Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Convince Me!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • aikido7
    replied
    Flavius Josephus:

    "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."[/QUOTE]

    Words and phrases in boldface have been demonstrated and documented to be later additions put there by Christian scribes.

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    "Hall of Shame"?
    I consider this a great honor here at TOL.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomO
    replied
    Originally posted by bigbang123 View Post
    in other words

    believe it's true - until you believe it's true
    I think that particular Discipline is know as the Doctrine of "Fake it till ya make it."

    Leave a comment:


  • bigbang123
    replied
    Originally posted by JesusWalks View Post
    If you are earnestly seekingthe truth of Jesus, pray and immerse yourself in the Christian teachings, beg forgiveness and seek him honestly with absolute faith.]
    in other words

    believe it's true - until you believe it's true

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by death2impiety
    Chair....you're a homo. Enjoy hell, it's-a waitin for ya.
    Another loving Christian......

    Leave a comment:


  • death2impiety
    replied
    Chair....you're a homo. Enjoy hell, it's-a waitin for ya.

    Leave a comment:


  • daddyugi
    replied
    Pastorkevin, I know you would. He's a great man of God. God bless you.

    Leave a comment:


  • PKevman
    replied
    daddyugi I really do think your pastor and I would get along well.

    Leave a comment:


  • daddyugi
    replied
    Allsmiles,

    I asked once before in a different thread where the "fact" that Matthew and Luke
    copied from Mark. Your quote that "It's been established and accepted by most NT
    scholars that none of the authors of any of the four gospels were eyewitnesses to any of
    the events they recorded" is about as big a crock as I seen. Matthew was one of the
    twelve disciples(Matthew 10.1-4), as was John, the beloved. Both of these were
    eyewitnesses. Who are these "most of the NT scholars" that you are talking about? All
    of the NT scholars that I have met have said that both of these men were eyewitnesses.
    Mark, whom you say Luke and Matthew copied off of (as if they were school children
    taking a test), was John Mark. Mark is called by some as Peter's Gospel since Peter is
    accredited to leading John Mark to the Lord. So we have a Gospel dictated by an
    eyewitness. Next we come to Luke, physician and historian. If ever there is a person to
    trust on getting the facts right, Luke is your man. He thoroughly investigated the claims
    of the eyewitnesses. Again, a Gospel dictated by eyewitnesses. Then we have John.
    John the beloved, the best friend of Christ, one of the first three disciples, an eyewitness.
    Off subject just a little. Let's say that there was an incident at the center of North St. and
    West St. and there were four witnesses to this incident, one on each corner. What would
    each report say? Do all witnesses see the same thing? No, they all see the same
    incident from different angles, different view. The same can be said for the Gospels. Each
    writer see Christ from a different view. Matthew shows Christ as the Kingly Messiah.
    Mark shows Christ as the tireless Servant of God and man. Luke shows Christ as the
    Son of Man. John shows Christ as the Son of God. As to the "incongruous genealogies
    given by Matthew and Luke", I suggest you start reading a little more. Matthew gives the
    genealogy of Joseph, Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. Heli was Mary's father.
    Remember that Matthew was showing the Christ as the Kingly Messiah, thus he traces
    Joseph's linage back to Abraham while John shows Christ as the Son of God and so he
    traces Mary's linage back to Adam concluding with "Adam, the son of God". The fact that
    these are two different genealogies is well know to those of us who study Scriptures, so
    I suggest that you start studying Scripture more if you want to have your facts right when
    you talk about them, not to mention not getting your information off of websites who are
    trying to prove there point. I've been studying the Talmud, the Jewish Rabbinical
    teachings, and I'm a Christian because I want to be able to converse with chair and to
    make sure I know what I'm talking about. A scholar does such things. Study Scripture
    and Christianity of you want to really discuss or debate properly.

    Leave a comment:


  • PKevman
    replied
    In fact the skeptics are correct in that it is very easy to destroy anything claimed out of Josephus or most other ancient writings as unreliable. That is because they all pale in comparison to the reliability of the Scriptures. That is why they always insist on trying to prove a point apart from the Scriptures!

    Leave a comment:


  • JesusWalks
    replied
    Originally posted by chair
    Take the Chair challenge! Convince me that Christianity is true.
    If you are earnestly seekingthe truth of Jesus, pray and immerse yourself in the Christian teachings, beg forgiveness and seek him honestly with absolute faith.]

    If you are merely trying to debate, then I am afraid that the answers will escape you and you will be doomed.

    Leave a comment:


  • PKevman
    replied
    Originally posted by eisenreich
    The passage you just listed, normally called the Testimonium Flavium, is widely acknowledged by scholars, both secular and apologetic, as a later Christian interpolation. Besides being completely out of context, the passage is entirely absent from the work which comes to us from Bishop Origen, the earliest copy of the work we have available. Finally, it would have been blasphemous for Josephus to even acknowledge that Jesus was called Christ, because Josephus was a devout messianic Jew who never converted to Christianity.

