Jesus literalist. What would change your mind?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Babylonian Talmud

Could you be more specific, such as which book and chapter.
The quote you gave does not sound anything like the Gospel story of the crucifiction of Jesus.
So, that's it, . . the "proof"?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Babylonian Talmud

Could you be more specific, such as which book and chapter.
The quote you gave does not sound anything like the Gospel story of the crucifiction of Jesus.
So, that's it, . . the "proof"?

Of course it doesn't mirror the gospel account, it's a hostile source and it's not from the gospels. Take it or leave it, doesn't matter much to me. Research the book and page number at your leisure if you truly desire those specifics.

1. One version of the Talmuds actually says "Yeshu the Nazarene". But I'll be conservative.
2. He was called a "sorcerer", not a miracle worker by the power of the Holy Spirit.
3. His death took place "on the eve of Passover". (Obviously nothing like the gospel account)
4. "Hanging" was often used by Jews to describe crucifixion. (Luke 23:39, Galatians 3:13)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Take it or leave it, doesn't matter much to me.

You shouldn't waste people's time making wild claims when you have no intention of backing it up.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Take it or leave it, doesn't matter much to me.

You shouldn't waste people's time making wild claims when you have no intention of backing it up.

I've backed it up sufficiently. If you wish to research the exact book and page number Google is a click away.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Stop listening to liberal "scholars" who's livelihoods depend on challenging anything historical about Jesus.

As opposed to right-wing Christian fundamentalist preists who's livelihoods.....

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Stop listening to liberal "scholars" who's livelihoods depend on challenging anything historical about Jesus.

As opposed to right-wing Christian fundamentalist preists who's livelihoods.....

They usually teach from the bible, not the Talmuds.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well my point still stands; it's not exactly a great way to make money challenging dogma that a majority adhere to, or believe in; it's not exactly a lucrative "business" to get into. "Damn liberal scholars" - So what? SO WHAT?

Your typical short and sweet apologist responses.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Well my point still stands;

You're not even in the same zip code as the context of what me and jmdewey are discussing.

Red herrings never prove a 'point'.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Stop listening to liberal "scholars" who's livelihoods depend on challenging anything historical about Jesus.

No problem, i've just re-posted that because it's a delicious example of prejudice and an attempt to demonise Historians who actually study; and don't immerse themself in myth and folklore.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


Well, you seem rather awake & aware of what is considered scholarship and what is not.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


No, i just read and don't make outrageous generalising statements.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, i just read and don't make outrageous generalising statements.

I know, that's why I said you're very awake & aware.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Thanks.

Originally posted by miniatus
Sadly I'm afraid nothing would change their minds short of God slapping them in the face with a trout and telling them it's all just a dream.

I know what you mean but have seen some switch just because they chose to think instead of blindly follow.
Do not doubt that the lurkers, especially the less gullibly young, are thinking.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by randomname
The New Testament is an eyewitness account of His followers, who believed because of what they saw. That is why Jesus is considered the Son of God.

so they have to be taken literally.

Yet they were not believed by their peers since Jesus did not join the Trinity till Constantine forced that silly concept down Christianities throat 300 odd years later.

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.

Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

home.pacific.net.au...

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I wonder OP, the Apostles that followed Jesus were waiting on one particular thing when He died... His resurrection. Tell me, since the Apostles are real, they either made everything up, or Jesus was just a regular guy and died.. if that was the case, why did the Apostles continue to spread the Word of God after Jesus died?

Especially Paul, he's a great example.. If they realized He was fake, why didn't they admit they were wrong, or out of shame, kill themselves?

Why would they go through persecution, hate, and ultimately, to their death, to spread the Good News of the Word of God, if they realized Jesus was fake?

No, it wouldn't make sense.

Which Paul. The faked writer or the real one.

You might wonder why, if the resurrection was believed by most as you say, the big four gospel writers did not write of this wondrous thing. Only onle of them mentions it.

As to your last about making sense.
Is invisible flying sperm, virgin birth and a God who thinks it a perfect plan to have his son murder or do a self aggrandizing suicide, making or sounding like sense to you?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Just to state the obvious, Jesus wasnt around ever. That Name is phony and made up, only 400 years old. Its like saying Albert Einstein was Isaac Newton. They are totally different people and to say Jesus did this and that is total heresy. First you should find out who the real Name was of the Messiah, who was Hebrew and call Him by that. Which is Yahuwshuwah.

The real thing behind this is to quit babling about unimportant things like, did he or didnt he do it. There is not point in arguing that, if you would read Scripture it says "My children will hear My call" or to that extent. I should have the verse with me but I will repost when I can. You cannot change a persons beliefs they have already chosen where they are going, thus it is written in the Book of Life since the Foundations of the world, thats in Revelations also.

You cant change people to believe what you want, did the Messiah Yahuwshuwah try and "Prove" to the people? No, He ministered, talked to those who asked, preached to those who wanted to hear and moved on. "He who has an ear let him hear". That is quoted so many times, it makes you wonder what it means.

It means you dont bother with those who dont want to hear, only work with those who want the truth. Humans or man cant change a person, only the Heavenly Father Yahuwah can do that. So quit messing around with people who reject the truth, they are never gonna accept it, no matter how much facts or evidence you give them. Believe me I know.

Oh my. You have evidence of Father Yahuwah?

Let's have it.
No hear say or bible say now. That is all hear say.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

You may take some Old Testament stories such as the Garden of Eden as allegorical but there is no indication in the New Testament that any of its historical accounts could be taken in any way but strictly literal.
If you have any argument otherwise I would like to hear it, but I doubt you do.

edit on 23-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I have many but if you are one who believes in fantasy, miracles and magic, why waste my time.

If you believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity and is the same genocidal maniac of the O T, then you just keep embracing that Jesus.
Genocide, after all, is just good justice. Especially for the innocent children and babies.

Regards
DL

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


The question I have here is.. Why do you even care?

I have no idea what you believe.. You could be a Hindu converted to Voodoo making the hoodoo that you do for all I know.. My guess is you are an Atheist and basically just believe in nothing at all.

Why is it so important to attack people that believe in something greater than themselves? Is it some sick pleasure you get out of it? Why the hell do you care about the beliefs of others when apparently you have none of your own?

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Even if you prove the immaculate conception, all the healing miracles, the fish and wine, the ressurection; you still couldn't prove that he was therefore divine; or that his ethical and moral teaching was thereby the best.

Obviously his very existence his highly debated. But i think that is besides the point, in the same way that Socrates' existence cannot be proved, but Socrates doesn't insist upon any truth, he doesn't claim to reveal any wisdom regarding the supernatural.

Nor does he promise to burn and torture you forever if you do not believe in his sorry ass or dare put some other philosophy ahead of his.

Too bad he is not God. He seems to have better standards than bible God.

Regards
DL