Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[JoStories]

Hard to get past the first paragraph -
"...Jesus had been circumcised (Luke 2:21) and dedicated at the temple some forty days after his birth (Luke 2:22–24). He was then being called a paidion (toddler) and no longer a brephos (infant). When the Magi arrived, Jesus was already walking and was able to speak a few words as most normal children would be able to do when several months old..."

Agreed but if you read further than that, the entire premise is really without merit and most is made of cloth. It is one man's attempt to justify Jesus and it seems more fiction than factual in any way.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What agenda do you think Outhouse has, other than he has an interest in religion? How is that an agenda? People can have interests in many things and that was one of the reasons I got into theology as nursing, for me, was missing a piece in the treatment of my patients, that being spirituality. I am not alone in that, as the newest nursing paradigm incorporates spirituality, which can and does include religion. Does that mean I have an agenda too?

If he stuck with just the historicity of it, I would applaud him. But he does not nor does he refrain from telling those who are enabled and enlightened that they are wrong, etc etc, yet scripture tells him plainly that he will not understand. The quote has already been given higher on this page in Corinthians. Some things are deeper but he will not respect those who know that but attacks. That is not right.

 

[JoStories]

Rubbish and childish.

You were the one who made the reference to this author. It falls to you to provide some reference link to that work and not Outhouse's job. You are the one being childish, IMO.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not really. I look at this from decades of study into the topic. There is no evidence that the Bible is anything more than a book written by men who had an agenda themselves. Furthermore, how would one prove that God wrote the Bible? Did God send it by fax and write it God's self? Instead of trying to justify that Jesus was God, I try to see the bigger picture.

God did not write it but it is divinely inspired- Timothy tells us this

 

[Robert.Evans]

It intimates the idea, yes. But then, ask yourself what was the point? What made the men who wrote the Bible, long after the death of this man btw, write what they did? What social influence was there? What moral influence? What historical influence? You are accepting the Bible at face value without asking the larger questions.

Says you.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Agreed but if you read further than that, the entire premise is really without merit and most is made of cloth. It is one man's attempt to justify Jesus and it seems more fiction than factual in any way.

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.

 

[JoStories]

If he stuck with just the historicity of it, I would applaud him. But he does not nor does he refrain from telling those who are enabled and enlightened that they are wrong, etc etc, yet scripture tells him plainly that he will not understand. The quote has already been given higher on this page in Corinthians. Some things are deeper but he will not respect those who know that but attacks. That is not right.

Scripture is not a good nor credible source. It is man made and as such in flawed in any degree of factual evidence. There is far too much contradiction contained therein to be taken as historically accurate. It is your opinion that he is wrong in his analysis. There is nothing wrong with having your opinion but if you were really truthful you would admit that there are historical flaws contained within the Bible. Such as the disclaimer at the end of Mark.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You were the one who made the reference to this author. It falls to you to provide some reference link to that work and not Outhouse's job. You are the one being childish, IMO.

Then your opinion is worthless. Arguing a point that I should put a link and that he cannot cite the words given and search himself is absurb and childish.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Scripture is not a good nor credible source.

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.

It is man made and as such in flawed in any degree of factual evidence. There is far too much contradiction contained therein to be taken as historically accurate.

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

It is your opinion that he is wrong in his analysis. There is nothing wrong with having your opinion but if you were really truthful you would admit that there are historical flaws contained within the Bible. Such as the disclaimer at the end of Mark.

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.

 

[JoStories]

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.

Assuming you mean the author you referred to, then no, I have not read the entire book. I agree that no one has all truths of all things. It would be hubris to say such a thing. Martin's POV is intriguing, I admit that. However, there are many things he speaks of that, IMO, are made of whole cloth. What is it that I am supposed to care about? Are you saying I should agree with Martin simply because he wrote these things? No thank you. The evidence you submit is flawed. For example, Martin uses Luke 1:5 to try to intimate that this refers to the parents of John the Baptist. How so? It is incredibly vague on that note. and those that have reviewed and laud the work are speaking from a biased POV and are Christian apologists.

 

[JoStories]

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.

