Do all roads lead to God?

[kjw47]

I believe all roads lead to God if they eventually lead us to Christ:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

But as one can clearly see--Jesus is not the final destination--The Father( Jehovah) is.

 

[kjw47]

Then you should be able to provide at least one link verifying what you were saying in your previous post.

I'll be more than happy to supple a link or two to back up my rebutals.

Write in--- attack on Jerusalem 70 ce---- read-- a brief synopsis of the fall of Jerusalem 70 ce based on the works of Josephus.

 

[Quagmire]

Write in--- attack on Jerusalem 70 ce---- read-- a brief synopsis of the fall of Jerusalem 70 ce based on the works of Josephus.

. . .and if anyone does they'll find that nothing you said below is true.

Facts of history--- the romans had Jerusalem surrounded,( 66ad) but for an unknown reason they pulled out and left, those who listened to Jesus left the city and ran to the hills, the rest remained, in 70ce the romans returned and killed 1,100,000 israelites-- it took awhile for them to break through the walls, so the israelites ran out of food and ate their own children.

In other words, you just made it all up.

Being misinformed is one thing. Defending that misinformation after it's been exposed for what it is something else.

You aren't providing any links to verify anything you say above because none exist.

 

[Quagmire]

My assumption are we don't have enough knowledge to make any definite claims.

We're not talking about what Jesus may have actually said, we're talking about what the Gospels claim he said. And yes, we have enough knowledge about what they say to make definitive claims about what they say.

What I'd like to be able to prove? What I suspect?

That Christian originated as much or perhaps more so from the Greeks then the Hebrews. The Greeks had been running the place for hundreds of years. They integrated themselves and their beliefs in the Judea population. So I think by the time of Jesus it was as much a part of Judean belief as anything else.

In order to even entertain that theory we'd have to ignore all of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for starters, as well as all of the Rabbinic literature along with every other scrap of historical evidence we have concerning Judea in the time period we're talking about.

The Greeks came in took over and saw the Religion of Judea as barbaric and uncivilized. The Greeks introduced what they saw as a more civilized religious belief which was accepted by a large population of the people living in Judea.

These Hellenized Judeans This was their religion. The older Hebrew belief was on it's way out. About a hundred yes prior to Jesus the Maccabees fought a civil war for freedom to practice the old Hebrew beliefs. They won that freedom however there were plenty of Hellenized Judeans around at the time of Jesus. So this Greek/Hebrew hybrid was as much a Judean religious ideology as any other sect. So I suspect Jesus was influence by this hybrid belief system. Which by the time of Jesus was as Judean as anything else.

Jesus could have had Greek/Roman lineage along with Hebrew. His religion could have derived from the Greeks as much as the Hebrew. I think it is a mistake to make assumptions without taking these things into consideration.

So Jesus' linage could have been partially Greek. Some at least of his beliefs could have originated with the Greeks. None of which stops him from being a Jew.

Even if we agreed, for the sake of argument, that the Judaism of Jesus' time had been influenced by Hellenistic religion and/or philosophy, what Greek "Prophets" of "Law" could he have been referring to?

 

[Nakosis]

We're not talking about what Jesus may have actually said, we're talking about what the Gospels claim he said. And yes, we have enough knowledge about what they say to make definitive claims about what they say.

Ok, we know what the gospels say. That doesn't mean we have the whole story nor necessarily understand the thinking that was behind the words.

In order to even entertain that theory we'd have to ignore all of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for starters, as well as all of the Rabbinic literature along with every other scrap of historical evidence we have concerning Judea in the time period we're talking about.

I'm not saying ignore any of it. Why the hyperbole? It you got something to show where I'm wrong great.

Even if we agreed, for the sake of argument, that the Judaism of Jesus' time had been influenced by Hellenistic religion and/or philosophy, what Greek "Prophets" of "Law" could he have been referring to?

I would presume the law of God and the prophets of God.
Unless you already have it in your head there was nothing special about Jesus. That he was just another religious guy with a big ego.

