Catholicism

[havok579257]

Thank you for your info. By the way, who among them accept Jesus as the Christ of God? Do not tell me all your 'witnesses' are non believer? Anyway, TY again I will search for them in internet.

 

 

so please tell me how you and only you are able to determine that factual history is a lie?  Just curious here.  Cause your claiming factual history is a lie, a fabrication.  So how are you smarter than scholors, then 2000 years of men who came before you?  So since Luke told a story what about Matthew, Mark, John, Peter?  All these mention a real Jesus?  Are these all stories also?  Do you believe the entire bible to be a made up story?

 

Reyb, here is a simple question and let's see if you answer it or if your refuse to.  I'll make it real simple: Do you attend a church service and if so which denomination of christianity is it and did you make up these beliefs on yoru own or did someone show them to you?  This is a simple question.  If you refuse to answer then I know your not here to talk and just want to shout talking points.

[reyb]

so please tell me how you and only you are able to determine that factual history is a lie?  Just curious here.  Cause your claiming factual history is a lie, a fabrication.  So how are you smarter than scholors, then 2000 years of men who came before you?  So since Luke told a story what about Matthew, Mark, John, Peter?  All these mention a real Jesus?  Are these all stories also?  Do you believe the entire bible to be a made up story?

 

Reyb, here is a simple question and let's see if you answer it or if your refuse to.  I'll make it real simple: Do you attend a church service and if so which denomination of christianity is it and did you make up these beliefs on yoru own or did someone show them to you?  This is a simple question.  If you refuse to answer then I know your not here to talk and just want to shout talking points.

 

 

Again, I will repeat what I said many times. Luke's letter is just a 'story' in a form of historical reality. He made that 'story' about the coming of Christ in order for anyone (us who will read his letter) to see Jesus in the same way they (all God's witnesses like Moses, Abraham, Jonah, Apostle Paul, Luke and ...many others) saw Him through God’s revelation and not through our talent in understanding that ‘story’.

 

Now, this Jesus you are telling is just a Character in that story made by Luke but the real one is when 'God reveal His Christ' to you using that  'story'. That is why I said, there is no historical Jesus because that Jesus is just a character in Luke's story and you will never find him in reality.The real one is ‘beneath’ that story. Your understanding of Luke’s letter is at the ‘outside’ of its story but there is a message in its ‘inside’. Again, there is no coming of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago because that ‘coming’ is just a story and not a reality. The true Jesus Christ comes when God reveal his Christ to you.

 

Now regading ‘documentation’ pertaining to this historical Jesus (your Jesus) outside of written testimony of witnessess or scripture. All of them are fabrication made by your early fathers like letter between King Agbarus of Edessa and Jesus, and Josephus’ letter. Now, if you do not believe me that they are fabrication then, tell me what is that ‘documentation’ you are saying. Let us see it together. Promise I am an open minded person and I will accept your Jesus if I can see them without the hint of being altered or fabricated in comparison with the letter of God’s witnessess themselves.

 

 

reyb, on 11 Mar 2013 - 18:05, said:

It is written in Matt 27:51-53

 

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

If Catholic claim is true about ‘historicity’ of these events, do you really think Josephus -  if it is true that he wrote about Jesus-  will ever, ever, ever missed this ‘resurrection of saints’ scandal? Cannot you imagine the ‘scandal’ it will bring to them?  Dead people (not one but many people) risen from cemetery!  What kind of ‘present’ historian or non-historian will ever miss this event? Are you saying all of them never wrote about this event?

 

And another thing, why all your early fathers never mention about this ‘resurrection of saints’ during their discussion with these heretics (since this heretics do not accept their ‘human’ Jesus). If I were in Ignatius shoes they will surely be ashamed of me even without too much discussion. I will simply hold their hands and then, we will go to Jerusalem and then, I will let them discuss and debate with these ‘resurrected saints’ themselves. Let us see who will win.

 

Anyway, you are correct. If anyone can accept this ‘resurrection of saints’ as historical event even without any recorded physical evidences then, you can really accept anything even lies.

Edited March 13, 2013 by reyb

[havok579257]

And what about matthew, mark and john? Are these just stories also? What about the acts of apostles? Is that a story also. If you say yes then your saying paul is not real but if you say yes then your saying either peter lied or half of acts is a stroy and half is true. Reyb your logic makes absolutely no sense. There are so many references in the bible to a real JESUS that the only way you get deny that is pick and choose what books of the bible you want to ignore and follow. Sounds like martin luthers thinking to me. Also what about the Shroud? Is that a not real also even though you can go see it right now? Also do you contend that all christians from 33ad until you are wrong?

[reyb]

 

Sorry double post

Edited March 15, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

...

Edited March 15, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

And what about matthew, mark and john? Are these just stories also? What about the acts of apostles? Is that a story also. If you say yes then your saying paul is not real but if you say yes then your saying either peter lied or half of acts is a stroy and half is true. Reyb your logic makes absolutely no sense. There are so many references in the bible to a real JESUS that the only way you get deny that is pick and choose what books of the bible you want to ignore and follow. Sounds like martin luthers thinking to me. Also what about the Shroud? Is that a not real also even though you can go see it right now? Also do you contend that all christians from 33ad until you are wrong?

 

There are many issues about these four Gospels and  its writers. Since you are trying to argue that John and Matthew are the true writers of these books and they are the same ‘disciples’ of Jesus while he still here on earth and therefore, proving that his coming is a ‘historical reality. I think you must see this lecture. (http://avaxhome.bz/ebooks/religion/New_Testament-Bart_D_Ehrman.html).

 

There will be a bigger questions if these gospels are not ‘stories’  because it is either the writers of these Four Gospels are not having the same Holy Spirit (since there are discrepancies in their accounts) or God’s revelation itself is not ‘perfect in every way’ as seen by these disciples (Matthew and John).

 

Anyway, I will prepare a better presentation on this issue. Thank you for your input since you give me  something to think while I am doing my letter. I hope I can do it well.

 

So, please see this first https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6LqkeUag8

Edited March 15, 2013 by reyb

[KnightofChrist]

I guess Apo and I are not going to receive answers to our questions, even the reply to havok is eh. Oh well.

[reyb]

I guess Apo and I are not going to receive answers to our questions, even the reply to havok is eh. Oh well.

 

How can I prove to you that I am a witness of Christ?

[KnightofChrist]

How can I prove to you that I am a witness of Christ?

 

You can start by answering the very simple and straight forward questions that Apo and I put forth to you. I doubt you will though, as I'm almost certain both Apo, and I as well as others have asked you very similar questions before, and they went unanswered. But so long as you do not answer I will hound you like the dogs of hell in every thread you post in, redirecting you back to this thread, until you do give a straight answer to simple questions. Or I won't depends on if I care anymore, may just stick with posting stupid videos and pictures.
 

[reyb]

You can start by answering the very simple and straight forward questions that Apo and I put forth to you. I doubt you will though, as I'm almost certain both Apo, and I as well as others have asked you very similar questions before, and they went unanswered. But so long as you do not answer I will hound you like the dogs of hell in every thread you post in, redirecting you back to this thread, until you do give a straight answer to simple questions. Or I won't depends on if I care anymore, may just stick with posting stupid videos and pictures.
 

Can you please put it here? I do not get it?  (copy and paste it here).

[KnightofChrist]

What I'm saying is very simple Reyb, after today anytime you make a new thread, and for every new page in a old or new thread you post in, I will repeat the following.

 

===

 

When will you be answering these questions Reyb?

 

When you saw the Lord Jesus Christ what happened? Did you fall at His as dead?

 

 

But did you actually fall down as if dead? Did your hair turn white as snow? Were you struck with fear? What did His face look like?

 

 

Prove to me that you saw Jesus.

 

 

[Apotheoun]

How can I prove to you that I am a witness of Christ?

Clearly - from your evasive behavior - you cannot provide any evidence that you have seen Christ, and so you have absolutely no credibility.

[Apotheoun]

There are many issues about these four Gospels and  its writers. Since you are trying to argue that John and Matthew are the true writers of these books and they are the same ‘disciples’ of Jesus while he still here on earth and therefore, proving that his coming is a ‘historical reality. I think you must see this lecture. (http://avaxhome.bz/ebooks/religion/New_Testament-Bart_D_Ehrman.html).

 

There will be a bigger questions if these gospels are not ‘stories’  because it is either the writers of these Four Gospels are not having the same Holy Spirit (since there are discrepancies in their accounts) or God’s revelation itself is not ‘perfect in every way’ as seen by these disciples (Matthew and John).

 

Anyway, I will prepare a better presentation on this issue. Thank you for your input since you give me  something to think while I am doing my letter. I hope I can do it well.

 

So, please see this first https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6LqkeUag8

Why should I care what Bart Ehrman thinks? There are plenty of biblical scholars (past and present) who disagree with him. I suppose that Dr. Ehrman's opinions might trouble a Protestant, but if you reject the whole notion of "sola scriptura" then it follows that you are not going to be impacted in the same way. Do I believe the Gospel accounts relate the truth about Christ, His ministry, His death, resurrection, and ascension? Yes, and my own studies of the papyrus and manuscript sources reveal that the New Testament text is reliable, that is, that it has not undergone constant revision, but has remained stable since the early second century. 

 

Reyb, if you accept the views of Dr. Ehrman it follows that it is incumbent upon you to cease and desist from quoting sacred scripture (something that you do in a lot of your posts). I mean if you accept Ehrman's viewpoint you are ultimately quoting a worthless text, so why waste your time? 

 

Now let us get back to the real issue that needs clarification: What proof do you have that you have seen Christ? Please provide it so that I - and others here at Phatmass - can examine it to determine its authenticity. Thank you.

[reyb]

Clearly - from your evasive behavior - you cannot provide any evidence that you have seen Christ, and so you have absolutely no credibility.

 

First, it is not for me to decide whether you will believe me or not. I said before, I will do my own testimony but it does not mean to convince anyone to believe me as such because I am not promoting myself  in doing it but my Lord Jesus Christ. It will bring them to Christ if they will seek for Him using that letter but it does not mean I will convince or force anyone if they do not want to believe me or read it. And if anyone see my Lord thru that letter then and only then, I have my price of having someone truly believing in me that I am a true witness of my Lord.

 

You said I am not a credible witness. Well, It is your choice not mine. For example, do you consider Prophet Muhammad as a true prophet of God? But for me, he is a true prophet of God. Now, did he force me or convice me?

 

The decision is yours my friend and not mine.

Edited March 15, 2013 by reyb

[Apotheoun]

First, it is not for me to decide whether you will believe me or not. I said before, I will do my own testimony but it does not mean to convince anyone because I am not promoting myself  in doing it but my Lord Jesus Christ. It will bring them to Christ if they will seek for Him using that letter but it does not mean I will convince or force anyone if they do not want to believe me or read it.

You have provided no evidence to back up your claims to have seen Christ. Until you do that it is really quite impossible for me to accept your testimony.