nice work breaking that down. i wish you wouldve gotten responses, could've been fun.

Gday,

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
nice work breaking that down. i wish you wouldve gotten responses, could've been fun.

Yah,
apologists insist we have numerous personal eye-witness accounts of a historical Jesus (e.g. Myrtales Instinct.)

But when we examine the facts, we find that is NOT TRUE at all !

There is NOT ONE (authentic) claim to have met any historical Jesus in ALL the CHRISTIAN writings !

The alleged god-man who FOUNDED their religion - but NOT ONE Christian is on record as personally meeting him.


K.

I don't have my John's mixed up at all. John the Baptist came first. He pointed out who Jesus is and gave testimony and that testimony was recorded. You have a problem with how it was recorded and by whom. Get over it. You don't have to believe it - free will ! I'm not here to sway you. I'm here to give my opinion based on, not just things I've read but experiences as well. Am I obligated to provide you links or to tell you of my experiences? Absolutely not.

The fourth book is the Gospel of John. This is the account of the beloved disciple, who was taught the mysteries of the kingdom and that is why it is so different compared to the first three. I've read that most scholars think it is the least important of the four but they are wrong. If you would spend just half the amount of time looking into why this could be so, instead of trying to disprove Jesus historically - you would be at least opening your mind instead of closing doors.

There are literally thousands of NDE's on line free for you to read at your leisure. Many people have encountered Jesus in the light. And I'm of the opinion, that this was even predicted in the Book of Daniel, where people would travel to and fro and knowledge would be increased.

Since you singled me out, let me be very clear, that I could give a rat's ass what you believe and how you come to your conclusions, but if you want to know the real truth you need to seriously consider taking off that skeptics hat and take a new look at the Word of God. You drip with negativity, when God is nothing but goodness.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by Myrtales Instinct]

Another link to sale a video. Do not the Mods frown upon this?

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

Gday,

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
I don't have my John's mixed up at all. John the Baptist came first. He pointed out who Jesus is and gave testimony and that testimony was recorded. You have a problem with how it was recorded and by whom. Get over it.

No problem.
Just pointing out the fact that John the Baptists did not leave any writings of his own - that's the subject of this thread.

Which is why we know he did not leave any 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus.

Anyway-
how do you explain the fact the the actual WORDS of GOD (allegedly) at the Baptism were CHANGED by scribes?

Early MSS and writers have God saying :
"This is my beloved son, this day have I begotten thee"

Later scribes had to change this to :
"This is my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased"

That shows how reliable these books are - completely UNreliable. Scribes can change even the alleged words of God when they feel like it !

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
You don't have to believe it - free will ! I'm not here to sway you. I'm here to give my opinion based on, not just things I've read but experiences as well. Am I obligated to provide you links or to tell you of my experiences? Absolutely not.

No,
but if you want to answer THIS post, you'll have to cite 1st hand writing claiming to have met Jesus personally.

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
The fourth book is the Gospel of John. This is the account of the beloved disciple, who was taught the mysteries of the kingdom and that is why it is so different compared to the first three. I've read that most scholars think it is the least important of the four but they are wrong. If you would spend just half the amount of time looking into why this could be so, instead of trying to disprove Jesus historically - you would be at least opening your mind instead of closing doors.

G.John does not contain any 1st hand claims to have met Jesus.
It has a passage (which was added later) in which someone claims 'THIS is the one' .. 'HIS word is true'...

Not 1st hand at all.

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
There are literally thousands of NDE's on line free for you to read at your leisure. Many people have encountered Jesus in the light. And I'm of the opinion, that this was even predicted in the Book of Daniel, where people would travel to and fro and knowledge would be increased.

What about the NDEs in which people see Buddha?
Or Krishna? Or Xenu?
Hmmm?

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
Since you singled me out, let me be very clear, that I could give a rat's ass what you believe and how you come to your conclusions, but if you want to know the real truth you need to seriously consider taking off that skeptics hat and take a new look at the Word of God. You drip with negativity, when God is nothing but goodness.

So, you have plenty to preach,
but
not one single 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Wasn't Peter one of Jesus desciples, and he was contemporary (lived at the same time) as Paul/Saul. Paul lived at the same time as Peter and argued with him about whether the Gospel was intended for Jews alone or to include the Gentiles.

Paul mentioned people called 'Cephas' and 'Peter'. Later Christians think they are the same person. Paul does not defer to Peter or Cephas, and does not say they ever met Jesus - he specifally says he learned about Jesus 'from no man'. We don't have any authentic writings from Peter or Cephas.

There is no connection to a historical Jesus there at all.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
The debunkers never mention that connection, and what do they make of Paul's letters, and of his experience, and testimony..

Paul's testimony?
He never met a historical Jesus.
Nor mentions anyone else who ever did.

Just people who had VISIONS of a Risen Christ Jesus.


K.

I've never meet a "Jesus". But I have meet the father, and have been given understanding. It was an experience and when it happened I knew the father was within me, and I understood many things.

When I had the experience, I was no where near a church, and disliked organized religion very much. I still do. A few months after my experience, I started to come across a few Jesus quotes. I was dumbfounded at what they were saying. The first one I read was:

John 14:20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I couldn't believe it, he was exactly right. I've known many Christians, been to many churches. Never was anything like this told to me. It was always "accept Jesus", and seeing who could say the nicest thing possible about Jesus and how great he was, mixed in with a large dose of hypocrisy. But it was exactly right.

In fact, John 14 completely describes what I experienced. And when I read Jesus, I see all the understandings I learned. I know for myself that what he is saying is true.

So I don't know Jesus, but I can recognize the father within him. I know he speaks of understandings and wisdom that only come from the father. And no man can give you those.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me at all if the "historical Jesus" actually exists. At all. It's not even an important question in things. Either way, it's just a story to you. And even if there was no "historical Jesus", whoever wrote that story certainly knew the truth and knew the father, and it shows.

So it doesn't matter. Arguing and even worrying about if Jesus is literally real or not is about like arguing over if Neo and the machines are literally real. It doesn't matter what side of that argument you are on, you missed the entire point and real truth of the movie.

It's all about the understanding. Understanding can not be told, it can only be expressed. If you are arguing over the literal - on either side of it, then you are just listening. You can't hear the real words, you can't hear and you have no real clue what is being said or talked about.

Honestly, I don't find it that hard to believe that someone like Jesus lived. Someone obviously lived that could think of the story if nothing else.

I'm not saying go to church or anything. I am not a Christian. But try focusing on what is important. How about debating the principles and understandings he gives, rather than worthless debates of trying to prove if someone 2000 years ago lived or not? Either way, it's just a story as is all of history you weren't there for.

What is it that Jesus teaches and does that you think is bad/wrong? Lets talk about that. Those are things we can apply to our lives in a helpful way.

Stop trying to validate your own beliefs to yourself. This is a thread about historical figures who actually met a historical Jesus.

If you aren't one of them, and can't suggest anyone who is, then it's not really relevant for you to post your "enlightenment", is it?

I'd just like to add, St Peter is my favourite, only because of how dismissive Jesus is of him.

"Hallo, my name's Simon!"
"Hmm...I shall call you...Peter."
"Er...no, it's Simon..."
"Sorry, Peter, did you say something?"
"...no sir."

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
Stop trying to validate your own beliefs to yourself. This is a thread about historical figures who actually met a historical Jesus.

If you aren't one of them, and can't suggest anyone who is, then it's not really relevant for you to post your "enlightenment", is it?

What's the insult for?

The truth is, I have never meet a being going by the name of Jesus. However, Jesus says that it is the father within him that does those things. I recognize the father within him. I do know the father, and in that way I can say I know Jesus better than what the bible will even tell you. After all, isn't the claim that the historical Jesus is the father? I say it the way I do because of people who only think of Jesus as being a person/being.

Anyway, all you have to do is look back in history to see how these things were shared, and you know that most of the stories were verbally passed down until someone wrote them on paper.

If you guys want to sit around and look for a way to dismiss it all, be my guest. I was just trying to point out why in the big picture of things it doesn't really matter one way or another. It's really missing the point of things.

My apologies for pointing it out, I don't think it was OT. To me it's about like 1 person arguing they need to put coca-cola on their grass, and another person saying no, you need some pepsi, I mention trying a little water, and they tell me to shut up because they were arguing over coke and pepsi, not water or what I've seen water do. Seems relevant to the topic to me.

If you are just wanting to discredit the scriptures themselves as being authority, then all you need to do is look at the last 2 lines of matthew 7.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.

That is your first problem. You need to go read 1Cor 15:8 before stating things like that.

Thanks,
TT

[edit on 7/1/2009 by texastig]