Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 1011121314151617181920
Results 286 to 300 of 300

Thread: jesus in genesis?

  1. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    the CORRUPTION OF THE QURAAN?

    http://callingchristians.com/2013/10...of-the-quraan/



    Stories in which jesus commands the dead to come back to life, grow less secretive, more public, more impressive, and play a more important role in the story when you read them starting with earlier Gospels and ending with the fourth Gospel.

    http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.co...s-dead-to.html

  2. #287
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    http://callingchristians.com/2013/10...ran-and-bible/

    Response to: Variants in the Quran and Bible

  3. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678
    Last edited by theman09; 13th October 2013 at 11:59.

  4. #289
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?


  5. #290
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    Have there not been death row convicts who willingly go to their deaths, because they accept the severity of their crimes? If I really deserve this punishment, am I not more of a criminal if I seek a scapegoat & cowardly avoid justice? .
    .............................................. ....


    Last edited by theman09; 30th October 2013 at 17:33.

  6. #291
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?


  7. #292
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    Did the historical Jesus speak about the necessity of being "born again?" Questions raised by Bart Ehrman and David Friedrich Strauss
    Major historical Jesus scholar and moderate (but not liberal) Christian, James D. G. Dunn doubts that Jesus said a word of John's Gospel. And the reasons for doubt in the case of John 3:16 seem obvious enough...

    The Gospel of John was composed in Greek, yet Jews in Jesus' day spoke Aramaic, so Nicodemus and Jesus in conversation (John 3) would most likely have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek to one another. And that means Nicodemus would not have been confused as to the double-meaning of the Greek word "anathon," which could mean either "again" or "from above," and which Nicodemus heard as "Ye must be born AGAIN" but which Jesus used in the sense of "Ye must be born FROM ABOVE." Neither is there any word in Aramaic with such a double meaning according to Bart Ehrman, who told me that the Aramaic word for "again" does not also mean "from above," nor does the Aramaic word for "from above" mean "again." So why was Nicodemus confused? Probably because the conversation was invented by the Greek speaking author of the Gospel of John.

    In an email rec'd 9/4/11, Ehrman added, "The conversation makes much better sense as hinging on a mistaken double entendre, as happens, in fact, in the very next chapter where the woman thinks that Jesus' reference to "living water" means "running water" (since that is how it is normally described in Greek), when in fact he means "water that gives life." Both conversations proceed by a double entendre, misunderstood, leading to a re-explanation. That works only if there is in fact a double entendre, possible in Greek but not Aramaic."

    Furthermore, the author of the Gospel of John utilizes certain dualistic ideas and characteristic phrases which first appear in the author's lengthy prologue as well as in the mouth of John the Baptist, as well as in the mouth of Jesus such dualisms include:
    "earthly and heavenly things"

    "flesh and spirit"

    "darkness and light"

    "truth and lies"

    "eternal life and death"
    and the conversation in John 3 is no exception. It appears like the author of the fourth Gospel invented this conversation as one more of his dualistic sermons about things earthly and heavenly, and so he employed the Greek word, anothen, with its dual meaning, as well as the Greek word pneuma with its dual meaning since pneuma could refer to either "wind" or "spirit," and a third dualistic phrase as well, all in the same "dialogue with Ncodemus."

    Now read John, chapter 3, below with the above in mind:
    Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again/from above.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked [picking up on the "again" meaning of anothen, but ignoring the "from above" meaning]. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again/from above.’
    Jesus continues by applying another double meaning:
    The wind [=pneuma, the same Greek word for spirit] blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit [=pneuma, spirit/wind in Greek]. “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
    Nicodemus is confused a second time by the author's use of a Greek word with a dual meaning that applies both to earthly and heavenly things, "wind," and "spirit," but unlike the previous case the word pneuma had the same dual meaning in Greek as well as Aramaic and Hebrew, meaning both "wind" and "spirit" in all three languages, since the wind appeared invisible and mysterious/spiritual to all ancient cultures (viz., the "spirit/wind, or even breath" [of life]).

    Jesus continues by applying a third double meaning:
    “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? [my emphasis] No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up [the same Greek word for lifted up also means exalted] the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up [the same Greek word for "lifted up" also means "exalted," a third play on words], that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” [end of John 3:3-15]
    The author continues in that same chapter in dualistic fashion by teaching that you either
    "believe in the name of God's one and only Son," or,
    you are "condemned already,"

    and

    you either "love the light" or,
    you "love the darkness."
    This is not the Jesus of the synoptics who taught that one's deeds mattered more than what one believed about Jesus, and who said people could be forgiven even if they blasphemed the son of man.

    John 3:16-21, the tagline one might say to the conversation with Nicodemus, but note that in the NIV there are no quotation marks around this paragraph, so not even the editors of the NIV assume that Jesus spoke these words, rather these words appear to be the author's--his tagline to the story of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus, just like the lengthy prologue to his Gospel which also were the author's words, not Jesus':
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

    ____________________

    FURTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE FICTIONAL NATURE OF THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN JESUS AND NICODEMUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

    The biblical scholar David Friedrich Strauss examined the dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus and like Ehrman found the historicity of such a dialogue questionable for a variety of reasons.

