Difference between Jesus and others

[okinrus]

"Muhammad also swears by the moon and world many times.
Once the the moon and the world are destroyed, parts
of the Qur'an will be meaningless. "

The Qur'an is meaningless to all unbelievers.

First of all that is a lie, Abraham has said once to people as they were leading him to be burnt alive that if they put the moon on right and the sun on his left, he would never believe in other but god. Prophet muhammed have never swore by a moon or by the world, or even by god. So I ask you to back your lies.

I have only read the bibical version of Abraham and this him "burnt alive" is not in it. Also Abraham was before the law given to Moses. You misunderstand. Swearing to the moon
is not worship of another God.

Prophet muhammed have never swore by a moon or by the world, or even by god. So I ask you to back your lies.

(THE NIGHT)
YUSUFALI: By the Night as it conceals (the light);
PICKTHAL: By the night enshrouding
SHAKIR: I swear by the night when it draws a veil,

092.002
YUSUFALI: By the Day as it appears in glory;
PICKTHAL: And the day resplendent
SHAKIR: And the day when it shines in brightness,

092.003
YUSUFALI: By (the mystery of) the creation of male and female;-
PICKTHAL: And Him Who hath created male and female,
SHAKIR: And the creating of the male and the female,

092.004
YUSUFALI: Verily, (the ends) ye strive for are diverse.
PICKTHAL: Lo! your effort is dispersed (toward divers ends).
SHAKIR: Your striving is most surely (directed to) various (ends).

092.005
YUSUFALI: So he who gives (in charity) and fears (Allah),
PICKTHAL: As for him who giveth and is dutiful (toward Allah)
SHAKIR: Then as for him who gives away and guards (against evil),

092.006
YUSUFALI: And (in all sincerity) testifies to the best,-
PICKTHAL: And believeth in goodness;
SHAKIR: And accepts the best,


(THE MORNING STAR)
YUSUFALI: By the Sky and the Night-Visitant (therein);-
PICKTHAL: By the heaven and the Morning Star
SHAKIR: I swear by the heaven and the comer by night;

 

[okinrus]

Flores: I'm rather surprised to see the point about Jesus' dying words.

Jesus is quoting a psalm 50ish. "My God, My God Why have you forsaken me... My heart is like wax melting in the son... The dogs have sourounded me... they divide my vestige and cast lots on my garments". Jesus is God since he says that he is the face of the Father. He says to his disciples not to call anyone Teacher but God and not to call anyone Master but God however he let's his disciples call him this.

People generally put so much effort into their faith that, through the Trinity, God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit become one entity. Are Christians polytheistic? Atheists excluded for the obvious reasons, would anyone who believes Jesus is not God (as a faith assertion based on the Bible) please offer two words of response:

Word One: Are Christians polytheistic? (Yes or No)
Word Two: Is Jesus God, or do you worship multiple gods? (Either/Or)

No God is one. The Father and the Son are one.

Do Christians then put another god (e.g. Jesus) first before God? Is Christianity a massive violation of the Ten Commandments?

Jesus was in the bossom the Father, eternally existant. Jesus is God. We know this. When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed Abraham met and saw the face of our Lord. Jesus is the judge and so Abraham probably saw Jesus. However Moses cannot see the face of the Father without certain death.

 

[Flores]

You seem to have very bad unconsolidate sources of information.

If you ever want to read the Quran, then use
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/
You can do powerful searches on that site.

Second, It's not Prophet Muhammed talking about the cosmos, it's god. And god may swear by any of his creation as he wish....If you are in the habit of looking at Hadith, I suggest, you throw them all away, they are useless and unprotected from corruption, ect...

There is no value in continuing this discussion here, so I'll stop and pay attention to Tiassa's excellent points, I suggest you do the same.

 

[RileyWins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Jesus God?

Originally posted by everneo
If biblical account is not trustworthy re: trial of Jesus, your account of projecting Jesus as a rioteer at temple is more untrustworthy. Romans need not had waited so far. They could have finished off him much earlier.

