It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A) One person says jesus was crucified on the day before Passover, another says it was the day after Passover.. Both can’t be right.. so one or both are obviously wrong..
B) there was no Roman Empire wide census, where everyone was required to go back to their ancestral home of 1000 years ago.. it is just ridiculous. .
C) there are 2 different genealogies for Joseph.. I don’t see why joseph’s Genealogy should matter, but it is there and wrong..
D) in one account of the crucifixion jesus knows what’s going on and is telling everyone else to calm down and in another he is clueless..
E) half the Pauline letters are known forgeries where “his” cristology changes.. the real Paul was appently pretty pro women in the church.. the forgeries are very anti woman.
F) in one an angel tells the deciples not to leave the city And in another they instantly leave the city..
Now that doesn’t mean there is not still truth there...it just makes all the line by line analysis ridiculous.. If people really wanna know what jesus was like and what he wanted. You go as close to the source and work your way forward..
I have no idea why anyone listens to Paul.. he never even met the guy.. he is the earliest thing we have, but he makes no claims about the life of jesus.. all his info comes from revelations (visions) we don’t believe people who say they have visions today.. why would we believe Paul??
Mark is the earliest accountant of jesus in life. So I think you start there and exclude any later material that disagrees with him, and keep all the material that doesn’t disagree with him.
So you disagree that Erasmus used Latin Vulgate by St.Jerome. Perhaps you could explain this?
Do you mean Vetus Latina or Textus Receptus? Vetus Latina was replaced by standardised Jerome's vulgate after the Council of Trent. Textus Receptus didn't exist until first publication in 1516.
Do you claim LXX ( Septuagint ) wasn't the first translation from Hebrew Tanakh? Could you provide evidence that Vetus Latina or "Old Latin" was not sourced on LXX?
Who else did the translations beside the Church Fathers? Do you think the apostles would translated Classical Archaic Hebrew ( The language of Canaanites ) or Aramaic in the Old Testament?
Do you admit there're differences in Textus Receptus?
Do you agree, God did not dictate what form and language should he preserved his word? Do you agree, verbal transmission was god's other mean to preserve his messages?
Do you agree what are we doing right now is another form of god preserving his word? Do you agree the Bible was meant to be corrupted so that we could discuss, share, debate, justify and come to conclusion for more than 2000 years?
Do you agree, if the Bible is perfect, neither you and Raggedyman, would be stepping in Theology Forum today?
God warned us through Jeremiah 23:16 and Matthew 16:11-12, but He ask us to trust without the autograph? Don't you think it is a contradiction?
You didn't answer my question. So I re-ask again. If you believe God allowed almost all Bible to be corrupted, then why can't you believe God may preserved his words in different way?
My questions was about the contradiction between the number of days and evenings. So which one is true, god created days and evenings in the first day or in the fourth days? Only one statement can be true. Not both of them.
My other question was about the contradiction in chronical order. You have not answer anything.
Which one come first, the man, the tree, the animal or the bird?
Same here. Only one statement can be true.
Do you mean thisἸησοῦς, οῦ,? It's Iésous in Greek.
Do you ignore Exodus 3:14?
Do you agree, the word LORD in capital English letters refer to Hebrew text, יהוה(YHWH) and Greek text κύριος, ( kýrios )? Do you aware none of ancient texts identified and associated Greek ησοῦς, ( Iésous, Jesus ) as יהוה in Hebrew or κύριος ( Lord ) in Greek text?
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
When the time comes in your life when you really need to hear from God of really need His help, God does not care what you call Him.
you----Do you have any Bible verse to prove it? This is Hebrew OT WLC Isaiah 42:8
אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא־אתן ותהלתי לפסילים׃
It means god does not share his glory.
If Semantics were wrongly interpreted to fabricate false claim, do you honestly believe God would not be that petty?
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
If god cannot die, then crucifixion and ressurection were lies or pointless. Don't you think so?
But you claim god cannot die. By becoming flesh, god is feigning death or deceiving. Do you claim dead human god is deceiving us into believing salvation?
Jesus made a lot of parables and allegories, did he not? There are a lot of bible verses but none has sufficient evidences to support the believe that Jesus is god. Do you agree, the doctrine of Jesus as God is not universally agreed even among the various christian denominations? Do you agree Jesus did not come to teach us? Do you believe this;?
Do you agree "godhead" did not exist in "Old Latin", Masoretic, Textus Receptus as well in Hebrew Tanakh? Do you agree the term "godhere" was coined by John Wycliffe to translate three different Koine Greek words?
en.m.wikipedia.org...
You claim Jesus is God. Please explain what do you mean by "SEPARATION from God". How can God "could no longer look on Jesus" when God is Jesus?
But you claim god cannot dies. Therefore, all this suffering was orchestrated hoax to deceit us into believing salvation. The sacrificial lamb was not sacrificed as intended. The sin had not been paid by blood. There was no ressurection because God never die. Do you aware such implication if God did not sacrificing himself as he promised? Surely you can't expect Christian to trust in salvation when God did not deliver his promise, because he is still alive and well in heaven?
Every single bible college and university with a course on the New Testament disagrees with you.. You didn’t debunk anything.. You just said “nah uh”. There are ZERO people who are actually employed as scholars who think there is anything like a word for word correct account of even the original books.. let almond actual history..
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
The Textus Receptus is grammatically correct in the use of Erasmus’s "created” word, and the critical texts of Westtcot and Hort (from which all new bible translation filth flows) is grammatically incorrect.
Erasmus’s “created” word is nothing more than a synonym to fit the text better. Other examples would be words like grey-gray or defence-defense. There is no error, it was simply a synonym for an existing greek word, but Scrivener would never tell you that .
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
I mean the cursives, the vellum, the scraps of parchments that the church had used and believed which WAS the Textus receptus but just not in coined name yet. The evidences from which the “TR” text comes from is older than the complied completed TR manuscripts you know…..and the “old Latin” is part of the Textus receptus. Jeromes’s Vulgate is most certainly not.
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Old Latin did not come from the Septuagint, ever. The only evidence at all of the Septuagint is from 200AD, that’s over 200 years AFTER Christ was born. There is no evidences that the Old Latin came from Septuagint, matter of fact, the Septuagint probably came from the Old Latin, the exact other way around. Both statements have the same amount of proof.
A. The Greek Bible in Latin (Old Latin)
1. Origin. During the first centuries of Christian expansion, the vernacular language of the Mediterranean world was mainly Greek, even in the West. The books of the OT were read in the early Christian churches according to the LXX and the NT in Greek. When the necessity arose—as early as the 2d century in Roman Africa—the Bible was translated into Latin from the Greek. In many places,Tertullian (ca. 160–220) used a Latin version already at his disposal, certain peculiarities of which remained throughout the history of the Latin Bible.
www.spc.rs...
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
The apostles all used Greek, not Aramaic, nor did Jesus speak Aramaic in the gospels. This is ALL hearsay and traditions of (catholic) men. Earlier I stated the catholic church needs the gospels in Aramaic in order to prove Peter is the “ROCK”, because the word Peter in Aramaic is ROCK, but in greek Peter's name is STONE. Rock is the word used for the coming Messiah in the Old Testament. (Deau 32:31 Ps 62:7 Ps 18:2 1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. etc...)
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
and yes, I am claiming the KJV is BETTER than the original manuscripts and autographs. We can get into that later.
Two editions were printed in 1611, later distinguished as the “He” and “She” Bibles because of the variant readings “he” and “she” in the final clause of Ruth 3:15 (“and he went into the city”). Some errors in subsequent editions have become famous.
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Well, I mean….Ex 3:14 is STILL a wild card and not many people know what to do with it. Because God’s name is not “I AM”, nor is it all the many pro-nouns that are used to describe Him like those listed in Isa 9:6. From what I can tell from reading various sources, we do not know the name of God, nor how to pronounce His abbreviated Hebrew consonant only initials He goes by (YHWH) Thus the KJV translators made the only HONEST translational attempt at it by just calling Him LORD.
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
When the time comes in your life when you really need to hear from God of really need His help, God does not care what you call Him.
Luke 23:42 may prove it.