    CONVERSATION OF JESUS WITH NICODEMUS by David Friedrich Strauss

    The first considerable specimen which the fourth gospel gives of the teaching of Jesus, is his conversation with Nicodemus (3.1-21). In the previous chapter (23-25) it is narrated, that during the first Passover attended by Jesus after his entrance on his public ministry, he had won many to faith in him by the miracles which he performed, but that he did not commit himself to them because he saw through them : he was aware, that is, of the uncertainty and impurity of their faith. Then follows in our present chapter, as an example, not only of the adherents whom Jesus had found even thus early, but also of the wariness with which he tested and received them, a more detailed account how Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews and a Pharisee, applied to him, and how he was treated by Jesus.

    It is through the Gospel of John alone that we learn anything of this Nicodemus, who in 7.50f. appears as the advocate of Jesus, so far as to protest against his being condemned without a hearing, and in 19.39 as the partaker with Joseph of Arimathea of the care of interring Jesus. Modern criticism, with reason, considers it surprising that in all three synoptic Gospels, Mark, Matthew and Luke, there is no mention of the name of this remarkable adherent of Jesus, and that we have to gather all our knowledge of him from the fourth gospel (John) ; since the peculiar relation in which Nicodemus stood to Jesus, and his participation in the care of his interment, must have been as well known to Matthew a.s to John. This difficulty has been numbered among the arguments which are thought to prove that the first gospel was not written by the Apostle Matthew, but was the product of a tradition considerably more remote from the time and locality of Jesus. But the fact is that the common fund of tradition on which all three synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) drew had preserved no notice of this Nicodemus. With touching piety the Christian legend has recorded in the tablets of her memory, the names of all the others who helped to render the last honors to their murdered master of Joseph of Arimathea and the two Marys (Matt 27.57-61 with parallels in other Gospels); why then was Nicodemus the only neglected one he who was especially distinguished among those who tended the remains of Jesus, by his nocturnal interview with the teacher sent from God, and by his advocacy of him among the chief priests and Pharisees? It is so difficult to conceive that the name of this man, if he had really assumed such a position, would have vanished from the popular evangelical tradition without leaving a single trace, that one is induced to inquire whether the contrary supposition be not more capable of explanation : namely, that such a relation between Nicodemus and Jesus might have been fabricated by tradition, and adopted by the author of the fourth gospel without having really subsisted.

    John 12.42, it is expressly said that many among the chief rulers believed on Jesus, but concealed their faith from dread of excommunication by the Pharisees, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. That towards the end of his career many people of rank believed in Jesus, even in secret only, is not very probable, since no indication of it appears in the Acts of the Apostles ; for that the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5.34 ff.) did not originate in a positively favorable disposition towards the cause of Jesus, seems to be sufficiently demonstrated by the spirit of his disciple Saul. Moreover the synoptists make Jesus declare in plain terms that the secret of his Messiahship had been revealed only to babes, and hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. 11.25 ; Luke 10.21), and Joseph of Arimathea is the only individual of the ruling class whom they mention as an adherent of Jesus.

    How, then, if Jesus did not really attach to himself any from the upper ranks, came the case to be represented differently at a later period? In John 7.48f we read that the Pharisees sought to disparage Jesus by the remark that none of the rulers or of the Pharisees, but only the ignorant populace, believed on him ; and even later adversaries of Christianity, for example, Celsus, laid great stress on the circumstance that Jesus had had as his disciples. This reproach was a thorn in the side of the early church, and though as long as her members were drawn only from the people, she might reflect with satisfaction on the declarations of Jesus, in which he had pronounced the poor, and simple, blessed : yet so soon as she was joined by men of rank and education, these would lean to the idea that converts like themselves had not been wanting to Jesus during his life. But, it would be objected, nothing had been hitherto known of such converts. Naturally enough, it might be answered ; since fear of their equals would induce them to conceal their relations with Jesus. Thus a door was opened for the admission of any number of secret adherents among the higher class (John 12.42f). But, it would be further urged, how could they have intercourse with Jesus unobserved ? Under the veil of the night, would be the answer ; and thus the scene was laid for the interviews of such men with Jesus (19.39). This, however, would not suffice ; a representative of this class must actually appear on the scene : Joseph of Arimathea might have been chosen, his name being still extant in the synoptical tradition ; but the idea of him was too definite, and it was the interest of the legend to name more than one eminent friend of Jesus. Hence a new personage was devised, whose Greek name (Nicodemus) seems to point him out significantly as the representative of the dominant class. That this development of the legend is confined to the fourth gospel, is to be explained, partly by the generally admitted lateness of its origin, and partly on the ground that in the evidently more cultivated circle in which it arose, the limitation of the adherents of Jesus to the Common people would be more offensive, than in the circle in which the synoptical tradition was formed. Thus the reproach which modern criticism has cast on the first gospel, on the score of its silence respecting Nicodemus, is turned upon the fourth, on the score of its information on the same subject.

