Who was Jesus Father, and who is Jesus??

reply to post by pthena

I don't think that authentic unbiased evidence exists that Jesus ever lived. If anyone knows of such evidence, I'd like to read about it.

How do you feel about the synoptics?

You don't feel they are witness testamony?

The "evidence" exists according to how you feel when you read his words...

reply to post by pthena

I was a little surprised at the positive response I got from Muslims. I have since learned that this idea is consistent with Islam since there are at least two places in Qur'an that mention God taking Jesus Christ unto himself.

There are a few other places in the bible which suggests that Jesus was "lifted up" before his crucifixion.

I had made a thread about Hebrews 5:7-10 sometime back here

7During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Another very interesting clue appears in Psalm, (which Satan quotes directly to Jesus)....the psalm very strongly suggests that Jesus was saved and lifted up.

I don't understand why some Christians are so bewildered by the idea of a man being "lifted up".
Their own bible teaches that Elijah was mysteriously lifted up to heaven... its the same concept that Islam teaches regarding Jesus being "lifted up" to heaven.


Christians are also opposed to the idea that God would protect His servant as the Psalms teaches.
In their logic, God wanted Jesus dead for some "human sacrifice" that God NEVER even spoke about.... thereby turning the arrest and trial of Jesus into some ritualistic sin sacrifice.


"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said in boast: 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjunction to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He Jesus will be a witness Against them."
-Koran 4:156-159

reply to post by godlover25

Define cult and define what you consider blessings,

It could be that my definition of "cult" isn't standard dictionary. Mine would be: a sect devoted to a specific system (that much is standard) of theology, defined doctrines peculiar to that sect and outside of normative Christianity.

I know your tricks dewey, I've been a reader of ATS for years and I've seen you here for a long time saying the same nonsense over and over.

I seriously doubt that since "over the years" I have changed my views considerably.

It's a real sleigh trick you try to pull,

What would you imagine as a motive I would have for doing whatever it is you are accusing me of? I am not recruiting for membership in the SDA denomination. And I am not recruiting for a cult following me. I think I would have a normal motive like having discussions on topics that interest me. I also participate in other forums on musical (for example, and among others) topics. I find this particular forum the best for religion because of how few posts I get removed by moderators compared to others where I sometimes get banned.

But myself and other True Israelites call you out on your phoniness,

I don't pretend to be the voice of God like some posters.

and your typical reply is that we are "cultish"

"WE"? Sounds like you admitting that you are in fact a cult.

Is that the best insult you can think of to hurl at the believers in the One who's Name you claim?

Sorry that you take being defined as an insult. If you feel that way, my suggestion is that you strive for normalcy.
For the "blessings" thing I would like to quote Jesus:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

So the "blessing", according to Jesus is not based on being in a cult or a particular "nation" since everyone will be judged individually.

reply to post by pthena


The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Book of Acts are all perfectly reliable testimonies,

If you don't believe the Gospels, then you must also discredit all of the following: Tacitus, Aristotle, Sophocies, Homer,
Livy, Caesar, Aristophanes, Euripides, Thucydides,
Suetonius, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Plato,
Pliny, Lucretius

And about 10,000 more,

The Manuscript Evidence is at least 25 times more convincing and superior for the NT authenticity than for any of the aforementioned manuscript authors,

This is a dead horse that's been beat to death over and over again,

If you don't believe the Gospels, or at the very least the Historicity of Jesus, then you might as well throw out anything and everything you've ever known or read about anything that happened before 1,000 A.D. because you can't trust anything

reply to post by jmdewey60


My views are in line with the Mainstream Christian Theology of:

The Christian Protestant Churches - Baptist, Evangelical, Conservative/Fundamental Christianity, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Anglican, Etc

and pretty much also in line with Catholic-Christianity and Eastern-Orthodox Christianity,

Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox are the three main branches of Christianity, and all 3 rely on the same 66 Book Bible to derive there beliefs, theology and doctrines from, although the Catholic/Orthodox churches lay claim that the Bible came from there Doctrines/Beliefs, while Protestants maintain the Bible forms the core of there beliefs,

But nevertheless, Biblical Christianity and Biblical Theology is just that; Biblical.

