Groo the Wanderer Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336126309' post='2426952'] Again I say we are in agreement! 4 accounts having [b]slight[/b] differences and written in varying different styles aimed at different audiences adds to the credibility of the story. I'm just a bit puzzled as to why 3 would ommit entirely a [b]very important[/b] part. With only one relating it. It is lacking in reinforcement! Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there and need not be there, but I was just asking in case someone had some idea regarding this. If there is non apart from it just being a variation then okay. [/quote] Here's a site where you can see the 4 Gospel accounts side by side. [url="http://www.bible-researcher.com/parallels.html"]http://www.bible-res.../parallels.html[/url] ignore the translation issues and focus on the content. you will see there are many of the stories that are in one but not the other. are any of them not important? no. again - its a matter of who was writing, to whom, and why. Different human authors saw different events as more important to their particular account. For example: Mark focused on the casting out of demons - he has more of these than any other. John focused on the divinity of Jesus as the eternal Word of God. Luke had a particular emphasis on Mary as the new Eve and the fulfillment of Gen 3:15. Matthew and Luke cover the genealogy of Jesus while Mark and John are silent on this matter. Edited May 4, 2012 by Groo the Wanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336107461' post='2426902'] Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. So in that way no. After Christ returns perhaps He will reveal every second detail of His 33 year life on earth. Since I do not know every second of His life on earth I cannot say if there would be enough rooms on the earth to filled with those writings. [/quote] You cannot say if this world has enough room for the books that would be written because you do not know every second of his life. As if you are telling me, if you know whatever Jesus did for every second of his 33 years you will also say ’If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written’ So, what do you think he did so that this world is not enough for the books that would be written? Edited May 4, 2012 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='mortify' timestamp='1336106891' post='2426895'] You can't quote the bible when it clearly says Jesus physically walked the earth. [/quote] [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336107162' post='2426900'] And why not? [/quote] [quote name='mortify' timestamp='1336108470' post='2426910'] The very books you quote go against you. They are riddled with accounts of Jesus teaching, walking, eating, doing regular physical activities, all taking for granted that He ACTUALLY existed. Your hypothesis is in absolute contradiction with the Bible. You've misinterpretede a view verses, and in your pride you have declared yourself the sole true believer. How do you quote the same books that record Jesus being born? The word was made FLESH, or do you not believe that? If you don't, then you are more lost than of us feared you to be. And often at the root of heresy, is a much deeper problem within the soul. Wake up my friend, before you lose grasp of all reality. [/quote] It is not the scripture which is against me but, it is your interpretation to the scripture which is in opposition to whatever I am saying here. For example, it is written in John 1:14 [indent=1]14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.[/indent] I know that this verse is true but it is not referring to your historical Jesus because when Luke said ‘Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things [b]that have been fulfilled among us[/b], just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word’. What was fulfilled to them (to Luke, Paul, Moses, Jonah and other ‘servants’ of the word - is that the ‘Word became flesh’. They are all witnesses of this ‘Word became flesh’ and they are not referring to your historical Jesus because historical Jesus is just an interpretation of your early fathers to their works. For example, Moses also saw this 'Word became flesh' in sacred mountain but do you think your early fathers consider Moses saw it? (since seeing Christ is seeing God and knowing God is knowing Christ too). Now, regarding Jesus, Mary, Peter and other key figures in his book - The Gospel according to Luke - all of them are just 'characters' in his story. That story is not a true to life story. It is just a story about the coming of the Christ of God - 'so that you may know the [b]certainty[/b] of the things you have been taught'. Edited May 4, 2012 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpence Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) woah...just woah reyb, are you denying that Jesus was both truly God and truly man? I am utterly confused as to what you think DID happen to cause the Christian faith to spring up out of ground if no physical person called Jesus existed. I HOPE you are trolling like crazy Edited May 4, 2012 by sixpence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 not to mention the hundreds of thousands of martyrs over the last 2 centuries reyb claims threw away their lives for a lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336139849' post='2426997'] You cannot say if this world has enough room for the books that would be written because you do not know every second of his life. As if you are telling me, if you know whatever Jesus did for every second of his 33 years you will also say ’If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written’ So, what do you think he did so that this world is not enough for the books that would be written? [/quote] I know only that which has been revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Outside of that I do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 [Quote] Now, regarding Jesus, Mary, Peter and other key figures in his book - The Gospel according to Luke - all of them are just 'characters' in his story. That story is not a true to life story. It is just a story about the coming of the Christ of God - 'so that you may know the [b]certainty[/b] of the things you have been taught'. [/quote] Where in Scripture does it directly state that its all just a story? It is not enough for you to state that it is just a story. You must clearly and rationally prove such a claim and you have thus far failed to do so in all the time I have known you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1336146530' post='2427042'] woah...just woah reyb, are you denying that Jesus was both truly God and truly man? I am utterly confused as to what you think DID happen to cause the Christian faith to spring up out of ground if no physical person called Jesus existed. [b]I HOPE you are trolling like crazy[/b] [/quote] This has been going on literally and not allegoricaly [b]for years[/b]. Rey seems like a nice man, but either he is confused or he is trolling. The discussions with him go in endless loops. I only played his merry go round for a while because I learned a few things by the comments of others and by looking up information to respond to him. It often seems as though he is baiting you with his nonsense. Edited May 4, 2012 by Mark of the Cross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336127644' post='2426955'] Here's a site where you can see the 4 Gospel accounts side by