    These considerations, however, should not create any prejudice against the ensuing conversation, which is the proper object of our investigations. This may still be in the main genuine ; Jesus may have held such a conversation with one of [his adherents, and our Evangelist may have embellished it no further than by making this interlocutor a man of rank. Neither will we, with the author of the Probabilia, take umbrage at the opening address of Nicodemus, nor complain, with him, that there is a want of connexion between that address and the answer of Jesus. The requisition of a new birth, as a condition of entrance into the kingdom of heaven, does not differ essentially from the summons with which Jesus opens his ministry in the synoptical gospels, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. New birth, or new creation, was a current image among the Jews, especially as denoting the conversion of an idolater into a worshipper of Jehovah. It was customary to say of Abraham, that when, according to the Jewish supposition, he renounced idolatry for the worship of the true God, he became a new creature. The proselyte, too, in allusion to his relinquishing all his previous associations, was compared to a new-born child. That such phraseology was common among the Jews at that period, is shown by the confidence with which Paul applies, as if it required no explanation, the term new creation, to those truly converted to Christ. Now, if Jesus required, even from the Jews, as a condition of
    entrance into the messianic kingdom, the new birth which they ascribed to their heathen proselytes, Nicodemus might naturally wonder at the requisition, since the Israelite thought himself, as such, unconditionally entitled to that kingdom : and this is the construction which has been put upon his question 5.4. But Nicodemus does not ask, How canst thou say that a Jew, or a child of Abraham, must be born again ? His ground of wonder is that Jesus appears to suppose it possible for a man to be born again, and that when he is old. It does not, therefore, astonish him that spiritual new birth should be expected in a Jew, but corporeal new birth in a man. How an oriental, to whom figurative speech in general how a Jew, to whom the image of the new birth in particular must have been familiar how especially a master of Israel, in whom the misconstruction of figurative phrases cannot, as in the apostles (e.g. Matt. 15.15f ; 16.7), be ascribed to want of education could understand this expression literally, has been matter of extreme surprise to expositors of all parties, as well as to Jesus (5.10). Hence some have supposed that the Pharisee really understood Jesus, and only intended by his question to test the ability of Jesus to interpret his figurative expression into a simple proposition : but Jesus does not treat him as a hypocrite, as in that case he must have done he continues to instruct him, as one really ignorant(5.10). Others give the question the following turn : This cannot be meant in a physical sense, how then otherwise ? But the true drift of the question is rather the contrary : By these words I can only understand physical new birth, but how is this possible? Our wonder at the ignorance of the Jewish doctor, therefore, returns upon us ; and it is heightened when, after the copious explanation of Jesus (5.5-8), that the new birth which he required was a spiritual birth, Nicodemus has made no advance in comprehension, but asks with the same obtuseness as before (5.9), How can these things be? By this last difficulty one apologist who tries to argue for the historicity of the tale is so destitute of excuses, that, contrary to his ordinary exegetical tact, he refers the continued amazement of Nicodemus--as other expositors had referred his original question--to the circumstance that Jesus maintained the necessity of new birth even for Israelites. But, in that case, Nicodemus would have inquired concerning the necessity, not the possibility, of that birth ; instead of asking, How can these things be? he would have asked, Why must these things be? This inconceivable mistake in a Jewish doctor is not then to be explained away, and our surprise must become strong suspicion so soon as it can be shown, that legend or the Evangelist had inducements to represent this individual as more simple than he really was. First, then, it must occur to us, that in all descriptions and recitals, contrasts are eagerly exhibited ; hence in the representation of a colloquy in which one party is the teacher, the other the taught, there is a strong temptation to create a contrast to the wisdom of the former by exaggerating the simplicity of the latter. Further, we must remember the satisfaction it must give to a Christian mind of that age, to place a master of Israel in the position of an unintelligent person, by the side of the Master of the Christians. Lastly, it is, as we shall presently see more clearly, the constant method of the fourth Evangelist in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form the knot and the progress of the discussion, by making the interlocutors understand literally what Jesus intended figuratively.

    In reply to the second query of Nicodemus, Jesus takes entirely the tone of the fourth Evangelist's prologue (5.11-13). The question hence arises, whether the Evangelist borrowed from Jesus, or lent to him his own style. A previous investigation has decided in favor of the latter alternative. But this inquiry referred merely to the form of the discourses ; in relation to their matter, its analogy with the ideas of Philo, does not authorize us at once to conclude that the writer here puts his Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos into the mouth of Jesus ; because the expressions, "We speak that we do know," etc., and, "No man hath ascended up to heaven," etc., have an analogy with Matt. 11.27 ; and the idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah which is here propounded, is, as we have seen, not foreign to the Apostle Paul.