    You've never heard these criticisms of the passage before, Kevin?
    I have indeed. But there is also a much older Arabian version of the The Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) that dates back to about the 9th century. And this is how the TF was rendered then:

    "Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today."

    Actually the works of Origen also contained the following:

    "Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James." (On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15) [om]

    "For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine" (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:47) [oa]

    Origen is not the greatest source of info in most cases, because he didn't quote Josephus directly.

    There is really no way to know for sure if the TF was or wasn't in the works of Josephus to be honest. Many believe that it is not mentioned until by Eusebius, in 324, and that at that time there was a forgery added to Josephus. Because no early versions of Josephus' work is available, all one can do in fact is speculate. There are many who would place the TF in Josephus' work, but many who do not. Let me make it clear that I would not argue the preservation of or inerrancy of Josephus. It is far inferior to the Bible in terms of it's reliability. But you are begging for extrabiblical evidence BECAUSE the Bible itself is preserved far beyond that of the works of Josephus. So I understand completely why you would rather not use the Bible's references to witnesses.



    God bless

    Leave a comment:


  • daddyugi
    replied
    Hello chair,

    I knew when I started your challenge that you had your mind made up and that's ok. I've
    enjoyed all the studying that I've done and thank you for pushing me to better understand
    my beliefs and the Old Testament. I've been studying the Old Testament for years but a
    lot of times we, Christians, tend to neglect what it says. I do want to ask you to think
    about the Messianic prophesies that I quoted. Reading Scripture, we see the two ways
    that Messiah is to come to Isreal. Once on a donkey (Zechariah 9:1-10) and once in the
    clouds (Daniel 7:13-14). Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how he can come in the
    clouds? How did he get there in the first place? What about Daniel 9:24-27? Why does
    Messiah have to die? With that in question in mind, please reread Isaiah 53. You don't
    have to comment because I know that I'm not going to change your mind. I'd like you to
    ask yourself three questions. 1) Do I believe what Scripture says? 2) Do I really want to
    know more about Messiah? 3) Am I ready for follow what God shows me? If you are
    willing to say yes to these three things, then this dialogue has been useful to both of us.
    Take care, Joel. Pop in and say hi occasionally. I pray that God will bless you and keep
    you in all you do. I pray for the peace and safety of Israel and for you as well.

    God bless you.

    Leave a comment:


  • allsmiles
    replied
    Originally posted by Berean Todd
    When it is written down by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and passed around as truth, and the result is such as we see happened in this case ... it's hard to call it fiction as you seem to want to.
    Eyewitnesses? Ever hear of Markan Priority? It's been established and accepted by most NT scholars that none of the authors of any of the four gospels were eyewitnesses to any of the events they recorded. Matthew and Luke relied upon Mark for up to 85% of their gospels. Eyewitnesses wouldn't have had to do that. No where in any tradition is Mark attributed with the role of an eyewitness. There's a quote by an early church father (Iranaeus I think) that Peter gave dictation to Mark, but the name of the gospel is wrong I think, and there's no way to know if it was the same Mark. The non-synoptic Gospel According to John is so far removed chronologically (date of composition) from the other three that it would be impossible to establish his status as an eyewitness, that and his account is so incongruous with the first three it would be ludicrous to believe that the first three corroborate his. That's unreliability in the testimony.

    Besides, the authors of the gospels, at least Matthew and Luke, are only spoken of as being eyewitnesses in the stories themselves. That's a truck load of circular reasoning. Shame on you for trying to pass off evidence as evidence of the same evidence's reliability

    Plus, their having not been eyewitnesses, as well as their intent having been to write an allegorical account of a fictional god man, would explain textual anomalies and contradictions such as the incongruous genealogies given by Matthew and Luke. The facts simply make more sense when you take these as fictional accounts.

    Leave a comment:


  • allsmiles
    replied
    Originally posted by eisenreich
    The passage you just listed, normally called the Testimonium Flavium, is widely acknowledged by scholars, both secular and apologetic, as a later Christian interpolation. Besides being completely out of context, the passage is entirely absent from the work which comes to us from Bishop Origen, the earliest copy of the work we have available. Finally, it would have been blasphemous for Josephus to even acknowledge that Jesus was called Christ, because Josephus was a devout messianic Jew who never converted to Christianity.

    You've never heard these criticisms of the passage before, Kevin?


    People are still relying on Josephus?

    Good job Eisenreich, although you'll have to forgive me for not slapping your back too hard due to the obviousness of the Josephus rebuttal.

    Also, Josephus was under Flavian patronage and was considered a Roman citizen. He was the "king's man" so to speak. It would have been signing his own death warrant to have written this.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X