MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
Historicity Of Jesus

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historicity Of Jesus
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jan 9 2008, 03:56 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jan 9 2008, 03:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->168 BC                  Desecration of the Temple of Jerusalem and its
                            dedication to Jupiter.


My evidence is found in anti-Yahweh articles so it may be suspect.
At the link above it says:
So what about the pronunciation Yahweh?
In our search for truth, we do not want to leave any stone unturned.
The following information is something that needs to be prayerfully
In Roman mythology, the idol "Jupiter" is the same as the idol "Zeus" in
Greek mythology.
According to Latin grammar, Jove is the ablative case of Jupiter.
In Classical Latin, the pronunciation of Jove (Iove) is Y-A-W-E,
with the “j” (i) sounding like a “y”,
the “o” being a short sound [like the “o” in “Bob”]
the “v” sounds like a “w”,
and the “e” sounds like “eh”.
The above site claims to give Latin Pronunciation from the first century.
It lists short “o” as in “Rob”
I may be trying to force an “aw” pronunciation for “o”
by reasoning that Raw with a “b” added to it sounds like “Rob”
And in Joshua I may be trying to force “J + “awe”+ shua to sound like
So I end up with “o” sounding like “aw” or “awe”
And when I place that pronunciation [I.e. “awe“] in “Jove” I get “J” +
“Awe” + veh.
At the above link it says:
Now, consider carefully these facts about Latin grammar:
First, just as in Hebrew, Latin has neither the English "J" nor "V"
Latin "J" is pronounced as the English "Y",
and the Latin "V" is pronounced as an English "W".
Secondly, there is no silent "E" in Latin.
If a Latin word ends with an "E", it is pronounced as a short "eh" sound.

Thirdly, as anyone learns in the first few days of studying the Latin
a short "O" sound (such as in the Latin word Jove) is difficult to spell
but is somewhat like "AH".
This means that if we pronounce Jove according to the rules of Latin
which we are taught,
<b>if we pronounce Jove as an ancient Roman would have done,
Jove would be pronounced very nearly,
if not exactly as the modern Christian name for their god: Yahweh. </b>
<b>Can anyone honestly believe that this is a coincidence? </b>
What do you think Peter?

Are  these above three sites telling the truth?

Dave Donnelly
<b>Think it over
Truth can kill the West</b>
By M.S.N. Menon


<b>It is very clear that early Christianity was Qumranian. James was a Jew, but a revolutionary, </b>which explains the revolutionary nature of his doctrines. <b>He believed in ahimsa (non-violence) and said that “the Kingdom of God is within you” —an idea purely Hindu-Buddhist. </b>They could not have come either from Greece or Jewish sources. <b>But Pauline Christianity was anti-James. St. Paul gave it a new direction. </b>Christianity, as it exists today, may turn out to be the greatest deception on the Christian world.

<b>Christianity's debt to Greece</b>


Man can acquire knowledge of the 'divine', Aristotle concluded, by a process of abstracting the 'universals' from sensible things, ie by deducing them from the sense-data through the application of a reasoning process. In this way Aristotle opened the way for the study of nature and its laws. He further concluded that man, 'a political animal', could achieve this intellectual project only within a [U]rational man-made society whose institutions would embody, so to speak, the 'universal' laws of the cosmic order.[/u]<b> The prevailing political doctrine in the years of Christ was that where Greece had failed with its minuscule city-states, Rome was to succeed in extending the rational order over the whole imperial world. </b>This was accepted by the Christians.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Mr. Atwill suggests that some of the Romans concocted Christianity as a way of co-opting part of the Jewish population to accept a pacifist religion that would "Render unto Caesar" while appearing to fulfill the predictions of the Hebrew prophets about a messiah. If they were successful in this the occupation of Judea would be much easier for the Romans. Atwill made textual comparisons between the gospels and other writings of the period, particularly Roman writings that mocked the Macabees, who were in revolt against Rome, and found a lot of parallels that were statistically unlikely unless there was a clear connection between the two texts. He concluded that Christianity had been invented for political reasons.