    In chapter 5.14 & 15 Jesus proceeds from the more simple things of the earth, the communications concerning the new birth, to the more difficult things of heaven, the announcement of the destination of the Messiah to a vicarious death. The Son of Man, he says, must be lifted up (which, in John's phraseology, signifies crucifixion, with an allusion to a glorifying exaltation), in the same way, and with the same effect, as the brazen serpent in Num. 21.8,9. Here many questions press upon us. Is it credible, that Jesus already, at the very commencement of his public ministry, foresaw his death, and in the specific form of crucifixion? and that long before he instructed his disciples on this point, he made a communication on the subject to a Pharisee? Can it be held consistent with the wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, that he should impart such knowledge to Nicodemus? Even a conservative theologian like Lucke puts the question why, when Nicodemus had not understood the more obvious doctrine, Jesus tormented him with the more recondite, and especially with the secret of the Messiah's death, which was then so remote? Lucke's ingenious proposal to try and explain such away such a question is to propose that 'it accords perfectly with the wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, that he should reveal the sufferings appointed for him by God as early as possible, because no instruction was better adapted to cast down false worldly hopes;' or to say it another way, the more remote the idea of the Messiah's death from the conceptions of his contemporaries, owing to the worldliness of their expectations, the more impressively and unequivocally must Jesus express that idea, if he wished to promulgate it ; not in an enigmatical form which he could not be sure that Nicodemus would understand. Lucke continues : "Nicodemus was a man open to instruction ; one of whom good might be expected. But in this very conversation, his dullness of comprehension in earthly things, had evinced that he must have still less capacity for heavenly things; and, according to 5.12, Jesus himself despaired of enlightening him with respect to them. Lucke, however, observes, that it was a practice with Jesus to follow up easy doctrine which had not been comprehended, by difficult doctrine which was of course less comprehensible ; that he purposed thus to give a spur to the minds of his hearers, and by straining their attention, engage them to reflect. But the examples that Lucke adduces of such proceeding on the part of Jesus, are all drawn from the fourth gospel. Now the very point in question is, whether that gospel correctly represents the teaching of Jesus ; consequently Lucke argues in a circle. We have seen a similar procedure ascribed to Jesus in his conversation with the woman of Samaria, and we have already declared our opinion that such an overburdening of weak faculties with enigma on enigma, does not accord with the wise rule as to the communication of doctrine, which the same gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus, 16.12. It would not stimulate, but confuse, the mind of the hearer, who persisted in a misapprehension of
    the well-known figure of the new birth, to present to him the novel comparison of the Messiah and his death, to the brazen serpent and its effects; a comparison quite incongruous with his Jewish ideas. In the first three Gospels Jesus pursues an entirely different course. In these, where a misconstruction betrays itself on the part of the disciples, Jesus (except where he breaks off altogether, or where it is evident that the Evangelist unhistorically associates a number of metaphorical discourses) applies himself with the assiduity of an earnest teacher to the thorough explanation of the difficulty, and not until he has effected this does he proceed, step by step, to convey further instruction (e.g. Matt. 13.10 ff, 36 ff, 15.16, 16.8 ff.). This is the method of a wise teacher ; on the contrary, to leap from one subject to another, to overburden and strain the mind of the hearer, a mode of instruction which the fourth Evangelist attributes to Jesus, is wholly inconsistent with that character. To explain this inconsistency, we must suppose that the writer of the fourth gospel thought to heighten in the most effective manner the contrast which appears from the first, between the wisdom of the one party and the incapacity of the other, by representing the teacher as overwhelming the pupil, who put unintelligent questions on the most elementary doctrine, with lofty and difficult themes, beneath which his faculties are laid prostrate.

    From 5.16, even those commentators who pretend to some ability in this department, lose all hope of showing that the remainder of the discourse may have been spoken by Jesus. Not only does Paulus make this confession, but even Olshausen, with a concise statement of his reasons. At the above verse, any special reference to Nicodemus vanishes, and there is commenced an entirely general discourse on the destination of the Son of God, to confer a blessing on the world, and on the manner in which unbelief forfeits this blessing. Moreover, these ideas are expressed in a form, which at one moment appears to be a reminiscence of the Evangelist's introduction, and at another has a striking similarity with passages in the first Epistle of John. In particular, the expression, the only begotten Son, which is repeatedly (5.16 & 18) attributed to Jesus as a designation of his own person, is nowhere else found in his mouth, even in the fourth gospel ; this circumstance, however, marks it still more positively as a favourite phrase of
    the Evangelist (1.14-18), and of the writer of the Epistles (1 John 4.9).

    Further, many things are spoken of as past, which at the supposed period of this conversation with Nicodemus were yet future. For even if the words, he gave, refer not to the giving over to death, but to the sending of the Messiah into the world ; the expressions, "men loved darkness," and, "their deeds were evil," (5.19), as Lucke also remarks, could only be used after the triumph of darkness had been achieved in the rejection and execution of Jesus : they belong then to the Evangelist's point of view at the time when he wrote, not to that of Jesus when on the threshold of his public ministry.

    In general the whole of this discourse attributed to Jesus, with its constant use of the third person to designate the supposed speaker ; with its dogmatical terms, "only begotten," "light," and the like, applied to Jesus ; with its comprehensive view of the crisis and its results, which the appearance of Jesus produced, is far too objective for us to believe that it came from the lips of Jesus. Jesus could not speak thus of himself, but the evangelist might speak thus of Jesus. Hence the same expedient has been adopted by some conservative theologians, as in the case of the Baptist's discourse already considered, and it has been supposed that Jesus is the speaker down to 5.16, but that from that point the Evangelist appends his own dogmatic reflections. But there is again here no intimation of such a transition in the text ; rather, the connecting word "for," yap (5.16), seems to indicate a continuation of the same discourse. No writer, and least of all the fourth Evangelist (comp. 7.39, 11.51 f., 12.16, 33.37 ff.), would scatter his own observations thus undistinguishingly, unless he wished to create a misapprehension.

    If then it be established that the evangelist, from 5.16 to the end of the discourse, means to represent Jesus as the speaker, while Jesus can never have so spoken, we cannot rest satisfied with the half measure adopted by Lucke, when he maintains that it is really Jesus who continues to speak from the above passage, but that the Evangelist has woven in his own explanations and amplifications more liberally than before. For this admission undermines all certainty as to how far the discourse belongs to Jesus, and how far to the Evangelist ; besides, as the discourse is distinguished by the closest uniformity of thought and style, it must be ascribed either wholly to Jesus or wholly to the Evangelist. Of these two alternatives the former is, according to the above considerations, impossible ; we are therefore restricted to the latter, which we have observed to be entirely consistent with the manner of the fourth Evangelist.

    But not only on the passage 5.16-21 must we pass this judgment : 5.14 has appeared to us out of keeping with the position of Jesus ; and the behaviour of Nicodemus, 5.4 & 9, altogether inconceivable. Thus in the very first sample, when compared with the observations which we have already made on John 3.22 ff., 4.1 ff, the fourth gospel presents to us all the peculiarities which characterize its mode of reporting the discourses of Jesus. They are usually commenced in the form of dialogue, and so far as this extends, the lever that propels the conversation is the striking contrast
    between the spiritual sense and the carnal interpretation of the language of Jesus ; generally, however, the dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse, in which the writer blends the person of Jesus with his own, and makes the former use concerning himself, language which could only be used by John concerning Jesus.
    ____________________

    Recently Strauss' work has been made available in audio format free online, click HERE, or HERE. For Strauss' questions regarding the historicity of Nicodemus in particular see, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, Part 2 - History of the Public Life of Jesus Chapter 7 - Discourses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel §80 Conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus, click HERE and listen, or download to a device. Strauss' printed work is also available online to download and read on any device, click HERE.


    http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.co.uk/
    Last edited by theman09; 19th November 2013 at 15:56.

  8. #293
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    matthew and the ressurection of dead saints


    http://unveiling-christianity.org/20.../500-stand-up/

    stabbing of jesus' side examined
    http://vridar.org/2013/07/26/blood-a...-of-john-1934/

    anach
    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/coll...U/Xz10nNSmU4sJ


    gospels
    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/coll...U/-SjgczHKuPIJ

    why would matthew want his community to know about , " it is not what you eat that defiles a man , but what you speak" ?


    why would matthew want his community to know that a woman with an illness took power out of jesus?

    The first difficulty with this criterion is that it isn’t easy to discern an “underlying Aramaic origin” from an author or source who simply wrote or spoke in a Semitized Greek. The output of both often look identical. And yet we know the earliest Christians routinely wrote and spoke in a Semitized Greek, and regularly employed (and were heavily influenced by) the Septuagint, which was written in a Semitized Greek.

    Many early Christians were also bilingual (as Paul outright says he was), and thus often spoke and thought in Aramaic, and thus could easily have composed tales in Aramaic (orally or in lost written form) that were just as fabricated as anything else, which could then have been translated into Greek, either by the Gospel authors themselves or their sources. Indeed, somematerial may have preceded Jesus in Aramaic form (such as sayings and teachings, as we find collected at Qumran) that was later attributed to him with suitable adaptation. So even if we can distinguish what is merely a Semitic Greek dialect from a Greek translation of an Aramaic source (and we rarely can), that still does not establish that the Aramaic source reported a historical fact.
    Consequently, Semitic features in a Gospel pericope do not make its historicity any more likely, other than in very exceptional cases (where we can actually prove an underlying source that we otherwise did not already suspect), and even then it gains very little (since an underlying source is not automatically reliable).



    in the mark, matthew , john and paul, fish eating jesus is missing. if paul and mark are the earliest writers and something came up in thier community about what post ressurected jesus did, then why didn't both writers include the line about jesus consuming fish? why didn't john? did john have a problem with jesus digesting fish and then... did his version of jesus take away digestion from jesus? in marks gospel, details like , mary m and the other mary crashing into jesus, after they leave the tomb is missing. jesus stabbed by a roman guard is missing. guards @ the tomb are missing. mark has written his gospel in such a way that absolutely no guards can be derived from his version. here is a problem, when mark wrote his narrative did his community know about every detail in his narrative BEFORE he wrote it? why do you write accounts if your community knows the major points and major details? what would be the point? obviosuly the point to include certain details is because the community is not informed about them. why would the fish eating detail go missing from mark? mark has includes details which he did not need to include, like nailing jesus to the cross or guards giving jesus something to drink . mark has BYPASSED important details in his accounts , important details which would take doubt away from thomas. if the deciples were accused of stealing the body of jesus and the claim was "widely known" tills matthews day, then we would expect paul, luke, john and mark to write thier accounts in such a way as to give INDICATION that stolen body problem needed to be addressed. we would expect that within christian communities there would be doubt and christians would be hammered about the stolen body claim from paul to john.

    it seems more likely that marks post ressurected jesus was not the one found in later christian writings.christian communities may have found doubt in marks version and required modification and so came along the other gospel writers who filled in the gaps about what jesus did after his alleged ressurection.


    FURTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE FICTIONAL NATURE OF THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN JESUS AND NICODEMUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

    The biblical scholar David Friedrich Strauss examined the dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus and like Ehrman found the historicity of such a dialogue questionable for a variety of reasons.

    CONVERSATION OF JESUS WITH NICODEMUS by David Friedrich Strauss

    The first considerable specimen which the fourth gospel gives of the teaching of Jesus, is his conversation with Nicodemus (3.1-21). In the previous chapter (23-25) it is narrated, that during the first Passover attended by Jesus after his entrance on his public ministry, he had won many to faith in him by the miracles which he performed, but that he did not commit himself to them because he saw through them : he was aware, that is, of the uncertainty and impurity of their faith. Then follows in our present chapter, as an example, not only of the adherents whom Jesus had found even thus early, but also of the wariness with which he tested and received them, a more detailed account how Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews and a Pharisee, applied to him, and how he was treated by Jesus.

