# According to the Bible was Jesus the Son of God or Son of Man?



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

The OT tells us not to trust the Son of Man and the NT states many times over that Jesus is the Son of Man. Jesus powers were given to him like God gave many men throughout the Bible, he did not posses them on his own.

Thoughts?


----------



## 660griz (Jan 15, 2014)

I found this interesting tid bit.



> The Bible continually calls Jesus the Son of Man in several passages:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think he knows Christians very well.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

Yeah. Should be interesting.


----------



## kmh1031 (Jan 15, 2014)

Well, IF you are wanting to throw this back in forth…then have at it..

however if you are really wanting to know some of the answers to your questions, then look at this…

Yes Jesus was called the son of god, and the son of man (over 80 I think) AND the son of David…you may have missed one… 

This expression indicates that he was fully human and not God incarnate. 
How did God’s only-begotten Son come to be born as a human? 
Well..by means of holy spirit, God transferred his Son’s life to the womb of the Jewish virgin Mary, causing conception to take place. AND…as a result, Jesus was born sinless and perfect. Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35; John 8:46.

Calling himself the “Son of Man” shows not only that he was fully human but also that he was the “son of man” referred to in Bible prophecy. Daniel 7:13, 14.

Although Jesus rarely spoke of himself as God’s Son, he did acknowledge that he was. (Mark 14:61, 62; John 3:18; 5:25, 26; 11:4) Almost invariably, however, he said that he was “the Son of man.” By identifying himself this way, he highlighted his human birth, the fact that he was truly a man. 

Rather than proclaim himself to be God’s Son, Jesus allowed others to reach that conclusion. And even people besides his apostles did so, including John the Baptist and Jesus’ friend Martha. (John 1:29-34; 11:27) 
These believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. They learned that he had lived in heaven as a mighty spirit person and that his life had been miraculously transferred by God to the womb of the virgin Mary.—Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:20-23.

Jesus’ application of this expression to himself clearly showed that God’s Son was now indeed a human, having ‘become flesh’ (Joh 1:14), having ‘come to be out of a woman’ through his conception and birth to the Jewish virgin Mary. (Ga 4:4; Lu 1:34-36) Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as angels had previously done (in Noahs day); he was not an incarnation but was actually a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother. Compare 1Jo 4:2, 3; 2Jo 7.

For this reason the apostle Paul could apply Psalm 8 as prophetic of Jesus Christ. In his letter to the Hebrews (2:5-9), Paul quoted the verses reading: “What is mortal man [Ê¼enohshâ€²] that you keep him in mind, and the son of earthling man [ben-Ê¼a•dhamâ€²] that you take care of him? You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones “a little lower than angels,” at Hebrews 2:7], and with glory and splendor you then crowned him. You make him dominate over the works of your hands; everything you have put under his feet.” (Ps 8:4-6; compare Ps 144:3.) 
Paul shows that, to fulfill this prophetic psalm, Jesus indeed was made “a little lower than angels,” becoming actually a mortal “son of earthling man,” that he might die as such and thereby “taste death for every man,” thereafter being crowned with glory and splendor by his Father, who resurrected him. Heb 2:8, 9; compare Heb 2:14; Php 2:5-9.

The designation “Son of man,” therefore, also serves to identify Jesus Christ as the great Kinsman of mankind, having the power to redeem them from bondage to sin and death, as well as to identify him as the great Avenger of blood.  Le 25:48, 49; Nu 35:1-29
Thus, Jesus’ being called the “Son of David” (Mt 1:1; 9:27) emphasizes his being the heir of the Kingdom covenant to be fulfilled in David’s line; his being called the “Son of man” calls attention to his being of the human race by virtue of his fleshly birth; his being called the “Son of God” stresses his being of divine origin, not descended from the sinner Adam or inheriting imperfection from him but having a fully righteous standing with God. Mt 16:13-17.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

kmh1031 said:


> Well, IF you are wanting to throw this back in forth…then have at it..
> 
> however if you are really wanting to know some of the answers to your questions, then look at this…
> 
> ...



Is this straight out of the Watch Tower?

Who was Psalms 146 talking about?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

kmh1031 said:


> Well, IF you are wanting to throw this back in forth…then have at it..
> 
> however if you are really wanting to know some of the answers to your questions, then look at this…
> 
> ...



From: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012242


> ● “Son of man.” (Matthew 8:20) Jesus many times referred to himself as “the Son of man,” using an expression that occurs about 80 times in the Gospels. This expression indicates that he was fully human and not God incarnate. How did God’s only-begotten Son come to be born as a human? By means of holy spirit, Jehovah transferred his Son’s life to the womb of the Jewish virgin Mary, causing conception to take place. As a result, Jesus was born sinless and perfect.—Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35; John 8:46.





kmh1031 said:


> Calling himself the “Son of Man” shows not only that he was fully human but also that he was the “son of man” referred to in Bible prophecy. Daniel 7:13, 14.
> 
> Although Jesus rarely spoke of himself as God’s Son, he did acknowledge that he was. (Mark 14:61, 62; John 3:18; 5:25, 26; 11:4) Almost invariably, however, he said that he was “the Son of man.” By identifying himself this way, he highlighted his human birth, the fact that he was truly a man.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 15, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The OT tells us *not to trust* the Son of Man and the NT states many times over that Jesus is the Son of Man. Jesus powers were given to him like God gave many men throughout the Bible, he did not posses them on his own.
> 
> Thoughts?


Do you have any of these verses in mind? That I could look over. I don't recall what you are referring to.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

Psalms 146


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

Psalm 118:8 

It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.



Jeremiah 17:5

Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord.



Psalm 118:8-9 

It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.


----------



## Woodsong (Jan 15, 2014)

bullethead,
 are you a jehovah's witness?  Do you believe in the trinity?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 15, 2014)

We have many views as to who Jesus is in this discussion. I believe Jesus is the son of God but not God. He was God's messenger. 
So when he was saying don't trust man, was he not referring to himself, a man?
It's possible he was saying trust in God and no man. Confusing.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

Woodsong said:


> bullethead,
> are you a jehovah's witness?  Do you believe in the trinity?



No. No.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 15, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Psalm 118:8
> 
> It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.
> 
> ...


These are in reference to man not "son of man". When Jesus was calling himself the "Son of man" he was claiming to be that one spoken of in the book of Enoch. Much was said about the Son of man in Enoch. But the issue here is that so much was said about the Son of man and almost a hundred refferences to the book of Enoch, that everyone believed that Enoch must have been reverse engineered, written after Matthew. But after the finding of the dead sea schrools, we now know which one came first, Enoch. So Jesus was claiming all these things from Enoch, including the claim of the one "Son of man". But typical as it may be, Orthodox belief had already formed it's opinion and was not gonna look backward to correct itself.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

Psalms 146:

1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul.
2 While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:
6 Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:
7 Which executeth judgment for the oppressed: which giveth food to the hungry. The LORD looseth the prisoners:
8 The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous:
9 The LORD preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.
10 The LORD shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the LORD


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 15, 2014)

If someone really and truly wants to know why the words are used in two different ways, check out this web site.  It provides a complete answer so that I won't have to play question and answer for the next three weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man

For those who just enjoy the volley, continue on.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> If someone really and truly wants to know why the words are used in two different ways, check out this web site.  It provides a complete answer so that I won't have to play question and answer for the next three weeks.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man
> 
> For those who just enjoy the volley, continue on.



I have read many of the pros and cons on various sites. I'd like to know what others think.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 16, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> If someone really and truly wants to know why the words are used in two different ways, check out this web site.  It provides a complete answer so that I won't have to play question and answer for the next three weeks.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man
> 
> For those *who just enjoy the volley,* continue on.


That's a good description. Not trying to spike it anybodys face, just keeping a volley going.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 16, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> If someone really and truly wants to know why the words are used in two different ways, check out this web site.  It provides a complete answer so that I won't have to play question and answer for the next three weeks.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man
> 
> For those who just enjoy the volley, continue on.



The expression "the Son of Man" occurs 81 times in the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[2] However, the use of the definite article in "the Son of Man" in the gospels is novel, and before its use there, there are no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man

And we wonder why the English translations cause so many debates. I'm thinking schools and Churches should start teaching Greek & Hebrew. We can't rely on English Bibles alone.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 16, 2014)

Those verses about not relying on man could be used by Trinitarians as proof Jesus was more than a man.
That might not work though because Jesus gave all of the credit to God who isn't a man. God has worked supernaturally through many men.
Maybe it just means "mankind' in a way general sense. When it comes down to it though, we must trust man at some point, parents, teachers, preachers, prophets, apostiles, Bible writers, & Bible interpreters.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 16, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> If someone really and truly wants to know why the words are used in two different ways, check out this web site.  It provides a complete answer so that I won't have to play question and answer for the next three weeks.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man
> 
> For those who just enjoy the volley, continue on.



Was the link supposed to clear things up?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 16, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Was the link supposed to clear things up?



Not for you my good friend.
I'm determined that nothing would clear it up for you.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 16, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The expression "the Son of Man" occurs 81 times in the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[2] However, the use of the definite article in "the Son of Man" in the gospels is novel, and before its use there, there are no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man
> 
> And we wonder why the English translations cause so many debates. I'm thinking schools and Churches should start teaching Greek & Hebrew. We can't rely on English Bibles alone.




For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him and understands Greek and Hebrew translation, should not perish, but have everlasting life.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 16, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> Not for you my good friend.
> I'm determined that nothing would clear it up for you.



I read the entire page and one section seemed to cast doubt on the next. I did not know if that was the intent you wanted to pass along or is there something in there that you feel stands out above the rest that you wanted to show.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 17, 2014)

Obviously, Jesus was the son of man. A virgin birth? Yea right. 
I wonder how engaged to be married women that got pregnant were viewed back then. Especially when the spouse to be hadn't had relations yet. Oh how do they explain it? "Oh, God got me pregnant." And they bought it...for centuries.

"What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith. --Thomas Paine


----------



## Obediah01 (Apr 21, 2014)

Who is Jesus then, actually; well lets let scripture tell/settle it for us! Matthew 1: 22-23   Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, *God with us*.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 21, 2014)

Obediah01 said:


> Who is Jesus then, actually; well lets let scripture tell/settle it for us! Matthew 1: 22-23   Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, *God with us*.



Wasn't this written 50 to 70 years after the birth. 

"I believe there will be an attack on Pearl Harbor."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2014)

Obediah01 said:


> Who is Jesus then, actually; well lets let scripture tell/settle it for us! Matthew 1: 22-23   Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, *God with us*.



If scripture was clear or reliable it would have been settled long ago.

PS: Stay out of NYC on 9/11/01...." behold twin giants shall fall to rubble to featherless cousins and from those ashes a dark skinned leader shall emerge...they shall call him Barack which means _BLESSING_"
Do you see how is not to hard to make up a story after an event has taken place and how simple it is to tweak the story to "fit" what wants to be asserted?


----------



## hummdaddy (Apr 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If scripture was clear or reliable it would have been settled long ago.
> 
> PS: Stay out of NYC on 9/11/01...." behold twin giants shall fall to rubble to featherless cousins and from those ashes a dark skinned leader shall emerge...they shall call him Barack which means _BLESSING_"
> Do you see how is not to hard to make up a story after an event has taken place and how simple it is to tweak the story to "fit" what wants to be asserted?



exactly


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2014)

660griz said:


> Wasn't this written 50 to 70 years after the birth.
> 
> "I believe there will be an attack on Pearl Harbor."





bullethead said:


> If scripture was clear or reliable it would have been settled long ago.
> 
> PS: Stay out of NYC on 9/11/01...." behold twin giants shall fall to rubble to featherless cousins and from those ashes a dark skinned leader shall emerge...they shall call him Barack which means _BLESSING_"
> Do you see how is not to hard to make up a story after an event has taken place and how simple it is to tweak the story to "fit" what wants to be asserted?



Mathew was quoting the book of Isaiah, chapter 7 verse 14, which I believe was written around 740 BC.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 21, 2014)

Crickets?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Mathew was quoting the book of Isaiah, chapter 7 verse 14, which I believe was written around 740 BC.



When Isaiah calls him Emmanuel and his parents name him Yeshua and we call him Jesus.....but after the fact we are told there are many names to which he goes by (which oddly seems to cover all the bases after the fact) then I think the point still stands.
I must have been mistaken to think anything in the NT was written after the fact and embellished on.......mmmm NOPE!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Crickets?



Insects
Good fish bait
Two or more .22 rifles made for children
A restaurant
Buddy Holley's Band


Thats all I got....


----------



## 660griz (Apr 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Mathew was quoting the book of Isaiah, chapter 7 verse 14, which I believe was written around 740 BC.



He was taking liberties with the book of Isaiah. 
Isaiah 7:14 – "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

Later on, when Matthew came along, well, lots of other flavors of religion had virgin birth, as well as explanations of how divinity got to earth so, young woman changed to virgin. Voila. Miracle is born.

Wait, I thought the OT didn't count.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> When Isaiah calls him Emmanuel and his parents name him Yeshua and we call him Jesus.....but after the fact we are told there are many names to which he goes by (which oddly seems to cover all the bases after the fact) then I think the point still stands.
> I must have been mistaken to think anything in the NT was written after the fact and embellished on.......mmmm NOPE!



Reading this prompted this verse to come to mind:

Matt.  11:25

25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> When Isaiah calls him Emmanuel and his parents name him Yeshua and we call him Jesus.....but after the fact we are told there are many names to which he goes by (which oddly seems to cover all the bases after the fact)then I think the point still stands.
> I must have been mistaken to think anything in the NT was written after the fact and embellished on.......mmmm NOPE!


Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, I thought you were insinuating that what Mathew quoted was written after Jesus. Was I wrong?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2014)

660griz said:


> He was taking liberties with the book of Isaiah.
> Isaiah 7:14 – "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."
> 
> Later on, when Matthew came along, well, lots of other flavors of religion had virgin birth, as well as explanations of how divinity got to earth so, young woman changed to virgin. Voila. Miracle is born.
> ...



http://carm.org/isaiah-7-14-virgin


> Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is "almah." According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word "almah" does not always mean virgin.  The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (”maiden“); Exodus 2:8 (”girl“); Psalm 68:25 (”maidens“); Proverbs 30:19 (”maiden“); Song of Songs 1:3 (”maidens“); 6:8 (”virgins“)."1 Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin:  bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?
> 
> The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek.  This translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars.  In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word "almah" into the Greek word "parthenos."  According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,2 parthenos means "virgin."  This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11).  If the Hebrews translated the Hebrew word "alma" into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here.
> 
> Why would Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah?  It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman. Is it still a prophecy? Of course.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, I thought you were insinuating that what Mathew quoted was written after Jesus. Was I wrong?



What Matthew wrote was not an exact quote. As Griz already showed you the author of Matthew tweaked it a bit to fit.

Do you think an apologetics site is going to post something that does NOT tie it all together? What Isaiah wrote is clear.......conservative Christians sure would want to think so.

Might be best if you check the context of the verse in Isaiah....I don't think he was talking about prophecy 700 in the future. He was talking about it happening soon and the reasons are in the context.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Reading this prompted this verse to come to mind:
> 
> Matt.  11:25
> 
> 25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.



"Jesus said"........
I love it when you quote fiction.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, I thought you were insinuating that what Mathew quoted was written after Jesus. Was I wrong?



Let me ask you how many times Jesus is called Immanuel in the NT?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> "Jesus said"........
> I love it when you quote fiction.



Is your position that Jesus did not say it, did not exist, or was fabricating when he spoke?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Is your position that Jesus did not say it, did not exist, or was fabricating when he spoke?



My position is that I do not believe that the author of Matthew was anywhere near Jesus to hear what he said to who, let alone get it right 50 years later. I believe the authors embellished real people and real events in order to make them more divine.
I think Jesus was a real man who was made into a god long after his death.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What Matthew wrote was not an exact quote. As Griz already showed you the author of Matthew tweaked it a bit to fit.
> 
> Do you think an apologetics site is going to post something that does NOT tie it all together? What Isaiah wrote is clear.......conservative Christians sure would want to think so.
> 
> Might be best if you check the context of the verse in Isaiah....I don't think he was talking about prophecy 700 in the future. He was talking about it happening soon and the reasons are in the context.



You've got a lot of points going on here Bullet, let's take them one at a time. We'll start with your first one.

You seemed to indicate in your satirical post about 9/11 that what Mathew quoted was indeed written years after Jesus. I've shown you that Mathew was quoting Isaiah, which was written over 700 years prior. 

Now that we've established that yourself and Griz were incorrect(it's all good, I've been incorrect at least three times in my life too) in your post about Mathew, what is the next point you would like to make? You've talked about Jesus' name, Mathew misquoting Isaiah, who wrote the book of Mathew, and embellishments in the NT. Let's take them one at a time.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> You've got a lot of points going on here Bullet, let's take them one at a time. We'll start with your first one.
> 
> You seemed to indicate in your satirical post about 9/11 that what Mathew quoted was indeed written years after Jesus. I've shown you that Mathew was quoting Isaiah, which was written over 700 years prior.
> 
> Now that we've established that yourself and Griz were incorrect(it's all good, I've been incorrect at least three times in my life too) in your post about Mathew, what is the next point you would like to make? You've talked about Jesus' name, Mathew misquoting Isaiah, who wrote the book of Mathew, and embellishments in the NT. Let's take them one at a time.



I've shown you that the author of Matthew incorrectly misused the Isaiah quote to try to fulfill a prophesy that was not there. (IE: using known text or happenings to try to tweak a story in order to fit what the author wanted told) The author of Matthew totally missed the context of Isaiah. Read Isaiah 7: again.... not Just 7:14... when you get to 15 and 16 you will see Jesus was born 700+ years too late to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. 15 and 16 state that the child would still be an infant when the two kings would be done away with. This happened within about 2 years from when Isaiah came to Ahaz the king. The child Isaiah was referring to would have to have been born within that two year time frame.... 700+ years before Jesus.

Bump your "incorrect" number up to (at least)4 now. I know you are doing some tweaking of your own on some facts there anyway...)We will keep a running tab.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> My position is that I do not believe that the author of Matthew was anywhere near Jesus to hear what he said to who, let alone get it right 50 years later. I believe the authors embellished real people and real events in order to make them more divine.
> I think Jesus was a real man who was made into a god long after his death.



Thanks for the clarification.  I scratch my head over the folks who don't think he ever existed but are willing to accept the existence of just about anybody else.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I've shown you that the author of Matthew incorrectly misused the Isaiah quote to try to fulfill a prophesy that was not there. (IE: using known text or happenings to try to tweak a story in order to fit what the author wanted told) The author of Matthew totally missed the context of Isaiah. Read Isaiah 7: again.... not Just 7:14... when you get to 15 and 16 you will see Jesus was born 700+ years too late to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. 15 and 16 state that the child would still be an infant when the two kings would be done away with. This happened within about 2 years from when Isaiah came to Ahaz the king. The child Isaiah was referring to would have to have been born within that two year time frame.... 700+ years before Jesus.
> 
> Bump your "incorrect" number up to (at least)4 now. I know you are doing some tweaking of your own on some facts there anyway...)We will keep a running tab.





> 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.



I'm not seeing where Isaiah said that the boy would be born in the next two years?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Bump your "incorrect" number up to (at least)4 now. I know you are doing some tweaking of your own on some facts there anyway...)We will keep a running tab.


Btw, I'm still at three. The only thing I've said in this thread is that Mathew was quoting Isaiah, which was written prior to Jesus, and that is correct.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2014)

Here's a good explanation.

https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/17/The-Ultimate-Sign-Isaiah-7.aspx



> Some evangelical expositors have sought a dual fulfillment of this passage and try to identify Immanuel with either Hezekiah or the child of the prophetess who was Isaiah’s wife (8:3), and then also Jesus.  These two suggested identifications collapse on historical and theological grounds.  First, Hezekiah was already born and was one of those in the royal court hearing this prophecy.  Second, Immanuel could not be the son of the prophetess because she had already given birth to Shear-Yashub (7:3), thus she was not a virgin.  The name Immanuel, “God with us” indicates that the Child will be God manifested in human flesh.  Two chapters later, Isaiah would call Him the “Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6).  There was One, and only one Person, who could fulfill this passage and that was the Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Here's a good explanation.
> 
> https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/17/The-Ultimate-Sign-Isaiah-7.aspx



Better explanation:

http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id7.html

Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah — he will bring the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:10-17)

Christians often claim that Isaiah 7:14 (listed above, in context) is a prophecy about Jesus' virgin birth. Please read the excerpt above very carefully. Context is critical with this proof-text, as it alone disproves the notion that this is a prophecy about Jesus, as we shall see below.

First, this was an event that would happen during the life of Ahaz; it was to be a sign for Ahaz. This was to happen long before Jesus may have existed.

Second, Jesus was never named Immanuel. Christians developed this doctrine via circular reasoning: “We believe that Jesus is God, therefore Jesus is Immanuel because Immanuel means “God with us.”” Aside from the fallacy, it is important to note that Hebrew names don't work like this - many Hebrew names contain "God" somewhere in them, but don't mean that the person named is divine.

Third, this states that the child would eat curds and honey when he knows to reject the wrong and choose the right. This doesn’t match the idea of a sinless Jesus, who supposedly always knew right form wrong, nor is there any account of a diet of curds and honey in the gospels.

