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][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]

Paul does not say he never spoke to witnesses. In his own letters, Paul says he met with Peter (Cephas), James, and later other leaders in Jerusalem. Whether one believes their claims is another matter, [u]but it is not accurate to say Paul explicitly avoided witnesses or had no contact with them.[/u]

Paul’s information is a mixture of revelation and tradition. Paul certainly claims revelations. However, he also says he “received” traditions from others. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 he passes along a creed about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection appearances, etc. [i]Historians generally think Paul is transmitting an earlier tradition there, not inventing it himself.[/i]

[color=red]The Gospels are anonymous, but anonymous ≠ worthless. Historians regularly use anonymous ancient sources. [/color]The real question is how close they are to the events, whether they contain earlier traditions, where they agree, where they disagree, and whether details can be independently corroborated.

“Zero reliable information” is stronger than the evidence allows. Even many skeptical scholars who reject miracles, divinity, and much of the Gospel narrative still conclude that some basic claims are historically probable:
-J.C. existed.
-J.C. was a Jewish preacher in Roman Judea.
-J.C. was associated with John the Baptist.
-J.C. was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

^^^^ conclusions are based on multiple sources (Paul, the Gospels, and some non-Christian references), not on certainty, but on what historians judge to be the best explanation of the surviving evidence.
[/quote]

Yes, Paul said he met with the leaders in Jerusalem.  However, anything he may have learned from them is never attributed in anything he wrote.  Every claim Paul makes is from his own revelation or from scripture.  He also directly states that point on multiple occasions, even emphasizing that he was not influenced by anyone.

The Gospels are worthless from a historical perspective.  They offer no sources or attribution.  They are clear embellishments and outright fictions in places. Attempts to glean anything credible from them have not resulted in anything meaningful.

We are still left with nothing about Jesus.  [/quote]

“Every claim Paul makes is from his own revelation or from scripture.“ (your statement)

Not true whatsoever.

Paul refers to Jesus as being descended from David, having brothers, including James, being crucified, having disciples/apostles, having a final meal, and being buried.

^^^ none of those are deductions from scripture. 
[/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