    It is through the Gospel of John alone that we learn anything of this Nicodemus, who in 7.50f. appears as the advocate of Jesus, so far as to protest against his being condemned without a hearing, and in 19.39 as the partaker with Joseph of Arimathea of the care of interring Jesus. Modern criticism, with reason, considers it surprising that in all three synoptic Gospels, Mark, Matthew and Luke, there is no mention of the name of this remarkable adherent of Jesus, and that we have to gather all our knowledge of him from the fourth gospel (John) ; since the peculiar relation in which Nicodemus stood to Jesus, and his participation in the care of his interment, must have been as well known to Matthew a.s to John. This difficulty has been numbered among the arguments which are thought to prove that the first gospel was not written by the Apostle Matthew, but was the product of a tradition considerably more remote from the time and locality of Jesus. But the fact is that the common fund of tradition on which all three synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) drew had preserved no notice of this Nicodemus. With touching piety the Christian legend has recorded in the tablets of her memory, the names of all the others who helped to render the last honors to their murdered master of Joseph of Arimathea and the two Marys (Matt 27.57-61 with parallels in other Gospels); why then was Nicodemus the only neglected one he who was especially distinguished among those who tended the remains of Jesus, by his nocturnal interview with the teacher sent from God, and by his advocacy of him among the chief priests and Pharisees? It is so difficult to conceive that the name of this man, if he had really assumed such a position, would have vanished from the popular evangelical tradition without leaving a single trace, that one is induced to inquire whether the contrary supposition be not more capable of explanation : namely, that such a relation between Nicodemus and Jesus might have been fabricated by tradition, and adopted by the author of the fourth gospel without having really subsisted.

    John 12.42, it is expressly said that many among the chief rulers believed on Jesus, but concealed their faith from dread of excommunication by the Pharisees, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. That towards the end of his career many people of rank believed in Jesus, even in secret only, is not very probable, since no indication of it appears in the Acts of the Apostles ; for that the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5.34 ff.) did not originate in a positively favorable disposition towards the cause of Jesus, seems to be sufficiently demonstrated by the spirit of his disciple Saul. Moreover the synoptists make Jesus declare in plain terms that the secret of his Messiahship had been revealed only to babes, and hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. 11.25 ; Luke 10.21), and Joseph of Arimathea is the only individual of the ruling class whom they mention as an adherent of Jesus.

    How, then, if Jesus did not really attach to himself any from the upper ranks, came the case to be represented differently at a later period? In John 7.48f we read that the Pharisees sought to disparage Jesus by the remark that none of the rulers or of the Pharisees, but only the ignorant populace, believed on him ; and even later adversaries of Christianity, for example, Celsus, laid great stress on the circumstance that Jesus had had as his disciples. This reproach was a thorn in the side of the early church, and though as long as her members were drawn only from the people, she might reflect with satisfaction on the declarations of Jesus, in which he had pronounced the poor, and simple, blessed : yet so soon as she was joined by men of rank and education, these would lean to the idea that converts like themselves had not been wanting to Jesus during his life. But, it would be objected, nothing had been hitherto known of such converts. Naturally enough, it might be answered ; since fear of their equals would induce them to conceal their relations with Jesus. Thus a door was opened for the admission of any number of secret adherents among the higher class (John 12.42f). But, it would be further urged, how could they have intercourse with Jesus unobserved ? Under the veil of the night, would be the answer ; and thus the scene was laid for the interviews of such men with Jesus (19.39). This, however, would not suffice ; a representative of this class must actually appear on the scene : Joseph of Arimathea might have been chosen, his name being still extant in the synoptical tradition ; but the idea of him was too definite, and it was the interest of the legend to name more than one eminent friend of Jesus. Hence a new personage was devised, whose Greek name (Nicodemus) seems to point him out significantly as the representative of the dominant class. That this development of the legend is confined to the fourth gospel, is to be explained, partly by the generally admitted lateness of its origin, and partly on the ground that in the evidently more cultivated circle in which it arose, the limitation of the adherents of Jesus to the Common people would be more offensive, than in the circle in which the synoptical tradition was formed. Thus the reproach which modern criticism has cast on the first gospel, on the score of its silence respecting Nicodemus, is turned upon the fourth, on the score of its information on the same subject.

    These considerations, however, should not create any prejudice against the ensuing conversation, which is the proper object of our investigations. This may still be in the main genuine ; Jesus may have held such a conversation with one of [his adherents, and our Evangelist may have embellished it no further than by making this interlocutor a man of rank. Neither will we, with the author of the Probabilia, take umbrage at the opening address of Nicodemus, nor complain, with him, that there is a want of connexion between that address and the answer of Jesus. The requisition of a new birth, as a condition of entrance into the kingdom of heaven, does not differ essentially from the summons with which Jesus opens his ministry in the synoptical gospels, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. New birth, or new creation, was a current image among the Jews, especially as denoting the conversion of an idolater into a worshipper of Jehovah. It was customary to say of Abraham, that when, according to the Jewish supposition, he renounced idolatry for the worship of the true God, he became a new creature. The proselyte, too, in allusion to his relinquishing all his previous associations, was compared to a new-born child. That such phraseology was common among the Jews at that period, is shown by the confidence with which Paul applies, as if it required no explanation, the term new creation, to those truly converted to Christ. Now, if Jesus required, even from the Jews, as a condition of
    entrance into the messianic kingdom, the new birth which they ascribed to their heathen proselytes, Nicodemus might naturally wonder at the requisition, since the Israelite thought himself, as such, unconditionally entitled to that kingdom : and this is the construction which has been put upon his question 5.4. But Nicodemus does not ask, How canst thou say that a Jew, or a child of Abraham, must be born again ? His ground of wonder is that Jesus appears to suppose it possible for a man to be born again, and that when he is old. It does not, therefore, astonish him that spiritual new birth should be expected in a Jew, but corporeal new birth in a man. How an oriental, to whom figurative speech in general how a Jew, to whom the image of the new birth in particular must have been familiar how especially a master of Israel, in whom the misconstruction of figurative phrases cannot, as in the apostles (e.g. Matt. 15.15f ; 16.7), be ascribed to want of education could understand this expression literally, has been matter of extreme surprise to expositors of all parties, as well as to Jesus (5.10). Hence some have supposed that the Pharisee really understood Jesus, and only intended by his question to test the ability of Jesus to interpret his figurative expression into a simple proposition : but Jesus does not treat him as a hypocrite, as in that case he must have done he continues to instruct him, as one really ignorant(5.10). Others give the question the following turn : This cannot be meant in a physical sense, how then otherwise ? But the true drift of the question is rather the contrary : By these words I can only understand physical new birth, but how is this possible? Our wonder at the ignorance of the Jewish doctor, therefore, returns upon us ; and it is heightened when, after the copious explanation of Jesus (5.5-8), that the new birth which he required was a spiritual birth, Nicodemus has made no advance in comprehension, but asks with the same obtuseness as before (5.9), How can these things be? By this last difficulty one apologist who tries to argue for the historicity of the tale is so destitute of excuses, that, contrary to his ordinary exegetical tact, he refers the continued amazement of Nicodemus--as other expositors had referred his original question--to the circumstance that Jesus maintained the necessity of new birth even for Israelites. But, in that case, Nicodemus would have inquired concerning the necessity, not the possibility, of that birth ; instead of asking, How can these things be? he would have asked, Why must these things be? This inconceivable mistake in a Jewish doctor is not then to be explained away, and our surprise must become strong suspicion so soon as it can be shown, that legend or the Evangelist had inducements to represent this individual as more simple than he really was. First, then, it must occur to us, that in all descriptions and recitals, contrasts are eagerly exhibited ; hence in the representation of a colloquy in which one party is the teacher, the other the taught, there is a strong temptation to create a contrast to the wisdom of the former by exaggerating the simplicity of the latter. Further, we must remember the satisfaction it must give to a Christian mind of that age, to place a master of Israel in the position of an unintelligent person, by the side of the Master of the Christians. Lastly, it is, as we shall presently see more clearly, the constant method of the fourth Evangelist in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form the knot and the progress of the discussion, by making the interlocutors understand literally what Jesus intended figuratively.

    In reply to the second query of Nicodemus, Jesus takes entirely the tone of the fourth Evangelist's prologue (5.11-13). The question hence arises, whether the Evangelist borrowed from Jesus, or lent to him his own style. A previous investigation has decided in favor of the latter alternative. But this inquiry referred merely to the form of the discourses ; in relation to their matter, its analogy with the ideas of Philo, does not authorize us at once to conclude that the writer here puts his Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos into the mouth of Jesus ; because the expressions, "We speak that we do know," etc., and, "No man hath ascended up to heaven," etc., have an analogy with Matt. 11.27 ; and the idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah which is here propounded, is, as we have seen, not foreign to the Apostle Paul.

    In chapter 5.14 & 15 Jesus proceeds from the more simple things of the earth, the communications concerning the new birth, to the more difficult things of heaven, the announcement of the destination of the Messiah to a vicarious death. The Son of Man, he says, must be lifted up (which, in John's phraseology, signifies crucifixion, with an allusion to a glorifying exaltation), in the same way, and with the same effect, as the brazen serpent in Num. 21.8,9. Here many questions press upon us. Is it credible, that Jesus already, at the very commencement of his public ministry, foresaw his death, and in the specific form of crucifixion? and that long before he instructed his disciples on this point, he made a communication on the subject to a Pharisee? Can it be held consistent with the wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, that he should impart such knowledge to Nicodemus? Even a conservative theologian like Lucke puts the question why, when Nicodemus had not understood the more obvious doctrine, Jesus tormented him with the more recondite, and especially with the secret of the Messiah's death, which was then so remote? Lucke's ingenious proposal to try and explain such away such a question is to propose that 'it accords perfectly with the wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, that he should reveal the sufferings appointed for him by God as early as possible, because no instruction was better adapted to cast down false worldly hopes;' or to say it another way, the more remote the idea of the Messiah's death from the conceptions of his contemporaries, owing to the worldliness of their expectations, the more impressively and unequivocally must Jesus express that idea, if he wished to promulgate it ; not in an enigmatical form which he could not be sure that Nicodemus would understand. Lucke continues : "Nicodemus was a man open to instruction ; one of whom good might be expected. But in this very conversation, his dullness of comprehension in earthly things, had evinced that he must have still less capacity for heavenly things; and, according to 5.12, Jesus himself despaired of enlightening him with respect to them. Lucke, however, observes, that it was a practice with Jesus to follow up easy doctrine which had not been comprehended, by difficult doctrine which was of course less comprehensible ; that he purposed thus to give a spur to the minds of his hearers, and by straining their attention, engage them to reflect. But the examples that Lucke adduces of such proceeding on the part of Jesus, are all drawn from the fourth gospel. Now the very point in question is, whether that gospel correctly represents the teaching of Jesus ; consequently Lucke argues in a circle. We have seen a similar procedure ascribed to Jesus in his conversation with the woman of Samaria, and we have already declared our opinion that such an overburdening of weak faculties with enigma on enigma, does not accord with the wise rule as to the communication of doctrine, which the same gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus, 16.12. It would not stimulate, but confuse, the mind of the hearer, who persisted in a misapprehension of
    the well-known figure of the new birth, to present to him the novel comparison of the Messiah and his death, to the brazen serpent and its effects; a comparison quite incongruous with his Jewish ideas. In the first three Gospels Jesus pursues an entirely different course. In these, where a misconstruction betrays itself on the part of the disciples, Jesus (except where he breaks off altogether, or where it is evident that the Evangelist unhistorically associates a number of metaphorical discourses) applies himself with the assiduity of an earnest teacher to the thorough explanation of the difficulty, and not until he has effected this does he proceed, step by step, to convey further instruction (e.g. Matt. 13.10 ff, 36 ff, 15.16, 16.8 ff.). This is the method of a wise teacher ; on the contrary, to leap from one subject to another, to overburden and strain the mind of the hearer, a mode of instruction which the fourth Evangelist attributes to Jesus, is wholly inconsistent with that character. To explain this inconsistency, we must suppose that the writer of the fourth gospel thought to heighten in the most effective manner the contrast which appears from the first, between the wisdom of the one party and the incapacity of the other, by representing the teacher as overwhelming the pupil, who put unintelligent questions on the most elementary doctrine, with lofty and difficult themes, beneath which his faculties are laid prostrate.