It seems to me that _you_ are the one who's been "brainwashed" into a very small, tight knit group who thinks they have the "only" truth,

The Seventh Day Adventist are a sect of Christianity right up there with Jehovas Witness, Mormons/Latter Day-Saints, Oneness Pentecostals and Universalist or New-Age Christians,

There beliefs and doctrines are way outside the realm of Biblical Christianity and are basically rogue sects established by false doctrines / false prophets,

JMDewey,

My brother,

You must pray for Truth and Wisdom,

in Jesus Name

Amen

reply to post by godlover25

It seems to me that _you_ are the one who's been "brainwashed" into a very small, tight knit group who thinks they have the "only" truth,

I don't know where you get your information from but I don't know any Adventists who think that. There may be some who do but they don't go to my church and they are free to form their own congregation with people who feel the way they do. It is not so monolithic as you may imagine it and I doubt you know anything about it other than from sensationalist attack blogs.

reply to post by Akragon

How do you feel about the synoptics?

You don't feel they are witness testamony?

The "evidence" exists according to how you feel when you read his words...

Feelings! That's your evidence? Well, you're right of course once you get to the bottom line.

However, to back up a bit: I also think, and I also react when reading.

The synoptics:

When I read Matthew, I react quite negatively every time I read phrases like: "and thus was fulfilled the scripture that says ..." eg. 2:17 followed by some completely nonapplicable verse from OT. And that genealogy at the beginning: give me a break! That's merely a list of Judean kings with the necessary deletions in order to come up with a 14 - 14 - 14 numerology scheme. For what purpose? To "prove" Jesus was the rightful king of the line of David. Why? Again, because some OT Psalms and prophets said so! My general impression of Matthew is that some person not particularly well versed in the OT, could have invented a character to "fulfill prophecy"

Luke presents a character who seems to regard himself as the rightful king, and woe to all who refuse to accept him sight unseen. eg Luke 10:10

10 But into whatever city you enter, and they don’t receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust from your city that clings to us, we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.

I've got to go, be back in an hour or so.

reply to post by pthena

19 “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, so that there may come times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that he may send Christ Jesus, who was ordained for you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God spoke long ago by the mouth of his holy prophets.

The times of refreshing and the times of restoration are the same thing.
Martin Dibelius in his essay on The Speeches of Acts, points out that the writer (Luke, he says) is using a literary device of repetition.
The word translated here as "until" is a preposition that can mean "during which time" so that the verse could mean that Jesus, not accepted by the Jews at least on an official basis, was accepted by Heaven, where he now presides over the restoration to righteousness of those who repent, which we are commanded to do right now, rather than at some later date.
Notice the last word in the box. Luke does use it in Acts to describe a current (current during the time described, though written in the past tense) activity over an interval of time, for example in Acts 20:6, during a 5 day period they stayed (διετρίψαμεν, an active verb) in Troas.

reply to post by Akragon

- Continued -

So no, I don't think or feel that the synoptics are particularly good witnesses. Although I don't have as many problems with Mark.

Back to the bottom line, How do I feel? I feel that I don't really know this hidden man, and it isn't my place to say anything either good or bad about him, because that would be bearing false witness. I attempt, at least, when discussing him or his purported sayings, to do so in an objective manner. I often fail, due to my Christian background that assumes that all the New Testament claims about him are absolutely true. An assumption that I think and feel are not warranted.

reply to post by pthena

Feelings! That's your evidence?

that is my evidence... it might not be yours

Well, you're right of course once you get to the bottom line.

However, to back up a bit: I also think, and I also react when reading.

As you should...

The synoptics:

When I read Matthew, I react quite negatively every time I read phrases like: "and thus was fulfilled the scripture that says ..." eg. 2:17 followed by some completely nonapplicable verse from OT.