<b>In response to a question about Dan Brown's novel, The DaVinci Code, Mr. Atwill said that that book is a work of fiction and not nearly as threatening to Christian beliefs as his own critique. It might even deflect interest in a deeper critique of Christianity. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was the perfect trap. The Hannibal remnants were portrayed deficient not only from the viewpoint of the new Christian Religion but also from the viewpoint of the contemporaneous traditions around the ME/Empire.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->wiki yahweh:

Early Greek and Latin forms

The writings of the Church Fathers contain several references to God's name in Greek or Latin. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907)] and B.D. Eerdmans: [11]

    * Diodorus Siculus[12] writes Ἰαῶ (Iao);
    * Irenaeus reports[13] that the Gnostics formed a compound Ἰαωθ (Iaoth) with the last syllable of Sabaoth. He also reports[14] that the Valentinian heretics use Ἰαῶ (Iao);
    * Clement of Alexandria[15] writes Ἰαοὺ (Iaou) - see also below;
    * Origen,[16] Iao;
    * Porphyry,[17] Ἰευώ (Ieuo);
    * Epiphanius (d. 404), who was born in Palestine and spent a considerable part of his life there, gives[18] Ia and Iabe (one codex Iaue);
    * Pseudo-Jerome,[19] tetragrammaton legi potest Iaho;
    * Theodoret (d. c. 457) writes Ἰάω (Iao); he also reports[20] that the Samaritans say Ἰαβέ (Iabe), Ἰαβαι (Iabai), while the Jews say Ἀϊά (Aia).[21] (The latter is probably not יהוה but אהיה Ehyeh = "I am" (Exod. iii. 14), which the Jews counted among the names of God.)
    * James of Edessa (cf.[22]), Jehjeh;
    * Jerome[23] speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name יהוה as ΠΙΠΙ.

In Smith’s 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible", the author displays some of the above forms and concludes:

    But even if these writers were entitled to speak with authority, their evidence only tends to show in how many different ways the four letters of the word יהוה could be represented in Greek characters, and throws no light either upon its real pronunciation or its punctuation.

[edit] Josephus

<b>Josephus in Jewish Wars, </b>chapter V, verse 235, wrote "τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα· ταῦτα δ' ἐστὶ φωνήεντα τέσσαρα" <b>("...[engraved with] the holy letters; and they are four vowels"</b>), presumably because Hebrew yod and waw, even if consonantal, would have to be transcribed into the Greek of the time as vowels.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src='' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

masterly confusionists!!
First and foremost the poster who started the 'Christainist threat' does not believe in a sane discussion, so no need to follow his lead and start behaving like him.

This thread was started for a definite purpose and it would better be for us to stick to the topic rather than wasting our time by feeding the troll like RM and start a fight with in ourselves.


Regarding the links you posted they are about the bush trying to appease his constituency and his moronic speeches.

The american christain sects are increasingly becoming paranoid because they are being attacked at home by people calling
<b>+jesus a fake,</b>
<b>+the bible is being called a fake book written by romans.</b>

Just check the increasing number of books being written on the above 2 subjects. <b>This is one of the reason why these americans baptist christains want to convert the rest of the world to christanity </b>or to be more correct 'American Baptist Christain'(ABC) to make up for the increasing loss of their base in america.

We need to deal with these ABC's differently rather than attacking all Christains.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those interested in the historical Jesus might consider some of these works:

"General books on the historical Jesus
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910, reissued 1998; originally published in German, 1906), establishes the importance of Jewish eschatology for understanding Jesus and his teachings.

Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (1934, reissued 1989; originally published in German, 1926), accepts the importance of eschatology but interprets it in existentialist categories.

C.H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (1970, reissued 1973), redefines eschatology as referring not to the future but to a higher order.

Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (1983), describes Jesus as thoroughly Jewish and as a Galilean charismatic, and

The Gospel of Jesus the Jew (1981) examines the Jewish parallels to Jesus' teaching.

Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (1979), proposed, against the then prevailing opinion, that Jesus' intentions can be discerned.

E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 2nd ed. (1987), and

The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993, reissued 1996), place Jesus in the context of Palestinian Judaism and reject excessive historical skepticism about the life of Jesus.

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1991), and

Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994), argue that Jesus was not a Jewish eschatological prophet but a cynic-like philosopher and that Galilee was Hellenistic and not distinctively Jewish. This is an extremely eccentric interpretation.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 2 vol. (1991–94), is a very thorough account along the lines established by Schweitzer, Vermes, and Sanders.

Along with the general works, there are many studies of specific aspects of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, new updated ed. (1993, reissued 1999), is an encyclopedic account of the birth narratives in the Gospels.

Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (1978, reissued 1998), is a study of the miracles of Jesus and their parallels in Hellenistic traditions.

Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, from Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vol. (1994, reissued 1998), is an excellent introduction to the Passion of Jesus.

Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (1999), emphasizes the importance of the Crucifixion for understanding the life and teachings of Jesus."

Jesus fans might want to print out and save this bibliography.
<b>The Quest of the Historical Jesus</b>,
By William E Milner (Texas) - reviews
This review is from: The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (The Albert Schweitzer Library) (Paperback)
<b>I found this to be excruciatingly boring. The material is at best obsolete and of little value. A waste of time and money and not appropriate to one searching for a history of Jesus.</b>
<b>Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word</b>
By gabriel andrade (Maracaibo, Zulia, Venezuela) - reviews
<b>Rudolf Bultmann is well-known for his demythologizing program. This book presents in clear fashion some of Bultmann's main ideas. Right from the very beggining, Bultmann makes clear that we can almost know nothing about the historical Jesus. The New Testament data on Jesus is quite limited, and anyhting else would be pure speculation.</b>
Jesus The Hasid, February 20, 2005
By Steve Jackson "stevejackson100atyahoocom" (New England) REVIEW

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Say what you want about Vermes' ideas, he presents an understanding of the trajectory of the "Jesus tradition" free from conspiracy theories, reliance on dubious Gnostic gospels and the like.

There are a couple of problems with this approach:

First, Vermes' claims that Jesus was a type of Galilean charismatic Jew rests on slim evidence. His two examples are Honi the Circle Drawer (first century B.C.) and Hanina ben Dosa (first century A.D.). While there are some similarities between Jesus and these two, Honi was not Galilean and Hanina's Galilean origin is far from certain. And Vermes relies on very late traditions (some going to the eighth or ninth centuries A.D.). (See Witherington, THE JESUS QUEST, pp. 108-112 for a critique of Vermes.) He also claims that the Hasid used the term "Abba" as "father," like Jesus. Yet this claim has been effectively refuted. (Stein, THE METHOD AND MESSAGE OF JESUS' TEACHINGS, p. 168.)

Second, Vermes employs what appears to me at least an inconsistent methodology. He looks to Mark's gospel to find evidence for a more primitive Jesus tradition consistent with his Hasid theory. But he then ignores all sorts of Markan evidence that doesn't support it. Even in Mark's gospel we see Jesus forgiving sins, preaching the Kingdom, and predicting his death. His claim that Jesus forgiving sins was not remarkable is hard to accept in light of the reactions reported in the Gospels. All this puts Jesus in a different category than Honi and Hanina ben Dosa. In fact, this evidence is consistent with the widely held belief that Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Mesiah, but was reticent about disclosing it to the public given a likely misunderstanding.
  At the same time, I found this work disappointing.
The Gospel of Jesus the Jew </b>

Not Another "Life of Jesus", Please., December 27, 2003
By B. Hill, Ph.D. (United States) - reviews

This review is from: The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (Hardcover)

Mr. Vermes gladly embraces all the worst methods of the notorious "Jesus Seminar", methods which are overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of New Testament scholars.
The method essentially consists in this: If the authors of the Gospel agree with my agenda then what they say is true. If they disagree, then they or someone else must have added something in. Sigh.</b>

As well, for years Vermes has been trying to slot Jesus in with someone called "Honni the Circle-Drawer". This is beyond absurdity. In fact, all the books Vermes has "dedicated" to Jesus are absurd. They all simply wreak of agenda-politics.

