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.
Hasn't two days already passed? Isn't the Messiah a bit late?
No, Jesus came to do his father's work to begin teaching when he was 12, and this was 6.A.D.
Genesis 49 states that Judah would not drop the scepter until the coming of Messiah, and this took place when Herod Archelaus was deposed by Caesar Augustus in 6 A.D where Rabbi Rachman exclaimed,'' Woe is us, and woe is Jerusalem for Judah has dropped the scepter and Messiah has not come.''
I think Jesus would have begun his ministry when the scepter fell to him at age 12, but his time was put off for his age according to the law, and his ministry could only last 3 and a half years after it began.
Whether you start counting at the beginning of ministry, his death or his giving of the Holy Spirit that made him the true Messiah, it is only a matter of 3 and a half years.
If it were the year 2035, then maybe I would doubt many things I believe, and I don't know when that 2000 will be up, but we have not arrived at the point of saying it is too late.
The coming of Messiah is within his people, Revelation is written to every Generation and so is Matthew 24, but I still believe in a literal day when a new era begins. It isn't the end of the world, it is the birth of the world.
Where exactly did you lift THIS information? But I will agree that many people in the Mediterranean region were expecting the messiah. The messiah was called the saoshyant in Persian Zoroastrian bel
Zorastrianism only comes from the Oral Torah, the truth that was handed down from mouth to mouth until the law was written down. We can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt all the links with Zoaster and the Oral Torah. Zoaster is just a perverted worship of Tammuz, nothing more, and Tammuz was of the seed of Noah.
The reason so many religions like Hinduism and Buddhaism and the rest have so many links is from the fact that they are all derived from the same source, the links prove one source. That's why the bible is everywhere, because there is nothing written in any other religion that stands next to the law and the prophets.
The information in that last post was from the oral Torah, if you don't know much of the Oral Torah, you couldn't even get a clue about the book of Revelation and much of the New Testament.
But yeah, it's like Buddha claiming that his sources were older and yet he quotes Solomon word for word centuries after Solomon was dead.
Zoaster has so many links with Christianity, one would have to conclude that one has stolen from the other, and all come with a flood story that links all religions right back to the same region.
The worship of Noah and Nimrod was known all over the world and Noah has very many names, it traces right back to a ship's log, and the bible is the only ship's log there is of Noah. The Giglamesh record is older, but it comes with an ark like a brick and it just isn't a ship's log with exact dates.
The only other people who have just ONE exact date of Noah's story is Egypt in the worship of Osiris and they still carry the boat in Egypt every year and they celebrate the 17th day of the second month in connection with being taken from the water. Moses was also taken from the water and the Egyptian understanding this, they called Moses,'' Osiris.''
Then all Israel was taken from the water in front of all Egypt.
I can give so many scriptures proving you wrong, Revelation 2 says that if you are involved in paganism, then God is coming to kill your child and all the churches will know that your child has been killed. The works of all men will be tested by fire and the righteous will stand in the flames with their works and not burn. The work that you are building is a new house, a new resurrection body, it is a seed that is planted in you that Jesus is finally formed in you as a child and unless you raise that child to maturity, that child is going to die, children will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, you can't give a child unlimited power.
Paul said they were still his children until Christ could be formed in them and he was always angry because they didn't study the law and the prophets fast enough for Messiah to be formed in them, in order for them to be born again.
Jesus talks about the lawless people who speak against the law, and they say,'' But Jesus, we did miracles in your name and we taught your name in the streets,'' and he tell them that he don't know them, and tells them to depart from him.
Others come to recline with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom thinking they will just waltz right in all happy and stuff, and then the girl at the door drags them out. Others come up to the wedding feast and are then escorted out.
Jesus said that whoever doesn't keep the laws of Moses and teaches others not to keep it will be the least in the kingdom of heaven, and to be the least in the kingdom of heaven is that you are standing in the outer court of darkness, and not able to enter into the temple proper.
You can believe in Jesus for 30 years and do good works and all this will be as though it never happened.
People can NO DOUBT lose their way, and if you are teaching against Judah and Jerusalem, your not even under the covenant of Jesus.
A person is what he worships, a Muslim keeps the holy days of Islam, and a Christian keeps the Holy days of Babylon.
But at least they are still in the kingdom of heaven, they are just not allowed to enter into the temple, they stand in their lawlessness remaining gentiles in the outer court of Gentiles, the outer court of darkness.
God will test you with fire, and all your works are no doubt going to burn, but you yourself will be saved, but only as one who has to pass through a fire, you watch your wok burn, and that work is the newborn that you are saying that you are born again.
People don't realize what being born again means, they think if you say Jesus, you are suddenly reborn, but this couldn't be further from the truth.
These Galatians had Paul himself, they had first hand knowledge and were being taught by the originals, and Paul is so perplexed by them because Christ had not even been formed in them yet.
