What is your opinion of Jesus?

[YoursTrue]

So what about Jesus words to the thief “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise”?
Did Jesus go to paradise that day? Or in the underworld?
And didn't these Jesus words, contradict his own words in Matthew 7:28 and Revelation's judging of the dead?

He didn't have to mean that they would be in paradise that day. But he said to him emphatically he told him that day. Guess you don't understand but it's clear to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know that the Gospels were anonymous documents/narratives, the Paulines got hold of them and doctored them, hence not reliable source of information, right?

Regards

Wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what about Jesus words to the thief “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise”?
Did Jesus go to paradise that day? Or in the underworld?
And didn't these Jesus words, contradict his own words in Matthew 7:28 and Revelation's judging of the dead?

Besides I don't think punctuation was put in the early renderings.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just a few more explanations please..
Why nobody recognize Jesus after the resurrection?
Also why in Luke 24 his companions could not recognize him, but a couple of hours later they could? Was it a game?
How could Jesus eat, drink and also pass though walls?

Jesus could walk through walls because he was no longer in the human flesh. He could eat and drink just as angels ate sometimes with humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know that the Gospels were anonymous documents/narratives, the Paulines got hold of them and doctored them, hence not reliable source of information, right?

Regards

You know that because why? someone told you, right? please -- right? oh, and someone told you that Jesus did not die when he was nailed to the stake, please, right?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
I know that the Gospels were anonymous documents/narratives, the Paulines got hold of them and doctored them, hence not reliable source of information, right?

You know that because why? someone told you, right? please -- right? oh, and someone told you that Jesus did not die when he was nailed to the stake, please, right?

paarsurrey wrote:
" Gospels were anonymous documents/narratives, the Paulines got hold of them and doctored them "
It is an admitted truth:

“The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, “the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason.”
” It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.”
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel and Gospels

" they are not original "
" invariably anonymous "
” It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.”

Right, please?

Regards

 

[Ajax]

Jesus could walk through walls because he was no longer in the human flesh. He could eat and drink just as angels ate sometimes with humans.

I'm sorry, but according to Augustine of Hippo, the term 'angel' refers to "the name of their office, not their nature", as they are pure spirits who act as messengers, clarifying: "If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel'." Gregory of Nazianzus thought that angels were made as "spirits" and "flames of fire", following Hebrews 1 ("He makes His angels spirits, and His ministers flames of fire" (Hebrews 1:7)., and that they can be identified with the "thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities" of Colossians 1. By the late 4th century, the Church Fathers agreed that there were different categories of angels, with appropriate missions and activities assigned to them. There was, however, some disagreement regarding the nature of angels. Some argued that angels had physical bodies, while some maintained that they were entirely spiritual.

Spirits can not eat and drink physical things. Physical bodies which can eat and drink, can not pass though walls. Something is strange here, don't you agree?

 

[Eli G]

The gospels, just like the Christian letters, were known by their writers. That is the only reason why some gospels were accepted and not others: they were known to have been written by authentic Christians known to everyone.

Not 50 years had passed since the gospels were written until they began to circulate in Christian communities. They were not ancient documents written by unknown people, far from it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sorry, but according to Augustine of Hippo, the term 'angel' refers to "the name of their office, not their nature", as they are pure spirits who act as messengers, clarifying: "If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel'." Gregory of Nazianzus thought that angels were made as "spirits" and "flames of fire", following Hebrews 1 ("He makes His angels spirits, and His ministers flames of fire" (Hebrews 1:7)., and that they can be identified with the "thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities" of Colossians 1. By the late 4th century, the Church Fathers agreed that there were different categories of angels, with appropriate missions and activities assigned to them. There was, however, some disagreement regarding the nature of angels. Some argued that angels had physical bodies,[53] while some maintained that they were entirely spiritual.

Spirits can not eat and drink physical things. Physical bodies which can eat and drink, can not pass though walls. Something is strange here, don't you agree?

Augustine of Hippo may not have it right. You can go by him if you want to.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sorry, but according to Augustine of Hippo, the term 'angel' refers to "the name of their office, not their nature", as they are pure spirits who act as messengers, clarifying: "If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel'." Gregory of Nazianzus thought that angels were made as "spirits" and "flames of fire", following Hebrews 1 ("He makes His angels spirits, and His ministers flames of fire" (Hebrews 1:7)., and that they can be identified with the "thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities" of Colossians 1. By the late 4th century, the Church Fathers agreed that there were different categories of angels, with appropriate missions and activities assigned to them. There was, however, some disagreement regarding the nature of angels. Some argued that angels had physical bodies,[53] while some maintained that they were entirely spiritual.

Spirits can not eat and drink physical things. Physical bodies which can eat and drink, can not pass though walls. Something is strange here, don't you agree?

Spirit PERSONS had been able to take on physical bodies at one time. When Jesus appeared to Saul, later known as Paul, he did not appear in the flesh but in a virtually blinding vision. Jesus discussed his return and even though he said every 'eye' would see him it is clear to me that he was not going to appear to float around the circle of the earth as if everyone could literally see him with their eyeballs.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm sorry, but according to Augustine of Hippo, the term 'angel' refers to "the name of their office, not their nature", as they are pure spirits who act as messengers, clarifying: "If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel'." Gregory of Nazianzus thought that angels were made as "spirits" and "flames of fire", following Hebrews 1 ("He makes His angels spirits, and His ministers flames of fire" (Hebrews 1:7)., and that they can be identified with the "thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities" of Colossians 1. By the late 4th century, the Church Fathers agreed that there were different categories of angels, with appropriate missions and activities assigned to them. There was, however, some disagreement regarding the nature of angels. Some argued that angels had physical bodies, while some maintained that they were entirely spiritual.