Is this what passes for scholarship at Oxford University? God help us.

Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus
The idea behind the book is really rather simple: Let's treat Jesus like any other historical figure, such as Alexander the Great. That is, let's see if we can determine what Jesus' project was, what he hoped to accomplish, what his aims in life were. Can we find out what he thought his purpose on earth was, and can we also make a determination about how successful he was?</b>
It is mostly fantasy
E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 2nd ed.</b>

Sanders is more of a historian than a theologian. He is concerned to uncover the real, historical Jesus. He explains his methodology in some detail. That is a good place to begin, because it enables the reader to evaluate both Sanders' methodology and his sifting of the historical evidence.

Sanders explicitly bases his reconstruction on the facts of Jesus' life, rather than Jesus' sayings. He is on the cynical end of N.T. scholarship -- he believes that it is impossible in virtually every case to establish the authenticity of Jesus' sayings.
The Historical Figure of Jesus

i am afraid i disagree with all of you!, May 15, 2006
By peacemaker "the" (thessaloniki,macedonia,greece) - reviews

i dont speak english fluenty so i will write down a few things hoping that u understand me.First of all the writer tell us that he don't believe in miracles(so he is not a believer)and this seems to reflect to the whole book.BUT the most important thing with this book is that it is full of personal opinions and speculations.The important thing when you are dealing with the new testament is being documentary.German books(not all of them) that deal with new testament still are the most complete ones.
I have read so many books dealing with new testament and i am tired watching that every writer(usually with great studies and bla bla)has his own opinion.Writers could hold back their arrogance and focalize to facts(historical and archeological sources and information).

<b>John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Crossan's methodology -

Crossan says that his method analyzes the problem on three levels; anthropological, historical and literary. That is true. Further, he insists that these "cooperate fully and equally to achieve an effective synthesis, thus demanding equal sophistication on all three levels at the same time." He says, "the discipline of this book is to work primarily with plurally attested complexes from the primary stratus of the Jesus tradition." The scope of his program clearly has scholarly merit, and sets him apart from his peers in historical Jesus research. But I think there are some areas where his execution of the program falls short of the promise.

(1) <b>He treats all prospective "gospels" on an equal basis, apparently disregarding traditional canonical lines of demarcation.</b> His primary concern is establishing a probable genetic lineage of Jesus' sayings. Crossan appears to believe that God doesn't have an interest or a direct hand in the way we get scripture. This may make sense for naturalists or deists even, but not for theists.

(2) He uses an analytical concept called the "complex" for analyzing and organizing ancient texts into their basic units of meaning. The difficulty is that isolation of these complexes is an intensively hermeneutical process with huge potential for disagreement. Are these complexes based on events, or on themes? And, to what extent do these "complexes" conflate similar but distinct accounts?

(3) Crossan uses the familiar phenomenon of geologic stratification as a metaphor to explain his approach to establishing chronological layers within the literature. He presumes Scripture is naturally generated and so looks to establish pathways to explain how the text came to be transmitted. But if we expand on that metaphor, how does one interpret a petrified tree that passes through all of the strata? It forces one to reassess his assumptions. Specifically, what happens to our stratigraphic continuum when there is clear evidence that early documents depend on supposedly later documents? Such anomalies could leave Crossan standing in mid-air.

(4) Central to Crossan's method is his assessment of attestation. This is his metric for credibility. But Crossan admits that determination of the degree of attestation is in many cases a scholarly best guess. In this, Crossan appears not to allow himself to be guided or influenced by any theological notion that certain New Testament writers are inspired. He employs an editorial process he calls "bracketing singularities." In this, accounts of Jesus' sayings and actions lacking in plural attestation are called `singularities' and they are not considered admissible in reconstructing the historical Jesus. This leaves us without the virgin birth, the sermon on the mount, the Lord's prayer, the last supper or the empty tomb. This is Crossan's razor and it cuts deep, leaving roughly half of the New Testament on the editing room floor. This is a problem.

Assessment -
First, this book is very unbalanced, focusing almost exclusively on the historical and anthropological contexts, as if knowing the background of a subject tells the whole story. To echo the words of a friend, `Reading Crossan's Historical Jesus, I can't help feeling like I'm searching for something that isn't there. It is like looking at a master painter's portrait of Christ in which the image of the Master has been carefully extracted from its artistic context leaving a mere shadow of an outline, until all that remains is context without subject.'</b>

Second, the methodology Crossan describes may be considered adequate as a component of a naturalist or deist epistemology. But it fails in a universe of sparse observers where "singularities" are important. What Crossan's method lacks is a criterion for assessing the credibility of singly attested scripture passages. I'm no historian, but I suspect that the bulk of ancient history would succumb to Crossan's razor.

Finally, the bigger question that these considerations raise for me is this, `Is this truly sophistication, or is it merely sophistry?'

My assessment is that it is truly unfortunate for all of us that Crossan has chosen to employ his considerably noteworthy talents in the service of a lesser god than the Jesus of history.

Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
Crossan is informative, and analytical in his research., July 7, 1999
By A Customer
Crossan is skeptical about the historical Jesus. He studied cross cultural anthropology, Greco-Roman-Jewish history, and literary work. Crossan explores and compares the story of Jesus' birth. He points out many discrepancies between the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. Jesus is also compared to Caesar (similarity in births),the Cynic, and to Sophia.(Jewish Wisdom). His careful analysis of the crucifixion,burial, and resurrection of Jesus, concludes that the story is not accurate. In his conclusion, Jesus' image was based on individual Christian perceptions after his death.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus

The minority brief, November 14, 2004
By  Mark Mills (Glen Rose, TX USA) -  reviews
(REAL NAME)     
Quoting Meier: "This book grapples with one of the greatest puzzles of modern religious scholarship, the historical Jesus. As I will explain at length in Chapter 1, by the "historical Jesus" I mean the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research." In paragraph 2, he outlines his technique for adjudicating the 'scientific evidence': "I often use the fantasy of the 'unpapal conclave.' Suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic - all honest historians cognizant of 1st century religious movements - were locked up ... and not allowed to emerge until they had hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended in his own time and place."

Unfortunately, the 'conclave' is entirely in his imagination and he never elaborates on 'the scientific tools of modern historical research'.

With respect to the conclave, it is useful to put 'A Marginal Jew' in context. It was released to the public on Nov, 1, 1991. It is safe to assume the above was written down sometime in the late 80s. A few years earlier (1985), the 'fantasy conclave' had actually been realized. That conclave, now known as the Jesus Seminar, was several hundred scholars and they worked for several years on the project Meier outlines. Given the size of the Jesus Seminar, it is certain Meier knew of its activities.

In other words, Meier's 'unpapal conference' was actually taking place and Meier chose not to engage it directly. This book should be seen as a 'minority brief.' Of course, the Jesus Seminar is often vilified, so 'minority' or 'majority' is a matter of debate. He got his brief out 2 years before the Jesus Seminar's 'The Five Gospels', but an adequate rebuttal (if one can be made) will require another author.

While Meier alludes to 'scientific historigrahy', he doesn't inform the reader on the subject. By ignoring this, he makes a major mistake. The 'majority report' issued by the Jesus Seminar relies almost entirely upon textual deconstruction, the process of deducing hidden meaning via unexpected juxtaposition of a given textual record. While debatable as a science, no one can deny the computer has given us the ability to statistically analyze text for word usage patterns far exceeding anything available to pre 20th century scholars. This 'modern science' is use to great effect by the Jesus Seminar, but Meier seems incapable of dealing with it.