 

[Quagmire]

Ok, we know what the gospels say. That doesn't mean we have the whole story nor necessarily understand the thinking that was behind the words.

Doesn't matter. the question was: if not the Law and the Prophets of Judaism, What Law and which Prophets could he have been referring to?

I'm not saying ignore any of it. Why the hyperbole?

I didn't say you were saying to ignore it. I'm saying in order for your theory to make sense we would have to ignore it all.

It you got something to show where I'm wrong great.

Yes, and I already listed it:

The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Rabbinic Literature
Every scrap of history we have about that place in that time period.

Do you want me to link you to all off the above?

I would presume the law of God and the prophets of God.

Such as. . .?

Unless you already have it in your head there was nothing special about Jesus. That he was just another religious guy with a big ego.

I'm not going to cloud my interpretation of the evidence with my personal opinions about the subject.

What I think of Jesus has nothing to do with anything. the evidence is still what it is.

 

[Orias]

All roads do not lead to God, unless God is Death personified.

:clap

 

[Orias]

Why can't the road be a deity?

Because thats just not appealing.

Deity is totally, an impersonal word. There is no such thing as "A God of men".

 

[kjw47]

. . .and if anyone does they'll find that nothing you said below is true.



In other words, you just made it all up.

Being misinformed is one thing. Defending that misinformation after it's been exposed for what it is something else.

You aren't providing any links to verify anything you say above because none exist.

In the last paragraph at that sight, it said they resorted to cannabilism( they ate their children,( there are facts about that) And in other sights it clearly states that the romans left and then returned( the ones who listened to jesus, fled the city) There are many different sights. the facts are clear.

 

[no-body]

Sorry but I find it difficult to believe God would make life like a choose your own adventure where finite crimes call for infinite punishment. I would give a being of infinite power and knowing more credit than that.

All roads do indeed lead to God. The problem is all these roads are actually unnecessary in the end to the very last one. God is right now.

 

[javajo]

But as one can clearly see--Jesus is not the final destination--The Father( Jehovah) is.

I'm not going to argue it with you. Jesus the Son, is the way to the Father is what I believe. Jesus, while on earth, while perfectly human, was divine and said and did things only God could do, (control the elements, heal, forgive sins, etc.) I don't believe in three gods, but three persons who are the one God. But, I'm not going to go down that road here anymore than I have.

On the subject, I read a verse in Jeremiah 29 today about the Jews who were taken into captivity that I believe is relevant to all:

10 For thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

 

[Orias]

Sorry but I find it difficult to believe God would make life like a choose your own adventure where finite crimes call for infinite punishment. I would give a being of infinite power and knowing more credit than that.

All roads do indeed lead to God. The problem is all these roads are actually unnecessary in the end to the very last one. God is right now.

:clap

 

[Quagmire]

In the last paragraph at that sight, it said they resorted to cannabilism( they ate their children,( there are facts about that)

What site? You haven't provided any links yet.

And in other sights it clearly states that the romans left and then returned

Then link to one.

( the ones who listened to jesus, fled the city)

Absolutely no historical or Biblical basis for this either.

There are many different sights.

And yet you can't provide a single link.

the facts are clear.

The fact that you made it all up you mean? Yes, that's quite clear now.

 

[kjw47]

What site? You haven't provided any links yet.



Then link to one.



Absolutely no historical or Biblical basis for this either.



And yet you can't provide a single link.



The fact that you made it all up you mean? Yes, that's quite clear now.

its your own refusal to google-- attack on Jerusalem 66-70 ce--- that prevents you from seeing truths. Dont blame me. In post 122 i gave you the name of a sight.

 

[Nakosis]

Doesn't matter. the question was: if not the Law and the Prophets of Judaism, What Law and which Prophets could he have been referring to?

I answered that question. The Law and true prophets of God.

I didn't say you were saying to ignore it. I'm saying in order for your theory to make sense we would have to ignore it all.

Yes, and I already listed it:

The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Rabbinic Literature
Every scrap of history we have about that place in that time period.

Do you want me to link you to all off the above?

No, I'm just not sure what you think any of this proves. Or actually were any of it necessarily contradicts my "theory".

