Jesus was Mithra Re-Hashed?

[Mister_T]

When has Jesus Christ/Yehoshua proven to be real?

When has Shakespere proven to be real?

There is a concensus among historians that a man named Jesus was a real historical figure. There's enough proof to convince experts on the subject.

 

[Popeyesays]

Lamplighter,

Show me where Jesus claimed in His own words to be "Son of God"? Betcha can't.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lamplighter]

When has Shakespere proven to be real?

There is a concensus among historians that a man named Jesus was a real historical figure. There's enough proof to convince experts on the subject.

From William Shakespeare Biography

DOCUMENTED REFERENCES (KNOWN FACTS)
So what do we know about the life of the Bard? There are over 100 references to William Shakespeare and his family in Public records such as Registrar and Court records containing wills, baptism, marriage and Death certificates. There are also records of legal and business transactions including some theatrical and Court documents which also relate to Shake-speare. There are also documented references made about Will by some of his contempories which have helped when compiling the Biography of William Shakespeare.

I don't know, sounds convincing enough.

 

[Popeyesays]

From William Shakespeare Biography

I don't know, sounds convincing enough.

According to tax records one should be able to find Joseph and Mary around the time of Herod's decree. Finding that particular Yusuph, is probably impossible.

Shakespeare exists in the historical record as a landowner for the Globe Theater. He also exxists in birth records. Neither of these sets of records for Palestine 1500 years before Shakespeare has survived.

That there is any mention of Him historically is convincing to me.

Josephus was an historian, when he wondered "Who the hell is the Yehoshua fellow anyway?" he did research and found some early teaching materials and sources for Christians in Rome at the time.

Josephus did not invent the footnote though, that was for later times.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lamplighter]

Lamplighter,

Show me where Jesus claimed in His own words to be "Son of God"? Betcha can't.

Regards,
Scott

John 9:35-38

[35] Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe in the Son of God?
[36] He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
[37] And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
[38] And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

Sounds like he said so himself there.

 

[Popeyesays]

Same Book and Chapter, from the NIV

"35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."
37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."
38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
39Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" 41Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

The Greek in question refers to "Son of Man". Those are two very different stations of existence.

According to the law of Moses we are all sons and daughters of God, therefore the Pharisees did NOT stone Christ because they were hoist by their own petard.

So are you.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Mister_T]

From William Shakespeare Biography

I don't know, sounds convincing enough.

That'd be a great rebuttal.....only my point wasn't to debunk Shakespeare's existence. :sarcastic

Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[lamplighter]

That'd be a great rebuttal.....only my point wasn't to debunk Shakespeare's existence. :sarcastic

Quite the opposite in fact.

Sorry about that, took that in the same light as the Alexander the Great and Jesus comparison. :slap: Though as I've already posted in this thread, it wouldn't surprise if there was a Jesus guy wandering around the middle east, but rumors get distorted.

Popeyesays Same Book and Chapter, from the NIV.....

Alright if you want to go and use the NIV version
Matthew 27:43

He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'

No where does it say in the chapter of Jesus refuting this claim nor does anyone else, so you're only left with the conclusion that Jesus indeed proclaim this. Well you said only to show where Jesus proclaimed he was the Son of God but for us to be the sons of god we have to believe Jesus is the son of god. I don't think it's in the Law of Moses, but prove me wrong I just couldn't find where it said that. But in this instance we first have to prove that Jesus is indeed the Son of God before the same can be applied to us for you have to have faith that everything the Bible says about Jesus is true.

Galatians 3:26

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus

 

[Popeyesays]

Paul's letter to Galatians is not Gospel.

Jesus IS the Son of God, but so am i according to Moses' laws. The claim that being "Son of God" equates to BEING God, are two different things.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lamplighter]

So are we denouncing part of the Bible? Doesn't exactly make for good reason in not doubting the rest of the New Testament does it?

 

[Hope]

The Christian church associates sex with sin, thus the need for a mythical virgin.

Your ignorance of Christianity is staggering.

 

[Iasion]

If you want to examine the evidence you can do what I suggested. Learn Aramaic and go speak to the families in the Syriac Orthodox Church who claim the descent.

So Booko,
I take it you have personally done that yourself have you?

You learnt Aramaic and spoke to the families in the Syriac Orthodox Church who claim the descent?

Otherwise,
HOW do you know this ?

Please explain...

Iasion

 

[Popeyesays]

So are we denouncing part of the Bible? Doesn't exactly make for good reason in not doubting the rest of the New Testament does it?

A) I am not a Christian.

B) Paul is not holy writ. He wrote "op-ed".

Regards,
Scott

 

[lamplighter]

Ah, but the point of the OP isn't about your faith, but the validity of the Bible. What the Baha'i accept from the Bible is entirely up to them and not the point.

 

[logician]

Your ignorance of Christianity is staggering.

Really, then dispute my post.

 

[Mister_T]

Really, then dispute my post.

Provide evidence for yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your ignorance of Christianity is staggering.

Why do you say that?

It's still considered a sin in many denominations to have sex for sex's sake alone. The world's largest Christian denomination teaches that it's morally wrong to have sex that is not at least "open" to procreation.

And at various times in Christian history, it was even considered a sin to take too much pleasure in sex within the bonds of marriage.

 

[Mister_T]

The world's largest Christian denomination teaches that it's morally wrong to have sex that is not at least "open" to procreation.

You're either talking about Catholicism or Protestants and in either case you're wrong. Sex outside procreation being considered bad, is not a part of either doctrine. Sex outside of marriage is a different story....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're either talking about Catholicism or Protestants and in either case you're wrong. Sex outside procreation being considered bad, is not a part of either doctrine. Sex outside of marriage is a different story....

I was talking about Catholicism.

Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil[.]

 

[Mister_T]

I was talking about Catholicism.

Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Being baptized Catholic, I have yet to hear of such a thing being official (enforced) doctine. I have never met a Catholic who subscribes to such a thing.

From Wiki:

Human sexual behavior and reproductive matters
Some criticize the Church's teaching on sexual and reproductive matters.[8] The Church requires members to eschew homosexual practices,[9] artificial contraception,[10] and sex out of wedlock, as well as non-procreative sexual practices, including masturbation. Procuring or assisting in an abortion can carry the penalty of excommunication, as a specific offence.[11]
Although some charge that the Catholic Church rejects sex for purposes other than procreation, the official Catholic teaching regards sexuality as "naturally ordered to the good of spouses" as well as the generation of children.[12]
Some criticize the Church's teaching on fidelity, sexual abstinence and its opposition to promoting the use of condoms as a strategy to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS (or teen pregnancy or STD) as counterproductive.

Criticism of the Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia