Josephus, is also legitimate. But I agree some of these posts would seem like a deliberate derail, were it not that i doubt they even bother to read the posts anyway. It all seems like Roll up and bash the \atheist, arguing that we are biased, we need Faith to understand, we do not see the 'Big Picture'. As I told my pal at work who dismissed my finding with that excuse, 'This IS the big picture'. It looks at ALL the gospels In Context, and explained pretty much everything.
)) means this James is just a baptized Christian, then he is not James the pillar.
Who, me?
