Real story of jesus

[JacobEzra.]

so you dont believe Gods word? Perhaps you've never read the scriptures pertaining to this subject before. I've read them and im convinced that the bible is Gods word of truth. If you read it you might see it too.

Iv read bible. Everyday. But there is no proof its Gods literal word.

 

[Pegg]

Iv read bible. Everyday. But there is no proof its Gods literal word.

no proof? Hmm intriguing. Thats what i used to say before i actually studied it.

 

[Ahsanraza]

nope there is nothing historical or scientific to back that up

turin shroud is a scientific proof that Jesus did not die on cross, and there are countless scientific, historical proofs.

 

[Me Myself]

Ezekiel 18:4 “The soul that is sinning is the one that will die.”
In Hebrew., han‧ne′phesh ha‧cho‧teʼth′ hiʼ tha‧muth′

If souls die, what lives on in your afterlife?

I am not sure what you are arguing about now.

I mean your first mention of this came when I asked you how do you know which is "God´s word" and which is not, because you seemed to be so "sure" about every book of the bible and every verse in every book.

If you are so sure how are you scared in some information?

Believing that the bible is true doesn´t turn you into a bible scholar.

You don´t need to think it is a literal truth to be knowledgeable in the terms that help you see which parts where added and changed and when. You need evidence and method for that. You cannot find the truth of anything by just going :ignore: on everything different than the tale you like. That can only lead to ignorance.

You say word of God must be followed, I say okay, but how do you know which is the word of God? Because a lot of people think to be pretty sure, and they come from all religions and interpretations. Merely saying "this is what happened with Jesus because the "Word of God" is true" doesn´t say anything at all unless you have irrefutabl evidence that what you are reffering to is the actual word of God.

So if the paper ain´t shining, you have your brains and your hunches, as so do everybody else. That leaves you around the same place unless you start to actually try to make some sense.

 

[Me Myself]

no proof? Hmm intriguing. Thats what i used to say before i actually studied it.

What do you refer to "study" in this context? I must say I am suspicious.

 

[Ahsanraza]

the bible doesnt talk of an afterlife. It talks of a resurrection.

If there was an afterlife, then there would be no need for a resurrection.

So any book professing to teach from God which talks of an afterlife (in the sense of living on as a spirit after one dies) then they are telling the same lie that Satan told Eve in the garden of Eden...."you positively will not die but you will become like God..."

colud u proof concept of resurrection by bible

 

[Ahsanraza]

I am not sure what you are arguing about now.

I mean your first mention of this came when I asked you how do you know which is "God´s word" and which is not, because you seemed to be so "sure" about every book of the bible and every verse in every book.

If you are so sure how are you scared in some information?

Believing that the bible is true doesn´t turn you into a bible scholar.

You don´t need to think it is a literal truth to be knowledgeable in the terms that help you see which parts where added and changed and when. You need evidence and method for that. You cannot find the truth of anything by just going :ignore: on everything different than the tale you like. That can only lead to ignorance.

You say word of God must be followed, I say okay, but how do you know which is the word of God? Because a lot of people think to be pretty sure, and they come from all religions and interpretations. Merely saying "this is what happened with Jesus because the "Word of God" is true" doesn´t say anything at all unless you have irrefutabl evidence that what you are reffering to is the actual word of God.

So if the paper ain´t shining, you have your brains and your hunches, as so do everybody else. That leaves you around the same place unless you start to actually try to make some sense.

i like this. the word of God should be judged on the ground of rationality and logic because God does things with rationality, God is rational. we should not perceive the work of God as circus. true science is the work of God and true religion is the Saying of God so there should not be difference between true word of God and true work of God. science proved human evolution and bible rejects it, science tells us that man has a limit to live and it is impossible to stay on sky without food, oxygen and other measurements. on other side bible tells us that Jesus went to sky with his worldly body and he is still there to return back.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

turin shroud is a scientific proof that Jesus did not die on cross, and there are countless scientific, historical proofs.

You can't mean scientific evidence here. If there are scientific evidences, they can't be countless because they are counted in order to be scientifically reviewed.

What I think you mean is that there are countless imaginary "evidences" that someone can use to make up stuff about Jesus, and that's true.

But there aren't any scientific reasons, or no reasonable person would believe anything other than what you're saying. And this discussion would be a senseless waste of time.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

colud u proof concept of resurrection by bible

... as soon as you prove that someone can survive crucifixion...

If Jesus was crucified and survived, his executioners would have been completely incompetent. Saying that he survived is as stupid as saying that someone survived decapitation.

 

[outhouse]

turin shroud is a scientific proof that Jesus did not die on cross, and there are countless scientific, historical proofs.

its a fake.

and its not proof of any kind that he did not die


there are no other scientific proofs of anything related to yeshua

 

[outhouse]

... as soon as you prove that someone can survive crucifixion...

If Jesus was crucified and survived, his executioners would have been completely incompetent. Saying that he survived is as stupid as saying that someone survived decapitation.

people forget or are ignorant that the romans were masters of pain and punishment.

the nails alone would be a death sentance due to infection.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

its a fake.

and its not proof of any kind that he did not die


there are no other scientific proofs of anything related to yeshua

Don't bother.

