If it survived. The point is, absence of definitive proof of a synagogue doesn't mean one didn't exist.
-
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!
The Myth of The Jesus Myth
- Thread starter Oberon
- Start date
If it survived. The point is, absence of definitive proof of a synagogue doesn't mean one didn't exist.
blueman
God's Warrior
That's an old, tired and defeated argument of the mythical and real god/men messiah-like figures. The latter never claimed to be God in the flesh, claimed to be given authority to forgive and redeem mankind or performed the wonders that historical documents (The Bible, Talmud, secular sources) attributed to Jesus Christ. Not to mention to arguments made about Christ earlier in this thread.
The legend was around before the man. And it's certainly enough time for a re-write and reworking of the myth. Ever wonder why we now have to scrutinize more diligently those scriptures? It's because if we take them as they are then we would be ignoring the fact that some of the "copies" we do have, have been tampered with and the translations are no better. No wonder why 50 cooperating (Christian) denominations went over the beloved KJV and found that it contained some "serious" errors and interpolations that they didn't find in the earliest of manuscripts. Now this may just be me but the Epic of Gilgamesh is a prelude to the Bible Flood story. Now for how grand that story is and it's contained in your "history" book.....There is NO evidence whatsoever that the story has any basis in reality. No geologist or palentologist, that I know of, has ever confirmed a worlwide flood as the bible says happened. It's not even enough water on the planet to cover the whole planet...and yet there it is..The story is in your history book. Guess what...? It's a legend. Unfortunately the ospel writers thought (believed) the story to be true enough to coonect the biblical Yeshua to the bloodline going all the way back to the fiticious Noah......[/quote] Any diversion applicable to translation did not impact the central doctrine applicable to the original text and oral tradition during that time.
They'd laugh at you for suggesting the bible is some wonderful work worthy of respect by others simply because the believers believe in it. This is why we don't use it as a "primary source" for history in our schools and universities....unless, in college, it is related to that particular field of study. .[/quote] The whole not used as primary source in schools is not a valid defense against the validity of the book nor it's impact throughout history as I pointed out in my earlier posts.
Ahh, yea....That was one of the main points of contention and why the Council Of Nicea met a few times. This is one of the reasons the church, later, compiled the scriptures, the ones they felt deserved to be included, into what we know as the bible. There were plenty of manuscripts. Some they thought were legit and others they thought were heretical or some sort of forgery.[/quote] The Council of Nicea used a rationale criteria for determining what was ultimately included in the cannon such as were the authors authentic and did they have attestation applicable to their accounts? Through their analysis, they were able to determine which books were consistent in doctrine to the oral and written accounts during that period. They surely did not take a willy-nilly approach in coming to a consensus in what was factual and credible and what was suspect.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Do you have reference for this statement?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
As much as I like debating the supposed divinity of the biblical Yeshua this particular thread may not be the place for that. It's actually been done elsewhere but my response to your claim is that you biblical Yeshua never claimed to be God.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Oh yes I agree
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The author of Mark claims to be writing about the Son of God, I would think that makes him divine. Also, Mark telling of the heavens parting when Jesus is baptized by John tells us that he is divine. Matthew has magi seeing a star that signifies a future king born among men. The telling of his divinity sets the plot for the story about the coming of man's saving redeemer, the upcoming battle between good and evil that is about to be played out.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
You'd be mistaken in that case. The title "son of God" does not denote divinity. It denotes a role.
No, in that scene the Father is addressing the Son. Is the Son divine? Yes, but that's not what this particular text says.
The star does not signify his divinity. The battle of good vs. evil does not require one of the combatants to be divine. That's not to say the bible doesn't portray Jesus as divine. It does. Just not here (in the way you describe).
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but stars don't appear over the birth of just anyone. The magi knew the significance of the star and so does the reader.
blueman
God's Warrior
It may be out of scope of the thread, but Yeshua did equate Himself with God on a number of occasions. When you consider historically, the religiously leaders charged Yeshua with blasphemy, they obviously felt Yeshua put Himself on a level playing field with God the Father implicitly and explicitly.
blueman
God's Warrior
In John 8:58, Jesus said to the Pharisees "Before Abraham was I am". If you know what the signifigance of the term "I am" from a hebrew perspective, that speaks to the authority and eternal nature of God Almighty. Other references are as follows:
John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
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.'" John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.
As stated previously, He was condemned to cruxifiction based on the charge of blasphemy. The religious leaders obviously felt Jesus put Himself on a level playing field with God The Father.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yes it's outside the scope. I quite sure you were a contributor of your opinion to the many other threads that touch on the subject. So I'll move away from this opinion here of yours and keep with the theme of the OP.
blueman
God's Warrior
Be blessed DP.