Finally, it makes reference to the two kings that Ahaz dreads being laid to waste before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. That’s conclusive proof that this event happened during the reign of Ahaz, and not some future event.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2014)

http://agnosticreview.com/isaiah7.htm

Isaiah 7:14-Deception In The Name Of Jesus

One of the most deceptive things written in the New Testament was written by the author of Matthew when he took a small section of Isaiah chapter 7 and attempted to show the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of a prophecy.

Matt 1:20-23
But while he(Joseph) thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The author of Matthew is saying that Mary's "virgin" birth of Jesus would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.
The actual Hebrew verse which the author of Matthew attempts to manufacture a prophecy fulfillment out of doesn't say a virgin would give birth but that a young woman would conceive. As an aside, the KJV Bible does as most Christian Bibles do, which is to translate the Hebrew word "almah" to mean virgin instead of young woman. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) Bible is one of the few Christian Bibles that maintains the term young woman instead of replacing it with the word "virgin". The basic issue is that Isa 7:14 doesn't have anything to do with Jesus in the first place.

Isa 7:14(KJV)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The author of Matthew was trying to retrofit Jesus into a prophecy about a child who was to be born and called the name Immanuel. This tactic is called manufacturing a prophecy fulfillment and the author of Matthew was a master at doing it. He was a master of deception.
One of the problems with this is that the prophecy given by Isaiah was already fulfilled hundreds of years before Jesus ever arrived on earth.

The birth and naming of the child Immanuel was to be a sign for king Ahaz that God was with his people who were about to be invaded by two rival kingdoms. This is clear when Isa 7:14 is put back into the context which the author of Matthew lifted it out of.
Isa 7:10-16
Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This promise was kept by God as shown in 2 Kings 16:9.
Assyria defeated the two rival kings and Ahaz and his people would be safe.
2 Kings 16:9
And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.

The child was born, called by the name Immanuel by his mother and the Assyrians defeated the two kings who threatened Ahaz and his people. The prophecy was fulfilled long before the author of Matthew dishonestly claimed that Jesus fulfilled it.
The author of Matthew ignored all this because he only wanted one verse from Isaiah and that was Isa 7:14 which he wanted to use to give credibility to his tale about a "virgin" birth.

There are many problems associated with the deliberate misapplication of Isa 7:14 by the author of Matthew and this essay will focus on investigating the particular problem that Mary never called the name of her child Immanuel as required by the prophecy, but instead called him Jesus.

Here is the prophecy about Jesus according to the author of Luke:
Luke 1:30-31
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Note: Mary's child was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel. And Jesus he was actually called. Not Immanuel.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Btw, I'm still at three. The only thing I've said in this thread is that Mathew was quoting Isaiah, which was written prior to Jesus, and that is correct.



You would be right had you said "Mathew was MIS-quoting Isaiah which was written prior to Jesus."

4


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, I thought you were insinuating that what Mathew quoted was written after Jesus. Was I wrong?



My point is that not only did the author of Mathew write it after Jesus... but he went one step further by quoting an earlier text and tried to tweak it to fit his current story in order to tie it in with Jesus. 
The translations may be equally as at fault here as the author is...but the author of Mathew did include it in his writings and in it's original form was even less convincing that what Isaiah said was about Jesus. Yet he tried to work it in to fit anyway.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> My point is that not only did the author of Mathew write it after Jesus... but he went one step further by quoting an earlier text and tried to tweak it to fit his current story in order to tie it in with Jesus.
> The translations may be equally as at fault here as the author is...but the author of Mathew did include it in his writings and in it's original form was even less convincing that what Isaiah said was about Jesus. Yet he tried to work it in to fit anyway.



Why do you think Mathew(or whoever you think wrote the book of Mathew)would have "tweak" the story?

Who else would Isaiah have been talking about, what other virgin do we know of in the bible that had a baby?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Better explanation:
> 
> http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id7.html
> 
> ...



Bullet you bring up some good points.  Some of these have been and are still debated by scholars.

First, if you go back and read you will see that after Ahaz refused to test The Lord, Issiah addresses "the house of David" in general, not Ahaz personally.  There is a shift in context as Issiah begins to prophesy to the "house of David."  When he says God will give you a sign, he's addressing the nation as a whole and not Ahaz personally.  This is important because it doesn't limit as you suppose, that it was an event that would happen in Ahaz's life.

As to your second point, you are correct in that Jesus was not named Immanuel.  Immanuel which means " God with us. " was meant as a discriptor to the Jews in this verse.  In that case it is a very telling descriptor in that it informed them that God in the form of a man was coming.  Up until this point I don't think that had been revealed to them, but I may be wrong.

To your third point, it never said the child would sin, only be so old before he knew the difference between right and wrong.  Big difference, and just as a side note, I'll add this.  If one doesn't know right from wrong can one even sin in the first place.  Precedent would say Not.

To your last point:  The two kings were certainly laid to waste before Christ was even born so no point of contention exists there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 23, 2014)

Without quoting another long post let me just say this regarding the term "virgin" Matthew used instead of "young woman".  I just happened to be looking into this yesterday if you can believe that, and while scholars go both ways on the original term "alma" it is now believed (owing to the oldest archeological finds now available) that "virgin" is, if not the more correct interpretation, at least a very acceptable one.  I can post the links if you like.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 23, 2014)

Pretty good link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you think Mathew(or whoever you think wrote the book of Mathew)would have "tweak" the story?
> 
> Who else would Isaiah have been talking about, what other virgin do we know of in the bible that had a baby?



All of your questions have been answered with my posts and the links I provided. Isaiah was not talking about a virgin.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Without quoting another long post let me just say this regarding the term "virgin" Matthew used instead of "young woman".  I just happened to be looking into this yesterday if you can believe that, and while scholars go both ways on the original term "alma" it is now believed (owing to the oldest archeological finds now available) that "virgin" is, if not the more correct interpretation, at least a very acceptable one.  I can post the links if you like.



It seems like the conservative Christian sites and the Hebrew sites disagree on "alma"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 23, 2014)

Check this out.  It discusses both as well as the archeological evidence.

http://www.faithandreasonforum.com/index.asp?PageID=31&ArticleID=412


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet you bring up some good points.  Some of these have been and are still debated by scholars.
> 
> First, if you go back and read you will see that after Ahaz refused to test The Lord, Issiah addresses "the house of David" in general, not Ahaz personally.  There is a shift in context as Issiah begins to prophesy to the "house of David."  When he says God will give you a sign, he's addressing the nation as a whole and not Ahaz personally.  This is important because it doesn't limit as you suppose, that it was an event that would happen in Ahaz's life.


Scholars seem to disagree. The earliest texts words were later changed in order to "fit".



> The Gospel of Matthew quotes the Immanuel prophesy from Isaiah, although it uses a Greek translation rather than the original Hebrew. It begins with a genealogy from Abraham through David to Joseph, establishing Joseph as the "son of David", the rightful heir to Judah. But verse 1:16 makes clear that Jesus is not Joseph's son, and Matthew is careful never to refer to Joseph as Jesus's father. Verses 1:18–25 turn to Mary, the future mother of Jesus, betrothed (engaged) to Joseph, but "found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit" before she and Joseph have "come together". Joseph is about to break the engagement, but an angel appears to him in a dream and tells him of the child's divine origins, and Matthew 1:22–23 explains how this is the fulfillment of Scripture: "All this happened to fulfill what had been declared by the Lord through the prophet, who said, 'Look, the virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will give him the name Immanuel'—which is translated, 'God with us'".
> 
> It was common in Jewish writing of the time to reinterpret the scriptures in order to signify a new meaning. This is what Matthew has done with Isaiah 7:14: the Hebrew has the child being given the name Immanuel by "she" (presumably its mother), while the commonly-used Greek translation of the time (the Septuagint) has "you" (presumably king Ahaz, to whom the prophecy was addressed). The change from "she" or "you" to "they" allows Matthew to have Joseph give the name "Jesus" to the child, thus signalling the God-born Messiah's formal adoption into the House of David, while at the same time he is "Immanuel", God with us, the Son of God.
> 
> The gospel of Matthew was probably written in the last two decades of the 1st century, by a highly educated Jew who believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, "God with us". At first, titles such as "Messiah" and "son of God" had described Jesus's future nature at the "deutera parousia", the Second Coming; but very soon he came to be recognized as having become the Son of God at the resurrection; then, in Mark, he becomes Son of God at his baptism; and finally Matthew and Luke add infancy narratives in which Jesus is the Son of God from the very beginning, conceived of a virgin mother without a human father.






SemperFiDawg said:


> As to your second point, you are correct in that Jesus was not named Immanuel.  Immanuel which means " God with us. " was meant as a discriptor to the Jews in this verse.  In that case it is a very telling descriptor in that it informed them that God in the form of a man was coming.  Up until this point I don't think that had been revealed to them, but I may be wrong.


Throughout Jewish history and in every culture there are names which have meanings linked to "god(s)". Immanuel is a specific name. The scripture says specifically what the child will be named.
700+ years later scripture says that Mary will name her child Jesus which means "the Lord is salvation".
Those are two specific Names and two specific meanings. 
What you are overlooking is that both were common names in that part of the world during those times because people wanted to link their children's names to gods that they worshiped....BUT if scripture is accurate and the word of God then Yeshoua (Jesus) should have been named Immanuel if the prophesy was accurate. Instead he was named Yeshoua/Jesus because a whole new and different part of scripture said that is what his name should be.



> Isaiah 7–8 mentions three children with symbolic names: Shear-jashub, meaning "a remnant shall return"; Immanuel, "God is with us"; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "the spoil speeds, the prey hastens". Isaiah 8:18 informs the reader that Isaiah and his children are signs ("Here am I, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion"). The meaning of these name-signs is not clear: Shear-jashub has been variously interpreted to mean that only a remnant of Ephraim and Syria will survive the Assyrian invasion, or that a remnant of Judah will repent and turn to God, while in Isaiah 10:20–23 it seems to mean that a remnant of Israel will return to the Davidic monarchy. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is more clearly related to the expected destruction of Ephraim and Syria. As for Immanuel, "God is with us", Isaiah might mean simply that any young pregnant woman in 734 BCE would be able to name her child "God is with us" by the time he is born; but if a specific child is meant, then it might be a son of Ahaz, possibly his successor Hezekiah (which is the traditional Jewish understanding); or, since the other symbolic children are Isaiah's, Immanuel might be the prophet's own son. However this may be, the significance of the sign changes, from Isaiah 7, where Immanuel symbolises the hope of imminent defeat for Syria and Ephraim, to Isaiah 8:8, where Immanuel is addressed as the people whose land is about to be overrun by the Assyrians.





SemperFiDawg said:


> To your third point, it never said the child would sin, only be so old before he knew the difference between right and wrong.  Big difference, and just as a side note, I'll add this.  If one doesn't know right from wrong can one even sin in the first place.  Precedent would say Not.


Precedent would suggest that GOD, no matter in what form or age, would know right from wrong.



SemperFiDawg said:


> To your last point:  The two kings were certainly laid to waste before Christ was even born so no point of contention exists there.


The truth in that backs up the original Hebrew text and meanings in the other scripture that are now contended after translation and changes..


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> All of your questions have been answered with my posts and the links I provided. Isaiah was not talking about a virgin.



Well I seemed to have overlooked the answers. Could you point them out to me?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Check this out.  It discusses both as well as the archeological evidence.
> 
> http://www.faithandreasonforum.com/index.asp?PageID=31&ArticleID=412





> “The commonly held view that “virgin” is Christian, whereas “young woman” is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes ‘almah to mean ‘virgin’ here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Little purpose would be served in repeating the learned expositions that Hebraists have already contributed in their attempt to clarify the point at issue. It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ is betulah, whereas ‘almah means a ‘young woman’ who may be a virgin, but is not necessary so. The aim of this note is rather to call attention to a source that has not yet been brought into the discussion. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son....The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew ‘almah ‘young woman’; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah ‘virgin.’ Therefore, the New Testament rendering of ‘almah as ‘virgin’ for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.21


With all due respect SFD, this example makes it sound like the author of Isaiah plagiarized stuff written much earlier by the Ugarits, then used and tweaked by the author of Mathew...which in turn is another example why much of what is written in the Bible is stories from one culture, changed and tweaked in order to fit the Jewish culture, is a major source of legitimate contention among skeptics.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Well I seemed to have overlooked the answers. Could you point them out to me?



No. I refuse to play that game.
Your points are directly addressed in those links and posts. And in the subsequent posts I made to SFD.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No. I refuse to play that game.Your points are directly addressed in those links and posts. And in the subsequent posts I made to SFD.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> With all due respect SFD, this example makes it sound like the author of Isaiah plagiarized stuff written much earlier by the Ugarits, then used and tweaked by the author of Mathew...which in turn is another example why much of what is written in the Bible is stories from one culture, changed and tweaked in order to fit the Jewish culture, is a major source of legitimate contention among skeptics.




I'm not sure I would go that far,(the author didn't)  but I would be interested in more info on the parallels between this prophecy and the Ugaritic story if you run across any.  

I do think it puts to rest the argument that the term "almah" was wrongly interpreted "virgin" by Matthew.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 24, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I do think it puts to rest the argument that the term "almah" was wrongly interpreted "virgin" by Matthew.



Of course you do, one common theme throughout the descriptions of almah is that most Christians identify that as meaning virgin. The reason why is obvious. A 'virign' birth makes for a much better story.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 24, 2014)

660griz said:


> Of course you do, one common theme throughout the descriptions of almah is that most Christians identify that as meaning virgin. The reason why is obvious. A 'virign' birth makes for a much better story.



Maybe, but again, the earliest archeological evidence supports it which brings up the obvious question: What are you basing your beliefs on other than a personal agenda and "cause I said so."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not sure I would go that far,(the author didn't)  but I would be interested in more info on the parallels between this prophecy and the Ugaritic story if you run across any.
> 
> I do think it puts to rest the argument that the term "almah" was wrongly interpreted "virgin" by Matthew.



Believers will believe the apologetics version. Most likely because they have to.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2014)

This link tells you why Professor Gordon's findings are flawed.

http://www.thejewishhome.org/counter/j4jexposed.pdf

Seems to be a conclusion based on words switched during translation. The original text was not used an early copy of the text in another language was used.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe, but again, the earliest archeological evidence supports it which brings up the obvious question: What are you basing your beliefs on other than a personal agenda and "cause I said so."



You cannot find the first article that says what you want it to say and use it without checking further. Prof Gordon is Jewish and he is a scholar, but he is not a "Jewish Scholar". He is a Jew that believes in Jesus.

I know when doing searches for these types of discussions we find both Pro and Con examples. Apologetic sources are as biased as Atheistic sources so finding reputable sources in between is the way to go.  Jewish sources often are the most accurate in cases like this because the answers are found in their history.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You cannot find the first article that says what you want it to say and use it without checking further. Prof Gordon is Jewish and he is a scholar, but he is not a "Jewish Scholar". He is a Jew that believes in Jesus.
> 
> I know when doing searches for these types of discussions we find both Pro and Con examples. Apologetic sources are as biased as Atheistic sources so finding reputable sources in between is the way to go.  Jewish sources often are the most accurate in cases like this because the answers are found in their history.



Not sure I would call Jewish sources unbiased.  Everyone has a priori commitments, but that in itself can't be used to either justify nor deny a position that is reasonable and evidence based.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 24, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe, but again, the earliest archeological evidence supports it which brings up the obvious question: What are you basing your beliefs on other than a personal agenda and "cause I said so."



We can find lots of 'evidence' one way or another. I simply believe what I read when it states "most scholars agree" that almah meant young woman. No agenda, just the truth as "most scholars" see it. If "most scholars" agree almah means virgin, I would go with that. I am sure a young woman in those days was presumed a virgin however, there was a word for virgin. Almah wasn't it. 

Plus, there is a little bit of real world experiences thrown in to help with what really happens when a female in a  highly religious group suddenly becomes pregnant and her fiancé and/or husband is not the father. Nowadays, "God got me pregnant" wouldn't fly and virginity is not presumed or necessarily a sought after attribute. 

Add that all up and one could see how Mary would have said, "Of course I am a virgin and God got me pregnant." Ol, Joseph woke from a dream and decided to take her anyway. Good guy, Joseph.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not sure I would call Jewish sources unbiased.  Everyone has a priori commitments, but that in itself can't be used to either justify nor deny a position that is reasonable and evidence based.



I somewhat agree with that but what are you trying to say with your last sentence? Are you making that statement in general or are you saying that to be more specific regarding the Jewish answers to the evidence you provided?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2014)

Really what we are arguing here hurts anyone that thinks Jesus should have been born of a virgin. Scripture says the Messiah would come from the lineage of David and if Joseph is not the true father of Jesus then Jesus cannot be the Messiah.
It would be a whole lot better to admit Joseph was his father and argue that lineage fulfills prophesy better than God being his father. Except for Matthew and Luke I don't think any of the other NT authors mention the virgin birth. Probably embellishments on their part.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I somewhat agree with that but what are you trying to say with your last sentence? Are you making that statement in general or are you saying that to be more specific regarding the Jewish answers to the evidence you provided?



Just a general statement.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Really what we are arguing here hurts anyone that thinks Jesus should have been born of a virgin. Scripture says the Messiah would come from the lineage of David and if Joseph is not the true father of Jesus then Jesus cannot be the Messiah.
> It would be a whole lot better to admit Joseph was his father and argue that lineage fulfills prophesy better than God being his father. Except for Matthew and Luke I don't think any of the other NT authors mention the virgin birth. Probably embellishments on their part.



The reasoning goes that the Davidic lineage didn't come to Jesus through Joseph but through Mary.

Here's an excerpt that says it better than I could and explains why.  I'll also post the link so you can read it in its entirety.



> Mary was a descendent from David through his son Nathan. Jesus could not be the real son of Joseph or he would have come from the line of Coniah. Jeremiah 22:24 tells us the line  of Coniah son of Jehoiakim is cursed (Jeconiah the Je is left off his name because it relates to the name Lord .He was so evil it was left off). The decree was that no descendent of this wicked king would prosper (vs.30). If Jesus were the actual son of joseph he would have been under this curse. the virgin birth solves all this.



http://www.letusreason.org/Juda1.htm


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2014)

semperfidawg said:


> just a general statement.



10-4


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The reasoning goes that the Davidic lineage didn't come to Jesus through Joseph but through Mary.
> 
> Here's an excerpt that says it better than I could and explains why.  I'll also post the link so you can read it in its entirety.
> 
> ...



It seems that using Mary's lineage is popular among the apologetic crowd.
The Old Testament uses the father's lineage and I believe Matthew does too. Even Luke's account differs but when traced back is on the Father's side.
Hebrew history shows that they used the fathers lineage.

In depth explanations here:
http://www.seedofabraham.net/TheDavidicLineage.html


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 24, 2014)

This is a very good thread. I have enjoyed reading it!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It seems that using Mary's lineage is popular among the apologetic crowd.
> The Old Testament uses the father's lineage and I believe Matthew does too. Even Luke's account differs but when traced back is on the Father's side.
> Hebrew history shows that they used the fathers lineage.
> 
> ...



Here's another link that is a bit more detailed and explains the problems with each view.  Warning:  It IS an apologetic site.

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...ferent-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3.

Personally I can only see where it is important in that it fulfills the prophecy regarding the Messiah coming from the Davidic line.  It appears to me that prophesy is fulfilled through both of his parents.  (See link).  God was his true Father, and to me that's the most important concept.  I know you don't accept that, but that's truly what's of utmost importance viewed through a Christian's perspective.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2014)

Why the Jews say Jesus did not fulfill prophesy and cannot be the Messiah.

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 25, 2014)

I can't think of any other way of Jesus fulfilling the prophesies regarding 1) The Davidic lineage and 2) being " God with us" without a virgin birth and the lineage coming through Mary. Anybody???


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 25, 2014)

I think one of the McDowell boys wrote a book a while back about all the prophecies Christ fulfilled.  The thesis of it was that only one person has ever and could ever exist that would meet all the criteria.  Agree or disagree it's a very strong argument.

Here's a link to 365 Old Testament prophecies that Christ fulfilled
along with the corresponding NT verses that relate them.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2014)

Being that there was no New Testament while Jesus was alive and while the authors were writing stories down(but lets be real here there were MANY authors writing things down during those times...a select few made the cut) the Old Testament is what they read and followed. It is not hard at all to see how the NT stories were massaged a bit in order for them to try their best to have Jesus "fit" the prophecies. Volumes have been written about it. 
Bottom line is this: The Jews are STILL waiting for the Messiah as described in the Torah. If Jesus fulfilled the prophesy they would be following him. Look through the LONG line of potential messiahs, some were MORE qualified than Jesus but none have fulfilled ALL the prophesies..


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 25, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Being that there was no New Testament while Jesus was alive and while the authors were writing stories down(but lets be real here there were MANY authors writing things down during those times...a select few made the cut) the Old Testament is what they read and followed. It is not hard at all to see how the NT stories were massaged a bit in order for them to try their best to have Jesus "fit" the prophecies. Volumes have been written about it.
> Bottom line is this: The Jews are STILL waiting for the Messiah as described in the Torah. If Jesus fulfilled the prophesy they would be following him. Look through the LONG line of potential messiahs, some were MORE qualified than Jesus but none have fulfilled ALL the prophesies..