Spirits can not eat and drink physical things. Physical bodies which can eat and drink, can not pass though walls. Something is strange here, don't you agree?

" Spirits can not eat and drink physical things. Physical bodies which can eat and drink "

One is absolutely correct here, I have ,therefore, rated one's post as " winner".

Regards

 

[Eli G]

As the Bible states, in ancient times some angels (which are invisible beings in the form of spirits) materialized bodies and ate with humans. Most times people thought they were normal persons (as they look like it) until something extraordinary happened.

This is one of those cases:

Judg. 13:11 Then Ma·noʹah got up and went with his wife. He came to the man and said to him: “Are you the man who spoke to my wife?” He said: “I am.” 12 Then Ma·noʹah said: “May your words come true! What will be the child’s manner of life, and what will be his work?” 13 So Jehovah’s angel said to Ma·noʹah: “Your wife should keep herself from everything that I mentioned to her. 14 She should not eat anything that the grapevine produces, she should not drink wine or anything alcoholic, and she should not eat anything unclean. Everything that I commanded her, let her observe.”
15 Ma·noʹah now said to Jehovah’s angel: “Please stay, and let us prepare a young goat for you.” 16 But Jehovah’s angel said to Ma·noʹah: “If I stay, I will not eat your food; but if you wish to present a burnt offering to Jehovah, you may offer it up.” Ma·noʹah did not know that he was Jehovah’s angel. 17 Then Ma·noʹah said to Jehovah’s angel: “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?” 18 However, Jehovah’s angel said to him: “Why are you asking about my name, seeing that it is a wonderful one?”
19 Then Ma·noʹah took the young goat and the grain offering and offered them on the rock to Jehovah. And He was doing something amazing while Ma·noʹah and his wife were looking on. 20 As the flame ascended from the altar heavenward, Jehovah’s angel ascended in the flame from the altar while Ma·noʹah and his wife were looking on. At once they fell with their faces to the ground. 21 Jehovah’s angel did not appear again to Ma·noʹah and his wife. Then Ma·noʹah realized that he was Jehovah’s angel.

 

[Ajax]

Augustine of Hippo may not have it right. You can go by him if you want to.

Spirit PERSONS had been able to take on physical bodies at one time. When Jesus appeared to Saul, later known as Paul, he did not appear in the flesh but in a virtually blinding vision. Jesus discussed his return and even though he said every 'eye' would see him it is clear to me that he was not going to appear to float around the circle of the earth as if everyone could literally see him with their eyeballs.

I think the gospels writers over reacted in their writings concerning the post resurrection period, making it difficult for people to believe the stories. I mean honestly, you have zombies coming out of their tombs and running around Jerusalem and nobody else writes anything about them, neither there are any writings from the other 500 people who supposedly saw Jesus according to Paul. Then you have nobody recognizing Jesus, who plays a game of now you don't recognize me, now you do, but only when he speaks to them. Finally he can eat and drink but also passes through walls. All these do not help in the credibility of the story.
Paul had no vision, he saw a light and heard a voice, but his companions in one verse are mentioned to see the light but heard no voice (but they were not blinded like Paul) and in another passage they heard the voice but didn't see the light.

 

[Eli G]

Thousands of people became Christians in the first century and later because they were sure of the resurrection of Jesus and the power of God to save them in the future.

The lack of faith of many does not in any way nullify the faith of others, nor can it interfere with the development of life and the future.

Rom. 3:3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”

The arrogance of some is curious, who think that by their attitude they are going to change the development of the future.

 

[Ajax]

The gospels, just like the Christian letters, were known by their writers. That is the only reason why some gospels were accepted and not others: they were known to have been written by authentic Christians known to everyone.

Not 50 years had passed since the gospels were written until they began to circulate in Christian communities. They were not ancient documents written by unknown people, far from it.

Gospel writers are unknown.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thousands of people became Christians in the first century and later because they were sure of the resurrection of Jesus and the power of God to save them in the future.

The lack of faith of many does not in any way nullify the faith of others, nor can it interfere with the development of life and the future.

Rom. 3:3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”

The arrogance of some is curious, who think that by their attitude they are going to change the development of the future.

" Christians "
It is a misnomer, I understand, as they became "Paulines" followers of Paul, and the Paulines had nothing to do with the (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah (who was neither a Zealot nor he belonged to the Zionists nor he belonged to the Judaism people), please, right?

Regards

 

[Eli G]

The Bible does not even mention a follower of Paul. I don't know where the anti-Christians came up with that.

I found out these words of Paul:

1 Cor. 1:10 Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought. 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.” 13 Is the Christ divided? Paul was not executed on the stake for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crisʹpus and Gaʹius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephʹa·nas. As for the rest, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. 17 For Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to declare the good news; and not with wisdom of speech, so that the torture stake of the Christ should not be made useless.

Does that mean that Paul made his own religion, or just the opposite?

 

[metis]

So it doesn't much matter to many in a way what the Bible says. Father-mother--each one figures how they are inclined.

No, that's not why it's done as some teachings are not always absolutely clear. For example, why did haShem "harden Pharoah's heart", which led to the death of many Jews and Egyptians? It's not spelled out in Torah why.

 

[metis]

It's interesting that religious men would regularly recite the Principles of Faith...

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/332555/jewish/Maimonides-13-Principles-of-Faith.htm

Some do...some don't...

Because different Jews so often have different opinions-- 2 Jews have 3 opinions on just about everything.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gospel writers are unknown.

to you and others. But to others they are as written.