Such as. . .?

I'm not a mind reader. Whatever Jesus had in mind when that statement was made wasn't clarified in the gospels. Your the one claiming otherwise, not me.

I'm not going to cloud my interpretation of the evidence with my personal opinions about the subject.

What I think of Jesus has nothing to do with anything. the evidence is still what it is.

I think you already have. I honestly don't think one can avoid it.

 

[Quagmire]

its your own refusal to google-- attack on Jerusalem 66-70 ce--- that prevents you from seeing truths. Dont blame me. .

Oh for ****s sake.

Ok here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

Contradicts EVERTHING you said.

So does Josephus, which happens to be the only account we have. If you'd like me to go get those chapters and/or a link to show you that, feel free to ask.

In post 122 i gave you the name of a sight

No you didn't, here's that post:

Write in--- attack on Jerusalem 70 ce---- read-- a brief synopsis of the fall of Jerusalem 70 ce based on the works of Josephus.

Quit making stuff up, and quit accusing other people of doing what you're doing.

 

[Quagmire]

I answered that question. The Law and true prophets of God.

OK, I'll just go and Google "The Law and true prophets of God".

No, I'm just not sure what you think any of this proves. Or actually were any of it necessarily contradicts my "theory".

Well lets see: you were claiming that it was at least possible that the religion Jesus identified with was some kind of hybrid of Judaism and Hellenistic religion. If that were true, we would be seeing identifiable Hellenistic influences in some of this:

The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Rabbinic Literature
Every scrap of history we have about that place in that time period.

We don't. Clearer now?

I'm not a mind reader.

I'd settle for some indication that you were any sort of reader when it came to what we're discussing.

Whatever Jesus had in mind when that statement was made wasn't clarified in the gospels. Your the one claiming otherwise, not me.

Because it was, and I explained why and how. I'm not just claiming, I'm explaining and demonstrating.

You on the other hand seem offended by any requests for explanation or demonstration of your theory. Not to mention your flat out refusal to even acknowledge any evidence to the contrary.

I think you already have.

You "think", but once again you're just making a claim without bothering to demonstrate what your opinion is based on.

I honestly don't think one can avoid it.

And so, you just avoid the evidence entirely. Interesting method of evaluation there.

 

[Nakosis]

OK, I'll just go and Google "The Law and true prophets of God".

If you find something definitive lets me know.

Well lets see: you were claiming that it was at least possible that the religion Jesus identified with was some kind of hybrid of Judaism and Hellenistic religion. If that were true, we would be seeing identifiable Hellenistic influences in some of this:

The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Rabbinic Literature
Every scrap of history we have about that place in that time period.

We don't. Clearer now?

What about Christianity and the Bible? You don't think there was any Greek influence there?

I'd settle for some indication that you were any sort of reader when it came to what we're discussing.

Fair enough, however that goes both ways.

Because it was, and I explained why and how. I'm not just claiming, I'm explaining and demonstrating.

Ok, were was it clarified in the gospels. I'll accept I'm a little dense, a little slow. Just point it out and we are done.

You on the other hand seem offended by any requests for explanation or demonstration of your theory.

I'm not offended at all, I just didn't see where you made such a request.
So what do you want to know?

Here's a reference for you to read. Not necessarily authoritative but it provides references and so you know I'm not alone in my thinking.

Greeks & Romans – World Culture Confounds the Jews

Not to mention your flat out refusal to even acknowledge any evidence to the contrary.

Where have I refused to acknowledge it. I just don't agree with your conclusions about your evidence.

You "think", but once again you're just making a claim without bothering to demonstrate what your opinion is based on.

Your post and apparent refusal to consider other possibilities are evidence of that. Of course my conclusion could be wrong but the jury is still out.

And so, you just avoid the evidence entirely. Interesting method of evaluation there.

Again I'm not avoiding any evidence. I'm just not sure how or why you think any of this makes you think your conclusions are unquestionable.

 

[Quagmire]

If you find something definitive lets me know.

