Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[Useless2015]

Giving life is different from being a parent. A child comes from an egg and sperm which join to make a new life. God made Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him in a miraculous way. This does not make Adam God's son anymore than Pinochio was the real child of the man who carved him from wood. God's children are formed when He joins His spirit with a human spirit to create a new spiritual person.

Now i understand! God needs a human to be able to have children. Obvious my next question is, who makes this criteria for God? Are there other gods who set these rules?

 

[sojourner]

You have read the whole book then? And do you know that no one will speak the whole truth on all things? Do you care? Yet you say his words are "comical" but you say to others that they are offensive to Christians.You are given evidence and throw it back and ridicule. Now I know for sure why the truth is hidden and always will be.

Funny thing is, the very text you're using to substantiate that the truth is "hidden" has been shown by several NT scholars and gospel specialists to be an inauthentic quotation -- that is, the statement is wholly out-of-character for Jesus, and was likely a later addition and attributed to Jesus to give it weight. I was asked to publish a paper on the historical veracity of that very quotation.

 

[sojourner]

Good nor credible source for what? I assume we stand on two completely different sides of the fence here. You don't believe so you look at it with the wrong eyes

Good question, because there are things that the bible is credible for as a source; there are some things that it isn't good for as a source. It's not a credible source of history, for example. It would depend on what the argument is that the poster is specifically objecting that the bible is a poor source. That doesn't mean that she's "looking with the wrong eyes." It means that she's trying to maintain some objectivity and keep biases in check. Your statement "wrong eyes" is judgmental and unfounded.

 

[sojourner]

There is no contradiction- but there is to those who do not see what is written, they are not even "babes" in Christ

There are contradictions -- and plenty of them -- in raw, historical and factual data. The two differing geneaologies in Matt and Lk, for example, contradict each other. What matters is how one is using the data as to whether the contradictions matter. But to merely dismiss someone who points out the contradictions as "babes" is academically irresponsible.

 

[sojourner]

There is nothing wrong with the Bible when you know what it is speaking of. Do you not consider that they knew what they were writing when they wrote it? If you take that on board, then you would have to see that there must be a DEEPER meaning- a fact that probably escapes you as a none believer

They knew what they were doing -- and what they were doing wasn't "writing the bible." They were telling stories and writing letters from particular points of view. In order to discover what any "deeper meanings" might be, one needs to take each text separately and not try to mush them together into some cohesive story that relates some "larger truth." Any "larger truth" is the brain child of a much later church who canonized the texts, and is not even on the radar of the writers, themselves.

 

[sojourner]

The writers wrote roughly one century or more past the time frame. Therefore anything they did write was second hand reports and hearsay. The aforementioned contradictions I wrote about proves that point.

Hold on a sec! The earliest gospel was written just post-70 CE -- only forty years after the Jesus Event. And the Q source is likely less than 10 years after the Jesus Event, according to one credible, scholastic viowpoint. Heck, even John was written only about 60 years following that event. I agree that none of the writers knew Jesus, but to say that they were written "one century or more past the time frame" is a little disingenuous.

 

[sojourner]

When you speak of DEEPER things you must have respect for the people who believe.

No, we need to have respect for the people whose belief has a good basis in biblical exegesis.

 

[sojourner]

There are none. There are misunderstandings. This is a magical book not a bit of phrose

Bollocks. "Magical book," indeed! What a load of crap! The bible isn't "magical." In the least. It may be spiritual, it may be mysical. But even spiritual and mystical works contain contradictions -- especially given the nature and construction of the bible. The only way the contradictions can be "reconciled" is through baseless, interpretational voodoo.

 

[sojourner]

The Essenes looked for two Messiahs

As I said above: baseless, interpretational voodoo. The reason the geneaologies differ is because each was written, not as a factual account, but with differing theological agendas for "proving" Jesus' messiahship.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

OK so no one believes the Bible. Then we are all free to believe anything we want. But if you believe the Bible then John 1:12 says "as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons of God." nothing there about everyone automatically being a child of God. It says if you do not receive Him you do not have the power to become His child. Believe it or not is up to you but that is what it says. I'm sure people will find a way to say it does not mean what it says. But it clearly says everyone is not a child of God. Only those who receive Him.

 

[sojourner]

Always intriguing things like that aren't they. But the quotes are different. Why? No doubt you are familiar with B Theiring (find your own link) and no doubt you dimiss her. Mistake if you do. Though no one has the whole truth.
Or the infamous kiss of Judas. Matthew 26; 48-50 says he did while John 18; 3-12 states he never got close enough to kiss him, so which is it?
Two Messiahs

Baloney. Both deal with Jesus. The "two messiahs" conjecture is completely, scholastically disingenuous.

 

[sojourner]

OK so no one believes the Bible. Then we are all free to believe anything we want. But if you believe the Bible then John 1:12 says "as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons of God." nothing there about everyone automatically being a child of God. It says if you do not receive Him you do not have the power to become His child. Believe it or not is up to you but that is what it says. I'm sure people will find a way to say it does not mean what it says. But it clearly says everyone is not a child of God. Only those who receive Him.

What does "receive him" mean?

 

[sojourner]

He was still alive when they wrote them.

More baloney. This is as historically and critically irresponsible as anything I've ever seen.

 

[sojourner]

You do not go to a lecturer and tell him he is wrong, do you? This is my subject. Do you know why?

Actually, the very fact that I disagreed with my church history professor and wrote such disagreement into my final thesis was the reason why she (who was notorious for not giving A's) gave me an A.

This is not "Your subject." There are lots of people here who are well qualified to call Christian theology and biblical studies "their subject."

 

[sojourner]

my point is trinity doctrine is not exist in Judaism

Christianity isn't a proprietary offshoot of Judaism. Nor does it need to be, in order to be valid.

 

[wizanda]

That's what the bible says.

As pointing out many times, John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros), were all false.... You can believe what you wish; yet it contradicts Yeshua, and the prophets.

 

[outhouse]

I see where you're coming from, but be fair. The OP is a theological discussion about Jesus. Therefore, theological beliefs are going to be par for the course. What we need here is not summary dismissal of all "unsubstantial belief claims," but rather to take a good, academic and exegetical look at the sources of Jesus quotes. The fact is that the theological statements of Forever Catholic are plausible and useful for the discussion at thand, since the theology makes sense out of what has been said to be "ridiculous."

My point in context is that without academic knowledge the theology has much less value.

The education me and you possess gives us an understanding that most do not.

It is not an attack on theological beliefs, education and knowledge does more then just compliment the theology, it is the only way to obtain a more full picture.

 

[outhouse]

There are many quotes that are scholastically attributable to Jesus.

Yet none hold a high degree of certainty.

Yes we can hope. but as you know many of the parables in the same hand can be attributed to John, as Jesus did not pull them out of thin air.


John was his teacher, and he took over Johns movement with Johns death by our best accounts.


With all that said.

I wish we could trace back the parables to Galilee, but we cannot. They are later Koine parables with very few Aramaic transliterations.

 

[outhouse]

. I think you're being a little harsh when you say that the bible was written to "control the masses."

Completely agree. This movement was never about control.


Because later people capitalized and abused religious power, well it has nothing to do with the text and how it originated.

 

[sojourner]

As pointing out many times, John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros), were all false.... You can believe what you wish; yet it contradicts Yeshua, and the prophets.

I was speaking of Moses. Or is he "false," too?