You are absolutely correct in that they are still waiting on the Messiah. They missed him the first time which was also a fulfillment of prophesy.

Psalm 118:22 
"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner."

Isaiah 8:14 
"And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."	


Isaiah 53:3b 
"He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

There's literally hundreds of Messianic Prophesies.

You are also correct in that Israel was awash in wannabe messiahs in Christ's day, but there is only one explanation for why Christ's followers stayed together and formed the Church after his death, whereas the other 'messiahs's" followers scattered: the Resurrection.  If that didn't happen no one ever hears of the 'wannabe' from Nazareth which is precisely why it's the pivotal event in Christianity if not History in it's entirety.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are absolutely correct in that they are still waiting on the Messiah. They missed him the first time which was also a fulfillment of prophesy.
> 
> Psalm 118:22
> "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner."
> ...



With all due respect you do not know the history of Christianity well and especially "History" well at all. What you have given above is a "fans" pep talk that moves other believers but you are completely off the mark by claiming the resurrection actually happened. NO ONE outside of the stories the authors used in the NT actually saw anyone come back from the dead. What they found was an empty tomb and then 50+ years later the stories went wild with "why" it was empty.... and those stories added an embellished feat. In no way did Christianity take off when a dead Jesus was witnessed by an entire population. IT DID NOT HAPPEN. If you know your religious history, and I suggest checking into it if you do not, Christianity was almost dead...just another petering out underground set of beliefs being egged on by believers in a guy that they thought was a god....until it got into the right hands and was made an"official" religion some 300+ years AFTER Jesus. There is a good reason why him and his miracles are contained in stories written by anonymous authors who did not witness an event let alone were with Jesus as he spoke. The stories were penned 50-100 years after his death and not as they happened. Why didn't  dozens or hundreds of impressed people from all walks of life and religious backgrounds write down what they saw as it happened? Either things like Jesus did were so common place that no one thought any of it was special...or...the stuff did not happen. A handful of followers(which we can see today how people are duped into believing a charismatic leader)  spent some time with Jesus, they saw him die, were convinced he was more than what he actually was and embellished his stories to keep his memory going. A feat so phenomenal by a god so great is recorded by No One, Nowhere, outside of 4 anonymous authors who didn't know Jesus, never met Jesus, and were not there to witness the events or hear Jesus speak to anyone....yet they record it with great details(albeit incorrect details because they were unfamiliar with customs and traditions with conflicting accounts between their own versions) 50 to 100 years later.
Please do not go into the "why would they die for a lie" nonsense as it has been shown those stories of martyrdom were fabricated too.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2014)

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2014)

Christianity, like any of the other popular religions, was a movement centered around a charismatic leader and then over time had the right people in the right places to turn it into an institutionalized force where it was able to be spread.

Here is a good read:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Christianity, like any of the other popular religions, was a movement centered around a charismatic leader and then over time had the right people in the right places to turn it into an institutionalized force where it was able to be spread.
> 
> Here is a good read:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html


Just a bit more to the story than... Jesus performed miracles and everybody believed.
Interestingly enough, even when Christianity was coming to be, Christians didn't agree (now how could that be?) -


> One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on.


You have to shut your eyes real tight to not see the truth of how what we know today as Christianity came to be.
From a link in that article -


> Different gnostics believed different things about the death and resurrection of Jesus. But some were people, whom we know as docetists, [who] believed that the death and suffering of Jesus were things that only appeared to happen, or if they happened, didn't really happen to the core of Jesus' spiritual reality. And so they abandoned the insistence upon those two poles of what were coming to be the heart of orthodox belief, the death and resurrection of Jesus.





> There are different texts in the opus of material that we call gnostic that are presentations of the teachings of Jesus or the person of Jesus. Some of those texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, which is at least a semi-gnosticizing kind of production, presents Jesus simply as a teacher, a teacher of wisdom. Someone who did not suffer an ignominious death on the cross and did not experience a resurrection. So the focus on Jesus as teacher would be characteristic of a strand of Christianity that certainly comes to be gnostic.


Gee, wonder why that one got rejected. Apparently not every one at the time could get a ticket to the resurrection. Even then it wasn't considered as fact by Christians. 
How could that be?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2014)

The story of Jesus was not told at his death, it has been a constant evolving bit of tweaking for over 2000 years that has involved many embellishments including a resurrection.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Gee, wonder why that one got rejected.


There are people who believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, there's a reason why their books aren't included in the classrooms.

When many people write a corroborating story, the odd man out is not going to be included.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> There are people who believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, there's a reason why their books aren't included in the classrooms.
> 
> When many people write a corroborating story, the odd man out is not going to be included.



Come to think of it I don't remember any biblical books in any classrooms....good point string.

But being your point doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about lets just say check into Christian history before you start with the odd man out stuff. There is what you think...and there is what IS. Being the odd man out pertaining to religion does not make it the untruthful man out. All it means is that it is a story that does not jive with what wants to be told and was not included.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> There are people who believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, there's a reason why their books aren't included in the classrooms.
> 
> When many people write a corroborating story, the odd man out is not going to be included.


I can agree with your premise. 
However the odd man out doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.
At one time the odd man out said the world wasn't flat.
And this -


> One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on.


Is pretty good evidence that only one story would be ALLOWED to be told.
While I don't know many people this entailed -


> other Christians
> Gnostic Christians
> other dualist Christians
> Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their canon are targeted
> The list of enemies goes on and on.


Im going to assume its more than a few. That begs the question - at that time, how could those CHRISTIANS, deny such an event?
Last point, at one time, "Christians" were the odd man out. And if you go by the overall numbers, they still are. According to your premise that would mean Christians are wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

String you really should check into Bible History also. What you have in your Bible is much different than what was included in earlier Bibles and before Bibles existed there were many other "books/stories/scripture" being included and read by various Christians. Jews and Muslims too...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm#index

http://www.thelostbooks.com/missing.htm

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I can agree with your premise.
> However the odd man out doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.At one time the odd man out said the world wasn't flat.
> And this -


You're absolutely correct.



> Im going to assume its more than a few. That begs the question - at that time, how could those CHRISTIANS, deny such an event?
> Last point, at one time, "Christians" were the odd man out. And if you go by the overall numbers, they still are. According to your premise that would mean Christians are wrong.



I didn't mean to insinuate that they were wrong, although I think they were, just that in my opinion, it's obvious why those other books were not included in scripture.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> String you really should check into Bible History also. What you have in your Bible is much different than what was included in earlier Bibles and before Bibles existed there were many other "books/stories/scripture" being included and read by various Christians. Jews and Muslims too...
> 
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm#index
> 
> ...



I can post a bunch of links of Biblical scholars that tell a different story. Yes they would be bias, but no more than the authors of your links.

I don't want to get into a link war.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I can post a bunch of links of Biblical scholars that tell a different story. Yes they would be bias, but no more than the authors of your links.
> 
> I don't want to get into a link war.



It is not about getting into a link war. There is what really happened as in what books were really included early on and Christians and Jews that included those books as part of their worship, and then there is what changed many many many years later. The links you provide won't necessarily be wrong, but I would bet they are not telling the entire story, just what needs to be told to fit what they want told.
You just do not want to read all the history...just the parts that make you comfortable with what you need to believe and that is no different than what the early church did the early writings...they used what they needed...not all of the writings, not just the "right or wrong" writings...just the writings they needed to tell the story they wanted told..


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I can post a bunch of links of Biblical scholars that tell a different story. Yes they would be bias, but no more than the authors of your links.
> 
> I don't want to get into a link war.



Point is...read what I posted.. you might learn something. Then read the links you want to use....then sit down and honestly do your best to try to find out what really went on in early Christian history and early Judaism for that matter...it sets up the Christian movement. You are going to find out there is a lot more than just one day there were Jews and the next day there were Jews and Christians.

I am not asking you read this stuff in order for you to denounce your religion....NOT AT ALL
I think you would be well schooled is all and have a better understanding.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It is not about getting into a link war. There is what really happened as in what books were really included early on and Christians and Jews that included those books as part of their worship, and then there is what changed many many many years later. The links you provide won't necessarily be wrong, but I would bet they are not telling the entire story, just what needs to be told to fit what they want told.You just do not want to read all the history...just the parts that make you comfortable with what you need to believe and that is no different than what the early church did the early writings...they used what they needed...not all of the writings, not just the "right or wrong" writings...just the writings they needed to tell the story they wanted told..


Do you believe the links you posted above are completely unbiased and only telling the entire truth? You don't think anyone left out anything, or better yet, simply didn't know something that got left out of the explanations?

Why is it that the faith based links are biased and purposfully leaving things out but the skeptics links and websites are presumed to be unbiased and completely truthful?

You letting your worldview creep in even when looking at links of websites proves my point. And just so you know I'm not trying calling you out, I do the exact same thing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe the links you posted above are completely unbiased and only telling the entire truth? You don't think anyone left out anything, or better yet, simply didn't know something that got left out of the explanations?
> 
> Why is it that the faith based links are biased and purposfully leaving things out but the skeptics links and websites are presumed to be unbiased and completely truthful?
> 
> You letting your worldview creep in even when looking at links of websites proves my point. And just so you know I'm not trying calling you out, I do the exact same thing.



Please do not take my word for it and do not use any links I provide.

If you really want to find out the truth all I can say is do your best to research multiple sources and find the ones that are neutral. Go with what they say but don't give up your beliefs.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> You're absolutely correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to insinuate that they were wrong, although I think they were, just that in my opinion, it's obvious why those other books were not included in scripture.


Got ya. You are right, I took it a bit farther than what you actually said.
But the point still remains -


> I didn't mean to insinuate that they were wrong, although I think they were,


The reason you think they were wrong is because what they believed was rejected and you were taught only what was allowed.
The fact still remains that there were CHRISTIANS who believed, right or wrong, very different things.
For me I have to wonder why, some CHRISTIANS, at that time, didn't believe such a monumental event as
Jesus's resurrection, ever happened.
I don't know why but its very, very odd.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe the links you posted above are completely unbiased and only telling the entire truth? You don't think anyone left out anything, or better yet, simply didn't know something that got left out of the explanations?
> 
> Why is it that the faith based links are biased and purposfully leaving things out but the skeptics links and websites are presumed to be unbiased and completely truthful?
> 
> You letting your worldview creep in even when looking at links of websites proves my point. And just so you know I'm not trying calling you out, I do the exact same thing.



research the lost books of the Bible....research the apocrypha....
Read anything and everything you can. Try to figure out what is most likely to be true. Thats all I do.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

string I am not in any way,shape or form trying to change what you choose to believe in....I'd just like to see you better informed.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Got ya. You are right, I took it a bit farther than what you actually said.
> But the point still remains -
> 
> The reason you think they were wrong is because what they believed was rejected and you were taught only what was allowed.
> ...



It is very odd, and I don't really have an answer for it. Probably a lot of the same reasons people reject it today.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Read anything and everything you can. Try to figure out what is most likely to be true. Thats all I do.



Same here.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> string I am not in any way,shape or form trying to change what you choose to believe in....I'd just like to see you better informed.



I appreciate that Bullet, but the reason you think I am ill informed is that I believe what I believe, as in, I would probably change my beliefs if I knew the "truth" about early Christianity.

I'm no biblical or early church scholar, but I'm not as ill informed as you probably think I am.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Same here.


Here's the early church scholar making a stop now. 

I was hoping you'd show up, always interesting to read your thoughts on the early church.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

Here's a question, and then I've gotta head out of the office for a while.


Do any of the books that were not included in the scripture we have today even claim to be inspired by God in the writings themselves?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It is very odd, and I don't really have an answer for it. Probably a lot of the same reasons people reject it today.


Yes, but how many of those people are Christians?
That's the stickler and why its so odd.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Here's the early church scholar making a stop now.



I don't know about that.  I'm really better with _Gilligan's Island_ trivia.  

Been busy lately, but I'll try to add if I can.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Here's a question, and then I've gotta head out of the office for a while.
> 
> 
> Do any of the books that were not included in the scripture we have today even claim to be inspired by God in the writings themselves?


None of them claimed to be. The writers didn't even know they were writing for a "Bible"
A council of men decided by vote and negotiation which writings were "inspired by God".
One of the main reasons why I reject the Bible/religion but still allow for the possibility of God.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It is very odd, and I don't really have an answer for it. Probably a lot of the same reasons people reject it today.



That is a possibility...and another one is that the story MAY have changed a bit over time to make a very knowledgeable and charismatic up and coming humble leader that challenged the early Jewish religious powers into something a wee bit more....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't know about that.  I'm really better with _Gilligan's Island_ trivia.
> 
> Been busy lately, but I'll try to add if I can.



I'm gonna be on and off myself...gotta load up some more 12ga and 20ga turkey ammo....I had an extended range session on Sat and depleted my stock. Son's scope base came loose and I went thru more shots than I cared to.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> None of them claimed to be. The writers didn't even know they were writing for a "Bible"
> A council of men decided by vote and negotiation which writings were "inspired by God".
> One of the main reasons why I reject the Bible/religion but still allow for the possibility of God.



Many of them claimed to be inspired.

http://gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php



> Isaiah 1:2 - The Lord has spoken.
> Jeremiah 10:1,2 - Hear the word which the Lord speaks. Thus says the Lord...
> Ezekiel 1:3 - The word of the Lord came expressly.
> Hosea 1:1,2 - The word of the Lord that came ... the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said...
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> A council of men decided by vote and negotiation which writings were "inspired by God"


And, in my opinion, for good reason, that way the "gospel of Thomas" and others were not included in scripture.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes, but how many of those people are Christians?
> That's the stickler and why its so odd.


I don't know if I would call anybody that doesn't believe that Christ is our Lord and Saviour and died for our sins could be call a Christian.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> That is a possibility...and another one is that the story MAY have changed a bit over time to make a very knowledgeable and charismatic up and coming humble leader that challenged the early Jewish religious powers into something a wee bit more....


What would be the point in that?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> What would be the point in that?



Same point of how a 15" rainbow turns into a 22" rainbow. Story gets embellished.

Same point as why someone who was a follower of Jesus would tell a story about him to someone else and then when the the person wasn't impressed the follower included more impressive feats the next time he told it. 

The point would be to make Jesus into what the person wanted or needed him to be. A dejected follower that thought his messiah was God just heard or saw his messiah die on a cross. In order to somehow cope with the loss...maybe even feeling a little duped... he tries to rationalize in his own mind how a God could die. Then this person hears someone else say I saw a guy that looked like Jesus...and the follower thinks "that's it!"  "Jesus didn't die...he must have come back for a little bit and then went to heaven to be with God"...then 50 years later after all sorts of stories are flying around(because in those days just like today there were more people that believed in sorcery, magic, gods, supernatural etc than you can shake a stick at and would add their own "event") someone, actually multiple, people wrote their versions of what they think happened. Some people believed it, some didn't. The people that believed it went with it and it grew further...some people kind of believed it and they went with it in a different direction and so on and so on. It was that way for 400 years until someone in a powerful position was able to consolidate what he wanted told and along with religious leaders figured out what to include in order to get some uniformity to the stories.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

How did all those religious leaders in Rome and all the people within the Roman empire who worshiped Roman Gods suddenly realize Jesus was the lord? They were told to! It was the law. Then they needed a way to get the story. Include some writings that tell the tales needed told. Do not include the writings that tell of something different. Pass it off as the works of a God even though the work is not worthy of a talented human let alone a God. If someone doesn't believe make them...if not strike them down. In the thousand plus years since Constantine got it rolling until King James had his way with the Bible changed a lot.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

I hear about some pretty impressive things that happened in my younger years.....
Initially they were a little crazy then....25-30 years later they are very impressive to hear about and the only reason I don't believe them 100% is because I was the guy that it happened to and/or I was the guy that did it back then! Over the years as I got together  with some pals that were there did the details grow and still have recently. Even more impressive is when some guys chime in adding their personal twist to the story AND THEY WERE NOT EVEN THERE!!  A jump off a 30ft cliff into an old stripping pit filled with water somehow turned into a double gainer, three twists with a can opener and the cliff was 100ft high and only 6ft of water. Plus I scaled the cliff with no safety ropes when in actuality I walked up the road to it.
I know we can all relate to something like that in our lives...imagine the embellishments that surround Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> What would be the point in that?



Jesus was not the rock star then as he grew to be later. SFD claims the resurrection is what catapulted Jesus to stardom but only a very small handful of people that lived there at that time and right among him believed it.....and that is going by what was written about him 40 -100 years later. NOBODY recorded the events and especially the resurrection as it happened. The rest of the people that were right there went on about daily life like nothing happened. Probably because nothing happened. It would be like a person living in New York City on Sept 12 2001 saying "Did you hear something about the Twin Towers?" and then the news of the event making the papers for the first time is 50 years later.
I mean... Son of God
Performing miracles
Dying and coming back to life
Walking among the people
Ascending into the sky to Heaven

4 guys jot it down like 50 years later and can't get the stories straight.......meanwhile outside witnesses with no affiliation to Jesus just do not record a thing as it happens. 

Were things like miracles and resurrections so common that if you have seen one you have seen em all??
OR
Did it happen but was witnessed by no one?
OR
Did it not happen?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2014)

Bullet, I don't even know what to say or where to begin with the last few posts.

Have you truly researched both sides of the argument? Ever read any N.T. Wright?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, I don't even know what to say or where to begin with the last few posts.
> 
> Have you truly researched both sides of the argument? Ever read any N.T. Wright?



I have read darn near anything and everything I have been able to in the last 24 years.

Wright is the "life after life after death" guy. I have not see him use anything but scripture as "facts".
When he asked "Is it reasonable to believe the followers of Christ who were men and women of integrity would lie about Christ being raised from the dead and then die for a hoax?" then said "People do not die for a fraud." He lost me. The die for a lie thing is weak. It happens all the time because if someone believes it..it is not a lie to them. And everybody dies somehow, someway. Most of the examples of martyrs (which are not included in the Bible)contain multiple deaths of the same person and instances where they died but not because they were believers in Christ.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, I don't even know what to say or where to begin with the last few posts.



Don't worry, you are in good company. Every clergy man that I have talked to face to face pretty much said the same thing. It is tough to make excuses for unnoticed miracles that get noticed 50 years later.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I have read darn near anything and everything I have been able to in the last 24 years.



Make that thirty-five years for me -- yet we arrive at different conclusions.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It is tough to make excuses for unnoticed miracles that get noticed 50 years later.



"Unnoticed" and "unwritten down" are not the same thing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Make that thirty-five years for me -- yet we arrive at different conclusions.



Well I am not saying my time spent is anything other than what it is. Different conclusions make the world go round. I spend most of my time trying to prove a God not disprove one...just can't do it based off of what I find.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> A council of men decided by vote and negotiation which writings were "inspired by God".



Which council was that? 

(Please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea.)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> "Unnoticed" and "unwritten down" are not the same thing.



I agree with that statement but then I ask why were they not recorded when there are written records of dang near everything else that happened that was un-miraculous? Representatives of all cultures, all walks of life, religious affiliations, historians and government that lived right there in and among those places where miracles took place did not record them yet almost everything else commonplace is noted in great detail.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Which council was that?
> 
> (Please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea.)



Council of Carthage


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I agree with that statement but then I ask why were they not recorded when there are written records of dang near everything else that happened that was un-miraculous?



Because we take literacy for granted.  It was not that common back then.  It is not a coincidence that the bulk of the NT was written by two educated men, Luke and Paul.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> And, in my opinion, for good reason, that way the "gospel of Thomas" and others were not included in scripture.


If you are ok with MEN deciding what is inspired by God, well then ok. Exactly how would they know what was or wasn't?
The simple answer is they chose what they agreed with. And not even all of them agreed. They voted and negotiated.
Its the same thing as if you say you were inspired by God to do a certain thing and I say no you weren't.
Exactly how would I know you weren't?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Council of Carthage



An answered prayer!  Hallelujah!

The Council of Carthage just put the official stamp of approval on the books that had long been commonly accepted.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Which council was that?
> 
> (Please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea, please don't say Nicea.)


Does which council actually matter?
A council is made up of men. Therefore men decided what was inspired by God. 
That's all I need to know.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Does which council actually matter?



Yes, it does.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I don't know if I would call anybody that doesn't believe that Christ is our Lord and Saviour and died for our sins could be call a Christian.


Yeah, now. But back then they were Christians. Until a politician, who wasn't a Christian, decided their story wasn't helpful to him.
You keep viewing things through your eyes of what Christianity is today. And the point is, that is exactly what was intended by squashing out other Christian beliefs. It was very successful.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, it does.


Some councils weren't made up of men? Which one(s)?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> An answered prayer!  Hallelujah!
> 
> The Council of Carthage just put the official stamp of approval on the books that had long been commonly accepted.


Doesn't that translate to - there were other books that were decided by this council that wouldn't be accepted?
Why did those books exist?
And throughout our history how many things that were commonly accepted turned out be wrong? Or are no longer accepted?
There is just no getting around that men directed what would be allowed to become what Christianity is today.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Because we take literacy for granted.  It was not that common back then.  It is not a coincidence that the bulk of the NT was written by two educated men, Luke and Paul.



