17 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeesterHe was who he said he was, (and still is) 😏
Jesus to Peter Mark 8:29. The are a finite number of top line start points to this:
1) He was who he said he was
2) He was deluded, and was a normal man
3) He was a liar, and was a normal man
Who do you say that he was/is?
17 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterJesus was not executed for blasphemy; if that was his crime, he would have been stoned under Jewish law rather than crucified under Roman law. The Romans would hardly care if a Jew blasphemed the Jewish God. He seems to have been executed for sedition for claiming to be "King of the Jews".
It's clear that Jesus was a threat to the religious establishment and that they used his inferences of divinity as the alleged blasphemous reason to execute him. "Are you the son of God?" "ye say that I am" or "yes I am" depending on translation. Also of course, "before Abraham was I AM".
It seems that an academic approach can demonstrate that Jes d opinion to the death in those days and today, even to separate bone and marrow.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by jaywillI repeat ... Apparently you dont know the meaning of the word normal. Do you have some references to show what God considers normal in His creation ?
[b]======================================
Apparently you dont know the meaning of the word normal.
=======================================
Normal in the eyes of God.
In the eyes of God:
A sinful man is not normal.
A man who does not love God with all his soul, his heart, his strength and will, is not normal.
A man who i ...[text shortened]... below normal.
I speak of normal in the eyes of our Creator. Jesus is what God MEANT by Man.[/b]
So if "..Jesus is what God MEANT by Man" .. then also God is what God MEANT by Man, because you think that God is Jesus and viceversa. Does that make any sense to you?
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderyes a rather interesting, 'coincidence?', that seems to indicate that he was of the davidic line.
Jesus was not executed for blasphemy; if that was his crime, he would have been stoned under Jewish law rather than crucified under Roman law. The Romans would hardly care if a Jew blasphemed the Jewish God. He seems to have been executed for sedition for claiming to be "King of the Jews".
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed. To clarify my thought was that the Jews wanted him executed and accused him of blasphemy by declaring himself the son of god - divine, this gave them the internal leverage to get him handed over to the romans for execution as a trouble maker (king of the jews etc). The romans were even reluctant to execute him, hardly seeing him as a threat, but the political machinations were powerfull and the jewsish leaders got their way.
Jesus was not executed for blasphemy; if that was his crime, he would have been stoned under Jewish law rather than crucified under Roman law. The Romans would hardly care if a Jew blasphemed the Jewish God. He seems to have been executed for sedition for claiming to be "King of the Jews".
PS This is not meant to have an anti-semetic slant, it's just a comment on what seemed to happen at the time.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderi do not think that the comparison is completely relevant, because for example James the sixth was a Scottish king, who ruled England and Scotland, this would never have been acceptable to the Jews, for Herod was so despised for having been Idmuean, and not Jewish, why, because it was unlawful for anyone to hold the Jewish kingship and not be Jewish, this coupled with the fact that the scepter of Israel was not to depart from the lineage of David is fairly understood, therefore i think it very reasonable to conclude that any claimant to the Jewish thrown would need to fulfill this criteria. if you do not hold this view then its no big deal for perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary.
How? If I claim to be King of England, does that indicate that I am of the Windsor line?
17 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderafter some research, there seems to be quite a few major discrepancies with regard to some of the points you made,
Matthew obviously didn't intend to just write a critique and/or copy of Mark. It seems the later author wanted to embellish certain incidents in the earlier work to make them conform more closely to the theology he was espousing. Matthew also wrote in other alleged incidents such as the Nativity scene and Sermon on the Mount as Badwater pointed out.
for example that Marks gospel was the first, for early in the third century, Origen, in discussing the Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the ' first was written . . . according to Matthew, . . . who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language'
That it was written primarily with the Jews in mind is indicated by its genealogy, which shows Jesus legal descent starting from Abraham, and by its many references to the Hebrew Scriptures, showing that they pointed forward to the coming Messiah.
also, since Matthew had been a tax collector, it was natural that he would be explicit in his mention of money, figures, and values. (Matt. 17:27; 26:15; 27:3)
He keenly appreciated Gods mercy in allowing him, a despised tax collector, to become a minister of the good news and an intimate associate of Jesus. Therefore, we find Matthew alone of the Gospel writers giving us Jesus’ repeated insistence that mercy is required in addition to sacrifice. (9:9-13; 12:7; 18:21-35)
Forty-two percent of Matthews Gospel account is not to be found in any of the other three Gospels*. This includes at least ten parables, or illustrations:
The weeds in the field (13:24-30),
the hidden treasure (13:44),
the pearl of high value (13:45, 46),
the dragnet (13:47-50),
the unmerciful slave (18:23-35),
the workers and the denarius (20:1-16),
the father and two children (21:28-32),
the marriage of the king’s son (22:1-14),
the ten virgins (25:1-13),
and the talents (25:14-30).
* Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 1896, B. F. Westcott, page 201.
disclaimer:please note that all references sited are from external sources and in no way whatsoever are to be regarded as robbie carrobies own work, but merely illustrate his point of view. Any similarity to the name, character and history of any person, living or dead, is entirely coincidental and unintentional
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Jews didn't, and still don't, accept Jesus' claim (assuming he made such a claim).
i do not think that the comparison is completely relevant, because for example James the sixth was a Scottish king, who ruled England and Scotland, this would never have been acceptable to the Jews, for Herod was so despised for having been Idmuean, and not Jewish, why, because it was unlawful for anyone to hold the Jewish kingship and not be Jewish, ...[text shortened]... u do not hold this view then its no big deal for perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary.
17 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't see what the speed of light has to do with it robbie! It's not a academic revelation - you don't need a theology degree or an IQ of 160 to see it.
wait a minute, right here! you have made the jump, in terms of spiritual understanding, to light speed. how does it equate that calling Christ lord, suddenly makes him, the almighty, for this is a term that has never once been used with anyone, not Christ, not anyone but the most high himself.
perhaps you can post the text so that we may have a look at it.
If you beleve in your heart and confess with your month 'Jesus is Lord' you will be saved - Romans (somewhere)
Before Abraham was I AM (gospels somewhere)
In him (jesus) the FULLNESS of the godhead dwealt in bodily form (col)
He is the invisible god made visible (col)
I am the alpha and omega, first and last, begining and the end (Rev)
Unto us a child is born..............he shall be called.....EVERLASTING FATHER (my edit)
If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins (in John I think)
And this is a key one regarding revelation of who jesus is: "Go into the world and baptise men in the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy spirit" -- nowhere is this formula actually used, all baptisms were carried out in the name of JESUS after this point because this is the only name by which men can be saved and was the revelation that the disiples had from the spirit and was exactly what Jesus was telling them to do by using that phrasiology. Jesus is the revealed name of God for the salvation of men - he is the given name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit.
The revelation of who Jesus is, is so clear but people do not want to, or cannot believe it -- like the gospel of salvation itself, it is so simple people cannot believe it!
17 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterwhatever you say, i have no energy left at present to dispute any of these claims, although i would like to. i will easily find the specific references, but after having a discussion with jaywill which lasted a thousand years i have a distaste for it and have resigned myself to the fact that if people want to believe that Christ is almighty God then that's up to them.
I don't see what the speed of light has to do with it robbie! It's not a academic revelation - you don't need a theology degree or an IQ of 160 to see it.
If you beleve in your heart and confess with your month 'Jesus is Lord' you will be saved - Romans (somewhere)
Before Abraham was I AM (gospels somewhere)
In him (jesus) the FULLNESS of the godh eve it -- like the gospel of salvation itself, it is so simple people cannot believe it!
however, i would like to point out that the reference in Isaiah, to everlasting father, is used nowhere else, and specifically of Christ, never of the almighty.
and the translation i am, does not convey the true sense of the intent, he causes to become is more appropriate, or so i read somewhere.
infact after reading it again, i do not think that i can permit such a loose collection of verses, however, its almost 12.00 pm in the uk, i got work up to my ears, i have to work outside tomorrow and its freezing, we just got a wii and i want to play sega bass fishing, oh man.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is a surprisingly good article in wiki on the Gospel of Matthew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
after some research, there seems to be quite a few major discrepancies with regard to some of the points you made,
for example that Marks gospel was the first, for early in the third century, Origen, in discussing the Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the ' first was written . . . according to Matthew, . . . who published it for those ...[text shortened]... haracter and history of any person, living or dead, is entirely coincidental and unintentional
Hardly any serious scholar still asserts that Matthew was the first gospel written. Few believe that Matthew was the tax collector mentioned in the Gospel (who is called "Levi" in Mark).
I already corrected that 92% of Mark's Gospel is in Matthew, not vice versa. This is a strange result if Matthew was written first. About a 1/3 of Matthew is not in any of the other three Gospels.
And you still need to grow up. Or just cite your sources if you choose to cut and paste.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeesterBecause it is superstitious, self-contradictory nonsense.
I don't see what the speed of light has to do with it robbie! It's not a academic revelation - you don't need a theology degree or an IQ of 160 to see it.
If you beleve in your heart and confess with your month 'Jesus is Lord' you will be saved - Romans (somewhere)
Before Abraham was I AM (gospels somewhere)
In him (jesus) the FULLNESS of the godh ...[text shortened]... ieve it -- like the gospel of salvation itself, it is so simple people cannot believe it!
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLol .. here we go again.
whatever you say, i have no energy left at present to dispute any of these claims, although i would like to. i will easily find the specific references, but after having a discussion with jaywill which lasted a thousand years i have a distaste for it and have resigned myself to the fact that if people want to believe that Christ is almighty God then ...[text shortened]... side tomorrow and its freezing, we just got a wii and i want to play sega bass fishing, oh man.
You have stamina Robbie 🙂