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.
Do you even know what you're saying, jeffbase? Jesus deluded himself into thinking the Bible is the word of God??????????? There WAS no Bible when Jesus was around. There was just the Torah and some old scrolls of various Psalms and other histories of the Jews. The evidence is that Jesus was an ordinary man who fancied himself a prophet and a Messiah. There were hundreds of Jesuses roaming the hills of Israel preaching they were the Messiah. Many of them came to bad ends like the Jesus of Nazareth did---on a cross asking, "What happened??" ("My God, My God why have you betrayed me? Why am I up here on a cross dying? This wasn't supposed to happen.")
I said it because it is a ridiculous position to even ponder. Jesus studied the scriptures and knew them word for word. There is no evidence that Jesus was only an ordinary man. If so, why is Jesus the only messiah who is documented in both Christian and secular texts? The Christian church exploded in size to the point that Roman emperors wanted to stamp them out.
Bottom line, is you see what you want to see. You NEED Jesus to be ordinary. You NEED the Bible to be nothing but a worthless book. Jesus cried out in the end because He became sin for us. God can not co-exist with sin so Christ was completely abandoned in that terrible moment. He suffered greatly so we could have life after death.
I said it because it is a ridiculous position to even ponder. Jesus studied the scriptures and knew them word for word. There is no evidence that Jesus was only an ordinary man. If so, why is Jesus the only messiah who is documented in both Christian and secular texts? The Christian church exploded in size to the point that Roman emperors wanted to stamp them out.
Bottom line, is you see what you want to see. You NEED Jesus to be ordinary. You NEED the Bible to be nothing but a worthless book. Jesus cried out in the end because He became sin for us. God can not co-exist with sin so Christ was completely abandoned in that terrible moment. He suffered greatly so we could have life after death.
Why would Jesus need to "study" the scriptures if he was God?
I said it because it is a ridiculous position to even ponder. Jesus studied the scriptures and knew them word for word. There is no evidence that Jesus was only an ordinary man. If so, why is Jesus the only messiah who is documented in both Christian and secular texts? The Christian church exploded in size to the point that Roman emperors wanted to stamp them out.
Bottom line, is you see what you want to see. You NEED Jesus to be ordinary. You NEED the Bible to be nothing but a worthless book. Jesus cried out in the end because He became sin for us. God can not co-exist with sin so Christ was completely abandoned in that terrible moment. He suffered greatly so we could have life after death.
No, jeffbase, YOU see what YOU want to see. If Jesus was truly the Messiah then every secular historian from the 1st century would have written something about him. Certainly Philo of Alexandria, the most famous and revered Jewish historian and scholar from the time of Jesus would written at least a short paragraph about his exploits of raising from the dead, being witnessed alive by so many people and then ascending into heaven in front of them.
But Philo writes not a single word about Jesus. He had numerous relatives in the area who would have heard of this momentous event and reported it back to Philo. Philo himself visited Jerusalem on a number of occasions, yet he doesn't record a thing about this miracle man. This is unthinkable for a historian as revered as Philo. Face it. There is nothing outside the gospels' biased accounts written some 50 years later and the first thing to emerge that is authentic is by Tacitus roughly a century after the alleged crucifixion:
Quote:
Christus, the founder of the name, was executed by Pontius Pilate, the Judean procurator, during the rule of Tiberius
Note the quote doesn't even say Yeshua or Jesus or Joshua---just "Christus" when means "Anointed One". That could have referred to any one of a hundred supposed Messiahs roaming the lands at the time. We really don't know which of them the gospel writers is talking about. Eventually half-century later an amalgamation emerges upon which the gospel writers spin varying tales of miracles and journeys and such. This is why the gospels don't speak in harmony; their accounts are too conflicting to be reliable and it's obvious they are based on hundreds of myths and legends circulating over the decades about different Messiahs.
Prophecies are not required to conform to your standards. I have already shown that the prophecy was to be fulfilled by different nations in successive waves over time. Historically this is what happened. I stand by what I said and have no intention of arguing about it.
I also have no desire to waste my time on people who like yourself have to resort to accusing people of being insecure in their faith because they believe in fulfilled prophecy. If you want to consider yourself some kind of spiritual giant by accusing others of having a weak faith, go right ahead. I have a different opinion of you. We're done.
Good, you and I are done. It's sad to see someone misleading others to think scripture is a riddle rather than what it was designed to be--the story of the faith of God's people in how He deals with them.
I'll continue to stay on this thread because I've studied this particular prophecy extensively. You don't need to do so.
He is also someone who trashes the Word of God, regularly lends supports to atheists and holds the sin of homosexuality in the highest regard. He has no problem being rude and insulting to those who don't share his viewpoints. He is a teacher of a false Christ. It would do great harm to listen to his new age beliefs like yours. The Word of God is the measuring stick of true Christianity.
The Christ you and Warden claim to serve is obviously not the Christ of the Bible so why hould I listen to someone with a baseless Christianity who can just whip up their own version of truth? The Christ of the Bible believed in a literal Bible. He believed that the actual words had power. This is clearly see in Matthew 4:1-11 when Jesus fights Satan with the words from the Bible.
I lend support to ANYONE who teaches love thy neighbor as the ultimate commandment.
You do not. You crucify Jesus afresh each time you defend sinful christians (Josh Duggar) and crime committers (such as the Oregon and Colorado bakers).
I have no problem being rude with those who are rude to others with their self-righteous attitudes about who Jesus accepts and who He does not--and who do it in the name of Jesus. You are at the top of the list.
Then why aren't you investing so much time bashing their religions? No, atheists all over the world focus their attacks almost entirely on Christianity. That point alone is evidence that I serve the one true God.