How do you know I am seeing this with 'wrong eyes'? Is it not possible that you are seeing it incorrectly yourself? I freely admit my view is in my opinion but I would add to that that I have studied these subjects through graduate level study. Indepth study that required reading for understanding some of the best names in theology, which includes Christian apologists. Karen King, Bart Erhman, Matthew Fox, Dr. Swinton and many more. Have you taken the time to read "The Historical Jesus" or "The History of God" or any of Jung's work on Job?

 

[JoStories]

Then your opinion is worthless. Arguing a point that I should put a link and that he cannot cite the words given and search himself is absurb and childish.

No opinion is ever worthless. All opinions are welcome here. You are free to disagree but to state that another's opinion is 'worthless' is something that I would have failed any of my students in their debates.

 

[JoStories]

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 many contradictions in the Bible. For example, Jesus descended from which son of David. Matthew states it was Solomon (Matt 1; 12) and Luke states it was Nathan (Luke 3; 31). Or how did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ. Matthew 16. 17 says it was a revelation from heaven, while John 1; 41 states the his brother Andrew told him. 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? John 19; 17 states the Jesus bore his own cross while Matthew 27; 31-32 states he did not. So which is it? Those are just a few.

 

[JoStories]

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.

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.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Assuming you mean the author you referred to, then no, I have not read the entire book. I agree that no one has all truths of all things. It would be hubris to say such a thing. Martin's POV is intriguing, I admit that. However, there are many things he speaks of that, IMO, are made of whole cloth. What is it that I am supposed to care about? Are you saying I should agree with Martin simply because he wrote these things? No thank you. The evidence you submit is flawed. For example, Martin uses Luke 1:5 to try to intimate that this refers to the parents of John the Baptist. How so? It is incredibly vague on that note. and those that have reviewed and laud the work are speaking from a biased POV and are Christian apologists.

If you have not read the whole book it is ridiculous to comment on when further you say that no one has all the truth.

 

[Robert.Evans]

How do you know I am seeing this with 'wrong eyes'? Is it not possible that you are seeing it incorrectly yourself? I freely admit my view is in my opinion but I would add to that that I have studied these subjects through graduate level study. Indepth study that required reading for understanding some of the best names in theology, which includes Christian apologists. Karen King, Bart Erhman, Matthew Fox, Dr. Swinton and many more. Have you taken the time to read "The Historical Jesus" or "The History of God" or any of Jung's work on Job?

I have my own literature but I have not read those, no. But that is what I mean. You start from a position of not believing in God in the first place and therefore ignore Corinthians and others that says you will not understand. You look at it from a historical point of view of through the eyes of theologians that we are told plainly "God has made fools of".

 

[Robert.Evans]

No opinion is ever worthless.

That depends on the opinion. If someone says red elephants can drive better than yellow ones, that is worthless.

All opinions are welcome here. You are free to disagree but to state that another's opinion is 'worthless' is something that I would have failed any of my students in their debates.

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

 

[JoStories]

That depends on the opinion. If someone says red elephants can drive better than yellow ones, that is worthless.

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

And yet you do not show any modicum of respect to me or any other's that express their opinions. And as for the first remark, I have respect for any opinion, despite that it may be ludicrous. It is up to the person to believe whatever they wish.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There are many contradictions in the Bible.

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

For example, Jesus descended from which son of David. Matthew states it was Solomon (Matt 1; 12) and Luke states it was Nathan (Luke 3; 31).

The Essenes looked for two Messiahs.

Or how did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ. Matthew 16. 17 says it was a revelation from heaven, while John 1; 41 states the his brother Andrew told him.

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.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Two Messiahs.

John 19; 17 states the Jesus bore his own cross while Matthew 27; 31-32 states he did not. So which is it? Those are just a few.

Two. Simple.

 

[JoStories]

I have my own literature but I have not read those, no. But that is what I mean. You start from a position of not believing in God in the first place and therefore ignore Corinthians and others that says you will not understand. You look at it from a historical point of view of through the eyes of theologians that we are told plainly "God has made fools of".

You are very much mistaken in saying that I don't believe in God. I do, most assuredly. I look at these things from two points of view, one as a theologian and the other as a person who wholeheartedly does believe in God. I have a very strong belief. And I further my understanding of that belief by reading all sacred texts. And btw, Karen King is a former nun and Matthew Fox is a very strong Christian.