Posted on 08/31/2014 8:18:05 PM PDT by Mean Daddy
Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.” In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.
At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.
(Excerpt) Read more at jobrny.com ...
I was hoping for tie ins between old and new Testaments. The most compelling argument IMHO is the one where most of the apostles were willing to die after the resurrection.
I hope and pray that in the coming troubles, I have the courage to NOT renounce my belief or convert to Islam.
Mat 9:30-31 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, "See that no one knows about it." But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.
Once your eyes have been opened the rest will take care of itself.
I have no doubt the Messiah of Israel lives forever more and that Scripture is True.
That being said,
The Jesus the church and Christendom teaches and worships is one born on December 25( or at least celebrated on that day)
That same Jesus was killed on Good Friya ( a goddess) Day.. and raised on Easter Sun’s Day. That is almost universal as truth or at least, a given.
The Jesus that Scriptures gives us says He was born on a New Moon Day, an appointed time in Torah( 1st day of the 6th month on our Heavenly Father’s calendar)
The Jesus in Scripture was killed on a Feast of Passover( an appointed time in Torah, the 14th day of our Heavenly Father’s 1st month)
The Jesus in Scripture rested in the tomb on the High Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened bread(an appointed time in Torah, the 15th day of our Heavenly Father’s 1st month)
The Jesus in Scripture was raised on the Feast of First Fruits ( the 16th day of our Heavenly Father’s 1st month, an appointed time in Torah- the 1st day of the new week)
It may appear to be a small issue but those teachings and worship from those two are not compatible.
The name Jesus has been changed in two places in more current New Testament translations ( Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) to the English name Joshua (because those Jesus references were actually referencing the Joshua of the Old Testament)
If those two greco roman latin Jesus’s could be changed, why couldn’t the other 900 to the english Joshua?
Answer- tradition..
Which Jesus does the world know?
A question that may not be so simple.. if the enemy is a master counterfeiter, is it possible the Jesus born on December 25 and raised on easter is a counterfeit?
And if a counterfeit or false, the word that could be used in the greek is ‘pseudo’..
Scripture warns us against pseudo Christs and pseudo prophets and pseudo witnesses. They both can claim the Words to of the Savior. So the Words and deeds are not in question. What is in question is the worship afforded to each. And how we worship, and who we worship is important to our Heavenly Father.
The word ‘anti’ in my concordance doesn’t say it means against... it says ‘in place of’ or ‘instead of’..
What if Jesus we all are taught and follow or followed is actually the ‘in place of’ Messiah ?
Is Satan that deceitful? Or we that deceived?
There are two ‘jesus’s if one can see.
Well, there is one Greco roman Latin Jesus that has December 25 and easter.
And there is one Joshua/Yahshua/Yeshua that has Torah.
Which one is Truth because they both can’t be. One is counterfeit.
Not something one wants to think about on a man made holy day like Labor Day.
( On our Heavenly Father’s calendar, today is a work day- not a holy day. That might explain in part the two differemt Jesus’s )
The anecdote about Pascal is compelling to the logical doubting mind. Pascal led a rather rowdy youth, not at all convinced of the existance of a God. But being very skilled in probability, he always considered downside risk. Although he thought a God doesn't exist, there was logically a chance he does, however small that possibility. But...if God does exist and would condemn the unfaithful to an infinity in hell, it's too awful a consequence to risk. Thus, as an older man, Pascal led a more decent life.
I'm paraphrasing a real lot here. I agree with the sentiment. Even if I didn't believe in God, it would make no sense to live life as if there were one. Just in case. <^..^>
Bttt
Thanks for pointing this out. I was just getting ready to post on it. Most people have no clue about Josephis.
Jesus was fine. It’s Paul I don’t like.
If you do not wish to see Religion Forum posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the Free Republic browse option list. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
To be fair, there has been note that Josephis may be repeating the Luke account of they are both repeating a common account. Luke however, was a contemporaneous account of the period of Acts and those that witnessed the events.
If there was film of Golgotha, special effects would be blamed, the account of the body being stolen would be raised and doubt would still exist for those afraid to believe.
Until some are bonded on the road, they cannot accept the Son.
Why don’t they prove that Mohammed didn’t fly into the sky on horseback?
It is really important to add one additional clause to that argument: the disciples would have KNOWN it was a fraud. History has lot of examples of people who were deceived and died as martyrs for a fraudulent cause. If the Jesus story was just a myth, the disciples would have died for what they KNEW with first-hand knowledge was a myth.
Yes if the resurrection of Christ was on HD format in living color there would be the skeptics who abound from century to century. That’s why they call it the Christian FAITH.
Yes but the question was “Did the historical Jesus exist?” Jefferson may have questioned the Deity of Jesus but not the actual existence. He fully accepted Christ was a real person.
Payne on the other hand questioned all. Which only proves to me that really smart people sometimes outsmart themselves and come to wrong conclusions like everyone else.
Your correct,
Those expecting God to provide them a sign are going to be waiting a long time for something to happen. They would be much better off praying for “gold tried in the fire” as Jesus counsels in Revelation Chapter 3
But it should be noted that Jesus did provide one, an incredible sign, but to anyone that would come to understand what he was actually referring, means they would have to come into possession of knowledge and understanding afforded to the most diligent just to be able to see it, and by that time they would very likely already be believers themselves,
A lesson borne out of a sigh,
“the Sign of Jonah” is about much more than just the resurrection as it set the timing for when this event had to occur, which thereby provided a pattern that can be seen even by those without the spirit seeking a sign from heaven,
“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Matthew 12:38-40
>> You should research Jim Jones and Kool-Aid drinking.
The victims at Jonestown were forced to "drink" at gunpoint and they did not find it pleasant. If you listen to the tapes they are screaming and crying at what they were being subjected to. The powermad commie faggot at the top of that cult was the primary delusional one that day.
I’d hate to be a scholar when I die.
Sad but very true.
About 1969 I read a column by a writer (now deceased) who mentioned that some people claim that Jesus Christ never existed.
His comment was "if that's true, the Thirty Years' War wasn't necessary."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.