Question... Whos words are in the verses you're talking about? Jesus or the author?

And that genealogy at the beginning: give me a break! That's merely a list of Judean kings with the necessary deletions in order to come up with a 14 - 14 - 14 numerology scheme. For what purpose? To "prove" Jesus was the rightful king of the line of David. Why? Again, because some OT Psalms and prophets said so! My general impression of Matthew is that some person not particularly well versed in the OT, could have invented a character to "fulfill prophecy

Same question

Luke presents a character who seems to regard himself as the rightful king, and woe to all who refuse to accept him sight unseen. eg Luke 10:10

Luke was a follower of paul, so to me that is suspicious... He also wasn't a direct witness to Jesus he clearly got his information from another document, which brings up the Q document debate...

So no, I don't think or feel that the synoptics are particularly good witnesses. Although I don't have as many problems with Mark.

i believe how you feel about them really depends on how one reads them... the same goes for John in particular, he was huge on narration in his books.

the synoptics are special because the testamonies agree with each other on many many aspects. Im sure you know that, im just trying to get down to the original question... "how do you feel" when you read those books...

Back to the bottom line, How do I feel? I feel that I don't really know this hidden man, and it isn't my place to say anything either good or bad about him, because that would be bearing false witness. I attempt, at least, when discussing him or his purported sayings, to do so in an objective manner.

What do you object to as far as his lessons go... if you don't mind me asking?

I often fail, due to my Christian background that assumes that all the New Testament claims about him are absolutely true. An assumption that I think and feel are not warranted.

this reminds me of my ALL OR NOTHING thread... take a look for a laugh

reply to post by Akragon

im just trying to get down to the original question... "how do you feel" when you read those books...

Experiment: Read Mark, with special attention to red letters. How do I feel?

Result:
I feel condemned. Quite unexpectedly. I thought that since Jesus (of Mark) and I were on the same page with regards to TPTB of his (theorized) day, that I would be acceptable. I don't feel acceptable.

I can remember as a child sitting in church listening to a sermon that had as its central idea, "The people of Jesus' day rejected him as the Messiah. If we were alive back then, we would have accepted him and followed him, riiiight?" And in the group atmosphere of the meeting with its groupthink and harmonic resonances of emotional hype, it was unanimous that all would have believed and followed him.

Sitting alone reading the red letters, my honest answer is no, I don't think I would have thought he was Messiah leading people into the kingdom of God.

So, I'm bailing from the thread.

reply to post by pthena


Interesting...

i've never read a 'red letter bible' actually...

Either way you're free to have your own feelings... Though im not sure how those feelings come from reading what we've been talking about.

take care my friend

reply to post by pthena

. . . I don't think I would have thought he was Messiah leading people into the kingdom of God.

I think that thought experiment you mentioned was not very good. I mean it doesn't really work because Jesus wasn't a kind of Messiah the people wanted so it wasn't a very good test then and it isn't now.
Bible Gateway has a "red letter" option on the drop-down menu under "options". I went to Mark, chapter 1 and found this right away,

“Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.”

There is a term I run into when reading commentaries, that comes from the Greek, Kerygma which is basically, preaching, and another that goes with that, Paraenesus, which is exhortation, and what it is exhorting people to do is to be good. This is what I think that passage I was dissecting in my last post was about. Jesus came, the people realized that his version of a kingdom was just living righteous lives, and wanted nothing more to do with him, thinking they were already doing a pretty good job of that on their own, following rules, thank you very much.
The better way of having the kingdom that Jesus envisioned is to remove himself, and at the same time the expectation that he would physically do something politically, by looking at him there and as a person and hypothetically at least, able to do that.
He could, invisibly, do a better job of bringing about his kingdom of righteousness, by sending from Heaven, the Christ, which is what the Pauline writings tell us is the hope of glory, it being in us, and then by reasoning, we understand that the real goal is to be qualified to enter that better abode in heaven.