Tumah
Veteran Member
...of the Aramaic version of a Hebrew name...
-
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!
Overwhelming Historical Proof: Why do you doubt Jesus?
- Thread starter Animore
- Start date
Kueid
Avant-garde
The secular writings of historian Josephus mentions the Jesus of the Bible as an historical person.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hello! Welcome!
Please don't interpret a contentious reply as 'hatred', ok?
There was, on the balance of probabilities, a Yeshua BarYosef, a Handworker of the second order of Galilean peasants, displaced from holding land. His name was not Jesus. There probably was a Nazareth, and most of the reports within the original Gospel of Mark. And this Yeshua probably did initiate a Galilean movement for the return of the proper rules and laws which had been discarded by the upper class, which was by then copying the fashions, cultures, practices and even religions of the invaders, hellenised quislings all (?).
But after his movement had ended, the Christ that 'rose' out of Yeshua's memory is hard to prove, and Christians mostly need to have Faith before Overwhelming Evidence.
I respect faith, as long as it does not lead to heated self-righteous bigotry as can be seen in some Churches, but the Churches that are now supporting the ordination of Female priests and Bishops, same-sex love, partnership and even marriage, the furtherance of love, understanding and empathy amongst their congregations, these Churches don't need 'Overwhelming Proof' of their goodness.
That's fine. I'll wait. I hope your response will illuminate me as to whether you think salvation is restricted to Christianity or if other religions are fine too.
The Bible book of Revelation ( with the word 'revelation' meaning a revealing. In Scripture a revealing of the future - Revelation 22:2 )
When did Jesus deliver the Jews? Didn't God abandon their religious ' house ' of worship according to Jesus at Matthew 23:38 ? ______
Who was held blood guilty culpable of community responsibility for the failure to bring Jesus to justice - Acts of the Apostles 3:13-15________
Since Pentecost the ' Israel of God ' is now ' spiritual Israel ' a ' spiritual nation ' Not found located on any map.- 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 2:5
Jerusalem ' above ' is Now mother - Galatians 4:26
In other words, that seat of government is now heavenly. No borders or boundaries found on Earth - Revelation 20:6
Christ is now the leader or head of the Christian congregation - Ephesians 5:23
Modern-day fleshly natural Israel exist by the Grace of God as a national group.
Anyone, Jew or non-Jew, can become a Christian and be part of God's spiritual nation.
Jesus, at his soon coming glory time, will deliver the figurative humble ' sheep ' out of all nations - Matthew 25:31-33,37.
They can remain alive on Earth, and continue to live on Earth, right into Day One of Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth begins when Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@NotOfTheWorld
I was thinking. I have a question for you.
(Example) I was always a spiritualist but never took it seriously until a couple of years ago when my grandmother passed away. I never thought of myself as a Buddhist but even if I wasn't, The Law of The Buddha still exists without me. It's the nature of life even if The Buddha himself and his sutras would never be a part of my life.
I ask because I usually compare what I don't understand and/or disagree with with how I see things. It may sound kind of an ego thing; and, well, it works
If The Buddha never existed, rebirth would still exist. We would still go through rebirth until we understand the true nature of life. It isn't dependent on The Buddha for this Law of life to exists. So, his disciples could have fibbed on The Buddha's teachings. That or The Buddha could have been a lier or a lunatic.
However, that is not what I believe. Regardless, the truth is the truth regardless of what I believe.
So, my belief isn't based on a source such as historical evidence. It's based on experience. It goes beyond needing a physical item to confirm the teachings (say sutras or scripture) but more of an intimate relationship with the spirits, family, and with life through The Buddha's teachings.
I wasn't raised in a Buddhist environment but a Christian one so I the heart-faith kind of sticks with the mind-faith. If it doesn't make sense in my mind, than my heart is just flying on a cloud. If it doesn't make sense in my heart, then I'm just doing repetitive motions and not rituals and worship.
So it's based on experience between the two. Yet, these things aren't dependent on an outside source.
Did historical evidence bring you to Christ? If not, if there were historical evidence that proved he didn't exist and the scripture were false, would that change your relationship with Christ?
and why?
I was thinking. I have a question for you.
(Example) I was always a spiritualist but never took it seriously until a couple of years ago when my grandmother passed away. I never thought of myself as a Buddhist but even if I wasn't, The Law of The Buddha still exists without me. It's the nature of life even if The Buddha himself and his sutras would never be a part of my life.
My question: Is your belief and relationship with Christ based on historical evidence or, if it were proven false that he did not exist, would that change your relationship with Christ?
I ask because I usually compare what I don't understand and/or disagree with with how I see things. It may sound kind of an ego thing; and, well, it works
If The Buddha never existed, rebirth would still exist. We would still go through rebirth until we understand the true nature of life. It isn't dependent on The Buddha for this Law of life to exists. So, his disciples could have fibbed on The Buddha's teachings. That or The Buddha could have been a lier or a lunatic.
However, that is not what I believe. Regardless, the truth is the truth regardless of what I believe.
So, my belief isn't based on a source such as historical evidence. It's based on experience. It goes beyond needing a physical item to confirm the teachings (say sutras or scripture) but more of an intimate relationship with the spirits, family, and with life through The Buddha's teachings.
I wasn't raised in a Buddhist environment but a Christian one so I the heart-faith kind of sticks with the mind-faith. If it doesn't make sense in my mind, than my heart is just flying on a cloud. If it doesn't make sense in my heart, then I'm just doing repetitive motions and not rituals and worship.
So it's based on experience between the two. Yet, these things aren't dependent on an outside source.
Did historical evidence bring you to Christ? If not, if there were historical evidence that proved he didn't exist and the scripture were false, would that change your relationship with Christ?
and why?
Although I'm Not "Notoftheworld" as to whether ' salvation ' is restricted.......
I would like to take the liberty to reply:
First, please keep in mind the majority of the people who have lived on Earth have already died.- Romans 6:23; John 3:13
So, unless one has committed the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6, they can be saved by having a resurrection.
As Romans 6:7 says the one who has died is freed or acquitted from their sins. ( saved from past sins )
That does Not make the resurrected ones as now innocent, but as a governor can pardon a person so the crime charges do Not stick,
Jesus can pardon a person so the sin charges do Not stick. So, in the resurrection - Acts of the Apostles 24:15 - people of all religions will have the opportunity to know and learn about Jesus as the one who resurrected them - Revelation 1:18
They will Not be tried twice, or a second time, for the past - Romans 6:7 - for that would be double jeopardy. - Revelation 20:12
As to those of us who are still alive at the soon coming ' time of separation ' on Earth - Matthew 25:31-33 - Jesus judges who are the figurative humble ' sheep ' or haughty ' goats '. The saved living ' sheep ' have a favorable judgement and can remain alive on Earth, and continue to live on Earth, living right into the start of Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth. - Revelation 7:14
The basis for Jesus' judgement is how people treated his ' spiritual brothers ' who are alive on Earth at that time according to Matthew 25:40.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
All of what you wrote depends on a more fundamental, foundational assumption: that the authenticity and accuracy of your scriptures cannot be questioned.
I have no personal knowledge of either. I do not personally know - for myself - that any of those events really happened. I do not personally know - for myself - if any of those alleged "prophecies" were truly written well before an alleged Jesus was allegedly alive. I do not personally know - for myself - if Jesus actually existed. Nor can I personally verify any of these things.
So, based on that question regarding that fundamental assumption, I could add to your five possibilities; one would be:
- Completely fabricated book(s) with both prophecies and fulfillments written by one or more like-minded authors with a malicious agenda.
So your answer would be 'no, other religions are not fine too'. I disagree as it defies common sense in a lot of ways and I doubt the understandings of the Bible writers and your interpretations of them. I do like Jesus and think He taught us the correct way (but not in an exclusive sense).
buddhist
Well-Known Member
What's the proof that Josephus was a historical person, and that he wrote truth and not fiction?
While many historians accept the short references in Josephus to John the Baptist and Jesus the brother of James, I think there are reasons to doubt they were in the original works. I've also heard it argued that it is very likely that the passage about Jesus was inserted by a Christian copyist or commentator much later (as it is in a different style, and is inserted awkwardly in the narrative). Apparently, the earliest reference to the passage was by Eusebius, writing in the early 300s CE.
As it was, Josephus's Antiquities (where the longest passage appears) was published in 94 CE, or about 60 years after Jesus' reputed death, and he was trying to satisfy his Roman patron. What's more, if the passage was inserted by someone in the Church in the 200s or 300s, then it's clear that it is not a support of a historical Jesus at all.
You get to think whatever you wish. The fact remains that the James reference is authentic and, unless and until you show otherwise, the scholars that hold this opinion are more credible than you.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
mark
Some place mark early and some place mark later:
I think the open ended-ness like as if it leaves to much question in mark and places were taken from the point of view that they wouldn't believe (now the other scriptures are said to be dated later actually take more a believer view) and the various writings in mark I'm truly not a fan of but it was taken like if they wouldn't believe and even the Qumran may point to that also maybe a push not a fan to much yet either.
23 Because of the miraculous signs Jesus did in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration, many began to trust in him. Literally call Him the Messiah
24 But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew all about people.
25 No one needed to tell him about human nature, for he knew what was in each person’s heart.
He knew already they were going to change their mind about him.
Then many who believed lost their lives and the temple burned.
I'll some historical writtings.. please take the writings with some check.
Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course. Supporters of early dating also need to make sufficient room between Mark and the writing of Matthew and Luke, both of which they also date early — as early as 80 or 85 CE.
Conservative scholars who favor an early date often rely heavily upon a fragment of papyrus from Qumran. In a cave sealed in 68 CE was a piece of a text which is claimed to be an early version of Mark, thus allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Now in all kindness if Jesus came to the gentiles to the pagans first would they have believed him. Or would he just become another one of their "gods"? This why you get angel references to the angel that stands in the sun. This is why he may have came to the jews first. The angel thing has reference in revelation and has had views their in mark at the end of what happened in the temple at the end of mark..
He came to them the "jews" at the time they also didn't trust or they changed their minds acknowledgement and then denial almost I do love them anyways.
7If only you had known the meaning of ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” So its not a redundant (time) sacrifice and also even that he was the only.
He told him who he was that he and his father are one unless you believe this you die in your sins.. Then he also went sat under the tree by the Jordan river where John baptized him. Where God spoke this is my son listen to him.. That's where Jesus finally brings in the river. So depending on were you are standing they accuse differently which is why the cause of unbelief.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Anyways many actually maybe believing him more it could go the opposite the way in the past. Which goes straight to the angel in the son/sun (I DO NOT WORSHIP ANGELS)( it doesn't say this angel is bad) But the word fought before this. (new paragraph) Also there are scribes, and a redundant time worshiping of sacrifice... is out of time I mean not the time worship like saturnalia and zuvranism other ones from around the world. I do not agree with that philosophy. Its wrong. Its man pushing his own apocalypse on people to cut them out. Doesn't mean you can have a revelation understanding or seek to know it or not even.
Really? I can have my own thoughts? Why THANK YOU!
Yes, many scholars think it's authentic, and are much more knowledgeable about it than me.
I only know I've read many of the scholars on this subject (and on many other subjects dealing with ancient texts), and I tend to take ancient texts and their modern interpretations with a large grain of salt. That's MY position, which I clearly stated as MY position, in response to a thread titled "why do you doubt Jesus?" Problems with that? I don't care.Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I'm sorry, I am completely loss. Can you rephrase that without using the word "mark" and scripture verses?
It's an English grammar and content confusion rather than the topic itself.
Yep.
Yep.
BTW: do you have any idea whatsoever why these scholars argue that it's authentic?
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Also running around playing invent a jew games have become very dangerous and I would caution that they tell people that they are the true isrealites and push them off on extremists groups or texts old talmuds to various Vedic to korans. Paul wrote something to protect people from it, it was don't chase after endless genealogy or religious stuff if your only going to miss the point in Christ. They did even try that out in ww2. Even blood tests and things the best at the texts and came up with no real concrete conclusive evidence because its in Jesus Christ. Christ said that neither in Jerusalem or in this mountain, the days will come they will worship Me in spirit and in truth. So Anywhere and can be now-where. Also judas moves and false Christ moves or multiple prophets are what Christians watch out for.
Revelation stated that the angel that stands in the sun. Which is spelled sun in my translation but can be different in other peoples ideas. I would like to look at other translations in other languages where son and sun are not the same sounded word.. (did they do that on propose) just to see if its different same with allah and moon tbut ours were mostly made from the same translators so. IDK. but it does say an angel.