We can all say that it's fake and it would be worthless.

It's kinda funny that gullible people obstinately refuse to believe anything that is actually true.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

people forget or are ignorant that the romans were masters of pain and punishment.

the nails alone would be a death sentance due to infection.

I haven't thought of infection. But I respectfully disagree. The ancients knew how to treat wounds.

The problem is that people don't realize that crucifixion is a means of execution. People have survived firing squads, hanging, and even the electric chair.

There may be one person in the ancient world that survived crucifixion, but I don't think that his evidence is properly interpreted and applied. I say this just because I've seen this singular example.

 

[Ahsanraza]

... as soon as you prove that someone can survive crucifixion...

If Jesus was crucified and survived, his executioners would have been completely incompetent. Saying that he survived is as stupid as saying that someone survived decapitation.

i think u did not read the event of crucifixion. roman solider did not break the legs of Jesus, while breaking legs is custom in crucifixion. please read gospel of john 19:36
not breaking the legs can only be meaningful if the body was alive,
please read ...
Psalm 34, verses 19 and 20
if u want more proof from bible , i can provide it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i think u did not read the event of crucifixion. roman solider did not break the legs of Jesus, while breaking legs is custom in crucifixion. please read gospel of john 19:36
not breaking the legs can only be meaningful if the body was alive,
please read ...
Psalm 34, verses 19 and 20
if u want more proof from bible , i can provide it.

Not breaking the legs means that he's already dead.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

(not thinking is worse than not reading)

 

[Ahsanraza]

its a fake.

and its not proof of any kind that he did not die


there are no other scientific proofs of anything related to yeshua

u said it is fake, kindly proof it that turin shroud is fake, proof ur saying please

 

[Ahsanraza]

You can't mean scientific evidence here. If there are scientific evidences, they can't be countless because they are counted in order to be scientifically reviewed.

What I think you mean is that there are countless imaginary "evidences" that someone can use to make up stuff about Jesus, and that's true.

But there aren't any scientific reasons, or no reasonable person would believe anything other than what you're saying. And this discussion would be a senseless waste of time.

so u have problem with word countless, ok i should not use the word countless.
what i am saying is not the story, it is the crystal clear reality that Jesus was the human prophet of God, He survived from crucifixion and spent his later life in kashmeer, india. u know that when u tell story , u can say any illogical, irrational thing and when u tell reality then u have to be logical, reasonable. so according to ur understanding survival from crucifixion and spent later life in India is story and went to sky with worldly body and return to earth with that body after thousands of thousands of years is reality.
please be logical in ur religious life.

 

[Pegg]

I am not sure what you are arguing about now.

I mean your first mention of this came when I asked you how do you know which is "God´s word" and which is not, because you seemed to be so "sure" about every book of the bible and every verse in every book.

If you are so sure how are you scared in some information?

Believing that the bible is true doesn´t turn you into a bible scholar.

You don´t need to think it is a literal truth to be knowledgeable in the terms that help you see which parts where added and changed and when. You need evidence and method for that. You cannot find the truth of anything by just going :ignore: on everything different than the tale you like. That can only lead to ignorance.

You say word of God must be followed, I say okay, but how do you know which is the word of God? Because a lot of people think to be pretty sure, and they come from all religions and interpretations. Merely saying "this is what happened with Jesus because the "Word of God" is true" doesn´t say anything at all unless you have irrefutabl evidence that what you are reffering to is the actual word of God.

So if the paper ain´t shining, you have your brains and your hunches, as so do everybody else. That leaves you around the same place unless you start to actually try to make some sense.

Ezekiel was a prophet of the God Jehovah. The Jews kept his writings as sacred writings because of his prophecies.

For any scripture or prophet to be relied upon as a true prophet, his prophecies must prove true. In the case of Ezekiel's prophecies, the Jews knew he was speaking the truth from God because his prophecies came true. No book of the bible was accepted before its words proved true....thats how the Jews determined their cannon and that is why books like Maccabees and Estras are not a part of the hebrew canon. If a book is in the canon, we can trust it to be the true word of God.

 

[Me Myself]

Ezekiel was a prophet of the God Jehovah. The Jews kept his writings as sacred writings because of his prophecies which held true.

For any scripture to be proved true, its words must prove true. In the case of Ezekiel's writings, the Jews knew he was speaking the truth from God because his prophecies came true. No book of the bible was accepted before its words proved true....thats how the Jews determined their cannon and that is why books like Maccabees and Estras are not a part of the hebrew canon.

So what?

A lot of different kind of traditions have had smart prophets and such who could predict stuff and also spoke very different dogmas than those caming from the bible.

This means it would be sensical to just give it a scholar look as you would any other religious book. BECAUSE I know that people from different religious backgrounds have found use of saints is that I am sure most religous beliefs and "superstitions" have at least SOME grounding in spiritual reality even if a blury or misplaced one.

The point is, much of what the guy talks about can´t be really rejected without consulting scholars that refute him to the least. He is a guy who is checking his sources from a historical point of view.

Hundreds of different versions of the bible do exist today, having differences in more than one passage. Not all of them are going to be perfectly faithful to God´s word so human management has definetely touched the scriptures.