HOW SAD IS THAT?
Now Christians think they don't have to do anything but say ,'' Jesus,'' and this couldn't be further from the truth, Jesus has to be formed in you, and we are shown how the Galatians and Corinthians couldn't even accomplish this under the guidance of Paul.
2Peter 3:
[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Who actually wrote this? No one knows. However, the one thing that is widely accepted today among Biblical scholars, including a majority of Christian scholars, is that it almost certainly wasn't the apostle Peter.
Who wrote it is irrelevant. Whoever it was, wrote what God inspired him to write. Conservatvei scholar attribute it to Peter. Only liberal one do not.
Quote:
Whether or not it really matters who wrote 2Peter depends upon the individual reading it. Most lay Christians of course choose to believe that 2Peter is the work of the apostle Peter, because it is represented in the NT as being the work of the apostle, and because the Bible is inspired by God and represents His word according to His Will. To non believers like myself 2Peter is simply yet another example of Christian make it up and declare it to be true in action. Proof of the truth of Christian claims and beliefs because Christians have declared it to be so. One of the earliest imperatives of the fledgling Christian religion among the Hellenistic peoples of the Mediterranean area was that the long awaited savior of mankind, the Saoshyant (savior) of Persian Zoroastrian belief, a direct descendant of Zoroaster who would sit at the right hand of God to judge humankind, had at long last come. And he was ushering in the glorious new kingdom of God NOW! So get on board while there is still time.
Attributing anything about Zoroaster is foolish ignorance.
Quote:
By the fourth century and the formation of the Catholic church however generations of Christian believers, eagerly awaiting this promised new kingdom of God, had lived and died. It had begun to become painfully clear that this impending NOW didn't necessary mean during the lifetime of the average Christian believe as so eagerly supposed. The church needed an explanation for why the Parousia was being delayed. And 2Peter fit the bill. Even though it was widely recognized to be a pseudepigraphical forgery, even in it's own day, that the epistle was NOT actually the work of the apostle Peter hardly mattered. The church insisted that it be included in the canon of the NT because it works to answer the concerns of the lay believer over the delay of the second coming.
What the RCC did is not relevant in today's Christianity.
Quote:
Your own words, "All Christians hope Jesus will return during their lifetime, but no on knows for sure. It doesn't matter when He returns, only that He will at the time God has appointed," are a testament to how well 2Peter has actually served its purpose over the centuries. Because of 2Peter, Jesus doesn't have to come back NOW. He doesn't even have to come back SOON. He will come back EVENTUALLY. Even if you all have to wait ANOTHER few thousand years.
Agreed.
Quote:
Meanwhile however, modern scientific knowledge has caught up to Christian claims. Christian beliefs and Christian claims are evaporating out from under the feet of Christians by the advancement modern science, reason and knowledge. And there is nothing Christians can do about it. Christians do not have another several thousands of years to wait for the return, I am afraid. If Jesus was actually planning to return he should have done it while people remained ignorant and gullible. If he waits much longer he is going to discover that almost no one cares any more. Christian belief in Europe already represents less than half of the population. The percentage of Americans who consider themselves Christians has dropped from 90% in the 1990's, to 70% today. Non belief has been rising at a rate of about 1% per year this century in the US. This trend towards non belief indicates that Christians will be in the minority by the middle of this century even in the US. And if the trend continues, by the end of this century Jesus will have been relegated to the scrap heap of washed up deities, along with the likes of Odin and Zeus.
We are already in the minority, but that doesn't change our beliefs.
Quote:
So soon enough it won't really matter WHO wrote 2Peter.
No, Jesus came to do his father's work to begin teaching when he was 12, and this was 6.A.D.
Genesis 49 states that Judah would not drop the scepter until the coming of Messiah, and this took place when Herod Archelaus was deposed by Caesar Augustus in 6 A.D where Rabbi Rachman exclaimed,'' Woe is us, and woe is Jerusalem for Judah has dropped the scepter and Messiah has not come.''
I think Jesus would have begun his ministry when the scepter fell to him at age 12, but his time was put off for his age according to the law, and his ministry could only last 3 and a half years after it began.
Whether you start counting at the beginning of ministry, his death or his giving of the Holy Spirit that made him the true Messiah, it is only a matter of 3 and a half years.
If it were the year 2035, then maybe I would doubt many things I believe, and I don't know when that 2000 will be up, but we have not arrived at the point of saying it is too late.
The coming of Messiah is within his people, Revelation is written to every Generation and so is Matthew 24, but I still believe in a literal day when a new era begins. It isn't the end of the world, it is the birth of the world.
This is not proofs of Jesus, because what the Gospels say about Jesus is itself under question.
Luke's "Jesus in the temple' story is recorded only by him. Now, I know that this means it was not in the original synoptic text, but of course that would require me to give a tedious explanation.
I'll say rather that the Luke 4.16 event is a test -case example of Lucan invention. Matthew and Mark both have the 'Is this not Joseph's son" (variously tweaked) "rejection at Nazareth" event. Thus the three are talking about the same occurrence. And yet the signal announcement of Jesus' mission in the Nazareth synagogue, and the claim that his neighbours tried to kill him it not even hinted at in Mark and Matthew, plus they put it later on, while Luke has it as soon as Jesus arrives in Galilee.
It seems surprising now that the search for a suitable hill or the argument about how big Nazareth had to be to have a synagogue went on for so long. The internal text itself shown that this story is an invention of Luke's, and once realized, the lack of a suitable hill, the doubts of Nazareth existing, at least big enough to have its' own synagogue, and finally the improbable idea of the locals and neighbours rising up to murder Jesus just for announcing his messiahship - never mind the dubious claim that he regularly stood up to address the assembly, all combine to show that Luke simply took the one passage, invented this absurd story and shifted it to the start of the ministry. It is an impudent lie - and a nasty lie about Jews by the early Christians.
It establishes two things: Luke invents, and that such inventions were aimed at smearing the Jews as much as boosting Jesus. Thus it is a test case or precedent for all these significant stories that appear in Luke, at least, that don't appear in the other synoptics, never mind, not in John.
This means that the Jesus is the temple episode is equally dubious. Yes, as a starting -point I treated the gospels as basically reliable, give or take some slips of memory or a few tweaks. The burden of proof was on the Other Side (skeptics) to show that it was NOT reliable.
This is now done, so far as I am concerned, and, once the scholars and savants have seen that the method is valid, they will see that all their attempts to find the Real Jesus in the Gospels, were gone about in the wrong way - the way of accepting the gospels as broadly reliable as an a priori assumption.
So again, I set out my stall. I don't care that the Book exists and has to be disproved; I've done it.
I don't care that the scholars and experts don't do it like that; it's the only way that really does it.
I don't care that millions believe it; it is demonstrably false.
In the face of this. to call for the best proof of Jesus can no longer be answered by wagging the bible about, never mind this or that episode such as Jesus starting teaching at 12.
That is an invention of Luke's and - as some of the experts and savants have noted (they do have their uses (1) is similar to a claim in Josephus about his own precociousness. It is not the only suggestion that Luke might have borrowed some ideas from Josephus: the Lucan nativity (and Gamaliel's speech in Acts, which is itself fabricated by Luke-devil of a doubt, using Paul's letters and a lot of imagination) uses Josephus' account of the tax census as a mechanism to wangle Jesus into Bethlehem. An invention, shown up my contradiction with Matthew's silly story, Mark's silence and John's virtual denial of a Bethlehem birth.
The gospel proofs fir Jesus have turned into disproofs, and you cannot, old chum, hold them up as evidence of anything other than Christianity being a big lie based on a lot of little ones.
Now, old mate, you post was a quite nice one based on the idea that the Romans "abolished the sceptre of Judah" and the Jews were looking for a messiah, as they had looked for one at the time Antiochus abolished Judaism. Of course that they had to wait a couple of decades for even a failed messianic attempt is something the adroit apologists can get over, or at least shorten the problem by ten years with the "temple teaching" event.
Just that it is demonstrably not true, old chap. It is a lie. And Scriptural explanations based on it are so much waste of posting space.
(1) as they also noted the similarity between Cleophas on what they had expected from Jesus (Luke 24.19), and the Flavian testament, known to be at least partially a Christian fabrication, and indeed probably (make that "almost certainly") totally an invention. I have always had a nagging suspicion that "Luke" not only did a Job on the synoptic gospel, but was in a position to get his potted history of Jesus into the published works of Josephus. I could even give "Luke" a name.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-24-2017 at 07:49 AM..
Reason: Editing and addittions.
The Bible. 66 books all attesting to him. All about him. Not that you'll suddenly believe it and repent. Proof is irrelevant if you're not willing to consider it.
There are hundreds of books written about the exploits of Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. Do those books provide evidence that superheroes with amazing powers live amongst us?
I viewed several films about an order of Jedi Knights that lived a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Do they provide documentary evidence of their actual existence and their special skills?
You started it. Answer the question. Can't can you?
Only because it's a trick question.
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.
(1) is similar to a claim in Josephus about his own precociousness. It is not the only suggestion that Luke might have borrowed some ideas from Josephus: the Lucan nativity (and Gamaliel's speech in Acts, which is itself fabricated by Luke-devil of a doubt, using Paul's letters and a lot of imagination) uses Josephus' account of the tax census as a mechanism to wangle Jesus into Bethlehem. An invention, shown up my contradiction with Matthew's silly story, Mark's silence and John's virtual denial of a Bethlehem birth.
