15 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSo your saying the cross was not made from a tree?🙄
Acts 5:30:
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree.
Galatians 3:13:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyHere is the problem ahosyney. You say it is mentioned several times in the Bible that he was crucified. You then say that I will not find it anywhere in the New Testament about witnesses being there for it. First of all I provided you with two witnesses namely Nicodemous and his friend Joseph. Secondly, you are basing your arguements with a text in which you say lacks integrity. It is like basing your arguements upon the words of someone in a court of law that you say has no credibility. You either embrace the credibility of the witness, namely the author of the text, or you disgregard everything he or she has said as being untrustworty.
I can't argue with you that it is mentioned several times in the Bible that he was crossified. It is mentioned every where in the New Testament.
But, when you look at these verses you will find no one who talk about the crossification was realy a witness for it. That is my point.
Also the man who was in trial and on the cross doesn't behave the same w ...[text shortened]... ands, so it imply both meanings. And Tomas could make the same reaction in either cases.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyWhen I talked about the two witnesses I was not talking about the Crossification. I was talking about what Paul said and added to the Bible. Paul said many things but he only witness for himself. No one else witness with him. Jesus didn't accept that for himself and he said that his mericals witness with him so he and his witnesses became two, so we are sure now he is sent from GOD. Come to Paul case he said he saw Jesus, but there is no other witness. So how can we accept what he said. Who witness with him.
Here is the problem ahosyney. You say it is mentioned several times in the Bible that he was crucified. You then say that I will not find it anywhere in the New Testament about witnesses being there for it. First of all I provided you with two witnesses namely Nicodemous and his friend Joseph. Secondly, you are basing your arguements with a text in which ...[text shortened]... y the author of the text, or you disgregard everything he or she has said as being untrustworty.
But in the crossification it is a different. Because there is someone who is crossified and he died on the cross. So to belive he was Jesus we need someone who know him and can say that the one on the cross was Jesus.
I didn't reach the stage of embracing the credibility of the witnesses yet we should find a witness first. It is mentioned in the Bible that all the disciples escaped and left Jesus alone. So they didn't see him crossified. There could be someone who so the man on the cross dieing but that doesn't mean they recognized him as Jesus.
Let me ask you a question? Jesus said several times that he will be raised to the Father or to GOD, but he never said that he will be crossified, why do you think he didn't do that although it is a major part of his message?
15 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyNo one witnesses with Paul? You are mistaken in that you do not recongnize Paul as being a contemporary of the disciples. You are also mistaken in thinking that Paul wrote the entire New Testament other than the gospels.
When I talked about the two witnesses I was not talking about the Crossification. I was talking about what Paul said and added to the Bible. Paul said many things but he only witness for himself. No one else witness with him. Jesus didn't accept that for himself and he said that his mericals witness with him so he and his witnesses became two, so we are sur crossified, why do you think he didn't do that although it is a major part of his message?
1Peter 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; grace unto you, and peace multiplied to you. Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy has begotten us agian unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...."
You see, Peter agrees with Paul and Peter was acknowledged by Christ as being the "rock" upon whom he would build his church. Therefore, if anyone has the authority to make such a statement, it is Peter.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe passage is in the 15th chapter of First Corinthians which is largely dedicated to Paul's correction of the error of disbelief in God's ability to resurrect.
This is a truly weird argument. One would think that the lack of any documentation by the so-called witnesses supporting Paul's claim (if he made it; passage please?) would weaken it. Since he didn't name the specific 500, how exactly would they testify that Paul was in error?
"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;
And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority reamin until now, but some have fallen asleep;
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me also, as it were to one born prematurely." (1 Cor. 15:3-8)
It is weird to me that you would consider that there was not from this list ample numbers of persons who could have come forward to correct the record of the Apostle Paul. Cephas, five hundred brothers, most of which were still living at the moment the letter is being delivered, James, and all the apostles.
History argues that myth cannot be formulated while eyewitnesses are still alive. Craig writes "The tests show than even two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts."
Take the matter of the Holocaust. Some people maintain that it never happened. As the survivors of the Holocaust die out the numbers of people saying that it never happened can only encrease. The numbers of contradictors is much less or non-existent while there are ample eyewitnesses to the event.
If the New Testament had been written within 60 years of the events it recorded, the chances are slim that what it proports is legendary.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
No1maurader complains that Paul did not name any of the over 500 brothers to whom Jesus in resurrection appeared.
He mentions Cephas. He mentions James. He mentions the twelve apostles. And he mentions "all the apostles".
Five hundred brothers may have included some of the same ones mentioned by name. Either way, witnesses who were still alive to contradict were mentioned by name.
The twelve apostles is a group naming. The church would have known who they were. And the mention of "brothers" implies people who were intimately in touch with the Christian communities. They were not anonymous strangers. They were brothers in the communal brotherhood.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyI think your criticism is bogus to the root because the man who wrote some 13 of the New Testament's 27 books obviously had his life dramatically altered by something.
When I talked about the two witnesses I was not talking about the Crossification. I was talking about what Paul said and added to the Bible. Paul said many things but he only witness for himself. No one else witness with him. Jesus didn't accept that for himself and he said that his mericals witness with him so he and his witnesses became two, so we are sur crossified, why do you think he didn't do that although it is a major part of his message?
Why not take him at his word that it was the vision that the Christ he persecuted to the death was actually the resurrected Lord.
Paul took the initiative to persecute the church. He went to ask for letters of authority to bring the disciples bound to prisons in Jerusalem. He may have killed some. He at least witnessed the stoning of Stephan.
His life was turn 180 degrees around and he became an apostle who labored more abundantly than all of the others, he says by God's grace. His life testifies that Christ dramatically effected him. He was driven by everything concerning Jesus Christ. And his contrabution to the document of Christian faith is enormous.
Why should I embrace a "Paul messed it all up" conspiracy theory and swallow the lies of the Quran?
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by jaywillSimply because he didn't show any prove of it. How do you want me to accept any one come to me said I saw the GOD and he told me so and so. He should prove it or other with he will be heretic.
I think your criticism is bogus to the root because the man who wrote some 13 of the New Testament's 27 books obviously had his life dramatically altered by something.
Why not take him at his word that it was the vision that the Christ he persecuted to the death was actually the resurrected Lord.
Paul took the initiative to persecute the church. He ...[text shortened]... uld I embrace a "Paul messed it all up" conspiracy theory and swallow the lies of the Quran?
When Jews said the same about Jesus he agreed with them and show them that his acts given to him from GOD witness with him. So Jesus didn't accept that for himself while you want me to accept for Paul only because he said that and changed his life. Didn't you ask yourself what if the what paul really saw is the Devil?
15 Nov 06
2 edits
Let me ask you a question? Jesus said several times that he will be raised to the Father or to GOD, but he never said that he will be crossified, why do you think he didn't do that although it is a major part of his message?
He said repeatedly that He would be killed. And in another place He said that His disciples would have to pick up their cross and follow Him.
He said He would be killed and raised in the same breath:
"From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day raised." (Matthew 16:21)
See also Mark 8:31 - 9:1 and Luke 9:22-27)
You say He was never killed. He said that He must be killed and raised.
He says He would be killed and raised. And in verse 24 He mentions the cross - "Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me." (Matt. 16:24)
You have no case that Jesus did not predict His own death and resurrection. And the cross is mentioned in connection with His disciples following Him.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyJust so you know, Acts was not written by Paul, it was written by Luke. Therefore your beef is not with Paul, rather, it is with Luke because Luke tells of Pauls conversion and acceptance within the brotherhood of the disciples.
Simply because he didn't show any prove of it. How do you want me to accept any one come to me said I saw the GOD and he told me so and so. He should prove it or other with he will be heretic.
When Jews said the same about Jesus he agreed with them and show them that his acts given to him from GOD witness with him. So Jesus didn't accept that for himself ...[text shortened]... and changed his life. Didn't you ask yourself what if the what paul really saw is the Devil?
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyI just have to sleep now, I will answer tomorrow. Sorry for that. I will replay for you both.
Just so you know, Acts was not written by Paul, it was written by Luke. Therefore your beef is not with Paul, rather, it is with Luke because Luke tells of Pauls conversion and acceptance within the brotherhood of the disciples.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIf you are referring to Saint Paul, then I regret to inform you that several of the letters
I think your criticism is bogus to the root because the man who wrote some 13 of the New Testament's 27 books obviously had his life dramatically altered by something.
are pseudonymous -- by a later writer who used the name 'Paul' to gain popularity. As
you know, this was a common technique -- Gospels attributed to Sts Thomas, James,
Philip and many others are well known, but few people take them to have been written
by those writers (largely because language and theological notions are beyond the scope
of a first-century author).
Read this next part carefully: The very methods that allow us to consider the apocryphal
texts as later texts are the same methods used to date the Pastoral Epistles (I, II Timothy
and Titus) as not by Saint Paul. That is, the very reason you reject the authenticity of the
Gospel of Saint Thomas is the reason you should also reject an ascription to Saint Paul in
the letters above.
Nemesio
15 Nov 06
4 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyI think God's priorities with this differ from your priorities. He gave only so much ground to objectively showing the proof of the resurrected Son of God. He gave considerable opportunity for the proof of Christ's resurrection to be manifest in the changed lives of men and women.
Simply because he didn't show any prove of it. How do you want me to accept any one come to me said I saw the GOD and he told me so and so. He should prove it or other with he will be heretic.
When Jews said the same about Jesus he agreed with them and show them that his acts given to him from GOD witness with him. So Jesus didn't accept that for himself ...[text shortened]... and changed his life. Didn't you ask yourself what if the what paul really saw is the Devil?
Paul wrote this "But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb to reveal His Son in me ..." (Galatians 1:15)[/b]
Did you see that? It please God to reveal His Son "in" Paul. He did not stop with just being pleased to reveal His to "to" Paul. He desired that the revelation of the Son of God would be manifested in Paul's life. Not only was He manifested in Paul. He was manifested in many others who turned their lives over to the victorious living Lord.
Your priorities may be only objective correct information. But objective correct information could still leave people with closed hearts against the Lordship of Jesus. The demons believe in God and shutter.
Paul went from a persecutor to one within whom Christ was manifested. God is pleased with this in Paul and in all who believe since the resurrection:
"According to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I will be put to shame, but with all boldness, as always, even now Christ will be manifested in my body, whether through life or through death" (Phil. 1:20)
It please God to manifest Christ through the body of faithful men who lived Christ against all odds. In this way Christ was not only manifested to the twelve, and the over 500 brothers, and to those who saw Him at His ascenscion. He also revealed Himself in the faithful ones who received Him as their life.
Christ is about making His home in people's hearts. God is about dispensing His Spirit into people's lives. And faith is the means He has chosen to accomplish this dispensing of God into man:
"That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith" (Eph. 3:17)
The objective historical reasons for believing in the resurrection of Christ are firm and reliable. But God has not chosen that all be eyewitnesses. It pleases Him that He would make His home in the hearts of millions "through faith". This includes not only nodding to objective proof. This included submitting the human will to the lordship of Jesus.
Thomas demanded empirical proof of Jesus having been raised. He was extremely "scientific" and impirical about it. He refused on sentimental grounds to believe what the other disciples were telling him.
"Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails and put my finger into the mark of the nails and put my hand into His side, I will by no means believe" (John 20:25)
Very strict. Very scientific. And very much based on reason, rationality, and empirical evidence.
When Jesus appeared to Him and presented His physical bodily wounds, it is very interesting that he mentioned the will of Thomas as well as the believing mind:
"Then He [Jesus] said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.
Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed" (John 20:27-29)
Did you notice these things? Jesus presented the proofs that Thomas demanded. But He also exhorted Thomas "be believing". It is up to every man and woman to also use their will to decide to be believing. I think this means that even up to that point Thomas still could have chosen by his will power to be unbelieving.
We are among those who have not seen, yet we can have the blessednesss of believing the WORD of the New Testament. And we have the blessedness of believing the testimony of Christ manifested in the lives of the modern day genuine witnesses. And by their fruits we know them.
Not all have had the empirical tests that Thomas or the first century disciples had - "Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book" (v.30)
Be believing not unbelieving. And let Christ make His home in your heart through faith that it would please Him to also reveal Himself in you. That is manifest His divine life through you in the daily circumstances that you also face.
This is our faith and the way we live with, in, and unto the Son of God.
