I can’t read Spanish but I know and can understand when and what Tebas has opened his fat mouth
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 27,383
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
There is no mention in Matthew 11 and in Mark 14 it saysOff the top of my head Matthew 11 and the below in Mark 14 are two examples:
But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
“61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven…
so he did not say he was the messiah.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Thanks.Judaism talks of a Messiah and the Old Testament is gearing towards this messiah coming. Jesus and his followers claimed he was it but there was a slight but significant change in his supposed teachings, than what the Old Testament taught (the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible and both Jews and Christians still today consider it holy), in places.
The New Testament claims he is fulfilling the Old Testament and I suppose you could say adding context to the law.
The vast majority of Jews say he wasn’t the messiah (que monty python jokes) and that Christianity is a significant divergence away from Judaism, and they reject the New Testament - the Jesus bit of the Bible.
The vast majority of Christian’s believe Jesus is the prophecy of the Old Testament manifest and that he came to complete and clarify the Old Testament.
Historically, for many years, the vast majority of Christians were ethnic Jews. The Romans saw them as a Jewish sect and when Rome experienced the fire, Nero did what many European leaders have done throughout history and scapegoated a Jewish minority… Christians.
So they are deeply linked but it depends which standing point you’re coming from.
That’s pretty much my reading of it.
Just didn’t get the modern day, Jewish Christians existing still, thing.
As you say, Jews don’t believe in the validity of New Testament while it’s central to Christianity.
Depends what version you are reading but what does “Christ” translate into and mean?There is no mention in Matthew 11 and in Mark 14 it says
“61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven…
so he did not say he was the messiah.
I would imagine Jews for Jesus argue that they’re following Paul’s instruction to keep traditions of Judaism if you’ve always practiced them.Thanks.
That’s pretty much my reading of it.
Just didn’t get the modern day, Jewish Christians existing still, thing.
As you say, Jews don’t believe in the validity of New Testament while it’s central to Christianity.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,835
How many centuries after Jesus supposedly lived were Matthew & Mark literally quoting this nonsense?Off the top of my head Matthew 11 and the below in Mark 14 are two examples:
But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
0 centuries if you want to be accurate.How many centuries after Jesus supposedly lived were Matthew & Mark literally quoting this nonsense?
It was the same century just several decades after.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,835
Did you say “accurate”?? :/)0 centuries if you want to be accurate.
It was the same century just several decades after.
So, quotes, let’s say decades later, about a mystical miracle worker who was the Son of God…another mystical miracle worker!
Unbelievable, really, isn’t it?
You’ve misunderstood. I meant if you want to be accurate at how many centuries after Jesus lived he was quoted in the gospels it was 0 centuries… well 0.3/0.4/0.5 etc.Did you say “accurate”?? :/)
So, quotes, let’s say decades later, about a mystical miracle worker who was the Son of God…another mystical miracle worker!
Unbelievable, really, isn’t it?
Mark was about 30 or so years after he lived and the other gospels followed.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,835
I understood the time between “events” and the “quotations” being recorded for posterity.You’ve misunderstood. I meant if you want to be accurate at how many centuries after Jesus lived he was quoted in the gospels it was 0 centuries… well 0.3/0.4/0.5 etc.
Mark was about 30 or so years after he lived and the other gospels followed.
Sadly, I think the whole grand delusion is the fleecing of weak mind by those that seek to control them and their behavior, through fear, intimidation, and the threat of eternal damnation.
All seems a little silly when you step back and give it any serious thought, don’t you think?
Marklr
Well-Known Member
A LITTLE silly? I can't believe (actually, i can) that these religions have been so prominent over the years. How influential. ...yet BS...The give away is in the very first chapter of the bible...the Earth was created before the sun!I understood the time between “events” and the “quotations” being recorded for posterity.
Sadly, I think the whole grand delusion is the fleecing of weak mind by those that seek to control them and their behavior, through fear, intimidation, and the threat of eternal damnation.
All seems a little silly when you step back and give it any serious thought, don’t you think?
Just curious - but would you say that your writing in this way is an example of someone who has a strong mind?I understood the time between “events” and the “quotations” being recorded for posterity.
Sadly, I think the whole grand delusion is the fleecing of weak mind by those that seek to control them and their behavior, through fear, intimidation, and the threat of eternal damnation.
All seems a little silly when you step back and give it any serious thought, don’t you think?
MaineDAWG2008
Well-Known Member
did he say he was god though?you are right to a point, but the gospel attributed to john(written maybe early 2nd century), the jesus in this version has no problem saying he is god, he is constantly is saying it i.e 10:30 and should have been stoned to death (they did try but not very hard it appears as he talks to them and they seem to stop)
which incidentally is in complete opposition to the synoptics
"i and the father are one".... to me thats quite vague and could have multiple meanings. Context is important IMO. Jesus never spoke in ambiguous words. Id expected him to say, I am God in flesh. Or pray to me. He never did either of the two.
Another argument, when he was about to be crucified he prayed to his father. Take this cup away from me. Why would he pray to god if he was god?
And there are multiple verses where he says "I go to my god and your god".
Hence the confusion and different versions.
andyhinch
Well-Known Member
That’s possibly because they were all made up years after the fact ? Just a thought.did he say he was god though?
"i and the father are one".... to me thats quite vague and could have multiple meanings. Context is important IMO. Jesus never spoke in ambiguous words. Id expected him to say, I am God in flesh. Or pray to me. He never did either of the two.
Another argument, when he was about to be crucified he prayed to his father. Take this cup away from me. Why would he pray to god if he was god?
And there are multiple verses where he says "I go to my god and your god".
Hence the confusion and different versions.
I don’t agree with your 2nd paragraph.I understood the time between “events” and the “quotations” being recorded for posterity.
Sadly, I think the whole grand delusion is the fleecing of weak mind by those that seek to control them and their behavior, through fear, intimidation, and the threat of eternal damnation.
All seems a little silly when you step back and give it any serious thought, don’t you think?
It has certainly been used for that, both by the church and kings/queens/governments etc. but this originally started as a small sect or cult following that was a million miles from power and didn’t seek to overthrow the Roman or Jewish authorities.
Regarding timing, Luke states to begin with and is honest that he’s copied from other documents that came well before his. Paul writes in about 50-55AD to a church to follow the “scripture” he’s given them in reference to Jesus. I think there were documents floating around just after the fact.
The thing that makes it hardest to believe is obviously the miracles and supernatural events but also some of the inconsistencies.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
It sounds like people back then didn’t really understand what he was saying to them, as most of it was open to interpretation and different understandings.did he say he was god though?
"i and the father are one".... to me thats quite vague and could have multiple meanings. Context is important IMO. Jesus never spoke in ambiguous words. Id expected him to say, I am God in flesh. Or pray to me. He never did either of the two.
Another argument, when he was about to be crucified he prayed to his father. Take this cup away from me. Why would he pray to god if he was god?
And there are multiple verses where he says "I go to my god and your god".
Hence the confusion and different versions.
A bit like Arfur.
Jesus never calls himself God directly in the Gospels but others do, mostly in John.did he say he was god though?
"i and the father are one".... to me thats quite vague and could have multiple meanings. Context is important IMO. Jesus never spoke in ambiguous words. Id expected him to say, I am God in flesh. Or pray to me. He never did either of the two.
Another argument, when he was about to be crucified he prayed to his father. Take this cup away from me. Why would he pray to god if he was god?
And there are multiple verses where he says "I go to my god and your god".
Hence the confusion and different versions.
He does however give one or two clues, such as saying “I AM” - it’s written in capitals in the Bible I’ve studied at home anyway - which is the quote in the Old Testament directly from Mount Sinai from God to Moses. So he’s quoting God when referencing himself which is peculiar.
It’s never more than a few hints until we reach John and then the author and Thomas go whole hog and call him God.
I can see why Trinityism took off by reading it.
Sorry Arfur this made me laugh.It sounds like people back then didn’t really understand what he was saying to them, as most of it was open to interpretation and different understandings.
A bit like Arfur.
You’re right though, the whole Bible is a bunch of confused Jews in the New Testament.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Arfur is too chilled to take offence.Sorry Arfur this made me laugh.
You’re right though, the whole Bible is a bunch of confused Jews in the New Testament.
Oh, I can get rip roaringly wound up - one of the ‘benefits’ of reading this thread - but then it’s a question of how to be with that. Now we ARE getting into Kung Fu Panda territory, lmaoArfur is too chilled to take offence.