That's my point: the fact is that the Gospels have Jesus quoting and/or referring exclusively to the Prophets of Judaism:

---These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Luke 16:16
(I've already explained that "The Law and The Prophets" designates two of the three subdivisions of the Jewish Tanakh. explained here: Tanakh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

In Matthew 24:15. He quotes Daniel (Daniel 9:27, 11:31)
In Matthew 12:39-40. He compares himself to Jonah
In Luke 4:17. and in other places he directly quotes Isaiah

All in all there are 24 instances in the Gospels where Jesus quotes the Tanakh.

In at least one place he recounts a story originated in the teachings of Hillel.

There are no instances where he quotes Socrates, or Plato, or any philosophical or religious figures---Greek or otherwise--- outside of Judaism. there are also no examples of his quoting or using material from any other religious texts with the possible exception of a few very definite similarities to portions of the canon of the Qumran sect (which was still Jewish).

What about Christianity and the Bible? You don't think there was any Greek influence there?

We aren't talking about Christianity and the Bible, we're talking about the religion that Jesus himself belonged to. There was no Bible and there was no Christianity in his lifetime.

If you're talking about the Old Testament, other than the language the Septuagent was written in, off-hand I can't think of anything in there that even might have been influenced by Hellenism. Not saying it in't a possibility, but without any actual examples (even hypothetical ones) to look at how would anyone go about forming an opinion one way or another? Lacking that, the most obvious (and I think the only sensible) conclusion is that even if there actually were any Hellenistic influence in the formation of the later books of the Tanakh, they're probably inconsequential to the actual theology.

Fair enough, however that goes both ways.




Ok, were was it clarified in the gospels. I'll accept I'm a little dense, a little slow. Just point it out and we are done.

See above.

I'm not offended at all, I just didn't see where you made such a request.
So what do you want to know?

Here's a reference for you to read. Not necessarily authoritative but it provides references and so you know I'm not alone in my thinking.

Greeks & Romans – World Culture Confounds the Jews

Interesting. Thing is though, since the starting point of this conversation was the question "Did Jesus start a new religion", even if some part of the Jewish scriptures were influenced by Hellenism (although you have to take into account that the Jewish canon was already closed before Alexander arrived) the resulting religion would still have been centuries old by the time Jesus was born into it.

Even if (and I still think even an "if" is optimistic) 1st Cent. Judaism was some sort of Hellenized version of it's more ancient self, it was still the Judaism of Jesus' day, it was still his religion, and IMO it's pretty obvious that he was working within the framework of that religion. Rather than attempting to start a new religion, which is what the person I was originally responding to claimed, he seems to have been trying to do the exact opposite, ie., establish a reformation movement geared towards a return to the Judaism of the Prophetic Era.

Where have I refused to acknowledge it. I just don't agree with your conclusions about your evidence.

I don't see what you offered as disagreement, I see it as disregard.

Put it this way: If I say "2+2=5" and then show you the faulty math I used to come up with that, and you respond with, "no, 2+2=4" and show me your own math, or the errors in mine, that's disagreement. That, IMO, is the way debate is supposed to work.

On the other hand if you just say "No, I disagree" and then refuse to explain or demonstrate why, that isn't disagreement, or debate. That's just disregard.

Your post and apparent refusal to consider other possibilities are evidence of that.

No, I've considered the other "possibilities" and I explained why I think they don't work.

Again I'm not avoiding any evidence. I'm just not sure how or why you think any of this makes you think your conclusions are unquestionable.

I've answered every question you've asked so far, in as much detail as I could.

You're the one who seems bothered by questions.

 

[kjw47]

Oh for ****s sake.

Ok here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

Contradicts EVERTHING you said.

So does Josephus, which happens to be the only account we have. If you'd like me to go get those chapters and/or a link to show you that, feel free to ask.



No you didn't, here's that post:



Quit making stuff up, and quit accusing other people of doing what you're doing.

Believe whatever you want Quagmire-- the proof of history is recorded, it is as i showed. And the post was there---- A brief synopsis of the siege of Jerusalem--blah blah blah Josephus.