Traders and coin changers had no business in a temple. did any one of them wounded by that little whiplash..? did Jesus had any violent history before or after that spanking..?

________

Hmmm. Not quite sure... OK, I'll take this at face value and just assume that you honestly don't know what was going on, and explain it to you.

The Jews had a Temple devoted to their god that was destroyed by invaders. It was re-built. Then Herod offered to build them a newer, larger temple that would serve as a tourist attraction. The Jewish leaders hesitated, but eventually agreed. The old temple was torn down and a new, grand one erected on the modern-day site of Temple Mount, which is all that is left of that great structure.

The Temple had several courtyards, one for everyone, an inner one for men, one inside that for rabbis, and finally one inside that where the Holy of Holies was kept under guard.

You said "traders and coin changers had no business in a temple." Well, maybe you don't understand what a temple is, or was. A temple was a place for Jews to visit on holidays, and to give their annual donation. Families would save up all year and then take the money and deliver it to the temple. They couldn't bring an image of a Roman deity past a certain gate, so the Temple put up tables where the coins could be exchanged for blank ones.

So, of course the coin changers had legitimate business inside the Temple. They were preforming a service...

2) Yes, the Romans could have finished off Jesus much earlier IF they had wanted to... but Jesus lived in Galilee, which was not under direct Roman rule. Galilee had a puppet Jewish king who allowed protests against Rome, up to a point. The Romans only got mad when the Galileans crossed the border into Judea and then commited some kind of a criminal act, like assaulting the employees of the Temple - which Herod had built and was under Roman protection.

So, why would the Romans have any interest in Jesus before he assaulted the temple employees? I can't think of any reason why they should "finish him off" when he was in a different country, in Galilee, preaching in synagogues in Capernaum or whatever.

No, the Romans only took offense when Jesus committed an assault... and were any of them wounded by "that little whiplash...?" Hmmm.... do you understand WHY they used whips? Because whips can tear the flesh off your body. Harrison Ford tried to demonstrate his Indiana Jones whip on the Tonight Show and almost put Jay Leno's eye out, and he wasn't trying to hurt anyone... but Jesus used his whip for a reason, and then he turned over a table and threw coins on the floor.

Jesus was a criminal. Not God. Not a Savior. Just a common ordinary criminal making a protest at the Temple, and he got out of control and had to run away and hide, and the Romans found him. But before Jesus assaulted people, the Romans had no real interest in him. Understand?

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by okinrus

....Jesus is God. We know this.

______

You don't KNOW this.

Religion is called a belief system.

Any human can believe in a story, or a myth.

For a long time, people thought the world was flat, even though a ship would sink below the horizon when it sailed out into the ocean.

The fact that people believe a lie does not make it true, or a fact.

It's just a belief.

 

[Flores]

The truth hurts

Originally posted by tiassa
would anyone who believes Jesus is not God (as a faith assertion based on the Bible) please offer two words of response:

Word One: Are Christians polytheistic? (Yes or No)
Word Two: Is Jesus God, or do you worship multiple gods? (Either/Or)

Do Christians then put another god (e.g. Jesus) first before God? Is Christianity a massive violation of the Ten Commandments?

:m:,
Tiassa

In my mind, I have reached the conculsion that today christians belong to two groups of thoughts.

1- Polytheists
2- Pagans

The babtists and the evangelicals fall under the pagan category. Those guys have taken a huge leap by saying that the almighty god as known as the creator of the entire universe could be diminished to one man that once walked our humble earth. A man that cried, that was a baby and pooped all over himself, whatever other demineal things that us lowly humans go though..


The Jehova Wittness, catholics, lutherans, mormons, ect...are a bit better, they see god as a father in heaven, then due to their lack of understanding of that god, they are desprate to make the material connection, so they mix up in their test tubes, some blood and flesh and wine and other things and say that for all this maddness to work, we must all be sons and daughters of god, and for Jesus death to make sense, he must be a son sacrifice lamb...None of it make any sense if you ponder on it for one second, and that's why all these religions survive by advising their members to not read any other books or to think about the bible, just to take it as is. Some of these churches tried to get purer in though than others, but still the mythology continue, just a newer version.

 

[RileyWins]

Re: To all those that Believe Jesus is god, please explain these verses:

Originally posted by Flores
Mark 10 [18] And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

John.20
[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Jesus is telling a person before he died that he will ascend to god, the god of the person that is talking to him. Jesus makes no distinction between himself and a commoner in the eyes of god.
.

_________

Good verses.

Maybe part of the problem came when they were translated from Aramaic into Greek and then into English...

but if you go back to what Jesus really said and meant...

Jesus called on people to worship God. He used the term "abba" because the OT says God is the father of all Jews...

so when Jesus tell them he is going to ascend to "your" Father and "your" God, he denies that he is a divinity himself, and shows that he only used the term "father" or "abba" as being a human being who was created by a "father".

Easy to make that mistake, to think Jesus was claiming to be God.

But he wasn't.

 

[okinrus]

Second, It's not Prophet Muhammed talking about the cosmos, it's god. And god may swear by any of his creation as he wish....If you are in the habit of looking at Hadith, I suggest, you throw them all away, they are useless and unprotected from corruption, ect...

Muhammad spoke those words out loud. Take back what you said about me lying.

Riley, Jesus used palm branches not the whips that you think.
No Riley, Religion leads us to life. If I do not believe then I'm surely dead.

 

[Tiassa]

Flores ....

The babtists and the evangelicals fall under the pagan category. Those guys have taken a huge leap by saying that the almighty god as known as the creator of the entire universe could be diminished to one man that once walked our humble earth. A man that cried, that was a baby and pooped all over himself, whatever other demineal things that us lowly humans go though..

Funny you should mention that, Flores ....

I only refer you to this link because it's where I'm pulling an old citation from; that debate was about the crucifixion, but buried in there I cited a point that seems relevant:

St John made it clear that Jesus was the Logos; he also said that the Logos was God. Yet he was not God by nature, Arius insisted, but had been promoted by God to divine status. He was different from the rest of us, because God had created him directly but all other things through him. God had foreseen that when the Logos became man he would obey him perfectly and had, so to speak, conferred divinity on Jesus in advance. But Jesus' divinity was not natural to him: it was only a reward or gift. Again, Arius could produce many texts that seemed to support his view. The very fact that Jesus had called God his "Father" implied a distinction; paternity by its very nature involves prior existence and a certain superiority over the son. Arius also emphasized the biblical passages that stressed the humility and vulnerability of Christ. Arius had no intention of denigrating Jesus, as his enemies claimed. He had a lofty notion of Christ's virtue and obedience unto death, which had ensured our salvation .... Arius passionately believed that Christians had been saved and made divine, sharers in the nature of God. This was only possible because Jesus had blazed a trail for us. He had lived a perfect human life; he had obeyed God even unto the death of the Cross; as St Paul said, it was because of this obedience unto death that that God had raised him up to a specially exalted status and given the divine title of Lord ( kyrios ). If Jesus had not been a human being, there would be no hope for us. There would have been nothing meritorious in his life if he had been God by nature, nothing for us to initiate .... By imitating Christ, the perfect creature, (Christians) too would become "unalterable and unchangeable, perfect creature(s) of God".

But Athanasius had a less optimistic view of man's capcity for God. He saw humanity as inherently fragile: we had come from nothing and had fallen back into nothingness when we sinned. When he contemplated his creation, therefore, God

saw that all created nature, if left to its own principles, was in flux and subject to dissolution. To prevent this and to keep the universe from disintegrating back into nothing, he made all things by his very own eternal Logos and endowed the creation with being.

It was only by participating in God, through his Logos, that man could avoid annihilation because God alone was perfect Being. If the Logos himself were a vulnerable creature, he would not be able to save mankind from extinction. The Logos had been made flesh to give us life. He had descended into the mortal world of death and corruption in order to give us a share of God's impassibility and immortality. But this salvation would have been impossible if the Logos himself had been a frail creature who could himself lapse back into nothingness. Only he who had created the world could save it, and that meant that Christ, the Logos made flesh, must be of the same nature as the father. As Athanasius said, the Word became man in order that we could become divine.

When the bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, to resolve the crisis, very few would have shared Athanasius's view of Christ. Most held a position midway between Athanasius and Arius. Nevertheless, Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates and, with the emperor breathing down their necks, only Arius and two of his brave companions refused to sign his Creed. This made creation ex nihilo official Christian doctrine for the first time, insisting that Christ was no mere creature or aeon. The Creator and Redeemer were one . . . .

(Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Knopf, 1994. pp. 109-111)

People do seem to have problems with the idea the Jesus was human. Too bad Arius didn't point out that Jesus shat himself, too. Of course, that might have led to his execution.

What I find amusing is that after all is said and done, two-thousand years later, we're still at square zero. In fact, the concessions Christianity has made to the world in order to grow its market have, in the end, undermined any notion that there is a pure concept hiding beneath the veneer. But even at Nicaea, it was all about politics and pride.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[okinrus]

There is the Oracle of Baalam. Why does "Lord call himself Lord?". God does not call anyone Lord but himself.

John 1:1-14 says that Jesus was God.

The babtists and the evangelicals fall under the pagan category. Those guys have taken a huge leap by saying that the almighty god as known as the creator of the entire universe could be diminished to one man that once walked our humble earth. A man that cried, that was a baby and pooped all over himself, whatever other demineal things that us lowly humans go though..

Catholics believe this as well... The main difference is that Catholics believe that Mary is the Mother of God, salvation is through grace, and the Eucharist. The Mormons really are pagans since they believe that you can become your own god, therefore they believe in multiple gods. The JW's believe that Jesus was the archangel Michael, probably closest to muslim beliefs. However they have distorted the Holy Scripture with their own interpretation.

 

[everneo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Jesus God?

Originally posted by RileyWins
The Jews had a Temple devoted to their god that was destroyed by invaders. It was re-built. Then Herod offered to build them a newer, larger temple that would serve as a tourist attraction. The Jewish leaders hesitated, but eventually agreed. The old temple was torn down and a new, grand one erected on the modern-day site of Temple Mount, which is all that is left of that great structure.

History of the temple, fine.

The Temple had several courtyards, one for everyone, an inner one for men, one inside that for rabbis, and finally one inside that where the Holy of Holies was kept under guard.

You said "traders and coin changers had no business in a temple." Well, maybe you don't understand what a temple is, or was. A temple was a place for Jews to visit on holidays, and to give their annual donation. Families would save up all year and then take the money and deliver it to the temple. They couldn't bring an image of a Roman deity past a certain gate, so the Temple put up tables where the coins could be exchanged for blank ones.

So, of course the coin changers had legitimate business inside the Temple. They were preforming a service...

Above were the customs, tourism etc., in short, a temple is not just a place of worship. The above pathetic situation is the reason for the short rage of Jesus. Oh, you said he is a criminal.. lets see..

2) Yes, the Romans could have finished off Jesus much earlier IF they had wanted to... but Jesus lived in Galilee, which was not under direct Roman rule. Galilee had a puppet Jewish king who allowed protests against Rome, up to a point. The Romans only got mad when the Galileans crossed the border into Judea and then commited some kind of a criminal act, like assaulting the employees of the Temple - which Herod had built and was under Roman protection.

So, why would the Romans have any interest in Jesus before he assaulted the temple employees? I can't think of any reason why they should "finish him off" when he was in a different country, in Galilee, preaching in synagogues in Capernaum or whatever.

Do you say, if any Galilean did assault in Roman territory or Roman protected territory then he would be extradited/sent back to Galilean king for punishment..?
or
he would be tried by the Romans directly..?

Do you think the romans would extradit an offender if he assaulted people in roman protected territory/temple..?

did you say the punishment for rebellion/treason is crucification.. err.. no diplomatic niceties..

But Jesus was to be tried by Herod first as a matter of jewish religious dispute/blasphemy that was accumulating.. or

do you have any details other than bible that Jesus was tried in the first instance by Pilate for treason/skirmish/rebellion/criminal offence against Roman authority..

No, the Romans only took offense when Jesus committed an assault... and were any of them wounded by "that little whiplash...?" Hmmm.... do you understand WHY they used whips? Because whips can tear the flesh off your body. Harrison Ford tried to demonstrate his Indiana Jones whip on the Tonight Show and almost put Jay Leno's eye out, and he wasn't trying to hurt anyone... but Jesus used his whip for a reason, and then he turned over a table and threw coins on the floor.

Thanx for not asserting that Jesus indeed used an Uzzi..

Jesus was a criminal. Not God. Not a Savior. Just a common ordinary criminal making a protest at the Temple, and he got out of control and had to run away and hide, and the Romans found him. But before Jesus assaulted people, the Romans had no real interest in him. Understand?

Understood. You are thinking with your head......ahh.. burried in hatred.

 

[Redoubtable]

RileyWins, you are a . . . very bad person
Did you simply skim the Gospels and happen to notice one instance of righteous fury, or are you intentionally ignoring all the meritorious and admirable acts of Jesus?

You're basically treating one episode of His life with credulity, this being the ordeal in the despoiled temple, and then disregarding the remainder of His workings.

I mean, if you're going to claim He was a malingerer and a delinquent, don't advocate your views with scripture.
If you commit to that, you're conceding that everything else asserted in the biblical account is totally flawless in veracity, wholely genuine, without an ounce of falsehood, innacuracy, dishonesty, or misconception.

If you truly wish to discredit or calumniate Jesus, the Apostles, or Christendom, do it properly, and don't try to back your perverse notions up with the very works which you aim to ridicule.

Everneo:

Jesus may or may not have been the Messiah, and He may or may not have ever dwelt upon our piteous world, but His purity and sincerity were undoubtedly the marks of an inspired and well-meaning teacher and not the impetuous, bellicose, hateful zealot which RileyWins portrays.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Everneo:

Jesus may or may not have been the Messiah, and He may or may not have ever dwelt upon our piteous world, but His purity and sincerity were undoubtedly the marks of an inspired and well-meaning teacher and not the impetuous, bellicose, hateful zealot which RileyWins portrays.

I almost agree with you. If Jesus, as atheists say, did not exist that was not his fault. Personally i feel Jesus is still great, if not God. Portraying him as a criminal without a pint of evidence, while rejecting christian reference like bible, is disgusting.

 

[Flores]

Re: Flores ....

Originally posted by tiassa
What I find amusing is that after all is said and done, two-thousand years later, we're still at square zero. In fact, the concessions Christianity has made to the world in order to grow its market have, in the end, undermined any notion that there is a pure concept hiding beneath the veneer. But even at Nicaea, it was all about politics and pride.

:m:,
Tiassa

Tiassa, talk to us more about your market share theory, I think it's so so true.

I'm quite preplexed with some of today's chrisitan's belief. They have left simplistic thinking the day Jesus died and starting adding things to their religion and their story.

There is nothing worse in my eyes than one exceeding the limits of their religion. Muslims the same way as christians think that more is better, but it really is not better. Religion is balance and is a fine line not to be exceeded.....The christian faith these days resembels to me this great soup that is overloaded with salt.....

 

[Rupe]

My religion

The sun will rise in the morning.
I breathe.
Believers are dreamers, its all very nice but very childish.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by answers

Jesus said, "Unless you believe in me, you will die in your sins."

I think this is yet another mistranslation. Jesus was a teacher. He was trying to teach the people that the 'kingdom of God is within.' There is no god somewhere 'out there' (like a big white haired man who sits on the clouds and throws lightening bolts at us humans so we should fear him?). The whole point I think Jesus was trying to make was that God's spirit is in US because we were created to bring the spirit of God to earth, and that we should not fear any man because God is with us. Most importantly, we shouldn't fear God because that means we fear ourselves and others. Fear is the root of all evil.

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
RileyWins, you are a . . . very bad person
Did you simply skim the Gospels and happen to notice one instance of righteous fury, or are you intentionally ignoring all the meritorious and admirable acts of Jesus?

Everneo:

Jesus may or may not have been the Messiah, and

He may or may not have ever dwelt upon our piteous world, but

>> His purity and sincerity were undoubtedly the marks of an inspired and well-meaning teacher and not the impetuous, bellicose, hateful zealot which RileyWins portrays.

_____________

Okay, we have some different opinions, but I don't think you've covered all the bases.

The Lesson here is that the Gospel accounts were, according to the weight of the evidence, written and then edited in the following steps:

1) Peter gave a speech to a church in Rome ~ 55 or 60 AD

2) when Peter was not around, a secretary named Mark wrote down what he remembered peter saying

3) Mark's account was read aloud in several churches, and the reader made notes in the margins of which OT verses were applicable. When they made a new copy of the gospel, they wrote the notes into the text, and produced what we now call the Gospel of Matthew. This new version became so popular that Mark was ignored. Matthew may have also used a collection of popular saying called "Q" but there is an argument to be made that the "Q" sayings existed before Jesus came on the scene and had nothing to do with him.

4) Our Gospel of Luke was a edited from several texts, including Mark.

So, virtually everything in the NT comes from a speech Peter made to a group in Rome about 60 AD, some 30 years after Jesus died, and there is no way to tell whether he talked about the real Jesus or a ficticious Jesus he had embellished over the years.

The only facts that seem certain enough to argue about are (a) Jesus and Peter traveled to Jerusalem for a Passover and (b) Jesus attacked the moneychangers and turned over their tables and (c) the Romans arrested jesus and nailed him to a cross.

Everything else is in question.

Roman practice was to leave the corpses of criminals on their crosses until the dogs and buzzards ate them. the story of Jesus being taken down from the cross and laid to rest in a tomb is probably not true. In the Gospel of John, it talks about Lazarus in a tomb. The story of Lazarus was probably re-written and moved to the end of Mark, and is the basis for Jesus being laid in a tomb.

There is very little evidence that Jesus was an inspired teacher. All of the wisdom sayings you admire may have come from the "Q" document, and were actually said by other wise men before Jesus started preaching.

Peter re-created jesus to have many good qualities, but all we really know is that he attacked people in the Temple and died at the hands of the Romans.

Even the "trial" before the Jewish sanhedrin may be a total invention, to place the blame on Jews and not Romans, because Peter was changing the facts to appeal to a group in Rome at a time when the Jews wanted the Christians out of their synagogues.

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by everneo
I almost agree with you. If Jesus, as atheists say, did not exist that was not his fault. Personally i feel Jesus is still great, if not God. Portraying him as a criminal without a pint of evidence, while rejecting christian reference like bible, is disgusting.

______

It might be disgusting to some people.

Others call it Biblical scholarship.

The question is whether we can tell who Jesus really was, and whether he existed or not.

The stories in the NT about Jesus seem to have been taken from other stories about great figures from mythology, and were not based on a real person at all.

unbound.biola.edu

Matthew 3:16
And having been baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water, and lo,

>> opened to him were the heavens, and

>> he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him,
______

This is a good example. Is this something Peter observed? That Jesus saw the heavens open?

___________


Matthew 3:17
and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, 'This is My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'
________

Was there really a voice? Or was this added to the story twenty or thirty years after Jesus died, as a way to compete with the stories that the Roman Emperors told about their own divine origins?
________


Matthew 4:1
Then Jesus was led up to the wilderness by the Spirit, to be tempted by the Devil,
_______

For this one to be true, there would have to actually be a Devil.
________

Matthew 4:2
and having fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he did hunger.

Matthew 4:3
And the Tempter having come to him said, 'If Son thou art of God -- speak that these stones may become loaves.'

Matthew 4:4
But he answering said, 'It hath been written, Not upon bread alone doth man live, but upon every word coming forth from the mouth of God.'

Matthew 4:5
Then doth the Devil take him to the [holy] city, and doth set him on the pinnacle of the temple,

Matthew 4:6
and saith to him, 'If Son thou art of God -- cast thyself down, for it hath been written, that, His messengers He shall charge concerning thee, and on hands they shall bear thee up, that thou mayest not dash on a stone thy foot.'

Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him again, 'It hath been written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.'

Matthew 4:8
Again doth

>> the Devil take him to a very high mount,

>> and doth shew to him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,
______

You should have a problem with this one.

How high would a mountain have to be in order to see all the kingdoms of the world from a single vantage point?

Even the ones in China?
_____________

Matthew 4:9
and saith to him, 'All these to thee I will give, if falling down thou mayest bow to me.'

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus to him, 'Go -- Adversary, for it hath been written, The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him only thou shalt serve.'

Matthew 4:11
Then doth the Devil leave him, and lo, messengers came and were ministering to him.
__________

This can only be true if angels really exist.

It just sounds like the author here threw in any kind of fiction that came into his mind, without regard to it being true or believable.


If you can give me a reason why you think Jesus was great, I'd like to hear it.

But the NT says he was an exorcist, and in my book, that brands him as a scam artist until you convince me otherwise.

 

[RileyWins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Jesus God?

Originally posted by everneo
...Do you say, if any Galilean did assault in Roman territory or Roman protected territory then he would be extradited/sent back to Galilean king for punishment..?
or
he would be tried by the Romans directly..?

Do you think the romans would extradit an offender if he assaulted people in roman protected territory/temple..?

did you say the punishment for rebellion/treason is crucification.. err.. no diplomatic niceties..

But Jesus was to be tried by Herod first as a matter of jewish religious dispute/blasphemy that was accumulating.. or

do you have any details other than bible that Jesus was tried in the first instance by Pilate for treason/skirmish/rebellion/criminal offence against Roman authority..

Thanx for not asserting that Jesus indeed used an Uzzi..



Understood. You are thinking with your head......ahh.. burried in hatred.

______

Crucifixion was a fairly common punishment.

At one point, a thousand Jews were crucified, after the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed.

If a Galilean came down to Jerusalem during a Passover and made a disturbance, the Romans would not extradite him.

I doubt they would even bring him in front of prefect.

The Captain of the Guard could have taken him out and nailed him to a cross.

I can't think of any reason why Jesus would have been taken in front of Sanhedrin. They had a rule that a man could not be sentenced to death on the same day as his trial, and in the NT account Jesus was, so it really seems that Peter invented the first trial because (a) he was speaking to a Roman group and (b) the Jews were calling the Christians rude names and banning them from synagogues.

Committing an assault within the Temple was a big no-no. That's why Herod built the Tower of Antonio, so the rabble-rousers would know that the Temple was off limits for protests. That the soldiers were up on the tower, watching, and anyone making a scene would be arrested on the sspot. No extradition, just death.

 

[river-wind]

Re: My religion

Originally posted by Rupe
The sun will rise in the morning.
I breathe.
Believers are dreamers, its all very nice but very childish.

my religion.
someday, the sun will not rise
someday, anyone who breathes will cease to breath
take advantage of now, because someday now will not be.


this is a good thread. some real logical backing and serious arguments.