Agreed that the bulk of NT was written by two educated men.
Agreed we take literacy for granted.
Confused on why NOBODY wrote down an account of any one of Jesus' miracles while or right after they happened and still NOBODY, even the educated priests,scholars, educators, aristocrats, politicians or anyone that could write would not have mentioned THE Son of God while he was alive (I can still see why they had doubts about him but a walk on water is a walk on water whether or not it is Jesus or Chriss Angel) let alone NOBODY recording a man whisking off skyward into Heaven. NOBODY

Then we have Paul and Luke who never met Jesus. Never spoke to Jesus. Never was anywhere near Jesus...and these two educated men got conversations that Jesus had in private when it was just Jesus and one other person verbatim. Those are miracles in their own right if you ask me. Those guys must have been very educated to pull that off. Yet with all that education Luke didn't quite grasp how Roman guards did their job, who they would report to, or the penalty for their actions. He must have missed that class during his education.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> An answered prayer!  Hallelujah!
> 
> The Council of Carthage just put the official stamp of approval on the books that had long been commonly accepted.



Commonly accepted by who?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2014)

Just a darn good read that covers some bases and lets anyone research them further is they wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Just a darn good read that covers some bases and lets anyone research them further is they wish.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible


Its a buffet of Bibles and beliefs. Pick and choose what ya like. 
Inclusions, exclusions, additions, subtractions, revisions, mistakes, agreement, disagreement, versions, politics, translations, inspired, not inspired...... .
If there ever was an "original" word of God it was polluted, corrupted and changed the second man put his hands on it and it was lost forever.
A crazy thought - if God does come back as it is believed, I have to wonder who is actually safe. He might be really po'd that his word was polluted. He might just say ya know, unbelievers didn't believe but at least they weren't the one who served themselves by polluting my word for their own gains.
That narrow gate might be really, really narrow.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Don't worry, you are in good company. Every clergy man that I have talked to face to face pretty much said the same thing. It is tough to make excuses for unnoticed miracles that get noticed 50 years later.



They probably figured correctly just as we have: that you are a person who would not believe no matter what evidence was presented.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> They probably figured correctly just as we have: that you are a person who would not believe no matter what evidence was presented.



Time and time again you prove that you have no idea of what you are talking about. Here you are... acting as if you know me well and are an authority on ME without ever actually meeting me. This is another perfect example of you coming on here making yet another assertive statement and trying to pass it off as being truthful with your ONLY proof being a prejudice notion in your brain. Your close-mindedness limits your capabilities....but "we" take that into account when trying to deal with you. 
Now go get your stick and play in the yard and pretend you are somebody special, let the adults continue the adult conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Its a buffet of Bibles and beliefs. Pick and choose what ya like.
> Inclusions, exclusions, additions, subtractions, revisions, mistakes, agreement, disagreement, versions, politics, translations, inspired, not inspired...... .
> If there ever was an "original" word of God it was polluted, corrupted and changed the second man put his hands on it and it was lost forever.
> A crazy thought - if God does come back as it is believed, I have to wonder who is actually safe. He might be really po'd that his word was polluted. He might just say ya know, unbelievers didn't believe but at least they weren't the one who served themselves by polluting my word for their own gains.
> That narrow gate might be really, really narrow.



You better believe it Walt.

There are some in here that think current Christianity has been the same way for 2000 years. Current Christianity includes a variety of beliefs and Bibles...yes different Bibles. There are Orthodox denominations that have 81 books in their Bible...some have 66...some have 73..... and every one of these believers in these different sects are POSITIVE they are right and the others are clueless.

Centerpin, there certainly were ancient texts that were used more than others in main stream Judaism and early Christianity but there were many more texts that were decided upon when Christianity got institutionalized. Nicea, Trent, Carthage etc...all were man made decisions on what stays and what goes...what is divinely inspired and what is not. During every one of these councils over multiple years there were Popes and Bishops and Cardinals that disagreed on what was/is Divine...Well if it is Divine wouldn't it be known unanimously throughout the clergy and no fighting, and backstabbing would take place. Your version of "commonly accepted" paints a poetic picture of the text being so divine that it was just accepted by everyone that was a Christian is not how it went at all. In over 2000 years we still have Christians using different Bibles that contain different scripture and chose what will or will not be Canon for no other reason than they decided that is what they want to use and it goes along with the beliefs they want.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

The history of Christianity shows it was and certainly still is an evolving religion with a wide array of beliefs as there are believers and each tweaking the rules to suit.
There is no greater example than in here and especially just a few floors up....and such a wide variety among a few representatives is a good indication of how it varies worldwide among 2 billion.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Some councils weren't made up of men? Which one(s)?





WaltL1 said:


> Doesn't that translate to - there were other books that were decided by this council that wouldn't be accepted?
> Why did those books exist?
> And throughout our history how many things that were commonly accepted turned out be wrong? Or are no longer accepted?
> There is just no getting around that men directed what would be allowed to become what Christianity is today.





bullethead said:


> Agreed that the bulk of NT was written by two educated men.
> Agreed we take literacy for granted.
> Confused on why NOBODY wrote down an account of any one of Jesus' miracles while or right after they happened and still NOBODY, even the educated priests,scholars, educators, aristocrats, politicians or anyone that could write would not have mentioned THE Son of God while he was alive (I can still see why they had doubts about him but a walk on water is a walk on water whether or not it is Jesus or Chriss Angel) let alone NOBODY recording a man whisking off skyward into Heaven. NOBODY
> 
> Then we have Paul and Luke who never met Jesus. Never spoke to Jesus. Never was anywhere near Jesus...and these two educated men got conversations that Jesus had in private when it was just Jesus and one other person verbatim. Those are miracles in their own right if you ask me. Those guys must have been very educated to pull that off. Yet with all that education Luke didn't quite grasp how Roman guards did their job, who they would report to, or the penalty for their actions. He must have missed that class during his education.





bullethead said:


> Commonly accepted by who?





bullethead said:


> You better believe it Walt.
> 
> There are some in here that think current Christianity has been the same way for 2000 years. Current Christianity includes a variety of beliefs and Bibles...yes different Bibles. There are Orthodox denominations that have 81 books in their Bible...some have 66...some have 73..... and every one of these believers in these different sects are POSITIVE they are right and the others are clueless.
> 
> Centerpin, there certainly were ancient texts that were used more than others in main stream Judaism and early Christianity but there were many more texts that were decided upon when Christianity got institutionalized. Nicea, Trent, Carthage etc...all were man made decisions on what stays and what goes...what is divinely inspired and what is not. During every one of these councils over multiple years there were Popes and Bishops and Cardinals that disagreed on what was/is Divine...Well if it is Divine wouldn't it be known unanimously throughout the clergy and no fighting, and backstabbing would take place. Your version of "commonly accepted" paints a poetic picture of the text being so divine that it was just accepted by everyone that was a Christian is not how it went at all. In over 2000 years we still have Christians using different Bibles that contain different scripture and chose what will or will not be Canon for no other reason than they decided that is what they want to use and it goes along with the beliefs they want.



We've debated all this at least a dozen times before.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The history of Christianity shows it was and certainly still is an evolving religion with a wide array of beliefs ...



... yet the services at my church have remained unchanged for 1,600 years.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The history of Christianity shows it was and certainly still is an evolving religion...



Thankfully. I haven't heard/read of anyone using the Bible to justify slavery in a lonnnng time.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 29, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> ... yet the services at my church have remained unchanged for 1,600 years.



You are OLD! What is your secret to longevity?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 29, 2014)

660griz said:


> You are OLD! What is your secret to longevity?



I owe it all to Brazil Butt Lift.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Time and time again you prove that you have no idea of what you are talking about. Here you are... acting as if you know me well and are an authority on ME without ever actually meeting me. This is another perfect example of you coming on here making yet another assertive statement and trying to pass it off as being truthful with your ONLY proof being a prejudice notion in your brain. Your close-mindedness limits your capabilities....but "we" take that into account when trying to deal with you.
> Now go get your stick and play in the yard and pretend you are somebody special, let the adults continue the adult conversation.



You are correct.  My ONLY proof is your prior words and actions.
I guess I could take exception with the denigration and condescension that follows, but I won't.  Have a good day.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I owe it all to Brazil Butt Lift.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> ... yet the services at my church have remained unchanged for 1,600 years.



Clearly your church is the bestest. It has nothing to do with your church. It has everything to do with the facts that show how Christianity has evolved from the instant Christ died to 400 years later to where it is now. If nothing changed in 2000 years I'd say you were onto something.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct.  My ONLY proof is your prior words and actions.
> I guess I could take exception with the denigration and condescension that follows, but I won't.  Have a good day.



It is all you see because it is all you look for, that seems to be your forte.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Don't worry, you are in good company. Every clergy man that I have talked to face to face pretty much said the same thing. It is tough to make excuses for unnoticed miracles that get noticed 50 years later.


It isn't because your questions are unanswerable, your posts just go in so many different directions with so many things that would need to be addressed.

Your questions are nothing new and there are answers for every one of them, good answers. You may not like the answers, because you've already made your mind up that Christianity and the bible are untrue, but there are answers.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> If you are ok with MEN deciding what is inspired by God, well then ok.
> Exactly how would they know what was or wasn't?
> The simple answer is they chose what they agreed with. And not even all of them agreed. They voted and negotiated.
> Its the same thing as if you say you were inspired by God to do a certain thing and I say no you weren't.
> Exactly how would I know you weren't?



I am ok with men deciding what is inspired by God and what is not, God has called many people to do many different things. He has called some men to decide what needed to be included in the bible and what didn't need to be included.

And I can read what was chosen by those men, through God, and through God determine whether or not I agree, which I happen to do.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> We've debated all this at least a dozen times before.



Agreed.
I continue to bring it up with the hope that someone comes up with valid answers.
I know the church's spin and it does not jive with history.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I agree with that statement but then I ask why were they not recorded when there are written records of dang near everything else that happened that was un-miraculous? Representatives of all cultures, all walks of life, religious affiliations, historians and government that lived right there in and among those places where miracles took place did not record them yet almost everything else commonplace is noted in great detail.



http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html#4


> Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.6 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."7
> 
> Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."8
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It isn't because your questions are unanswerable, your posts just go in so many different directions with so many things that would need to be addressed.
> 
> Your questions are nothing new and there are answers for every one of them, good answers. You may not like the answers, because you've already made your mind up that Christianity and the bible are untrue, but there are answers.



String, the answers do not coincide with historical facts. If the answers were "good" I would not need to question them. The answers are not good because I  do or do not like them....the answers do not hold up to scrutiny...and that is why I have a problem with them.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

> Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.6 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."7
> 
> Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."8
> 
> ...



Incredible.
Incredible how these historians included all the feats of Jesus. What great detail they wrote about the miracle of being born out of wedlock....I am taken back by the detailed account how Jesus made blasphemous claims about himself.....
String...WHERE are the miracles? Where are the accounts of watching Jesus ascend skyward??

NOBODY is saying Jesus didn't live and there were no Christians.......if those things are recorded don't you think the miracles would have been too?
" Oh yeah this Jesus guy did miracles....." "but they were attributed to sorcery"

I am not sure what you wanted to prove with those examples but you may want to take a mulligan and try again.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> String, the answers do not coincide with historical facts. If the answers were "good" I would not need to question them. The answers are not good because I  do or do not like them....the answers do not hold up to scrutiny...and that is why I have a problem with them.



Maybe you're not looking in the right places for the answers?

If you want to read everything you can get your hands on, and have some good answers to your questions, I would suggest this be your next book. Just a suggestion.

http://www.amazon.com/Testament-People-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626818


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Incredible.
> Incredible how these historians included all the feats of Jesus. What great detail they wrote about the miracle of being born out of wedlock....I am taken back by the detailed account how Jesus made blasphemous claims about himself.....
> String...WHERE are the miracles? Where are the accounts of watching Jesus ascend skyward??
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I understand your problem with my post? What do you mean, "where are the miracles"? 

And yes, I do think the miracles would have been recorded too, and they were, by those in my post above, and by the writers of the bible.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Maybe you're not looking in the right places for the answers?
> 
> If you want to read everything you can get your hands on, and have some good answers to your questions, I would suggest this be your next book. Just a suggestion.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Testament-People-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626818



When I read about Christianity/religion I then check what I have read against known historical facts. When I talk about religion/Christianity I check the answers I get against known Historical facts. Whenever I hear anything about religion I check into history to find out the customs, places, events, people,...I check how people in that region lived. I check into how soldiers conducted themselves. I check into the hows and whys and I then tend to believe all of the stuff that matches up and I tend to be skeptical of the things that are incredibly out of the ordinary...especially when such monumental events go unnoticed outside of the Bible and while other writings of the time tell a different story. I get the feeling that some people were real and were involved in some events that over time got embellished.
Your "proof" above seems to confirm exactly that.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Incredible.
> Incredible how these historians included all the feats of Jesus. What great detail they wrote about the miracle of being born out of wedlock....I am taken back by the detailed account how Jesus made blasphemous claims about himself.....
> String...WHERE are the miracles? Where are the accounts of watching Jesus ascend skyward??
> 
> ...


Do you see the contradiction in your post? One minute you admit that the historians did in fact include the "feats of Jesus" and "Oh yeah this Jesus guy did miracles" and then you ask the question "don't you think the miracles would have been too".

You answered your own question in your post. Just because they didn't give a description of the miracles themselves doesn't mean they didn't say that Jesus didn't do them.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> When I read about Christianity/religion I then check what I have read against known historical facts. When I talk about religion/Christianity I check the answers I get against known Historical facts. Whenever I hear anything about religion I check into history to find out the customs, places, events, people,...I check how people in that region lived. I check into how soldiers conducted themselves. I check into the hows and whys and I then tend to believe all of the stuff that matches up and I tend to be skeptical of the things that are incredibly out of the ordinary...especially when such monumental events go unnoticed outside of the Bible and while other writings of the time tell a different story. I get the feeling that some people were real and were involved in some events that over time got embellished.
> Your "proof" above seems to confirm exactly that.



Give me some examples of "known historical facts" that are the opposite of what Christianity teaches.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure I understand your problem with my post? What do you mean, "where are the miracles"?
> 
> And yes, I do think the miracles would have been recorded too, and they were, by those in my post above, and by the writers of the bible.



What you provided was a few excerpts of a few historians. What was provided in those few excerpts is extremely plain. I really hope there is more.

PLEASE go in and search through their writings and show me where they recorded Jesus miracles in any sort of detail. Take special note of when these people were born and when they mentioned Jesus. 
I'll ask you to find me ONE historian outside of the Bible that was there and witnessed any of Jesus miracles.

String.... a man claiming to be the Son of God apparently did all sorts of miraculous deeds...he was crucified and died, he came back to life and then ascended up into the sky apparently in front of dozens if not hundreds of witnesses. There has got to be VOLUMES of this recorded by eye witnesses of all walks of life. The ball is in your court to show me.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Do you see the contradiction in your post? One minute you admit that the historians did in fact include the "feats of Jesus" and "Oh yeah this Jesus guy did miracles" and then you ask the question "don't you think the miracles would have been too".


I think you are slow to catch the sarcasm 



stringmusic said:


> You answered your own question in your post. Just because they didn't give a description of the miracles themselves doesn't mean they didn't say that Jesus didn't do them.



In all of those posts the only one that mentions miracles if the Talmud and they immediately follow it up with they were attributed to sorcery.....I do not think you read your own posts!!

Jesus was how old when he died?
Then check when your sources were born.

IF all it takes for you to believe in miracles is for someone to say "he did miracles"....you should not be conversing with me about miracles. Our levels of satisfaction differ too much.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What you provided was a few excerpts of a few historians. What was provided in those few excerpts is extremely plain. I really hope there is more.


There is more, in the bible. Why does what was provided in those excerpts being plain have anything to do with anything? They show that Jesus did miracles, and was crucified on a cross by Pilate, was believed to be the Messiah, was believed to ressurected from the dead. These historians did everything but draw a picture.



> PLEASE go in and search through their writings and show me where they recorded Jesus miracles in any sort of detail. Take special note of when these people were born and when they mentioned Jesus.
> I'll ask you to find me ONE historian outside of the Bible that was there and witnessed any of Jesus miracles.


Like I said in a post above, Jesus' miracles are detailed in the bible, the historians mentioned them, they did not go into detail that I know of.



> String.... a man claiming to be the Son of God apparently did all sorts of miraculous deeds...he was crucified and died, he came back to life and then ascended up into the sky apparently in front of dozens if not hundreds of witnesses. There has got to be VOLUMES of this recorded by eye witnesses of all walks of life.


Most of those witnesses were probably not literate, which is why oral tradition was so popular.


> The ball is in your court to show me.


I've shown you where Jesus' life and miracles were recorded inside and outside of the bible by believers and non believers. It's not enough that the historians outside of the bible mentioned the miracles, you want them to be detailed about them.

I'm starting to think what I knew from the beginning, nothing is going to be enough.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Give me some examples of "known historical facts" that are the opposite of what Christianity teaches.



http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/jc=zombie/roman_soldiers.htm

Read HOW Roman soldiers conducted themselves compared to how the NT would lead us to believe Roman soldiers conducted themselves.

One is accurate to Roman history for a few thousand years and the other is poetic writing meant to entertain the readers.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> In all of those posts the only one that mentions miracles if the Talmud and they immediately follow it up with they were attributed to sorcery.....I do not think you read your own posts!!


The point was that Jesus did miracles, not that people that didn't believe He was the Messiah didn't attribute them to God.



> Jesus was how old when he died?
> Then check when your sources were born.


They were historians, they wrote about the past.



> IF all it takes for you to believe in miracles is for someone to say "he did miracles"....you should not be conversing with me about miracles. Our levels of satisfaction differ too much.


A lot of people wrote about Jesus doing miracles.

And yes, our satisfaction does differ a lot, you're not going to believe Jesus performed miracles with any amount of historical data, because you have a lot saying He did.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I am ok with men deciding what is inspired by God and what is not, God has called many people to do many different things. He has called some men to decide what needed to be included in the bible and what didn't need to be included.
> 
> And I can read what was chosen by those men, through God, and through God determine whether or not I agree, which I happen to do.


You will get no debate from me on this.
For me, it ignores mountains of evidence and history.
For you, that mountain of evidence and history worked out exactly as it should have through God.
I cant and wont even try to say you are wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> There is more, in the bible. Why does what was provided in those excerpts being plain have anything to do with anything? They show that Jesus did miracles, and was crucified on a cross by Pilate, was believed to be the Messiah, was believed to ressurected from the dead. These historians did everything but draw a picture.



Those excerpts did NOT mention "miracle" but ONE time and then immediately said they were sorcery tricks.
The Bible......is the only place where details occur and according to you and every other liberal Christian 'The Bible is not a History book".
I asked you to find details about these miracles outside of the Bible...you cannot.




stringmusic said:


> Like I said in a post above, Jesus' miracles are detailed in the bible, the historians mentioned them, they did not go into detail that I know of.


Not one historian witnessed them or cared to write about them.
Bible stories = Embellished stories...that is why Bible and History differ so much




stringmusic said:


> Most of those witnesses were probably not literate, which is why oral tradition was so popular.


So you would have me believe that the scholars, teachers, priests, politicians, aristocrats and anyone in the "upper class" just happened to not see anything that Jesus did? None of those people followed Jesus?

Education is essential for the survival of society...I think you underestimate your fellow Jesus followers.]



stringmusic said:


> I've shown you where Jesus' life and miracles were recorded inside and outside of the bible by believers and non believers. It's not enough that the historians outside of the bible mentioned the miracles, you want them to be detailed about them.


Historians mention Jesus. No miracles are recorded outside of the Bible......your own post shows that. Re-Read it.



stringmusic said:


> I'm starting to think what I knew from the beginning, nothing is going to be enough.


Like I said...what sways you does not sway me. I believe in many things because the proof is overwhelming. I have changed my mind about many things because the facts swayed my opinion.
What you have provided wows YOU........me not at all.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/jc=zombie/roman_soldiers.htm
> 
> Read HOW Roman soldiers conducted themselves compared to how the NT would lead us to believe Roman soldiers conducted themselves.
> 
> One is accurate to Roman history for a few thousand years and the other is poetic writing meant to entertain the readers.



First off, the Cross with a circle and a line through it tells me what kind of website this is, and it's not one of academia.

Second, the first paragraph tells me that the author of the  article is not trying to have an intelligent discussion about the subject.


> The Gospel of Matthew:     According to The Gospel of Matthew, a group of Roman  Soldiers, via a request by Jewish priests , had been assigned by the Roman  governor to guard the tomb of the recently deceased criminal Jesus. One night, while on guard duty, the zombie Jesus popped out, the soldiers got scared


(true scholars and historians don't use degrading words like calling Jesus a zombie)

Third, I read most of it, and all I got out of it was that Roman guards would not have used sleeping as an excuse, yet the author never gives what really would have been a Roman guards excuse for not having the body of Jesus still in the tomb.

Which begs another question, where did Jesus' body go? Why didn't they just go move the stone and show everybody He was still dead?

Like I said before, maybe your looking in the wrong places for answers because reading some hack who hates Christianity is not a good place to find answers, especially about true Roman history or biblical history.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> The point was that Jesus did miracles, not that people that didn't believe He was the Messiah didn't attribute them to God.
> 
> 
> They were historians, they wrote about the past.
> ...





> Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.6 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."7
> No mention of miracles
> 
> Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."8
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> First off, the Cross with a circle and a line through it tells me what kind of website this is, and it's not one of academia.
> 
> Second, the first paragraph tells me that the author of the  article is not trying to have an intelligent discussion about the subject.
> 
> ...


the zombie Jesus popped out,
 I have to go with String on this one. That wasn't really a scholarly statement


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You will get no debate from me on this.
> For me, it ignores mountains of evidence and history.
> For you, that mountain of evidence and history worked out exactly as it should have through God.
> I cant and wont even try to say you are wrong.



It's definitely a belief based other premises(the first being God) and faith.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> First off, the Cross with a circle and a line through it tells me what kind of website this is, and it's not one of academia.
> 
> Second, the first paragraph tells me that the author of the  article is not trying to have an intelligent discussion about the subject.
> 
> ...



For the purpose of the story in the NT you NEED to believe that Jesus HAD to be in particular tomb. You are stuck on the NT version as the truth. It most likely is not.

 A strong possibility is that the Roman soldiers never had to have an excuse for sleeping being that 20 of them would not all have been sleeping. The soldiers would not have reported to a priest either.
What you now must search (because you don't take the author credibly) is how Roman soldiers DO act when on guard detail. HOW many are typically on guard detail. WHO they would report to while on guard detail.
Then you must consider that Jesus may never have actually been in that tomb OR he was in that tomb and was moved to his final burial place and the stories of resurrection were fabricated in order to make him more than what he was.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> the zombie Jesus popped out,
> I have to go with String on this one. That wasn't really a scholarly statement



Then I can probably rely on you to check into how Roman soldiers conduct themselves. Proper procedure while on guard detail to be more specific.

I will post my links in a bit...i have a few thousand saved in my "religious discussion" favorites file and I have to find the ones that back up Roman procedure.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

Try this one to start

http://sntjohnny.com/front/guards-at-the-tomb-the-discipline-of-the-roman-soldier/2201.html


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It's definitely a belief based other premises(the first being God) and faith.


I agree its a perfect example of faith versus no faith.
But I also believe a person can reject religion and the Bible and still believe in God. I know that goes against the "rules" though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Then I can probably rely on you to check into how Roman soldiers conduct themselves. Proper procedure while on guard detail to be more specific.
> 
> I will post my links in a bit...i have a few thousand saved in my "religious discussion" favorites file and I have to find the ones that back up Roman procedure.


Nah I was just commenting on that specific statement. It was a little uh unorthodox 
And Ive done a lot of guard duty, if I had missed a resurrection I'd of had a lot of splainin to do.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2014)

string, do you want to address any of the points in blue in post #174?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.6 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."7
> No mention of miracles
> 
> Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."8
> ...


Like I said before, the attribution is not the point, the point is that it mentions Jesus' miracles.


> This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders, not on obscure rabbis from distant provinces of the Roman Empire. Yet ancient historians (Jews, Greeks and Romans) confirm the major events that are presented in the New Testament, even though they were not believers themselves.





> Show me the miracles


Look in the bible.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree its a perfect example of faith versus no faith.
> But I also believe a person can reject religion and the Bible and still believe in God. I know that goes against the "rules" though.


Yessir I agree, you could say that goes against the "rules" or even maybe definition of Christianity.

I'm sure there are many deist out there.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Like I said before, the attribution is not the point, the point is that it mentions Jesus' miracles.
> 
> 
> Look in the bible.



String I am done. You cannot see what is written within your own examples. 

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.6 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."7
No mention of miracles

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."8
No mention of miracles

"Surprising feats" is your version of miracles......ok

Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is consistent with New Testament accounts.No mention of miracles

In your rush to include something you THINK it is saying you use it totally out of context... It talks about Christian worship and persecution.

Even the Jewish Talmud, certainly not biased toward Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."9
Mentioned miracles attributed to sorcery

The source you used SPECIFICALLY made note to mention that the "miracles" were from sorcery and NOT to God!!!!

Keep on being string...go in there one more time and highlight something because you want it to say something different than what it really says and then reference it to the Bible where from the very start of this conversation is where everyone agreed that is the ONLY place the "miracles are found and the whole point of this conversation was to find someone OUTSIDE of the Bible who witnessed the miracles and recorded them.

EVERY single thing you posted, reposted and posted yet a third time STILL said the same things and NONE of them said what you think they are saying. You need better examples.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> String I am done.


Ok.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Yessir I agree, you could say that goes against the "rules" or even maybe definition of Christianity.
> 
> I'm sure there are many deist out there.


So play along here -
Im curious. If tomorrow some document was found that absolutely proved the whole story of Christianity (not God) was made up by men would you then say "well God doesn't exist"? Or would you go right on believing in God?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> So play along here -
> Im curious. If tomorrow some document was found that absolutely proved the whole story of Christianity (not God) was made up by men would you then say "well God doesn't exist"? Or would you go right on believing in God?


The "what if" question!  

I'm just kiddin' 

I'll play along. This is a tough question to answer really, because I don't think a document of any kind could exist to somehow prove that God or Christianity wasn't real. What would it say? Who could have written it?

More the core of you question, there is not anything that I could possible think of that would make me believe that the God of the Christian bible is not real.

I'm hardcore.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."8
> No mention of miracles



What do you think the "surprising feats" were?  One-armed push ups?  Or this maybe?






bullethead said:


> Even the Jewish Talmud, certainly not biased toward Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."9
> Mentioned miracles attributed to sorcery



The people most inclined to dispute Jesus' claims admit he worked miracles and you take issue with what they attributed them to?

It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they were attributed to global warming.  They _admitted_ he worked miracles.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> The "what if" question!
> 
> I'm just kiddin'
> 
> ...


No you are just being difficult 


> there is not anything that I could possible think of that would make me believe that the God of the Christian bible is not real.


But your statement is interesting in that you specify the God of the Christian Bible. 
I could make a pretty good argument that you are worshipping Christianity/religion more than you are God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What do you think the "surprising feats" were?  One-armed push ups?  Or this maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A suprising feat is someone breaking a long standing record in the long jump.
Not sure that would classified as a miracle though.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> A suprising feat is someone breaking a long standing record in the long jump.
> Not sure that would classified as a miracle though.



So you're on record that Jesus became the central person in human history because of His leaping ability?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> So you're on record that Jesus became the central person in human history because of His leaping ability?


Well no but i'm on record that saying surprising feats is not necessarily an admission of a miracle as you were trying to say.
And I think walking on water ability would trump leaping ability.


> central person in human history


Human history is pretty all encompassing. He is but a sideline in some humans history. Knowing who he is and calling him a central person is not the same.
Is Buddah a central person in your history?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> No you are just being difficult
> 
> But your statement is interesting in that you specify the God of the Christian Bible.
> I could make a pretty good argument that you are worshipping Christianity/religion more than you are God.


I can see how you could make the conclusion, but in my view, God encompasses Christianity. Meaning, there is no Christianity without the God of the bible. I don't see a way to worship Christianity without worshiping God of the bible.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Well no but i'm on record that saying surprising feats is not necessarily an admission of a miracle as you were trying to say.


I think it was simply the difference in language from that particular ancient historian and what we would use today to describe a miracle.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What do you think the "surprising feats" were?  One-armed push ups?  Or this maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok Centerpin....

I say to you that I just saw a man accomplish some surprising feats...

What can you conclude from that?

Being more specific to Jesus, saying he accomplished surprising feats might very well mean that he challenged Jewish authority or was able to recite religious scripture at will or he can mesmerize a crowd with his teachings..
I DO NOT see where "surprising feats" is anywhere near miracle status, let alone that if someone saw him cure a blind man, raise from the dead and ascend into Heaven that they would leave the description as "surprising feats" and not go into details.


I say to you a man accomplished miracles attributed to magic/sorcery..not from God

What does that mean to you?

To me it means he did some things that was the equivalent of the others that practiced sorcery in those times. Even though his talent was mentioned it was not awe inspiring enough to give him the credit of linking his sorcery to a God.

Attend a David Copperfield, Chriss Angel, or David Blaine show and you will see the same "miracles".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What do you think the "surprising feats" were?  One-armed push ups?  Or this maybe?


Without ANY tidbit of details "surprising feats" could literally mean anything. What was a surprising feat 2000 years ago could be a 4th grade talent show today.





centerpin fan said:


> The people most inclined to dispute Jesus' claims admit he worked miracles and you take issue with what they attributed them to?


WHAT miracles did he work?
It sounds to me they what they witnessed was easily debunked as sorcery or as we would know it...magic.



centerpin fan said:


> It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they were attributed to global warming.  They _admitted_ he worked miracles.


Then ol J C is just another Joe Schmo in a long line of miracle workers because I have heard people mention "miracles" that have been performed by modern real live people in my very own town. The Chiropractor performs  miracles. The auto body guy is a ...and I quote.. " Miracle worker", the Clerk at the local convenience store is quite the Miracle woman in her own right...I heard a  person in the the checkout line exclaim " It is a miracle how Anette remembers everyones name"..

You ARE right! What difference is a miracle attributed to as long as someone recognizes it!!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Ok.



You aren't getting off that easy, though I can see why you jumped at the chance.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Now THAT is a MIRACLE! Animated cartoons being viewed over a wireless internet connection where the picture is sent over air waves where a series of Ones and Zeroes are arranged in such an order that a picture with sound can be seen and heard.
> 
> That is one SURPRISING FEAT for sure the Centerpin...yep indeedy and now that I have written that I witnessed it...it shall forever be recognized by some believer in something somewhere as a verifiable document that attests to the validity of the " Wowee Action" (that is just another synonym for miracle that is universally recognized world wide)


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> you aren't getting off that easy, though i can see why you jumped at the chance.


lol


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

Centerpin, I think bullet may be on to something. When "suprising feats" is mentioned, I think Flavius Josephus just ment that Jesus was really good a card tricks.

I can see it now, just as the Sermon on the Mount is concluded, "Step right up folks and pick'a card, any card"


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> String I am done. You cannot see what is written within your own examples.
> 
> Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.6 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."7
> No mention of miracles
> ...


Anybody that reads what Flavius Josephus wrote would conclude he was talking about miracles when he mentions "suprising feats", except someone who is not going to except any kind of evidence for Christ or the bible... no matter what.

You wont even give in to something this obvious, what makes anyone think you're going to be intellectually honest about any other conversation?

Seriously not trying to be a jerk, that is a legit question.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Centerpin, I think bullet may be on to something. When "suprising feats" is mentioned, I think Flavius Josephus just ment that Jesus was really good a card tricks.
> 
> I can see it now, just as the Sermon on the Mount is concluded, "Step right up folks and pick'a card, any card"



Without a SINGLE mention of what Flav Jo Flav is talking about specifically all you are doing is assuming and asserting.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Anybody that reads what Flavius Josephus wrote would conclude he was talking about miracles when he mentions "suprising feats", except someone who is not going to except any kind of evidence for Christ or the bible... no matter what.
> 
> You wont even give in to something this obvious, what makes anyone think you're going to be intellectually honest about any other conversation?
> 
> Seriously not trying to be a jerk, that is a legit question.



I am nothing but intellectually honest. So honest that I do not assert or assume what Flav was or is talking about. If you were intellectually honest you would see how wide open the door is that Flav Jo left open.....being blinded by your religion you automatically assume he was talking about specific events. IF any event was worthy it would be mentioned specifically and in detail.

It is the equivalent of a modern historian mentioning a couple of decent skirmishes in his WWII book and expecting everyone to know just what specifically he is talking about.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Anybody that reads what Flavius Josephus wrote would conclude he was talking about miracles when he mentions "suprising feats", except someone who is not going to except any kind of evidence for Christ or the bible... no matter what.



Right off the bat you are derailing your own statement. You say anybody would know ....
I don't know and I am sure others do not know.
The only thing anyone can do and is doing is assuming. Others like myself are not.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Without a SINGLE mention of what Flav Jo Flav is talking about specifically all you are doing is assuming and asserting.





bullethead said:


> Right off the bat you are derailing your own statement. You say anybody would know ....
> I don't know and I am sure others do not know.
> The only thing anyone can do and is doing is assuming. Others like myself are not.



LOL. You're right Bullet, when he mentions Jesus and suprising feats in the same sentence he could have been talking about anything.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It is the equivalent of a modern historian mentioning a couple of decent skirmishes in his WWII book and expecting everyone to know just what specifically he is talking about.


He wasn't writing an entire story of Jesus' life, that was left for those who wrote the bible to do.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Centerpin, I think bullet may be on to something. When "suprising feats" is mentioned, I think Flavius Josephus just ment that Jesus was really good a card tricks.



Yep.  

Or maybe he could get an olive out of the jar with only one finger.

Or maybe he was Nazareth High's long jump champion.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Ok Centerpin....
> 
> I say to you that I just saw a man accomplish some surprising feats...
> 
> What can you conclude from that?



Absolutely nothing.

But ... if others have claimed to witness miraculous healings, dead people being raised, etc., I can then conclude the "surprising feats" would be along similar lines.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> WHAT miracles did he work?
> It sounds to me they what they witnessed was easily debunked as sorcery or as we would know it...magic.



If the Jews wanted to debunk Jesus once and for all, all they had to do was produce a body.

And they did not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I think it was simply the difference in language from that particular ancient historian and what we would use today to describe a miracle.


The words suprising feat and miracle both existed at that time. The author did not choose miracle. That's all we know.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> LOL. You're right Bullet, when he mentions Jesus and suprising feats in the same sentence he could have been talking about anything.


He also could have wrote "suprising feats", then rolled his eyes, burst out laughing and banged his hand on the table. Since we weren't there we don't know.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I can see how you could make the conclusion, but in my view, God encompasses Christianity. Meaning, there is no Christianity without the God of the bible. I don't see a way to worship Christianity without worshiping God of the bible.


I assume you keep using the God of the bible on purpose.
That confirms my point.
If your belief in God depends on a certain story (the bible) then its the story you really believe in, not God.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> If the Jews wanted to debunk Jesus once and for all, all they had to do was produce a body.
> 
> And they did not.



I have news for you...it was not that important to them. It shows that at the time of Jesus death none of this ascending to Heaven stuff was talked about...it came many years later.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Centerpin, I think bullet may be on to something. When "suprising feats" is mentioned, I think Flavius Josephus just ment that Jesus was really good a card tricks.
> 
> I can see it now, just as the Sermon on the Mount is concluded, "Step right up folks and pick'a card, any card"


When I read it I assumed he used the "lesser" words suprising feats to convey he didn't believe they were miracles. 
Like when someone says "she is pretty" I assume that to mean he doesn't think she is gorgeous. Just pretty. Or he would have said gorgeus.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> If the Jews wanted to debunk Jesus once and for all, all they had to do was produce a body.
> 
> And they did not.




Why didn’t the Jewish authorities produce Jesus’ corpse?
By Gerald Segal


Why didn’t the Jewish authorities produce Jesus’ corpse when the rumor spread that he had risen from the dead?

Answer: The New Testament fixes public announcement of the supposed resurrection not three days immediately following the crucifixion event, but after a period in which some of Jesus’ followers regrouped following their initial shock and disappointment and formulated their future plans. Public announcement of a resurrection was set for the Jewish festival of Shavuot, “The Feast of Weeks,” approximately fifty days following the crucifixion (Acts 2:1, 22-24). By that day, Jesus’ corpse would have been sufficiently decomposed to prohibit positive identification.

In the post-Shavuot period, exhuming the corpse would have been a pointless endeavor. A mishnah states: “They must not give evidence [of identity in respect of a dead man] except on [proof afforded by] the full face with the nose, even though there were also marks on its body or on its clothing. No evidence [of a man's death] must be given before his soul has departed, even though they saw him with his arteries cut or crucified or being devoured by a wild beast. They must give evidence [of identification] only during the first three days [after the death. After this period the decay of the corpse makes identification impossible or uncertain.]. . .” (Mishnah Yevamot 16:3). The general rule followed was that of identification within three days. In contrast, almost two months after death, in the warm Judean climate, forensic identification of Jesus’ corpse would no longer be possible (cf. John 11:39).


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

Flavius Josephus

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

From the article:

Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

    "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

I am going through my "favorites" file and came up with this piece about How NT Canon came to be..

http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php

string, you should overwhelmed with happiness that I have N.T. Wright saved in my religious favorites folder


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

More about First Century Historians and "Jesus"

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Flavius Josephus
> 
> http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
> 
> ...



That settles it.  I'm sleeping in on Sunday.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That settles it.  I'm sleeping in on Sunday.



No amount of examples will change your mind......Oh wait, that is strings and sfd's line


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> He wasn't writing an entire story of Jesus' life, that was left for those who wrote the bible to do.



Turns out, according to many sources (some Christian scholars), that he wasn't writing anything about Jesus or his life at all. Same goes for many of the examples you gave.


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> The words suprising feat and miracle both existed at that time. The author did not choose miracle. That's all we know.


I'm not sure if that's true or not to be honest, or at least I don't know if that was the common phrase used by ancient historians to describe miraculous events.

I'm not as sure as you and Bullet that he could have been talking about something else. When an ancient historian mentions Jesus Christ and "suprising feats" in the same sentence, and given what we know about Christ's life according to the bible, I have to conclude that he was alluding to miracles.



WaltL1 said:


> He also could have wrote "suprising feats", then rolled his eyes, burst out laughing and banged his hand on the table. Since we weren't there we don't know.


Yes, he may or may not have believed what he wrote about Jesus, but the proposition of producing a source apart from the bible about Jesus' miracles was proposed by Bullet, and I believe that has been answered. 


WaltL1 said:


> I assume you keep using the God of the bible on purpose.
> That confirms my point.
> If your belief in God depends on a certain story (the bible) then its the story you really believe in, not God.


I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Like I stated before, God encompasses the story, it was told by Him, without God, there is no story to believe in.


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I have news for you...it was not that important to them. It shows that at the time of Jesus death none of this ascending to Heaven stuff was talked about...it came many years later.


Can you prove this assertion? You know for a fact that oral history was less important in Jewish and Roman cultures 2,000 years ago?


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> When I read it I assumed he used the "lesser" words suprising feats to convey he didn't believe they were miracles.


That still doesn't mean that Jesus didn't do "something" that others could not. 



> Like when someone says "she is pretty" I assume that to mean he doesn't think she is gorgeous. Just pretty. Or he would have said gorgeus.


But if he said gorgeus, does that means she's not "hot"? Does that mean she's not beautiful? It's all describing an attractive woman, just like suprising feats is describing miracles.


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I am going through my "favorites" file and came up with this piece about How NT Canon came to be..
> 
> http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php
> 
> string, you should overwhelmed with happiness that I have N.T. Wright saved in my religious favorites folder



Wow, that's good stuff, have you read it all?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Wow, that's good stuff, have you read it all?



You should know by now that I read "it all". Yes I read the entire article and compared to others I have read it is accurate....well until the last paragraph anyway.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Can you prove this assertion? You know for a fact that oral history was less important in Jewish and Roman cultures 2,000 years ago?



The fact that no one recorded it is a good start. Then the fact that as the early Christian movement got going tales of Jesus feats started to surface in writing. People wrote stuff down 50 years earlier too, especially the really important stuff or miraculous events. Religious history shows that many things were embellished long after the fact once the stories needed to be put on paper.


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The fact that no one recorded it is a good start.


Lots of people recorded it, it's in the bible.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not as sure as you and Bullet that he could have been talking about something else. When an ancient historian mentions Jesus Christ and "suprising feats" in the same sentence, and given what we know about Christ's life according to the bible, I have to conclude that he was alluding to miracles.
> 
> 
> Yes, he may or may not have believed what he wrote about Jesus, but the proposition of producing a source apart from the bible about Jesus' miracles was proposed by Bullet, and I believe that has been answered.



String the source(s) you provided have been shown to have not mentioned Jesus at all. I can show you Christian scholars that freely admit the examples you tried to use were added later by Christian writers.
Flat out Flavius Josephus never mentioned Jesus in any of his writings. NOWHERE is it found in his earlier works except after the 4th Century where it is suddenly inserted...which by the way was common. History tells us a different story as to what you are still trying to pass off.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Lots of people recorded it, it's in the bible.



No kidding.
Now you are back to the point where we started...trying to bring it up again for the first time, which is actually the 70th time...
The whole point of this discussion was to give us examples of Jesus and especially his miracles being mentioned...wait for it....OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE!!!!!!!

You have failed to do that. I have shown you with multiple sources that the examples you have given have been proven to be false and agreed to be false by many Christian scholars, yet you continue to cite your examples because you totally will not accept the truth.

WE know Jesus and his miracles are mentioned in the Bible. We know How, When and Why...you are one of a handful of the few that do not understand it.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure if that's true or not to be honest, or at least I don't know if that was the common phrase used by ancient historians to describe miraculous events.
> 
> I'm not as sure as you and Bullet that he could have been talking about something else. When an ancient historian mentions Jesus Christ and "suprising feats" in the same sentence, and given what we know about Christ's life according to the bible, I have to conclude that he was alluding to miracles.
> 
> ...





> I'm not sure if that's true or not to be honest,


The word miracle is used in the Bible so Im going to assume the word existed. Although its possible that was the word chosen when translated.


