Reply to What would Jesus do?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "What would Jesus do?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Jesus did not come (1st time) to bring peace between people:

[i]Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.[/i] (Matthew 10:34)

Until Jesus comes a 2nd time to destroy evil forever, there will be no peace, especially between those who keep the faith and commandments of Jesus Christ and those who deny that Jesus is the only way into heaven, per John 14:6

[i]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.[/i]

This excludes all other religions; hence, there will be no peace  
[/quote]

I’m giving Jesus benefit of doubt as other people wrote bible and it doesn’t necessarily reflect Jesus’s philosophy, more so ideology of writers and editors. [/quote]

This is mostly accurate.   We know practically nothing about Jesus or anything he may have thought/taught. Everything we have now comes from someone else's perspective/viewpoint.  Any claims about or from Jesus have no basis in evidence or fact.[/quote]

+1[/quote]

Historians routinely study ancient figures through sources written by others. For many ancient people, that’s all we have.

Most of what we know about Socrates comes from students such as Plato. Yet historians do not conclude that we know “practically nothing” about Socrates.

Even very skeptical historians who are atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians would typically agree that some claims about Jesus have historical evidence behind them. The claims that Jesus existed, Jesus was a preacher in 1st century Judea, Jesus had followers, and was crucified under Roman authority, are all supported by ancient sources that historians compare and analyze.[/quote]

This isnt a statement about Jesus' historicity.  Its a statement that we have zero reliable information that can be attributed about such a person.

We study information written by reliable sources.  A student of Socrates is a direct, reliable source.

The Gospels are unreliable and provide zero attribution to source.

That leaves the epistles. Paul explicitly says that he did not talk to any witnesses and got all his information from revelation and scripture.

Thus, the prior statement stands as true - we have nothing that can be actually sourced to a Jesus. [/quote]

I don’t know where you get your information from, but you are wrong.

Paul explicitly states that he met and spoke with eyewitnesses who intimately knew Jesus. While Paul argued that the theological core of his gospel came through direct revelation rather than human instruction, he openly details his personal meetings with Jesus’s original inner circle.

Peter (Cephas): Three years after his conversion, Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him for 15 days.

James: During the same 15 day trip, Paul writes that he met James, brother of Jesus.

Fourteen years later, Paul returned to Jerusalem and met Peter, James, and John. Those men were 3 pillars of the early church in Jerusalem.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics