Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
reply to post by Kapyong

 

your headline question-"Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?"

I show you and you say-

"We" don't care "spammer/voice in my head/mental/bla bla bla"

were "WE" expecting a two thousand year old?

Now the Lord is the Spirit-2Cor3.17

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.-Matt11.25

"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."-Mark9.37

Do you know what historical means?

This thread is not...

"Post Your Favorite Bible Verse"

Stay On Topic, or simply do not post.

Also of note:

Addressing an Off Topic Post, is also Off Topic.

Thank you

Semper

reply to post by hippomchippo


could it mean this-

Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning?-Is41.4

Any more and Warnings are next.

Sorry but we are going to stay On Topic.

Gday,

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
ATS Owners is that the deal? get confronted about a biblical NAME and SUBJECT matter not to mention the personal attacks and accusations from other posters on and about BIBLICAL issue's and this guy say's not to post "my favorite" verse? then warns me? pppffft

Please -
The subject is about HISTORY -
the historical Jesus, and who claimed to have personally met him about 2000 years ago. (Thanks mods :-)

There is one obvious example :

2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' "majesty". The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.

But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims of exactly that.

THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus - a late forgery.


Kap


[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kapyong]

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

could it mean this-

Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning?-Is41.4

Not really, historically means written down in history, your apparant talks with Jesus are not written down in history, and are therefore off-topic.

Gday all,

Another example sometimes cited as an eye-witness is Luke.
because they see the actual word "eye-witness" and get all excited :-)

But the actual passage reads :

"Since many have undertaken
to compile a narrative
of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who
were EYEWITNESSES from the beginning and ministers of the word
have handed them down to us,

I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."


Does "Luke" actually claim to be an eye-witness?
No.

Does "Luke" actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses?
No.

Does "Luke" actually identify any eye-witness?
No.

Does "Luke" directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses?
No.

(Luke doesn't even identify himself - the name "Luke" was added to the Gospel long after it was written.)

All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to :
"Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us."

That's ALL he says about eye-witnesses.
In a nut-shell : "many have written ... based on what eye-witnesses supposedly said"

No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.

THEN
"Luke" describes his OWN VERSION :
"after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you"

NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY.


In summary,
the use of the word "eye-witnesses" has no bearing on "Luke"'s writings.

"Luke" was not an eye-witness,
"Luke" met no eye-witnesses,
"Luke" identified no eye-witnesses,
"Luke" does not directly connect his writing with any eye-witnesses.


Kap

reply to post by Kapyong


OK one last time just for importance sake- these ANCIENT eye witnesses HISTORICALY wrote He (the historical Jesus who was raised-obviously and also just like they wrote) would speak to people in the future with a voice-as in The Prophetic Word of God! John5.25 is just one for starters, but of course that would mean a whole different outlook on what you and the likes are attempting here, right semper?

we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.-2Pet1.9

Gday,

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
OK one last time just for importance sake- these ANCIENT eye witnesses

In fact -
There are NO ancient eye-witnesses.

That's the point of this thread.


Kap

WHEW! what a thread!

kapyong is doing an amazing job. Still so far the OP remains standing while the beaten stagger. Almost reminds me of the Black knight... tis but a flesh wound.. o running away eh?... ill bite your legs off.

To nitpick, this thread is not showing that there were no eyewitnesses. It's not even come vaguely close to doing that.

It is showing that there quite possibly (i.e. on the balance of scholarly opinioin abuot authenticity of certain texts) exists no written account (now??) originally penned by a physical eyewitness.

I don't know what logical step is meant to follow from that.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by d60944]

reply to post by Kapyong


and that's the point of my response is that there VERY obviously was

reply to post by No King but Jesus

K's point is that all the examples you gave are hearsay. They were not written by the actual eyewitnesses.

And as K pointed out, 2 Peter is a later forgery.

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23


of course and K also said I am lieing, that's all I have to know to know what's going on here ladies

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus-1Tim2.5

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.-1John4

reply to post by No King but Jesus

of course and K...

So you agree that all the accounts of Jesus' life are hearsay? (forgive me if I misunderstood your meaning)

Let me rephrase. Do you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually met Jesus in the flesh, then wrote what we now know as the gospels?

If not, then I think there is no disagreement between you and the OP.


[edit on 13/7/10 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by No King but Jesus


For there is one God and no mediator between God and men. 1Tim2.5

Fixed that for you.