> When an ancient historian mentions Jesus Christ and "suprising feats" in the same sentence, and given what we know about Christ's life according to the bible, I have to conclude that he was alluding to miracles.


He very well could have been alluding to miracles. But there is a reason he didn't use the word miracles. About a half a dozen possible reasons for that have already been mentioned. Im not "sure" that he wasn't just as you cant be "sure" that he was.
That's my only debate. You guys are saying suprising feats and miracles are the same thing. 
Just not true. 


> producing a source apart from the bible about Jesus' miracles was proposed by Bullet, and I believe that has been answered.


Not true. As to my point above the only way it has been answered is if suprising feats and miracles are the same thing. Its a suprising feat that Jesus stayed alive as long as he did all things considered but not necessarily a miracle. If the author had used the word miracles I would agree with you that he meant miracles. But he didn't. He might have meant miracles or he might not have. Therefore Bullets point has NOT been answered.


> I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Like I stated before, God encompasses the story, it was told by Him, without God, there is no story to believe in


That's exactly backwards of the point I have been making.
The Christian story can be wrong but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Lots of different stories and different Bibles. They could ALL be wrong. But there could still be God.
Would you still worship him if they are ALL wrong?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Lots of people recorded it, it's in the bible.



The Pee-Wee Herman "art of conversation" handbook should not be used in here.

I don't know if you do stuff like that just to wind us up or if you really do not realize you do it.


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I can show you Christian scholars that freely admit the examples you tried to use were added later by Christian writers.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> The word miracle is used in the Bible so Im going to assume the word existed. Although its possible that was the word chosen when translated.
> 
> He very well could have been alluding to miracles. But there is a reason he didn't use the word miracles. About a half a dozen possible reasons for that have already been mentioned. Im not "sure" that he wasn't just as you cant be "sure" that he was.
> That's my only debate. You guys are saying suprising feats and miracles are the same thing.
> ...



Walt...those would be valid replies to string if he did his homework on his end and actually provided sources that were accurate, credible and incontestable.
String was done before he started because he went with the first main stream Christian reply he could find and used examples that have been proven and agreed within Christian scholars to have been forgeries....
There is no sense discussing what Flavius Josephus meant with his use of the words "surprising feats" because history has shown he NEVER wrote those words down. He NEVER mentioned Jesus in any of his writings. It has been proven time and time again that any and every mention of Jesus by The Flav was a later addition added in the 4th century by Christian influence.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


>



If you took the time to actually read the sources that I provided much earlier in the thread you would already know that. You are not helping your own cause by constantly asking for examples that have already been provided to you multiple times. You are right back to acting like "old string".

It doesnt matter if I give you another dozen links that say the same thing. You will merrily ignore them and come up with a new and never used before Ah HA thought and say.....
"Jesus is mentioned in the Bible"


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Walt...those would be valid replies to string if he did his homework on his end and actually provided sources that were accurate, credible and incontestable.
> String was done before he started because he went with the first main stream Christian reply he could find and used examples that have been proven and agreed within Christian scholars to have been forgeries....
> There is no sense discussing what Flavius Josephus meant with his use of the words "surprising feats" because history has shown he NEVER wrote those words down. He NEVER mentioned Jesus in any of his writings. It has been proven time and time again that any and every mention of Jesus by The Flav was a later addition added in the 4th century by Christian influence.





> There is no sense discussing what Flavius Josephus meant with his use of the words "surprising feats" because history has shown he NEVER wrote those words down. He NEVER mentioned Jesus in any of his writings. It has been proven time and time again that any and every mention of Jesus by The Flav was a later addition added in the 4th century by Christian influence


True and by the way this is something I learned from this thread and I researched it some more. Its a fact that debate can lead to learning.
Then add in my points, which applies regardless of who wrote it or didn't write it, pretty much solidifies that your request hasn't been satisfied yet.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> True and by the way this is something I learned from this thread and I researched it some more. Its a fact that debate can lead to learning.
> Then add in my points, which applies regardless of who wrote it or didn't write it, pretty much solidifies that your request hasn't been satisfied yet.



Tru DAT Walt.

It is like we tuned into WAAA fm radio and we are on a flashback tour of "Classic String" right now.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

I have never understood why people bump old threads.  This one died back in January -- yet here we are.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2014)

> every mention of Jesus by The Flav


Not sure I could take him seriously any way.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not as sure as you and Bullet that he could have been talking about something else. When an ancient historian mentions Jesus Christ and "suprising feats" in the same sentence, and given what we know about Christ's life according to the bible, I have to conclude that he was alluding to miracles.



String, please be honest, knowing what you have found out now about what Flav-Jo had to say about Jesus was a forgery that was added later....what do you conclude about some of the tactics that were used early on by Christian influences ?

If they would forge this to use as proof do you think it is possible that the same has been done in many writings(Christian or not) along the way and throughout history? Can you honestly see..even though you may not agree with it...how easy it was to manipulate known writings and forge or embellish them with added material to fit a story that wanted to be told? 
Back then forgery, embellishments and plagiarism was not viewed as it is today. It you wanted something to say something different you just changed it and hoped no one would check.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I have never understood why people bump old threads.  This one died back in January -- yet here we are.



It allows fresh information to be shared where it once was not. In this case I think it made for good conversation.
I just hope everybody involved learned something that they didn't already know. I did.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure I could take him seriously any way.




LOLOLOL Yeah Boyyyyyyyyy


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No kidding.
> Now you are back to the point where we started...trying to bring it up again for the first time, which is actually the 70th time...
> The whole point of this discussion was to give us examples of Jesus and especially his miracles being mentioned...wait for it....OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE!!!!!!!


I'm sorry, I should have known better. You said "nobody" wrote it down, and I assumed you meant "nobody", but, we are obviously talking about writings outside of the bible.
That's on me, my bad.



> You have failed to do that. I have shown you with multiple sources that the examples you have given have been proven to be false and agreed to be false by many Christian scholars, yet you continue to cite your examples because you totally will not accept the truth.


I can also provide sources that say what I want them too...
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm


> New Information
> In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum.
> 
> For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus.
> ...



From what I gather through what I've read on the topic is that some of the words were added by a Christian at a later time, I've read nothing that states the what Flava Flav wrote was a complete forgery.


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure I could take him seriously any way.


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

I'll try to get back in a few to respond to some more things, lil busy at work.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I'm sorry, I should have known better. You said "nobody" wrote it down, and I assumed you meant "nobody", but, we are obviously talking about writings outside of the bible.
> That's on me, my bad.


My "nobody" was referring to my earlier "nobody outside of the Bible" comment.




stringmusic said:


> I can also provide sources that say what I want them too...
> http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm


I know that...and those sources that say what you want them to are used very often within mainstream Christianity despite the fact that those very sources have been proven to be incorrect.
The sources I have given you explain that  Flav's early writings did not contain those parts about Jesus. The sources I used then go on to explain and show the early writings as an example, they then go on to show the later 4th century writings where these "Jesus" references suddenly appear. The sources I gave you then give examples of modern Christian scholars that freely and willingly concede that those 4th century additions were forgeries added into the original works.





stringmusic said:


> From what I gather through what I've read on the topic is that some of the words were added by a Christian at a later time, I've read nothing that states the what Flava Flav wrote was a complete forgery.


You gathered correctly. Flav_Jo's original writings did not contain the parts about Jesus. He never wrote about Jesus. His original writings are original...he did not forge anything.
The forgeries occurred later in the 4th century when people in religious power within the early Church took it upon themselves to ADD the parts about Jesus to Flav_Jo's earlier original works...in order to try to pass it off as proof that someone outside of the Bible recorded things about Jesus. They forged original writings because they could not find proof that Jesus was written about by any of the contemporary historians outside of the Bible. They tried to pass it off then and ONLY within mainstream liberal Christian realms today does anyone still try to pass it off as proof of Jesus outside the Bible.
It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. But people who choose not inform themselves continue to use it.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The forgeries occurred later in the 4th century when people in religious power within the early Church took it upon themselves to ADD the parts about Jesus to Flav_Jo's earlier original works...in order to try to pass it off as proof that someone outside of the Bible recorded things about Jesus. They forged original writings because they could not find proof that Jesus was written about by any of the contemporary historians outside of the Bible. They tried to pass it off then and ONLY within mainstream liberal Christian realms today does anyone still try to pass it off as proof of Jesus outside the Bible.



Names?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Names?



OK, I went back to post 217 and saw that Eusebius gets the blame.  From what I read, though, the case against him is entirely circumstantial.


----------



## stringmusic (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I know that...and those sources that say what you want them to are used very often within mainstream Christianity despite the fact that those very sources have been proven to be incorrect.
> The sources I have given you explain that  Flav's early writings did not contain those parts about Jesus. The sources I used then go on to explain and show the early writings as an example, they then go on to show the later 4th century writings where these "Jesus" references suddenly appear. The sources I gave you then give examples of modern Christian scholars that freely and willingly concede that those 4th century additions were forgeries added into the original works.
> You gathered correctly. Flav_Jo's original writings did not contain the parts about Jesus. He never wrote about Jesus. His original writings are original...he did not forge anything.
> The forgeries occurred later in the 4th century when people in religious power within the early Church took it upon themselves to ADD the parts about Jesus to Flav_Jo's earlier original works...in order to try to pass it off as proof that someone outside of the Bible recorded things about Jesus. They forged original writings because they could not find proof that Jesus was written about by any of the contemporary historians outside of the Bible. They tried to pass it off then and ONLY within mainstream liberal Christian realms today does anyone still try to pass it off as proof of Jesus outside the Bible.
> It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. But people who choose not inform themselves continue to use it.


Did you read the part I posted from the link?


> For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator.


I'll freely admit that some parts of the quote from Flav were possibly added, but I can't see how you would come to the conclusion that all of it was fake.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Did you read the part I posted from the link?
> 
> I'll freely admit that some parts of the quote from Flav were possibly added, but I can't see how you would come to the conclusion that all of it was fake.



Which parts do you admit were possibly added?

If you research the earliest copies of Flavs writing and then compare them with the 4th century versions you will see exactly what was added. The parts that were added are fake. I do not know how much more simple to make it.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, I went back to post 217 and saw that Eusebius gets the blame.  From what I read, though, the case against him is entirely circumstantial.



Even if if the evidence is circumstantial for Eusebius.. SOMEONE in the 4th century added words to Flavius Josephus' original writings.
What was written originally was added to later. SOMEONE did it....at this point it doesn't matter who (though Eusebius gets a lot of credit for it or for having someone do it for him)...all that matters is what was originally written was changed later. It is not hard to prove. Early examples say things which have nothing to do with Jesus. Later examples say the same things but have additions  which happen to now mention Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

This thread is a great modern example of how hard modern apologetics try to change what is very clear in order to win an argument. It screams to me how and why someone in great power would change writings in order to suit an agenda.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> This thread is a great modern example of how hard modern apologetics try to change what is very clear in order to win an argument. It screams to me how and why someone in great power would change writings in order to suit an agenda.



Which is what?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Which is what?



"It shall be legitimate and appropriate to use lies as a remedy." Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, 12:31


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> "It shall be legitimate and appropriate to use lies as a remedy." Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, 12:31



Assuming he actually wrote that ... 

WHAT'S THE AGENDA?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Assuming he actually wrote that ...
> 
> WHAT'S THE AGENDA?



Use religion as a means to give power to the church.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Assuming he actually wrote that ...
> 
> WHAT'S THE AGENDA?



No doubt cast on what those anonymous gospel authors wrote....THEY were legit huh?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Use religion as a means to give power to the church.



The church already had Constantine's stamp of approval.  It didn't need a book by Eusebius.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No doubt cast on what those anonymous gospel authors wrote....THEY were legit huh?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

Here is a neat excerpt that I found:

Eusebius, a little known figure in the Christian reality, was the first court-appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Emperor Constantine.  Constantine commissioned Eusebius, personally, to produce fifty excellent copies of the sacred scriptures but gave no instruction what books Eusebius should include or, on what authority or criteria that decision should be made.  He was given sole authority over this project and, therefore, became the first editor of the Bible we have today. 
            The entire basis of belief for the Christian Church allegedly comes from the Bible, although simple research proves the reality to be otherwise.  However, this concept is accepted by most Catholics and Protestants.  There are actually surviving copies of that original Bible called the Codex Sinaiticus.  This Bible, produced by Eusebius, is the same as that produced by King James with the exception of the New Testament Epistle of Barnabas, and the book of Hermas, which, though widely regarded as inspired, were purged before the 1611 translation. 
            The religion created by Constantine was formed by the "opinions" of Eusebius and there is no record of any reference to standards of historical research or textual criticism.  He did not form his idea of what was accepted by using the books that existed as the foundation for that acceptance, but first created the religious beliefs and accepted only the books that matched those beliefs.  Eusebius stated that the only standard he used in deciding which texts to call "recognized" is to accept only books that were recognized by orthodox authors he knew.   Merriam-Webster defines "orthodox" as: "conforming to established doctrine especially in religion".  Eusebius determined the doctrine of the religion and therefore became the sole judge of what was "orthodox". 
            The result of Eusebius' final judgment of biblical canon, the books of the New Testament to be included in that original Bible, was the division of all known and accepted books into three categories:


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> "It shall be legitimate and appropriate to use lies as a remedy." Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, 12:31



You can buy this on Amazon.  It's fifteen books (almost 1,000 pages), and you've pulled one line out of it to make a point.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The church already had Constantine's stamp of approval.  It didn't need a book by Eusebius.



I know you are well schooled in the apologetic version of Church history, I am just glad that I don't take everything you say as fact.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> You can buy this on Amazon.  It's fifteen books (almost 1,000 pages), and you've pulled one line out of it to make a point.



Says a lot about his character. Maybe you know what he meant or was talking about when he made a statement like that??


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

good stuff

Eusebius
Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea in 314 CE. He was a student of Origen and inherited his perspective on religion and theology. At that time Constantine was Emperor of Rome and thought of himself as the image of the sun god, representative of the Almighty and acted as the interpreter of logos, the Word. Constantine followed and adopted Eusebius' work as it fit his ideals. Eusebius wrote The Ecclesiastical History, the acknowledged history of the church from the end of the Book of Acts to the time of the Council of Nicaea, a council in which Constantine asked him to convene in approximately 325 AD.
For Eusebius, there was no distinction between the church and the Empire or State. They appeared to merge into each other. The question remained, that if the kingdom of God was to be scripturally fulfilled through the repentance of Israel and the personal earthly reign of Jesus the Messiah from Jerusalem, then the Jews are inescapably part of that kingdom. In which case, God's faithfulness to the Jews had not expired after Christ's death and the kingdom was still in the future. On the other hand, if Constantine along with the emerging Holy Roman Empire and the State-exalted church were God's kingdom, then there was no need for the Jews and the kingdom had been fulfilled under Constantine's mandate. Thus the rejection and replacement of the Jews was the means of fulfilling Eusebius' doctrine for the kingdom of God. Instead of being natural citizens of the kingdom, Jews became the enemy regardless of whether they were devout to Judaism, walking with the Messiah or secular – all were the enemy.

Eusebius and the New Israel
Eusebius firmly believed that the church was the New Israel and had replaced the Jews. Upholding his mentor Origen's philosophy, Eusebius either rejected the Scriptures that promised the restoration of the Jewish people and all the twelve tribes of Israel or he ignored these Scriptures altogether. Either way, Eusebius was intentionally inaccurate. He had his own agenda. Eusebius was the product of the Alexandrian school of theology (that of Origen) "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." The church that he wanted to help create was more important to him than his inerrancy against the Scriptures. Eusebius was credited with being the father of the allegorical method of interpretation and mandated that allegorical interpretation was the only way to truly understand the Scriptures. This perspective then became the real meaning of the text. For example when the text read "Israel" it meant "the church" and not the Jews, so long as the text was positive. If the scripture was not positive, then "Israel" meant "the Jews" and not "the church."
An edition of the Septuagint, the Greek 'old' testament seems to have been prepared by Origen. According to Jerome (Eusebius's son, who preferred the original Hebrew), it was revised and circulated by Eusebius and Pamphilus.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Says a lot about his character. Maybe you know what he meant or was talking about when he made a statement like that??



One line out of a thousand pages.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> One line out of a thousand pages.



Why was it in there? What did it mean?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Here is a neat excerpt that I found:



This is pure garbage.



Eusebius, a little known figure in the Christian reality, (he wrote the History of the Church, for crying out loud.  He was a bishop at Nicea.  He was not "little known".)  was the first court-appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Emperor Constantine.  Constantine commissioned Eusebius, personally, to produce fifty excellent copies of the sacred scriptures but gave no instruction what books Eusebius should include or, on what authority or criteria that decision should be made.  He was given sole authority over this project and, therefore, became the first editor of the Bible we have today.   
            The entire basis of belief for the Christian Church allegedly comes from the Bible, although simple research proves the reality to be otherwise.  However, this concept is accepted by most Catholics and Protestants.  There are actually surviving copies of that original Bible called the Codex Sinaiticus.  (Sinaiticus is just one.  There's Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, the Old Latin copies, the Syriac version, and a host of others.)This Bible, produced by Eusebius, is the same as that produced by King James with the exception of the New Testament Epistle of Barnabas, and the book of Hermas, which, though widely regarded as inspired, were purged before the 1611 translation.  (They were "purged" centuries before 1611 because they were not genuine.) 
            The religion created by Constantine (this is the biggest lie that I see on this forum, and it gets repeated a lot.  Constantine was a politician, not a theologian.  He didn't create Christianity.  I've asked this question at least half a dozen times before and am always met by chirping crickets, but I'll ask again:  what doctrine did Constantine change?)  was formed by the "opinions" of Eusebius and there is no record of any reference to standards of historical research or textual criticism.  He did not form his idea of what was accepted by using the books that existed as the foundation for that acceptance, but first created the religious beliefs and accepted only the books that matched those beliefs.  Eusebius stated that the only standard he used in deciding which texts to call "recognized" is to accept only books that were recognized by orthodox authors he knew.   Merriam-Webster defines "orthodox" as: "conforming to established doctrine especially in religion".  Eusebius determined the doctrine of the religion and therefore became the sole judge of what was "orthodox".  (Buffalo bagels.  Cow cookies.) 
            The result of Eusebius' final judgment of biblical canon, the books of the New Testament to be included in that original Bible, was the division of all known and accepted books into three categories:


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Why was it in there? What did it mean?



You've read one whole line of the 15-volume work, so that makes you the resident expert.  You tell me.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> good stuff
> 
> Eusebius
> Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea in 314 CE. He was a student of Origen and inherited his perspective on religion and theology. At that time Constantine was Emperor of Rome and thought of himself as the image of the sun god, representative of the Almighty and acted as the interpreter of logos, the Word. Constantine followed and adopted Eusebius' work as it fit his ideals. Eusebius wrote The Ecclesiastical History, the acknowledged history of the church from the end of the Book of Acts to the time of the Council of Nicaea, a council in which Constantine asked him to convene in approximately 325 AD.
> ...



I haven't read this.  I'm just assuming it is of the same excremental essence as the previous quote.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I haven't read this.  I'm just assuming it is of the same excremental essence as the previous quote.



excremental essence that smells much better than the stuff you try to pass off. When you live in a world of assumptions it is easy to add one more.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

Here is a great link that you can make more assumptions about:

http://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2...usebius-a-historian-or-a-story-teller/#_edn10



> As a basic rule, one should therefore assume that people can lie, even if you obviously have to have actual evidence before you can accuse someone of lying, or at least suggest that this someone has been lying. Besides, in the case of Eusebius it is a bit easier, since he himself seems to be arguing that it is sometimes necessary to resort to lying. In Praeparatio Evangelica 12:31 (in Greek â€œEuaggelikê proparaskeuêâ€� meaning Preparation for the Gospel), in the chapter heading â€œwhich has been shown to be by Eusebiusâ€� himself,[39] he writes: â€œThat it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approachâ€�. Richard Carrier states that Eusebius found it â€œnecessary to lie for the cause of Christianityâ€�, relying on Platoâ€™s argument that â€œlying is acceptable, and â€¦ thus the governmentâ€™s teachers should employ lies for the benefit of the state.â€�[40]


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> You've read one whole line of the 15-volume work, so that makes you the resident expert.  You tell me.



Hard to even make up an excuse for that one huh...


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

Didn't Eusebius  claim to have correspondence written between Jesus and the Armenian King Abgarus V of Osroene?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2014)

> The religion created by Constantine (this is the biggest lie that I see on this forum, and it gets repeated a lot. Constantine was a politician, not a theologian. He didn't create Christianity. I've asked this question at least half a dozen times before and am always met by chirping crickets, but I'll ask again: what doctrine did Constantine change?)