side. [url="http://www.bible-researcher.com/parallels.html"]http://www.bible-res.../parallels.html[/url] ignore the translation issues and focus on the content. [/quote] Thanks I've added that to my favourites it looks interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336141866' post='2427012'] Now, regarding Jesus, Mary, Peter and other key figures in his book - The Gospel according to Luke - all of them are just 'characters' in his story. That story is not a true to life story. It is just a story about the coming of the Christ of God - 'so that you may know the [b]certainty[/b] of the things you have been taught'. [/quote] How do you explain the reasoning for authors of the Scriptures to claim their were eyewitnesses to Christ on earth? Such as this one by Paul? In 1 Cor 15 "For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that [b]Christ [u]died[/u] for our sins, according to the scriptures[/b]: And that [b]he [u]was[/u] buried[/b], and that [b]he [u]rose[/u] again the third day[/b], [b]according to the scriptures[/b]: And that [b]he was [u]seen[/u] by Cephas[/b]; [b]and after that by the eleven[/b]. Then [u][b]he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once[/b][/u]: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that, [b]he was [u]seen[/u] by James[/b], [b]then by all the apostles[/b]. And last of all, [b]he was [u]seen[/u] also by me[/b], as by one born out of due time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 I just assume that when he stops responding to my posts, it means I win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1335357869' post='2423128'] With due respect to Papist, let me post some verses where Apostle Paul mentioned ‘other Jesus’ in his letter and let us discuss it first before we proceed to Papist’s concern. It is written in 2 Cor 11:1-6 [indent=1]11:1 I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4[b] For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached,[/b] or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received,.[/indent] [/quote] Possibly paul is re-itterating that there are many spirits on this planet, but that we are to be of one spirit 'the holy spirit' for it is only the holy spirit whom can save. Paul also may be getting at how the devil and any of it's legions can appear as an angel of false light even to the point of doing a seemingly good thing but only with the intent to stray at a later time. Also there are not two christs but somone may say "surely if you loose weight,exercise,and many other things,surely you will have peace than." These things are ok but it is only the Christ whom can grant a true and lasting peace. The world as you say has been chasing it's tail for a long time never really going forward and never really going back (2 steps forward two steps back) reaching out for salvation in sin and other things over and over again always taking two steps forward and two steps back never actually getting anywhere and not recieving that peace and love we truely desire, sin offers us a temporary solution to our problems and never permanent. And the only one whom can save us from our sins is the Lord Jesus Christ the prince of peace,God made flesh. Edited May 5, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1336224256' post='2427352'] I just assume that when he stops responding to my posts, it means I win. [/quote] I tried that and I got beat! I'm not a psychiatrist but some people love to bring attention on themselves and while they're getting it there's no way that they will stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted May 6, 2012 Author Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1336224256' post='2427352'] I just assume that when he stops responding to my posts, it means I win. [/quote] [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336254395' post='2427448'] I tried that and I got beat! I'm not a psychiatrist but some people love to bring attention on themselves and while they're getting it there's no way that they will stop. [/quote] The idea using 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 as a proof of post resurrection appearances of historical Jesus is entirely wrong and showing impertinent manipulation to the letters of Apostle Paul. Apostle Paul said in his first letter to the Corinthians (15:3-4) ‘…that Christ died for our sins [b]according to the Scriptures[/b], that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day [b]according to the Scriptures[/b],…’. Now, If Apostle Paul is truly referring to the death of this historical Jesus in this letter, what is that ‘[b]scriptures’ [/b]he is referring to considering this letter was written even before the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were composed? First letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians) was written by Apostle Paul at around 50-60 AD. The Gospel according to Matthew was written circa 80-100AD, Mark is 65-80AD, Luke is 80-130AD, and John is 90-120AD ([url="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/"]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/[/url]). Thus, I asked if 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is referring to post resurrection appearances of your historical Jesus, what is that ‘scriptures’ Apostle Paul is saying in his statement ‘…that Christ died for our sins according to the[b] Scriptures[/b], that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the [b]Scriptures[/b],…’. Now, if he is not referring to these four gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it only follow he is not referring to your historical Jesus because (again and I will repeat it again) historical Jesus is just an interpretation of your early fathers using these four gospels as the central basis of their belief in the ‘historical realization of the coming of Christ named Jesus’. Again Apostle Paul said (1 Cor 15:3-6) [indent=1]‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.[/indent] Why Apostle Paul did not say ‘Christ died….and that he was raised on the third day according to Peter, and then to the twelve and then to these five hundred witnesses’ considering these four gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was written sometime later after the ‘oral tradition’ was already heard and in the air as pronounced by your early fathers? (This is what you are telling to the world that ‘oral tradition’ about this historical Jesus comes first before these four gospels). So, why then Apostle Paul did not say ‘Christ died and rose again after three days according to these witnesses’ rather than ‘Christ died and rose again after three days according to the scriptures’? It is written in Isa 53:6ff [indent=1]Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.[/indent] Can you consider the above statement ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures? Edited May 6, 2012 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 The "Scriptures" that Paul keeps referring to are the books in the Old Testament. Aka the Jewish Scriptures. They believed that what we now call the Old Testament contained lots of foreshadowing for Jesus, and by saying "according to the Scriptures" Paul is reaching out to the Jewish Christians in his audience. Most of Paul's letters were written to help correct specific issues in a particular community, so he's going to use tools that each community was familiar with, i.e. the Old Testament and not the Gospels which weren't written yet AND even if they had been wouldn't have the kind of circulation necessary for such references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts