Is It Important?

[T-fish]

Viva Cristo Rey!

 

Does that guy know what Jesus' cholesterol numbers were? I'm rather curious.

[reyb]

Something is not really right with the discussion made by Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Craig because, it seems they are trying to prove or disprove the authenticity of historical events by comparing four ‘spiritual books’. How can spiritual books will give them ‘authentic historical truths’ since its purpose is to reveal ‘spiritual truth’?

 

If they really wanted to verify the authenticity of historical events which they thought given to them by these ‘spiritual books’ then, they must verify them (their beliefs in this historical events) by simply gathering physical evidences that will prove their claims and not by comparing four ‘spiritual books’ using their ‘criteria’ which is now the subject of their discussion.

 

What I am saying is something like this. It is written in Matthew 27:52ff

 

‘The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. ‘

 

So, if they really wanted to prove the historicity of this event (and since these resurrected sainst ‘appeared’ to many people) then, they should looked for any ‘evidences’ into order to prove that this event really took place. (As simple as that).

 

Now, my question is this: What is the ‘probability’ that all of them who saw this event will NOT ‘scream’ orally and in writings? (Because it seems they are all very ‘silent’ since I never heard or read anything like this in any historical documents).

 

Please tell them (if you have access to Dr. Ehrman and most especially to Dr. Craig) if they have a book or letter or whatever proving that this event truly took place in our  history.  

Edited March 18, 2013 by reyb

[havok579257]

Something is not really right with the discussion made by Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Craig because, it seems they are trying to prove or disprove the authenticity of historical events by comparing four ‘spiritual books’. How can spiritual books will give them ‘authentic historical truths’ since its purpose is to reveal ‘spiritual truth’?

 

If they really wanted to verify the authenticity of historical events which they thought given to them by these ‘spiritual books’ then, they must verify them (their beliefs in this historical events) by simply gathering physical evidences that will prove their claims and not by comparing four ‘spiritual books’ using their ‘criteria’ which is now the subject of their discussion.

 

What I am saying is something like this. It is written in Matthew 27:52ff

 

‘The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. ‘

 

So, if they really wanted to prove the historicity of this event (and since these resurrected sainst ‘appeared’ to many people) then, they should looked for any ‘evidences’ into order to prove that this event really took place. (As simple as that).

 

Now, my question is this: What is the ‘probability’ that all of them who saw this event will NOT ‘scream’ orally and in writings? (Because it seems they are all very ‘silent’ since I never heard or read anything like this in any historical documents).

 

Please tell them (if you have access to Dr. Ehrman and most especially to Dr. Craig) if they have a book or letter or whatever proving that this event truly took place in our  history.  

 

 

why should anyone answer your questions reyb when you avoid questions thrown at you.  knight and me have thrown numerous questions to you and you either refuse to answer them or give none answers.  its rude to expect people to answer your questions when you refuse to answer questions asked of you.

[reyb]

why should anyone answer your questions reyb when you avoid questions thrown at you.  knight and me have thrown numerous questions to you and you either refuse to answer them or give none answers.  its rude to expect people to answer your questions when you refuse to answer questions asked of you.

 

What 'questions' you are talking about? Let us settle your problem here because I really cannot imagine why you are always insisting on that kind of useless accusations (that I am not answering your questions). 

Edited March 18, 2013 by reyb

[havok579257]

1. do you attend a church service and if so what denomination is it?

2. who taught you your belief system of the historical Jesus?

3. do you believe in all the gospels and them being an accurate, historical writing of of Jesus life here on earth?

4. do you believe everything in the gospels happened and if not then are the 12 apostles real or not?  cause they met paul and you seem to believe paul is real. 

5. How do you reconcile the fact that if the gospels are just stories and not real events why do they talk about Peter who then reference the stories in the gospels later oin in the bible?

6. what denomination/religion are you?

 

 

these are 6 very simple questions reyb.  questions you have refused to answer.  so if your really being honest about answering these questions, then answer these 6 questions for me. 

[reyb]

1. do you attend a church service and if so what denomination is it?

 

This is my answer to your first question.

 

I was once a Catholic but now I do not belong to any church or religious group and therefore, I do not attend any religous gathering and offering. But, if anybody will invite me to their church (whether it is Catholic or Protestant or Islam ...etc)  and I saw I can help them then, I have freedom to attend.

 

I do not have any creeds, sacraments, rituals, and offerings to follow. As I explained in my previous post, ‘God do not need anything from us’  and therefore in my eyes, prayers and sacrifices offered to God are done by idolaters only while for us (or for me in particular) - he who seeks and find Jesus makes his life complete. He doesn't need to perform any offering since faith in Jesus Christ is more than enough to give him everything. My prayers is for us. My prayers are not litany but actions in doing what I know I should do to others and to myself. (Like what I am doing in this forum, today and at this moment). And if ever I prayed to God I have nothing to say but 'sorry and thank you, Lord'. (As simple as that).

 

Apostle Paul said something like this in Phil 3:4-9. He said and I quote.....

 

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

 

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith…

 

..end of quote.

 

[I will post my 2nd answer later].

Edited March 18, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

......

2. who taught you your belief system of the historical Jesus?

.......

 

When I was still a Catholic, I really accept and believe that this historical Jesus is the Christ of God and that is, without doubt.  Of course, I learned this Catholic faith from my parents and from almost everybody because I was born in a Catholic dominated Christian Country and I have it for my entire 33 years.

 

But after ‘I see God in my flesh’ everything changes. Now, I realize ‘revelation from God’ does not simply bring true knowledge but it also exposes lies, and one of them is the question of the existence of this historical Jesus. How do I know that this historical Jesus is a lie or a non-existing person? Because I saw the real Jesus Christ.  To make my statement more precise; How do I know that this historical Jesus is a lie? Because I believe I truly saw the real One. I said ‘I believe’ not because I am not very sure of what I saw. But because, when ‘He is in me’ or ‘I am in Him’ at that moment, I was blind. I was blinded not because of the Light but because my mind lives in darkness for too long and then, I was suddenly exposed in his greatness. I only realize that He is my Lord after He left me. Thus, it is written (‘John 16:7) ‘It is for your good that I am going away’.

 

This is the miracle which will remain in my memory forever - seeing my body turns into another body which is not mine. This is the glorified body which was seen and shared by all God’s witnessess from all generations of humanity. This is the same body He offered to all of us to eat as it written in  John 6:55-56 ‘For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.’

 

Who taught me that this historical Jesus is a non existing person? No one.

 

I only come into realization that this historical Jesus is non-existing Jesus Christ because as I have said ‘Truth exposes lies’. Am I now saying that these four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are full of lies? Of course not. You must realize. This historical Jesus is just a ‘belief’ in referrence to the Jesus mentioned in the scripture and not the reality itself. It is just a belief rather than reality.

Edited March 18, 2013 by reyb

[T-fish]

If the historical Jesus is just a "belief" as you put it, then how do you know you saw Jesus (iesum, jesu, yeshua, joshua) in the Flesh?

You would have to know the historical Jesus to know that you saw the "now" Jesus wouldn't you?

 

Jesus is God, so he's history and present and future.

The God who was, is, and shall ever be util the end of all ages.

And it's the Scripture that tells us to have faith in Jesus the Christ.

 

I think you need to learn to decipher satan's voice from God's voice. Satan is smart and knows many scriptures. Satan also draws you away from the Church into a rabbit hole where you can meet the queen of hearts and lose your head.

 

Don't be fooled or play the fool.

Tolle lege!

 

[reyb]

3. do you believe in all the gospels and them being an accurate, historical writing of of Jesus life here on earth?

 

Your question was tainted with bias toward your belief and then, you are asking me whether these four books can be trusted in knowing the real Jesus Christ or not.

 

What I am saying is something like this. If I say these four books is not referring to your historical Jesus’ life on earth. Then, you will say ‘I do not accept the trustworthiness of these four books’.  On the other hand, if I say I trust that these four books will bring its reader to real Jesus Christ (which is really my position) then, you will say ‘why do I deny the truthfulness of the existence of your historical Jesus?

 

Thus, I said your question was tainted with bias toward your belief because you are already considering that these four books are referring to your historical Jesus.

 

It is only by your traditions claiming that these four books are referring to your historical Jesus. Which is in the same way, Marcion and other Christians who are branded by your early fathers as ‘heretics’, believes and claim that these books are referring to their kind Jesus (who do not have human flesh) and not to your early father’s type of Jesus.

 

These four ‘spiritual’ books are not referring to your historical Jesus because these four books are ‘Christian literature’ rather than historical documents or biography of your historical Jesus Christ.