As I pointed out weeks ago on another thread--christians have a persecution complex because it helps them assess that they must be right if they are persecuted---hence constant persecution from one source or another.
People born in the Spirit of God don't have a persecution complex--they have a service contract. They know they are on this world to help their fellow man--not demean them using the Bible.
The only evidence you provide is that you are constantly looking for persecution for anyone claiming to be christian. And it's persecution anytime a christian is not allowed to do what they want, when they want, and for whatever reason they want.
It's the hallmark of narcissism.
Quote:
Persecution has an allure for many evangelicals.
Evangelical sub-culture plays a huge role in this perception. The “Jesus Freak” movement of the mid-1990s, started by the popular musical group DC Talk, made martyrdom and exclusion hip—these were signs that someone was a “true” Christian.Teens were encouraged by youth-group leaders to read historical accounts of Christian martyrs and reflect on how they could be Jesus Freaks, too. Being a “loser” in the world’s eyes for the sake of Jesus was, paradoxically, cool. But the emphasis, perhaps unintentionally, was on being a “freak,” rather than following Christ and accepting the consequences.
No, jeffbase, YOU see what YOU want to see. If Jesus was truly the Messiah then every secular historian from the 1st century would have written something about him. Certainly Philo of Alexandria, the most famous and revered Jewish historian and scholar from the time of Jesus would written at least a short paragraph about his exploits of raising from the dead, being witnessed alive by so many people and then ascending into heaven in front of them.
But Philo writes not a single word about Jesus. He had numerous relatives in the area who would have heard of this momentous event and reported it back to Philo. Philo himself visited Jerusalem on a number of occasions, yet he doesn't record a thing about this miracle man. This is unthinkable for a historian as revered as Philo. Face it. There is nothing outside the gospels' biased accounts written some 50 years later and the first thing to emerge that is authentic is by Tacitus roughly a century after the alleged crucifixion:
It's always a brick wall with people like you. First, if Philo did write massive tomes about Jesus, you know what you would be claiming here? You would say it was a forgery. Just like you do with Josephus who DID write about Jesus and was an important historian. Philo was not just a historian. He was a philosopher so why would he bother to give attention and creed to Christ when it didn't fit in his ideology? Futhermore, if Christians forged Josephus, why not do the same with Philo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Note the quote doesn't even say Yeshua or Jesus or Joshua---just "Christus" when means "Anointed One". That could have referred to any one of a hundred supposed Messiahs roaming the lands at the time. We really don't know which of them the gospel writers is talking about. Eventually half-century later an amalgamation emerges upon which the gospel writers spin varying tales of miracles and journeys and such. This is why the gospels don't speak in harmony; their accounts are too conflicting to be reliable and it's obvious they are based on hundreds of myths and legends circulating over the decades about different Messiahs.
Completely untrue. A careful study of the gospels will find that they are remarkably in harmony and merely present the story of Christ from different perspectives. Also Tacitus account aligns with Luke. Why would that happen if the gospel writers was just making stuff up on a whim?
Of course, that doesn't satisfy skeptics because NOTHING will satisfy skeptics of the Bible.
If Jesus actually rose from the dead and became immortal in the process, he would still be walking among us today.
He isn't still with us.
He was conveniently taken back to Heaven, just like the Golden Plates of Mormonism. Heaven must have a museum with all of evidence for the world's major monotheistic religions. All of the evidence for religion seems to end up in there, for some reason.
So Jeff, where is the risen Jesus? Will he show himself to me like he did to St. Paul, or do those kinds of miracles only happen in the past?
It's always a brick wall with people like you. First, if Philo did write massive tomes about Jesus, you know what you would be claiming here? You would say it was a forgery. Just like you do with Josephus who DID write about Jesus and was an important historian. Philo was not just a historian. He was a philosopher so why would he bother to give attention and creed to Christ when it didn't fit in his ideology? Futhermore, if Christians forged Josephus, why not do the same with Philo?
Completely untrue. A careful study of the gospels will find that they are remarkably in harmony and merely present the story of Christ from different perspectives. Also Tacitus account aligns with Luke. Why would that happen if the gospel writers was just making stuff up on a whim?
Of course, that doesn't satisfy skeptics because NOTHING will satisfy skeptics of the Bible.
Philo wrote Flaccus prior to the gospels being written. Besides the Greek concept of separate soul and body, he may have influenced how at least one gospel writer wrote about Jesus. But he didn't know Jesus and never wrote specifically about Him.
Quote:
Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ"--
Once again you are swallowing information provided by your handlers rather than searching and learning for yourself.
In 39 BCE, Agrippa was returning from Rome and a visit with Caligula when he stopped in Alexandria and was berated as the leader of the Jewish lands outside Judea. Agrippa was called the King of the Jews by people in that time frame and may have pre-figured what gospel writers would claim concerning Jesus' crucifixion. Flaccus also contains some interesting verses penned prior to to the gospel writer Matthew's account in Matthew 27:26-29:
Quote:
(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;
(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;
(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;
The Works of Philo Judaeus – Flaccus, VI.
The fact is all evidence indicates Philo influenced the writers of the bible, not the other way around. And that's a good thing, because it verifies Josephus' mentioning of Jesus.
Quote:
A common sense interpretation of the textual evidence is that Philo said nothing about Jesus, because it did not fit with his philosophical agenda and that Josephus did say something about Jesus (although less than what the Christians expanded), because he was writing history. The fact that Philo does not mention Jesus does not hurt the evidence for the historical Jesus, it actually strengthens the argument that Josephus had an original mention of Jesus and that it was not a complete Christian invention.
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.
Do you even know what you're saying, jeffbase? Jesus deluded himself into thinking the Bible is the word of God??????????? 
