• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus vs the New Testament

New testament representative of Jesus?

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
When I say Judaism, I include Jesus among its adherants. Judaism adjusts over time, but certain things are constant. For example, Jesus absolutely accepted the Oral Torah which is what the Karaites (and Sadducees) reject. Both born Jews and converts agree on this.
Click to expand...

Yesu is the only authority in my religion. Transcendant Spirit Being, ie God.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
Oh my. I don't even know where to start on that. I know that you believe it. But it's simply not true.
Click to expand...
'Jesus' is one of the names of God. It's actually a description name, and not only is what you say, not traditionally true, religiously, it's scholarly a bad argument, [purely academic or scholarly.

You don't have an argument, that's for sure, because you would know what isn't a good argument, if you did.
 
M

mickt

Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
'Jesus' is one of the names of God. It's actually a description name, and not only is what you say, not traditionally true, religiously, it's scholarly a bad argument, [purely academic or scholarly.

You don't have an argument, that's for sure, because you would know what isn't a good argument, if you did.
Click to expand...
there are no eyewitnesses of jesus..
 
M

mickt

Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
helps my argument, dude. Better for my argumemts.
Click to expand...
The gospels don't appear in history until 160AD..the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH admits they are anonymous..there were zero eyewitness accounts of jesus...

..THE CATHOLICS were the ONLY christians from near the start.until 1520...you HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE JESUS EXISTED....NOT ONE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT...PAUL THE APOSTLE DOES NOT MENTION THE GOSPELS...
 
sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
mickt said:
The gospels don't appear in history until 160AD..the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH admits they are anonymous..there were zero eyewitness accounts of jesus...

..THE CATHOLICS were the ONLY christians from near the start.until 1520...you HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE JESUS EXISTED....NOT ONE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT...PAUL THE APOSTLE DOES NOT MENTION THE GOSPELS...
Click to expand...

I get it, but here's the problem..

The 4 gospels and Peter and Paul NEVER mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.. Why not? If the information was written down after the 1st century AD, why would the fail to mention it.. at least as a fulfillment of prophecy?

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels | Bible.org
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
mickt said:
The gospels don't appear in history until 160AD..the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH admits they are anonymous..
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. And it didn't matter, because 'Jesus', means 'Lord with us', not, 'some guy we're calling Lord'.

For example, in different types of Christianity, you have everything from Jesus with no physical form, to partly physical form, to non literal Gospel interpretation, and other beliefs.

Notice that except for some churches that are obsessed with making Jesus 'just a man', there is another context, to 'Jesus'. Jesus is a description, even without the New Testament. Of a G- d form.

The god pre'exists manifestation, or otherwise, in Israel.

• the pagan priests needed to scramble to maintain authority, so they invented types of christianity that kept aspects of their paganism, while recognizing that they had to conform it to the general belief. So, of course, some churches are going to say Jesus is just a man, or, obfuscate the nature of G- d, so forth, that isn't even important to them. Could've have figured that out yourself.
 
M

mickt

Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
It doesn't matter. And it didn't matter, because 'Jesus', means 'Lord with us', not, 'some guy we're calling Lord'.

For example, in different types of Christianity, you have everything from Jesus with no physical form, to partly physical form, to non literal Gospel interpretation, and other beliefs.

Notice that except for some churches that are obsessed with making Jesus 'just a man', there is another context, to 'Jesus'. Jesus is a description, even without the New Testament. Of a G- d form.

The god pre'exists manifestation, or otherwise, in Israel.

• the pagan priests needed to scramble to maintain authority, so they invented types of christianity that kept aspects of their paganism, while recognizing that they had to conform it to the general belief. So, of course, some churches are going to say Jesus is just a man, or, obfuscate the nature of G- d, so forth, that isn't even important to them. Could've have figured that out yourself.
Click to expand...
there were thousands of guys named jesus in the first century..rome crucified a thousand of them..
 
M

mickt

Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
It doesn't matter. And it didn't matter, because 'Jesus', means 'Lord with us', not, 'some guy we're calling Lord'.

For example, in different types of Christianity, you have everything from Jesus with no physical form, to partly physical form, to non literal Gospel interpretation, and other beliefs.

Notice that except for some churches that are obsessed with making Jesus 'just a man', there is another context, to 'Jesus'. Jesus is a description, even without the New Testament. Of a G- d form.

The god pre'exists manifestation, or otherwise, in Israel.

• the pagan priests needed to scramble to maintain authority, so they invented types of christianity that kept aspects of their paganism, while recognizing that they had to conform it to the general belief. So, of course, some churches are going to say Jesus is just a man, or, obfuscate the nature of G- d, so forth, that isn't even important to them. Could've have figured that out yourself.
Click to expand...
yes there were many types of christianity....but everything in the gospels today from from catholicism..
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
mickt said:
yes there were many types of christianity....but everything in the gospels today from from catholicism..
Click to expand...
The early church was constantly going after 'heresy', even to the extent that most now wouldn't even recognize some of these "differences". That tells me, the general Christians were not getting their beliefs from the church.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
For example, things considered 'modalism', and that may not mean the same things it does now, specifically, however forms of what they called 'modalism', they even said,

Its really common here, so forth. How could something "common" a heresy, be from the church, if they're teaching something different? Couldn't be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top