Faced with the juggernaut of the non-fantasy conclave's computerized textual deconstruction, Meier falls back upon traditional historiographic methods. He cites earlier publications and his favorite scholars. On an objective level, Meier cannot make a dent in the Jesus Seminar claims. In the end, Meier is relying on 'old fashion' textual decomposition. His arguments fall flat for all but the reader already confirmed in his opinion.

With this in mind, what does Meier argue? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Birth of the Messiah</b>
Raymond E. Brown
A Tale of Two Narratives, August 20, 2005
By  J. Thomson (Dallas) - See all my reviews
How should Christians contend with alleged contradictions, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies in the New Testament? Perhaps many have not confronted the difficulties, while assuming that ultimately a satisfactory answer will emerge that justifies confidence in the Greek scriptures. The late Raymond E. Brown was not content to leave it to future scholarship to provide the answers. Only two gospels, Matthew and Luke, discuss the birth and infancy of Jesus. But scholars have raised questions that challenge the credibility of these narratives. Why do the genealogies not match? Why do the other New Testament writers not mention the virgin birth? What prophets said that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene? Why does Luke imply the family returned to Nazareth shortly after the birth of Jesus, while Matthew has the family fleeing to Egypt before returning? The slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem is not mentioned in secular history although other atrocities are recorded. Can the son of David be reckoned through the mother? These and other questions have provided ammunition for critics against the veracity of the New Testament.

<b>Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Trashcan Stuffer, February 1, 2000
By A Customer
This review is from: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (Hardcover)

This book is Francis Bacon's blue plate special. Combine minute textual analysis of the Bible with totally shocking and inept failure to understand the Bible, and you get this crock. For example, claiming Jesus was crucified instead of killed in jail because he was a political threat. Well, what about the two thieves? Were they political threats? Did she forget that Jesus' crime was blasphemy, and that Jehovah declared that anybody hung on a stake is accursed to him (Deut. 21:23, Gal. 3:13)? Jehovah: she acts like she never heard of him. Jesus believed implicity in Jehovah. Jesus loved his people, and was sent as a judge, just like Samson once was. He was there to warn them that if they didn't repent and change their ways, Jehovah would judge them. Well, they didn't, and Jehovah made the authorities do what they did.

Jehovah executed Jesus, and just used the authorities as his agents, the same way he executed Israel itself once using the Babylonians as his agents -- see Ezekiel, etc. Jehovah is the most high, the one true god, and the one judge. She just doesn't 'get' it. Her claims that the gospel writers must have made it all up after Jerusalem was destroyed, rather than before, is like calling them liars to their face. Making surface contradictions into branchoff points to her theories is transparently sophistic. What if the contradiction isn't there when viewed more deeply? Like Acts 15 seeming to show that the brothers of Jesus in Jerusalem were against gentile converts eating blood, while he was for it, because Luke 7:15 quotes Jesus as saying that nothing a man eats can defile him, only his heart can defile him. There is no contradiction there.
  Where did all those Christians Nero persecuted come from? Mushrooms? Jesus was a Jew, and obeyed all the laws of Jehovah perfectly. He was the only person portrayed this way in any scriptures. His death had a cosmic significance, which she pretends to scratch her head over as if it came out of nowhere. Paula, wake up and smell the roses.

In short, her myopic analysis, taking Jesus as a real person but divorcing him from the entire point of his being, namely, to fulfill the scriptures, and undo the damage done by Adam and Eve, is bankrupt, as is her failure to grasp what made people forsake 'the world' and follow him, facing Nero to the point of death for a faith. Or how all this stuff just got made up because Jerusalem was invaded by the Romans and a million Jews murdered and the temple destroyed. Particulary after, since dead Jews don't make up and disseminate gospels. Or how people could be so dumb as to fall for it if there was no proof offered.

Either accept Jesus at face value, or paint the gospels as a fairy tale made up to fulfill scriptures with a dummy corporation, and argue that the entire Bible is a fairy tale, and that some mighty evil people purposely set out to perpetrate a cruel fraud on humanity for unknown reasons, since the promulgation of the views would get them persecuted by the most powerful empire in history, one that was particularly cruel.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)