Since you asked -
I for one never claimed he "changed" any doctrine.
What I understand is, he backed with his power one particular doctrine for political reasons and declared opposing doctrines as basically the enemy. Therefore one doctrine was allowed to flourish (Christianity as we know it today) and the others were not. That's my understanding.
Basically -


> One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2014)

Yep. Constantine did not have to change any doctrine he only had to promote doctrine that was already in the works and that allowed it to flourish.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 5, 2014)

> I've asked this question at least half a dozen times before and am always met by chirping crickets


Chirp Chirp


----------



## Manutdman (Jul 19, 2014)

''The expression "the Son of Man" occurs 81 times in the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[2] However, the use of the definite article in "the Son of Man" in the gospels is novel, and before its use there, there are no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity.''  Whoever wrote this wikipedia article , proves why Wikipedia is the last lace you want to look, if you are looking for a scholarly source. To say it is not in any one of the surviving manuscripts is simply false. It is found in EACH of the 20,000 plus manuscripts, with some of the oldest and most recently discovered having come from the first century. Jesus called Himself The Son of Man, more often than He used the title The Son of God. BOTH are titles of divinity, which is why when, if He was pressed by the Pharisees, and referred to Himself as either, they accused Him of blasphemy, because, in their estimation, He was a mere man who was calling Himself God, or they would also say making Himself equal to God.  As others have pointed out, thus title is first seen in Daniel 7:13-14, but I don't think anyone actually quoted it. It is a Messianic, prophetic vision that describe a human figure, standing before the Ancient of Days, God, the Father, and HE ASSIGNS TO HIM divine attributes, as He is present in human form. ''13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.'' This title comes from the Hebrew, bar enash, and literally translates as an heir to royalty. It is used only twice in all of the OT, and is in stark contrast to the Hebrew term, a son of man, bar adam, which literally means a son of Adam, or a descendant of Adam. Someone made a very loose reference to Number 31, that says ''God in not a man that he should lie,or a son of man that he should repent..'' This is used by Muslims, JWs, and any false teachings that seek to make this be saying that Jesus cannot be God, because He calls Himself THE Son of Man, BUT, a son of man, bar adam used in Numbers 31 actually distinguishes and confirms His virgin birth, since He was NOT a descendant from Adam, and as a result was not born with the sin nature that all descendants of Adam inherit. So, a simple word study exposes the ignorance, whether deliberately or simply because of having been misinformed by others , that this claim makes. This wikipedia article also said that The Son of Man as a a title was only found n the 4 canonical gospel accounts, and nowhere else, which is also completely false. Not only does this claim contradict the earlier claim that it is not found in any of te ancient Greek writings, since all 4 gospels are found in all of the manuscripts, but it is used in Acts 7 by Stephen, who literally sees Daniel 7 being fulfilled, and he ended up being stoned for professing that Jesus is The Son of Man, again, because the Pharisees present knew that it was calling Jesus God: ''54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said,((((((( “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”)))))))

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.'' Stephen also is praying to the LORD Jesus, which is what Jesus taught His disciples, when He said that if we ask anything IN HIS NAME, He will grant it. Similar to the TITLE, The Son of God, which is defined in Philippians 2:6-11, that contrasts with the common term, a son of God, which simply refers to anyone who is an adopted son of God, born again by the Spirit of God, by grace through faith, The Son of Man, contrasts starkly with a son of man. As always, the key is CONTEXT and a simple look at what each actually means.


----------



## Manutdman (Jul 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Here is a neat excerpt that I found:
> 
> Eusebius, a little known figure in the Christian reality, was the first court-appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Emperor Constantine.  Constantine commissioned Eusebius, personally, to produce fifty excellent copies of the sacred scriptures but gave no instruction what books Eusebius should include or, on what authority or criteria that decision should be made.  He was given sole authority over this project and, therefore, became the first editor of the Bible we have today.
> The entire basis of belief for the Christian Church allegedly comes from the Bible, although simple research proves the reality to be otherwise.  However, this concept is accepted by most Catholics and Protestants.  There are actually surviving copies of that original Bible called the Codex Sinaiticus.  This Bible, produced by Eusebius, is the same as that produced by King James with the exception of the New Testament Epistle of Barnabas, and the book of Hermas, which, though widely regarded as inspired, were purged before the 1611 translation.
> ...



    This excerpt comes from an EXTREMELY dodgy source:http://www.bibleufo.com/anomchurch8.htm It is spawned by the same  textual critics who will say that Constantine 'wrote' the Bible, and is the one who decoded that the Trinit was legit. BOTH are utter nonsense. The Council of Nicea, which met in 325 AD, and involved 318 different bishops, and their main objective was to resolve the issue of the false teaching of Arianism, and ALL but the two representing Arian ALL agreed that it was heretical. Arianism is a first cousin to the modern JW heresy and cult. The NT, JUST AS IT EXISTS today was already in circulation since the early second century. Pseudapigraphas, and gnostic gospels kept surfacing from the early third century, all the way up until the 15th century, when the Gospel of Barnabas was written by a Muslim, and inserted references to Muhammad, because for 800 years Muslim apologists had desperately been searching the Bible to find what the Quran claimed about its having mentioned Muhammad. AGAIN, ancient MSS evidences have CONFIRMED the veracity of the NT, and recent discoveries of MSS from the first century confirm the NT as it exists today. Constantine convened the CON, NOT To 'invent' the Trinitarin view, or to 'write' the NT, as is claimed, but to CONFIRM BOTH!!!. In fact, Tertullian had already coined the term, Trinity, which represents what has always been the taught by the Apostles, and Jesus(Matthew 28:16-19 is an explicit reference) in the latter part of the second century, which simply refers to the triune nature and essence of God, as is seen throughout BOTH the OT and NT, and explicit is refrred to in the NT as the Godhead(theotes). There are two IRREFUTABLE pieces of evidence that debunk these conspiracy theories. First, the actual MSS evidiences, and the existence of PDF files that contain the actual content of the CON. Anyone can Google for the PDF files, and here is a link of a REAL scholar who gives a summary of the MSS evidences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PknuYvU9hQE   Daniel Wallace is a legitimate scholar, and a respected NT authority, all over the world.... not some biased cult leader fishing for nonsense to seek to justify fallacies.


----------



## Manutdman (Jul 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> "It shall be legitimate and appropriate to use lies as a remedy." Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, 12:31



Can you show us the actual document that this quote comes from???  Here is an exhaustive scholarly work on Eusebius....take note especially of His Christology: http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0312_eusebius_proof.html


----------



## Manutdman (Jul 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Here is a great link that you can make more assumptions about:
> 
> http://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2...usebius-a-historian-or-a-story-teller/#_edn10



Show us the ACTUAL quote from the ACTUAL book 12, in it ACTUAL context ...keeping in mind that: ''The Demonstratio Evangelica (Ευαγγελικης Αποδειξεως δεκα λογοι) originally consisted of twenty books, of which only ten remain. It was the concluding portion of the complete work, which included the Praeparatio. At the beginning of the latter Eusebius stated his object to be "to shew the nature of Christianity to those who know not what it means"1 the purpose of its pages was to give an answer to all reasonable questions both from Jewish or Greek inquirers about Christianity, and its relation to other religions. Thus the Praeparatio was intended to be "a guide, by occupying the place of elementary instruction and introduction, and suiting itself to our recent converts from among the heathen."2''......so please show us what you imply this quote means, IN CONTEXT not as it is quote mined as you have done, and so has this source you quoted from, in light of the fact that only 10 of the 20 books have survived.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2014)




----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 20, 2014)

Manutdman,  either Bullet is fishing or laboriously sifting through the Athiest Meme thread looking for that "perfect" rebuttal.  He'll be back shortly.  Rest assured.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 20, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Manutdman,  either Bullet is fishing or laboriously sifting through the Athiest Meme thread looking for that "perfect" rebuttal.  He'll be back shortly.  Rest assured.



Or, like you are so famous for constantly doing by missing a 3rd, 4th, 1000th option...you have given yet another False Dichotomy Fallacy
Bullethead was camping for the weekend and did not get home until right now.
Bullet, when he has time, will properly address what he can either by his own knowledge and will use sources to back it up and/or he will find what he needs.

Manutdman, I will try to reply tonight or tomorrow or within the week...(maybe some of each)I am extremely busy over the next few days.

SFD, sit back and let someone else hold an intelligent conversation with me and pretend it is you, chime in unnecessarily, be sure to not use any sources to back up your babble...just assert, make up, and ramble...you know like always.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 20, 2014)

Manutdman,  this thread is a couple months old and 3 weeks ago on a firefox update I lost 990 bookmarks where I had all of my Religious sources and references.
It is going to take me a while to try to find what I need.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 20, 2014)

Manutdman said:


> ''The expression "the Son of Man" occurs 81 times in the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[2] However, the use of the definite article in "the Son of Man" in the gospels is novel, and before its use there, there are no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity.''  Whoever wrote this wikipedia article , proves why Wikipedia is the last lace you want to look, if you are looking for a scholarly source. To say it is not in any one of the surviving manuscripts is simply false. It is found in EACH of the 20,000 plus manuscripts, with some of the oldest and most recently discovered having come from the first century. Jesus called Himself The Son of Man, more often than He used the title The Son of God. BOTH are titles of divinity, which is why when, if He was pressed by the Pharisees, and referred to Himself as either, they accused Him of blasphemy, because, in their estimation, He was a mere man who was calling Himself God, or they would also say making Himself equal to God.  As others have pointed out, thus title is first seen in Daniel 7:13-14, but I don't think anyone actually quoted it. It is a Messianic, prophetic vision that describe a human figure, standing before the Ancient of Days, God, the Father, and HE ASSIGNS TO HIM divine attributes, as He is present in human form. ''13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.'' This title comes from the Hebrew, bar enash, and literally translates as an heir to royalty. It is used only twice in all of the OT, and is in stark contrast to the Hebrew term, a son of man, bar adam, which literally means a son of Adam, or a descendant of Adam. Someone made a very loose reference to Number 31, that says ''God in not a man that he should lie,or a son of man that he should repent..'' This is used by Muslims, JWs, and any false teachings that seek to make this be saying that Jesus cannot be God, because He calls Himself THE Son of Man, BUT, a son of man, bar adam used in Numbers 31 actually distinguishes and confirms His virgin birth, since He was NOT a descendant from Adam, and as a result was not born with the sin nature that all descendants of Adam inherit. So, a simple word study exposes the ignorance, whether deliberately or simply because of having been misinformed by others , that this claim makes. This wikipedia article also said that The Son of Man as a a title was only found n the 4 canonical gospel accounts, and nowhere else, which is also completely false. Not only does this claim contradict the earlier claim that it is not found in any of te ancient Greek writings, since all 4 gospels are found in all of the manuscripts, but it is used in Acts 7 by Stephen, who literally sees Daniel 7 being fulfilled, and he ended up being stoned for professing that Jesus is The Son of Man, again, because the Pharisees present knew that it was calling Jesus God: ''54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said,((((((( “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”)))))))
> 
> 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
> 
> 59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.'' Stephen also is praying to the LORD Jesus, which is what Jesus taught His disciples, when He said that if we ask anything IN HIS NAME, He will grant it. Similar to the TITLE, The Son of God, which is defined in Philippians 2:6-11, that contrasts with the common term, a son of God, which simply refers to anyone who is an adopted son of God, born again by the Spirit of God, by grace through faith, The Son of Man, contrasts starkly with a son of man. As always, the key is CONTEXT and a simple look at what each actually means.


I'm trying to decide if I want to address all these assumptions..... Mercy, it would take alot of time.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 20, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm trying to decide if I want to address all these assumptions..... Mercy, it would take alot of time.



Yeah, after losing all of my resources on where to start and the thread being a couple of months old I am not in the least bit anxious to get into it right away.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 20, 2014)

Manutdman said:


> Show us the ACTUAL quote from the ACTUAL book 12, in it ACTUAL context ...keeping in mind that: ''The Demonstratio Evangelica (Ευαγγελικης Αποδειξεως δεκα λογοι) originally consisted of twenty books, of which only ten remain. It was the concluding portion of the complete work, which included the Praeparatio. At the beginning of the latter Eusebius stated his object to be "to shew the nature of Christianity to those who know not what it means"1 the purpose of its pages was to give an answer to all reasonable questions both from Jewish or Greek inquirers about Christianity, and its relation to other religions. Thus the Praeparatio was intended to be "a guide, by occupying the place of elementary instruction and introduction, and suiting itself to our recent converts from among the heathen."2''......so please show us what you imply this quote means, IN CONTEXT not as it is quote mined as you have done, and so has this source you quoted from, in light of the fact that only 10 of the 20 books have survived.



That is almost like asking you to show us the ACTUAL scrolls of the ACTUAL New Testament in the ACTUAL language.


----------



## Manutdman (Jul 20, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm trying to decide if I want to address all these assumptions..... Mercy, it would take alot of time.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Assumptions?????????? OK....thanks for proving your lack of knowledge. Nothing assumed in any from, just simple facts.


----------



## Manutdman (Jul 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> That is almost like asking you to show us the ACTUAL scrolls of the ACTUAL New Testament in the ACTUAL language.



No, its' like I asked you, show us some actual proof, given the fact that only 10 of the 20 books remain...like the actual evidences  supplied to you. There are NO actual manuscripts, not scrolls, but there are 20,000 copies of these MSS, with some dating back to the first century, and plenty of quotes from early church fathers that contain literally one million quotes that contain every verse in the NT. In fact, the entire NT could be reconstructed from these quotes. You are just used to Dan Brown, and other fictional sources as opposed to actual scholars. And yes, many ARE in the actual Koine Greek original language for the NT. But, I am sure you were aware of that.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 20, 2014)

9 posts from you and I am already getting a feel of what to expect from you.
If you make a statement back it up.
Otherwise you are not going to get much interaction in here especially if you are ripping others sources when you are providing none of your own. It is very semperfidogish....


----------



## Israel (Jul 21, 2014)

If one considers the necessary state of man is trusting in man, even if that man be himself to both see and judge rightly_ who_ to trust, one may see the wisdom of God in the coming of the Messiah. If a man can be brought to trust in the only man who ever trusted God exclusively, he will be brought to the One in whom this man trusts.

How like the leaf, previously discussed elsewhere.
To show the true light, a man was chosen, indeed, _the_ Chosen one, to absorb all that is not of the right frequency, reflecting only the pure true light of his being.
Everything not "of the right frequency" we call sin...all that Jesus showed...is of God. 
Look deeply to discover his true essence, the place where all "not God"...meets all "of God"...
where God and man, meet in peace.
And don't be surprised at the struggle you see taking place all around the perimeter...of that.
He who knew no sin, became sin for us...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 21, 2014)

Manutdman said:


> 1gr8bldr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to decide if I want to address all these assumptions..... Mercy, it would take alot of time.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 21, 2014)

Manutdman said:


> No, its' like I asked you, show us some actual proof, given the fact that only 10 of the 20 books remain...like the actual evidences  supplied to you. There are NO actual manuscripts, not scrolls, but there are 20,000 copies of these MSS, with some dating back to the first century, and plenty of quotes from early church fathers that contain literally one million quotes that contain every verse in the NT. In fact, the entire NT could be reconstructed from these quotes. You are just used to Dan Brown, and other fictional sources as opposed to actual scholars. And yes, many ARE in the actual Koine Greek original language for the NT. But, I am sure you were aware of that.



In each of our cases copies seem to be enough.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Or, like you are so famous for constantly doing by missing a 3rd, 4th, 1000th option...you have given yet another False Dichotomy Fallacy
> Bullethead was camping for the weekend and did not get home until right now.
> Bullet, when he has time, will properly address what he can either by his own knowledge and will use sources to back it up and/or he will find what he needs.
> 
> ...




 Oh My!  Referring to yourself in the third person now?



> Bullethead was camping for the weekend and did not get home until right now.
> Bullet, when he has time, will properly address what he can either by his own knowledge and will use sources to back it up and/or he will find what he needs.




You know what they say that is a sign of don't you?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh My!  Referring to yourself in the third person now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In this case it sounds like exasperation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 21, 2014)

Manutdman said:


> Can you show us the actual document that this quote comes from???  Here is an exhaustive scholarly work on Eusebius....take note especially of His Christology: http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0312_eusebius_proof.html


Manutdman I have a couple of questions -
Am I correct that Eusebius was a preterist?
And if I have that right are you including preterism as one of these facts you are talking about?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 21, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> In this case it sounds like exasperation.



I'm quite sure you are correct.  At some point in life almost everyone realizes its hard to kick against the goads.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm quite sure you are correct.  At some point in life almost everyone realizes its hard to kick against the goads.



So it is your opinion that God calls on everyone and in Bullets case he is resisting said call?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh My!  Referring to yourself in the third person now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was merely adding more options to your heavily one sided list of possibilities.

It is a sign I am not narrow minded.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm quite sure you are correct.  At some point in life almost everyone realizes its hard to kick against the goads.



bzzzzeeehhhh Sorry Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 21, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Manutdman said:
> 
> 
> > I am super busy, no time for anything, but I'll point out your assumptions this evening. What you call fact, is assumption. I'll give you one. How do you figure that man does not receive a sin nature from his mother?
> ...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> So it is your opinion that God calls on everyone and in Bullets case he is resisting said call?



No it's my opinion everyone knows on the most basic level God exists, yet some refuse to acknowledge it for various reasons: discouragement, anger, pride, resentment, disinterest for any number of reasons including selfishness, etc.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No it's my opinion everyone knows on the most basic level God exists, yet some refuse to acknowledge it for various reasons: discouragement, anger, pride, resentment, disinterest for any number of reasons including selfishness, etc.



Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> 1gr8bldr said:
> 
> 
> > Conception is not possible without an egg".
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes but only if you _assume_ this was a natural birth and exclude the supernatural.  This *assumption* of yours clearly is not what the text supports.  The Bible makes it crystal clear that it was a supernatural event.



I think the absence of male fluids makes it sufficiently supernatural if the story from the Bible is true. I don't think they need to shoot for the no egg angle.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think the absence of male fluids makes it sufficiently supernatural if the story from the Bible is true. I don't think they need to shoot for the no egg angle.



Actually no sperm-no egg is no Biggy for the one who is held to have SPOKE the universe.  Not trying to be smart, but if I hold one supernatural event to be true then what logic can I use to deny the others?

Luke 5:23 gets to the heart of it.

23 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually no sperm-no egg is no Biggy for the one who is held to have SPOKE the universe.  Not trying to be smart, but if I hold one supernatural event to be true then what logic can I use to deny the others?
> 
> Luke 5:23 gets to the heart of it.
> 
> 23 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?



I don't disagree, I'm just saying that a story of conception is miraculous enough without sperm that any lack of eggs is just showing off.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 22, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't disagree, I'm just saying that a story of conception is miraculous enough without sperm that any lack of eggs is just showing off.



Lack of a womb would have been awesome. 
Probably would have made Joseph feel better. 
Of course, the baby may have been named something different. 
Cause you know the first words out of Joseph's mouth when he found out Mary was pregnant was JESUS CHRIST!

No womb involved, and the baby may have been named Bob or something.


----------



## Israel (Jul 22, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't disagree, I'm just saying that a story of conception is miraculous enough without sperm that any lack of eggs is just showing off.



Faith is wonderful. Without it I say, "hey...convenient...this woman had this child miraculously, huh? I mean...if the baby fell to earth in a bubble, fine...but you're trying to tell me she really was a _virgin_...c'mon now...how could we ever prove it now?"
precisely.

You see, a believer knows there's absolutely nothing he can do to get anyone to believe...in fact, when a believer reads through the Bible..._believing_ and he sees Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead...and then sees in the same narrative that there were some that went and reported (ratted) back to the pharisees...the believer may ask...HUH? 
It's like, either the account is kinda flawed...OR...even when seeing someone raise someone from the dead, one may still be persuaded to be a toady for the opposition.

I mean, I say to myself, "If I saw someone raise someone from the dead, I'd dump the pharisees and go join Jesus in a heartbeat!"
But...then I also see this about myself...even after all the wonderful (yes, and to me miraculous) things the Lord has both done and shown me...I can still act just like a complete enemy to him at times...it sobers me.
So when I'm quick to think "Lord...if you'd just do this one little thing for me...I'd be a good boy forever!" I realize I have both now power to ever do anything about myself, to see, behave, believe...apart from grace.
I now laugh at my own fickleness, recognizing, this matter is far more than having God whip a miracle or two before my sight...it has far more to do with inclinations, attentions, spiritual attitudes, and mostly...ignorance of myself. And not to mention how much may be going on around me at any particular moment, that because of such attitude and attention...I am missing completely...cannot force myself to see, cannot decide to see, can do absolutely nothing except "unless I am shown, I see nothing".

That's why, for me at least, it becomes a little less peculiar now to hear how many would fall down in worship if they just saw "one little miracle"..."one little proof of God"...never knowing how many unseen things they are already moved by, taken as matter of fact, yet when considered, always (for the time being) trumping any submission to faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 22, 2014)

Israel said:


> Faith is wonderful. Without it I say, "hey...convenient...this woman had this child miraculously, huh? I mean...if the baby fell to earth in a bubble, fine...but you're trying to tell me she really was a _virgin_...c'mon now...how could we ever prove it now?"
> precisely.
> 
> You see, a believer knows there's absolutely nothing he can do to get anyone to believe...in fact, when a believer reads through the Bible..._believing_ and he sees Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead...and then sees in the same narrative that there were some that went and reported (ratted) back to the pharisees...the believer may ask...HUH?
> ...



Ever see the movie Red Planet? 

There's a great line in there with Terrence Stamp about a rock with "Made by God" under the bottom of it. 

I recognize the miracle in the sheer statistical odds that had to be overcome to produce hydrogen, let alone stars, let alone heavier elements, let alone life, let alone intelligent life, and onward to infinity. 

I can't, though, attribute it to one God from one Bible given how many examples there are of religion, faith and prophets throughout history. 

When pushed on the issue, I have to say that I'm an agnostic since I don't "know" anything either way for certain. 

But, if I'm just asked for my opinion then I can see the movement of something in the shadows of natural laws that could be considered a "Force" if you will but that trying to attribute any kind of personality to it is akin to penguins postulating on particle physics. I've been moved in my life by experiences I've had, but nothing that I can attribute to any one God with any more certainty than I could any other. So, for that, I live in what I call "the stream."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't disagree, I'm just saying that a story of conception is miraculous enough without sperm that any lack of eggs is just showing off.



Gotcha


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 1gr8bldr said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but only if you _assume_ this was a natural birth and exclude the supernatural.  This *assumption* of yours clearly is not what the text supports.  The Bible makes it crystal clear that it was a supernatural event.
> ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 1gr8bldr said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but only if you _assume_ this was a natural birth and exclude the supernatural.  This *assumption* of yours clearly is not what the text supports.  The Bible makes it crystal clear that it was a supernatural event.
> ...


----------



## Israel (Jul 22, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ever see the movie Red Planet?
> 
> There's a great line in there with Terrence Stamp about a rock with "Made by God" under the bottom of it.
> 
> ...



Regarding our previous brief exchange, I was considering something Hamlet said. (OK, not Hamlet, anymore than Doc, Ringo or Earp "said")...but in this case, Shakespeare. 
When faced with the truth of his father's death, his "call" even _by that _ ghost to avenge him...
Hamlet came to a point where he said "The time is out of joint, O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right".

"O cursed spite...that ever I was born, to set it right".

For reasons not necessary to explain, I was also considering "justice" this morning...its seeming demands upon us. In a world that seems, at almost every point (at least to me) to demonstrate nothing but _injustice_ I consider how we seem to be dogged by this strange notion. Is it a "real" thing? Is it something that is manifest, mostly by its lack? So much crying out to be rectified, at times, it seems, that were a man to entertain the notion of "correcting"...a thousand lifetimes would not be enough.
And here is what brings me to the "demands" vs our disposition toward life.
When the "notion" of justice is made known, its seemingly insurmountable and crushing weight becomes so oppressive, as upon Hamlet...regrets for even "being" may ensue. 
Not unlike Doc describing Ringo "Revenge..."
"Revenge? For what?"
For being born.

I believe each man answers life in one of two ways, perhaps in his heart of hearts...it is either a miserable trick perpetrated upon him...to give him "life", consciousness, a knowledge of his own being, a yearning for freedom, but always bound by limits in some form or another, a desire to know the unknowable...and in such frustration to answer life...it is "not good". And so, apart from suicide, the most compromising of us set out to "make the best of it"...but not even knowing what words like "the best" ever really mean. (For self preservation runs strong.)

Another may be vexed in his soul just as rightly. He believes in good, yet really is dogged by the persistence of chance, random occurrences (to him) that put the lie to that at almost every turn. Yet he likewise cannot escape the very presence of judgments in all things..."this was a good thing...that was not..." And his frustration is just as real. As one here once said "In Africa a child is dying of some horrid disease, while Americans battle what comes of being overfed". (In so many words) Judgements are rendered, the "one " needing succor is refused, while those, born at random "here" need treadmills and diets.
And so even "good"...that of abundance of food...has become, in one sense, a curse. For against such abundance, a starving child is still seen.
Such men hounded by the gift of "awareness", may also come to see life as too cruel a trick to advertise a perpetual truth of goodness through.
It seems again, a sense of "justice" has become a source of irritation. Insurmountable.

I can no more explain the mechanics of faith than can, as you mentioned, a penguin elaborating upon particle physics. But...something...(I would say) _someone_ has broken through the perfection of my frustration (rage)...and shown himself. He is, unlike my knowing of myself, one...perfectly integrated, perfectly consistent, perfectly at home, in a skin I find restricting, confining, frustrating, at every turn.
Even so willing to have that "skin" ripped away, (not without trial)...that he allows it. When I would revile, he doesn't. When I would run and hide, he doesn't. When I would turn my confession to something more expedient to myself, he doesn't.

To me, he obviously sees something I do not...something that propels him in the conviction of "goodness" being the unutterable and indefatigable overarching truth of all.
In the face of all contradiction, he clings to it, in the face of all threats, he holds to it, in the face of every word to flatter him he resists it, in the face of everything that would seek to come between him and that rock solid conviction of which he plainly spoke would lead to his own demise, he is uncowed. And in this, in all of it, now, I hear him calling, me.
It seems some find Descarte, Schopenauer, or whatever, whoever else may play a string they find now humming in sympathy, harmony, to theirs. I am sure they do...relate...to whomever they care to relate to. Maybe Hitchens, maybe Harris, maybe Dawkins. I don't know.
I can only say my deepest string has been plucked in the quandry of believing in good...yet seeing absolutely none "in myself". 
How can this be? The very thing that everything else seems to deny..."really" is. I even find the denial of it in "myself"...yet I affirm its reality by continuing to breathe, continuing to "seek" good "for myself". I therefore, judge myself.
For, apart from some intervention, what "I am" can never square with what "good" is...though I chase it "as best I can".
And, like Hamlet, I have left much woe in my wake...just trying to serve "my" notion of good. I long for a judgment that I know must kill the "me" that is all deserving of it. But, then what? What happens if I can no longer deny the very good I seek, must also be the very good that has no part with me, except to obliterate me in its contrast?
Is there no place to hide? To see good, and not be destroyed, and rightfully so?

Jesus once was known to me, before he made perfect sense, as the only one who would have me.
He still is.
And it is enough...and more.
The time is no longer "out of joint" to me, I can do nothing about what is...all the "demands"...have been met.
And judgment, thankfully, to me, has been triumphed over, by mercy.
Even, of myself.
That mercy is all over you, too.
BTW, I am going to YouTube to see if they have the scene mentioned in "Red Planet".


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2014)

I find it interesting that the early writers had to turn a god into a man in order for the audience to take notice.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> SemperFiDawg said:
> 
> 
> > It was a supernatural event. She conceived without having had relations. But conceived requires her part. But I will acknowledge that it may just be a bad choice of wording.
> ...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I find it interesting that the early writers had to turn a god into a man in order for the audience to take notice.



Meme # 462?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe Jesus was born with the ability to sin... but did not.



I agree


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree


I disagree. Matthew 1:21 leaves no room for it to be considered.


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I find it interesting that the early writers had to turn a god into a man in order for the audience to take notice.



I find it far more interesting that a man like Saul of Tarsus, of note, of position, of authority, of a keen mind, would be so moved by something he experienced to consider all the former as dung.

I am far more interested in a man who states he knows what he preaches is foolish to the wise of this world, earning their scorn and opprobrium, yet continues on, eventually earning their total rejection in the form of a death.

I find it far more interesting that in the searching out of these things, this man was not afraid to face head on the questions such an experience opened him to, one might even say those things lingering of doubt of his own experience, and find in that fearlessness the conviction, not that he of himself was "right", but that he had come to know someone who is.

I find it interesting that such a man, whose letters drip with compassion, are toward those he once considered as dogs.

I don't find it interesting that today men, in hindsight, attribute a cynicism toward all who have gone before as though they labored to their own deaths for the sake of those who would come after them merely to promote a scheme. 

These men warned of the acid of cynicism and their corrosive effect upon the soul. 

When some set out to measure another, willing to throw both baby and bathwater aside, believing in their pride of judgment, their pride of life, they may find, they have been more clearly seen and apprehended, and judged, than those upon whom they believe they have contained fully in their eye and understanding.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2014)

Israel said:


> I find it far more interesting that a man like Saul of Tarsus, of note, of position, of authority, of a keen mind, would be so moved by something he experienced to consider all the former as dung.
> 
> I am far more interested in a man who states he knows what he preaches is foolish to the wise of this world, earning their scorn and opprobrium, yet continues on, eventually earning their total rejection in the form of a death.
> 
> ...



The same could be said about many religions/religious people.


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The same could be said about many religions/religious people.



Exactly.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Meme # 462?



No but so good it should be.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2014)

Israel said:


> Exactly.



And politics, sports, legal matters, human rights, etc etc etc...


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2014)

yes, all men may become subject to cynicism...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 23, 2014)

Israel said:


> Regarding our previous brief exchange, I was considering something Hamlet said. (OK, not Hamlet, anymore than Doc, Ringo or Earp "said")...but in this case, Shakespeare.
> When faced with the truth of his father's death, his "call" even _by that _ ghost to avenge him...
> Hamlet came to a point where he said "The time is out of joint, O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right".
> 
> ...



Look, Darlin'; Ringo here's an educated man. Now I really hate 'im. 

I thought I knew Jesus once in my life, but that's because I was ignoring my own core, and going along with whatever those around me did in an effort to fit in. 

Once I learned that I wasn't going to get along with everyone I was able to step outside of that drive for conformity and examine what I truly liked, and believed. I realized that I like casual sports instead of competitive sports, so I stopped asking to play little league and instead played more in the sandlot Saturday pick up games. I realized that the fire that I was so hungrily seeking in my own faith just wasn't there. I could fake the burn and get most people to accept that it had occurred, but it was a lie to myself and to them. So, as I hit my teen years I stopped asking to go to Vacation Bible School with my friends, and once we went to Catholic church it wasn't an issue since they didn't have it, but I even stopped going to the weekly youth group meetings. I liked the people extremely well, I just didn't want to have a very difficult conversation with them in a place obviously designed for other goals. That's not to say that the Church isn't capable of handling doubters in the flock; merely that a youth group where the goal is community and sharing of faith is not the place nor time for me to announce my skepticism thereby becoming the focus of attention for discussion and, in some minds, conversion. So I bowed out of that, as well. 

In my late teens and early twenties, when I was in college, I took courses on religion to see if perhaps an academic, forensic, analysis of the subject would sway me. Now that was an eye opener. To find out that the story of the Bible is so similar to aspects of so many other religions, and you can follow the lines of parentage straight down the lines of conquest and assimilation, was a revelation I wasn't prepared for. 

The flood story is not unique. 
The virgin birth of the messiah is not unique. 
The sacrifice is not unique.
The tortured young adult is not unique. 
The 3rd day risen is not unique
The timelines don't match up with the celestial bodies that supposedly guided people to their destinations. 

Sure, some of that can be attributed to the fact that it was all written by people, and people are fallible, but that tells me that we don't even possess a minor understanding of any of it. I struggled with the similarities I found, first thinking that it was a sign that something larger was at work for so many disparate peoples to have similar stories, but then I thought deeper. What's the one common thread amongst it all? It's not the similarities in the story since that's mostly the generalities of it. It's the people. 

People are, generally, the same pretty much anywhere you go. If you make an argument the same way to 100 people, the bell curve will tell you that most will either reject it or accept it, but the rate at which they do will follow the bell curve. That's why the stories are similar, because that's the type, and content, of a story that is needed to convince people and everyone writing these down and otherwise fabricating them, came to the same conclusions independently. That's why religions, universally, are chock full of the carrot and the rod. If they can't get you with the stuff that should be easy to digest, we'll scare you into it with the rest. "Be good for goodness' sake; or go to Hades." 

That's not to say that personal faith is a flawed construct. I've said many times, and hold it as a personal truth, that faith is relative to the observer and that any attempt to share it causes it to immediately break down. That's why you get people of the same denomination arguing over the same passage from different perspectives and with different takes. That's what stops me from evangelizing about my "stream" viewpoint. I could say it 1000 different ways in 1000 different languages and it could still remain an alien concept to some, even though it is nearly an absolute truth in my own life. 

Back on topic, though, and I believe that Jesus, the person, is the Son of Man, and the story about him being the Son of God is a fabrication by the same in pursuit of worthy goals. That's just my opinion, though.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Look, Darlin'; Ringo here's an educated man. Now I really hate 'im.
> 
> I thought I knew Jesus once in my life, but that's because I was ignoring my own core, and going along with whatever those around me did in an effort to fit in.
> 
> ...



That is well said and I can relate to it very well.


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2014)

My experience was quite different. But, as much as you can receive it, and I am able, I understand yours.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 23, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I disagree. Matthew 1:21 leaves no room for it to be considered.



Either you have a different Matthew 1:21 than me or we're talking about 2 different subjects, because I can't comprehend how Matt. 1:21 even remotely addresses this.

I'm open for your explanation. I just don't see it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 25, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Either you have a different Matthew 1:21 than me or we're talking about 2 different subjects, because I can't comprehend how Matt. 1:21 even remotely addresses this.
> 
> I'm open for your explanation. I just don't see it.


My bad. What translation are you using that does not have Jesus as the subject in Matthew 1:21? Please present it for my consideration.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 25, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> My bad. What translation are you using that does not have Jesus as the subject in Matthew 1:21? Please present it for my consideration



1gr8bldr  said this in post 313



> I believe Jesus was born with the ability to sin... but did not.



To which I said in post 319



> I agree



And you responded in post 320



> I disagree. Matthew 1:21 leaves no room for it to be considered.




Matthew 1:21 says 



> Matthew 1:21King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.


 
 in which I find no reference to the point being discussed as I noted in post 330

And you responded as above with 



> My bad. What translation are you using that does not have Jesus as the subject in Matthew 1:21? Please present it for my consideration


.

I still don't see the reference.  

I based my opinion on 

Hebrews 4:15New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Which acknowledges Jesus was tempted(as we know), and strongly implies it was his choice not to.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 25, 2014)

In Mathew 1:21, by way of messenger and prior to birth, God said that Jesus "shall save his people from their sins". If Jesus had the ability to sin, he had the ability to do other than what God knew he would do.

Impossible.


----------



## Israel (Jul 25, 2014)

The liberty of the Messiah, as all else in him, is perfect.
The being of without sin is seen in He alone.
That place occupied of "dost thou think that I am not able now to call upon my Father, and He will place beside me more than twelve legions of messengers? (angels)"
(the seemingly awkward  Young's literal translation often leaves less place for equivocation)

This is the relationship of Father and Son...nothing of coercion or obligation, but all of recognition and response.
"This is my beloved son..."
"The Father is greater than I..."

This is found only in the Christ. And the Christ is found in his own...given him...by the Father...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 27, 2014)

Manutdman said:


> 1gr8bldr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to decide if I want to address all these assumptions..... Mercy, it would take alot of time.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Manutdman said:
> 
> 
> > Manutdman got me fired up when he came into our respectable forum demanding that Bullet show his sources from an old thread. We discuss topics, not argue them. LOL, I laugh at myself now for going defensive. Anyway, I would like to discuss some of his post. Like the assumption that "Son of man" means God. Maybe a couple other points later.
> ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> 1gr8bldr said:
> 
> 
> > It would be good conversation but manutdman decided to assert and run.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2014)

Those are the types of details within the details that I think about.

It is why I think that Jesus was wholly man and never a God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 29, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> In Mathew 1:21, by way of messenger and prior to birth, God said that Jesus "shall save his people from their sins". If Jesus had the ability to sin, he had the ability to do other than what God knew he would do.
> 
> Impossible.



I can see that in some strange sorta way. Why would God send someone to save us from our sins knowing full well he couldn't perform the task before he sent him? That wouldn't say much of God to do such a thing. 
I guess you can produce some other verses of Jesus only performing the will of God to back up this reasoning.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I based my opinion on
> 
> Hebrews 4:15New American Standard Bible (NASB)
> 
> ...


So your belief is based upon "strongly implies"? I would say that "Jesus was tempted" strongly implies a tempter and a temptation. Where do you see choice in that? Was Jesus free to choose the tempter, free to choose the temptation, free to choose to sin, free to choose to not sin, free to choose to leave it all alone?

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 30, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> So your belief is based upon "strongly implies"? I would say that "Jesus was tempted" strongly implies a tempter and a temptation. Where do you see choice in that? Was Jesus free to choose the tempter, free to choose the temptation, free to choose to sin, free to choose to not sin, free to choose to leave it all alone?
> 
> "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."


Do you guys agree that -


> 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.


Is referring to Jesus?
Im trying to follow along but this high priest thing is throwing me off.


> The high priest was the supreme religious leader of the Israelites. The office of the high priest was hereditary and was traced from Aaron, the brother of Moses, of the Levite tribe (Exodus 28:1; Numbers 18:7). The high priest had to be “whole” physically (without any physical defects) and holy in his conduct (Leviticus 21:6-8).


I don't read that definition as referring to Jesus?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 30, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> So your belief is based upon "strongly implies"? I would say that "Jesus was tempted" strongly implies a tempter and a temptation. Where do you see choice in that? Was Jesus free to choose the tempter, free to choose the temptation, free to choose to sin, free to choose to not sin, free to choose to leave it all alone?
> 
> "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."



Jesus said, if you have seen me, you have seen my Father.
It is hard to imagine Jesus having the free will to have slept with a married woman after a night of too many glasses of wine. If Jesus was capable of doing such, why would God have jeopardized our salvation by sending Jesus in the first place? It makes it appear that God gambled on his Son fulfilling his promise.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you guys agree that -
> 
> Is referring to Jesus?
> Im trying to follow along but this high priest thing is throwing me off.
> ...



High priest in service to God..... Most just ignore it


----------



## Israel (Aug 2, 2014)

I believe that is a worthy question...was Jesus "free" to leave it all alone?
I am always fascinated by what I see in this:

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

In retrospect we say this thing happened because it had to. It happened. But the vindication of God's word is all fulfilled from the foundation of the world, what further need of anything to be "performed" before man, if not only for man?
To see to what extent Jesus went "for us", is to begin to see to just what extent God esteems man.
So, for me now it has become a little silly to argue...was Jesus "just" a man. Jesus is the only man...who was ever willing to identify with what thought itself man, and by his willingness in God, fulfill...(by being that "only" man) to bring many sons to glory.
In the apprehension of being made in the image and likeness of God, we see the one who willingly laid that aside, to become all he "was not" (sin), so that what "was not" in the image and likeness of God, might be.
Jesus is indeed "God's man".
We are either found in him, or still putting forth our hand to take something, to eat something to "try" to be as God.
Seeing Jesus is all.

and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.…


----------



## Melvin4730 (Aug 3, 2014)

660griz said:


> We can find lots of 'evidence' one way or another. I simply believe what I read when it states "most scholars agree" that almah meant young woman. No agenda, just the truth as "most scholars" see it. If "most scholars" agree almah means virgin, I would go with that. I am sure a young woman in those days was presumed a virgin however, there was a word for virgin. Almah wasn't it.
> 
> Plus, there is a little bit of real world experiences thrown in to help with what really happens when a female in a  highly religious group suddenly becomes pregnant and her fiancé and/or husband is not the father. Nowadays, "God got me pregnant" wouldn't fly and virginity is not presumed or necessarily a sought after attribute.
> 
> Add that all up and one could see how Mary would have said, "Of course I am a virgin and God got me pregnant." Ol, Joseph woke from a dream and decided to take her anyway. Good guy, Joseph.



But what are the chances the baby the unwed mother ends up having actually becomes a man who many believe to be the messiah. Wow...what are the chances of that happening? Jesus could have turned into a drunk or a thief. No one would even remember the circumstances of his conception. But, this child born from a a virgin actually grew up and lived the life of Jesus...fulfilling prophecy after prophecy...wow...what are the odds of that?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 3, 2014)

Melvin4730 said:


> But what are the chances the baby the unwed mother ends up having actually becomes a man who many believe to be the messiah. Wow...what are the chances of that happening? Jesus could have turned into a drunk or a thief. No one would even remember the circumstances of his conception. But, this child born from a a virgin actually grew up and lived the life of Jesus...fulfilling prophecy after prophecy...wow...what are the odds of that?





> becomes a man who many believe to be the messiah


. 
David Karesh, Charles Manson, Warren Jeffs,........ I can go on if the point hasn't been made?


> this child born from a a virgin


Yes what were the odds of that? 
You are using odds to try to confirm your point when in actuality the odds work against your point.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2014)

Melvin4730 said:


> But what are the chances the baby the unwed mother ends up having actually becomes a man who many believe to be the messiah. Wow...what are the chances of that happening? Jesus could have turned into a drunk or a thief. No one would even remember the circumstances of his conception. But, this child born from a a virgin actually grew up and lived the life of Jesus...fulfilling prophecy after prophecy...wow...what are the odds of that?



Who besides Mary or Joseph was there to remember the circumstances of conception?

A simple search on how Jesus did not fulfill prophesy will set you straight on that one.

And "odds" get stacked pretty well in your favor when you have writers that take Old Testament prophesy and tales about a charismatic young preacher and intertwine the two into stories that make it seem like prophesy was fulfilled. If you look back through Jewish history there were many people like Jesus and some fulfilled more prophesy. Problem is in ancient cultures people were always eager to make a leader change, and it was easy to transform that person into a prophet in order to make it seem like God willed it. In this case, and it took generations after Jesus so the legend could grow, he was promoted to God status and then it took hundreds of years and some very important leaders for a dying religion to catch just the right break.
If you care to study the history of religions you will see how they start, prosper and fade.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 4, 2014)

Melvin4730 said:


> Jesus could have turned into a drunk or a thief.



He may have been a drunk and a thief. Large part of his life is 'missing'. Maybe he hit rock bottom and then found religion. Sound familiar? Sure beats working for a living.


----------