 

My answer to your question no 3 is ‘No’. 

[reyb]

.....

4. do you believe everything in the gospels happened and if not then are the 12 apostles real or not?  cause they met paul and you seem to believe paul is real. 

.....

 

In my previous post, I bring to your attention about these four sacred books, which you now called Gospels, are actually Christian literatures. They are something to read, memorize and meditate upon to know who Jesus is. As you can see both Dr. Erhman and Dr. Craig, agreed that these four books are read independently by different and separate groups of Christians during the early days of Christianity. Therefore, this Jesus, Mary, Peter and others are not real persons because they are just ‘characters’ in that story while the real Jesus Christ will soon be made known to them by God himself.

 

Obviously, you will not agree with me since you looked at this literature as ‘biograhpy’ of your historical Jesus. Therefore, our best way to know if your claim is true, is by gathering physical evidences about this claim, and you will found out, gathering proofs about the existence of all them who are supposed to be ‘real persons’ are very problematic and if ever you found one like Herod, you will be very disappointed for he never become a follower neither see or wrote about Him.

 

On the other hand, although I said Peter in the ‘Synoptic Gospels’ is just a character in the story (and therefore not a real person),  nonetheless it does not necessarily mean there is no real person named Peter. But this Peter is definitely not the same Peter portrayed in the Gospel because in what way the very person chosen 'personally' by Jesus Christ, to lead and take care of his Church, is a hypocrite man and do not act ‘in line with the truth of the Gospel’? (please see Galatians 1:11-14).

 

In the course of time, we now know that Marcion compiled his own bible to give emphasis to his belief saying who Jesus was. (A kind of Jesus who do not have a 'human body').  It is only logical to think Catholics thru your early fathers did the same thing too otherwise, why they need to choose among these sacred books or letters using their own criteria and compiled them into one Bible if they are not bias too? This Catholic belief given emphasis on this compiled sacred letters is called ‘Salvation History’. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_History)

 

Why I am telling this? Because I want you to know that the arrangements of books made by your early fathers in the Bible, although they obviously done it with the intention of ‘Chronology’ of events, does not reflect the date and time when these books are written. So, do not think that the ‘Gospels’ (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are older than that of the letters of Apostle Paul. (please see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1thessalonians.html).

 

So my answer to this question is: All of them (Jesus, Mary and others including the 12 disciples) are just simple 'characters' in these 'narrations' and not real people, and this Peter met by Paul in Antioch is not the same person in the narrative story. On the other hand, Apostle Paul, Luke and all God's witnesses are 'human beings' like us. But Jesus Christ is definitely not a 'human being' for He has a body which is very different from all of us. He has a 'glorified' body forever and in all time.

Edited March 20, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

5. How do you reconcile the fact that if the gospels are just stories and not real events why do they talk about Peter who then reference the stories in the gospels later oin in the bible?

 

This is precisely the problem of Catholics. They considered Peter of Matthew 16:16 as first Pope without considering Peter of Galatians 2:11-14. Peter of Galatians cannot be the same Peter in Matthew 16:16 because as it written, (see Gal 2:11-16)

 

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

 

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

 

15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

 

So, in what way this Peter becomes a leader of true chosen people of God if Apostle Paul ‘reprimanded’ him of being a hypocrite and not knowing the way of salvation - which is only thru faith in Jesus Christ?

 

Of course, Catholics claimed Peter of Matthew 16:16 was their first Pope. But how he becomes 'Pope' is not clear except by saying ‘traditions says he is and therefore he was’. (see list of popes in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm).

 

The reason is very clear since they are claiming - that Church (in Matthew 16:16) is the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself  and therefore Peter must be their first pope. (But Peter in Matthew is not a real person but a 'character' in that story) 

 

My answer to this question: It is unreconciliable.

Edited March 20, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

6. what denomination/religion are you?

 

None.

 

We are all children of God and all of us are forgiven thru the death of Jesus Christ. But, not all of us will sleep. Now, if you really wanted to become like us, seek the only Christ of God and then, you will understand why it was said 'they are all sleep in Christ'. (Again, I am not referring to your historical Jesus).

 

 

Edited March 20, 2013 by reyb

[KnightofChrist]

COMBO BREAKER!!!!

 

[KnightofChrist]

COMBO BREAKER!!!!

 

[T-fish]

Maybe you should read some Tacitus or Joseph the Flava flav