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Moaning a bloody prayer to God without saying His name correct is not “vain” to God. Taking His name in vain is swearing falsely by God’s name. But any kind of praying to God in honest prayer is never taking God’s name in vain, even if you say His name wrong (Which we ALL do, since we don’t know His name, only His name taken for mankind to know, which is Jesus).
This is why converts are baptized in the name of “the Lord Jesus” because He is God:
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Look up in a concordance the many different times the phrase “in the name of” appears in the New Testament….Jesus is almost always the name it is referring too. Jesus is GOD. What God? The YHWH God.
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
God cannot die, but His body can, and His body laid in the tomb for 3 days and nights. But His Spirit went to Hell (paradise) and laid our sins there and then His Spirit came back up and went into His body and He arose. His body died, but a Spirit cannot die. He then went to Heaven and presented His body a living sacrifice for the redemption of all the world’s sins. God accepted it, thank God.
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
There are MANY verses that show Jesus is God. Another topic perhaps? And I disagree about Jesus being God is not universally accepted. I contend it most certainly is accepted amoung the VAST majority that Jesus is God. But this matter is not in debate, this can easily be shown with any type of internet search. Almost all Christians sects believe Jesus to be God. Only devils and wicked spirits believe Jesus is not God:
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
But more than that, in doing my research and thinking harder and harder about the issue, when I (a) came to realize that the Gospels not only attributed these things to him, but also understood him to be adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (Mark 1:9-11), or to have been made the son of God by virtue of the fact that God was literally his father, in that it was the Spirit of God that made the virgin Mary pregnant (Luke 1:35), and (b) realized what “adoption” meant to people in the Roman world (as indicated in a previous post), I finally yielded. These Gospels do indeed think of Jesus as divine. Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons, raise the dead, pronounce divine forgiveness, receive worship together suggests that even for these Gospels Jesus was a divine being, not merely a human.
But in a different sense from John. (And in a different sense from one another.)
In some ways, much of my book is predicated on the idea that when someone says that Jesus is God, you always have to ask “in what sense?” John’s sense is different from Mark’s and Mark’s is different from Luke’s and Luke’s is different from Paul’s and so on.
For Mark, Jesus was adopted to be God’s son at his baptism. Before that, he was a mere mortal. For Luke, Jesus was conceived by God and so was literally God’s son, from the point of his conception. (In Luke Jesus did not exist *prior* to that conception to the virgin – his conception is when he came into existence). For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being – the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things – who became a human. Here he is not born of a virgin and he is not adopted by God at the baptism (neither event is narrated in John – and could not be, given, John’s Christology).
So yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read.
ehrmanblog.org...
originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
God separated His being. God and Man are both composed of BODY, SOUL, and SPIRIT. Animals only have spirits and body. Devils only have spirit, and souls which is why the yare always trying to take over another body to dwell in (demon possession). But man has all three, like GOD, after His “IMAGE”. The spirit powers and gives life to the soul, the soul dwells in the body like a garment or clothing. God simply separated these three aspects.
This is the doctrine of the Trinity. When Jesus took the sins of the world unto His body, His flesh, then God the Father (the Soul) turned away from Him because of Habakkuk 1:13. Believe this if you want, it’s a little much to take in, I know!
LORD = Father
JESUS = SON
CHRIST = Holy Spirit
thus…………………thus the LORD JESUS CHRIST; the full Godhead.
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: EasternShadow
Guessing english isn't your first language...
Good post though... let me help
DO You aware... is not english... "Are you aware" would be correct...
And let me also point out that Jesus was only considered "God" in Johns book... not in any of the Synoptic gospels
A divine being perhaps, but not God... and IF one actually reads his words in Johns book, and not the narrative, HE didn't consider himself God either
But you claim god cannot dies. Therefore, all this suffering was orchestrated hoax to deceit us into believing salvation. The sacrificial lamb was not sacrificed as intended. The sin had not been paid by blood. There was no resurrection because God never die. Do you aware such implication if God did not sacrificing himself as he promised? Surely you can't expect Christian to trust in salvation when God did not deliver his promise, because he is still alive and well in heaven?