    From 5.16, even those commentators who pretend to some ability in this department, lose all hope of showing that the remainder of the discourse may have been spoken by Jesus. Not only does Paulus make this confession, but even Olshausen, with a concise statement of his reasons. At the above verse, any special reference to Nicodemus vanishes, and there is commenced an entirely general discourse on the destination of the Son of God, to confer a blessing on the world, and on the manner in which unbelief forfeits this blessing. Moreover, these ideas are expressed in a form, which at one moment appears to be a reminiscence of the Evangelist's introduction, and at another has a striking similarity with passages in the first Epistle of John. In particular, the expression, the only begotten Son, which is repeatedly (5.16 & 18) attributed to Jesus as a designation of his own person, is nowhere else found in his mouth, even in the fourth gospel ; this circumstance, however, marks it still more positively as a favourite phrase of
    the Evangelist (1.14-18), and of the writer of the Epistles (1 John 4.9).

    Further, many things are spoken of as past, which at the supposed period of this conversation with Nicodemus were yet future. For even if the words, he gave, refer not to the giving over to death, but to the sending of the Messiah into the world ; the expressions, "men loved darkness," and, "their deeds were evil," (5.19), as Lucke also remarks, could only be used after the triumph of darkness had been achieved in the rejection and execution of Jesus : they belong then to the Evangelist's point of view at the time when he wrote, not to that of Jesus when on the threshold of his public ministry.

    In general the whole of this discourse attributed to Jesus, with its constant use of the third person to designate the supposed speaker ; with its dogmatical terms, "only begotten," "light," and the like, applied to Jesus ; with its comprehensive view of the crisis and its results, which the appearance of Jesus produced, is far too objective for us to believe that it came from the lips of Jesus. Jesus could not speak thus of himself, but the evangelist might speak thus of Jesus. Hence the same expedient has been adopted by some conservative theologians, as in the case of the Baptist's discourse already considered, and it has been supposed that Jesus is the speaker down to 5.16, but that from that point the Evangelist appends his own dogmatic reflections. But there is again here no intimation of such a transition in the text ; rather, the connecting word "for," yap (5.16), seems to indicate a continuation of the same discourse. No writer, and least of all the fourth Evangelist (comp. 7.39, 11.51 f., 12.16, 33.37 ff.), would scatter his own observations thus undistinguishingly, unless he wished to create a misapprehension.

    If then it be established that the evangelist, from 5.16 to the end of the discourse, means to represent Jesus as the speaker, while Jesus can never have so spoken, we cannot rest satisfied with the half measure adopted by Lucke, when he maintains that it is really Jesus who continues to speak from the above passage, but that the Evangelist has woven in his own explanations and amplifications more liberally than before. For this admission undermines all certainty as to how far the discourse belongs to Jesus, and how far to the Evangelist ; besides, as the discourse is distinguished by the closest uniformity of thought and style, it must be ascribed either wholly to Jesus or wholly to the Evangelist. Of these two alternatives the former is, according to the above considerations, impossible ; we are therefore restricted to the latter, which we have observed to be entirely consistent with the manner of the fourth Evangelist.

    But not only on the passage 5.16-21 must we pass this judgment : 5.14 has appeared to us out of keeping with the position of Jesus ; and the behaviour of Nicodemus, 5.4 & 9, altogether inconceivable. Thus in the very first sample, when compared with the observations which we have already made on John 3.22 ff., 4.1 ff, the fourth gospel presents to us all the peculiarities which characterize its mode of reporting the discourses of Jesus. They are usually commenced in the form of dialogue, and so far as this extends, the lever that propels the conversation is the striking contrast
    between the spiritual sense and the carnal interpretation of the language of Jesus ; generally, however, the dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse, in which the writer blends the person of Jesus with his own, and makes the former use concerning himself, language which could only be used by John concerning Jesus.
    ____________________

    Recently Strauss' work has been made available in audio format free online, click HERE, or HERE. For Strauss' questions regarding the historicity of Nicodemus in particular see, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, Part 2 - History of the Public Life of Jesus Chapter 7 - Discourses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel §80 Conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus, click HERE and listen, or download to a device. Strauss' printed work is also available online to download and read on any device, click HERE.


    http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.co.uk/


    how mat + luke changed mark


    http://vridar.org/2013/09/02/reading...first-time-10/


    the fiction of steven the 1st martyr
    http://vridar.org/2013/11/26/the-fic...-first-martyr/
    Last edited by theman09; 27th November 2013 at 13:39.

  9. #294
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    Zechariah 12:9-14 Proves Nothing.

    Again, we find ourselves, returning to the Jewish rendition of a particular set of verses. What we find once more, is that what Anthony’s version claims and what the Jews claim, from whom Zechariah was a member of (according to Anthony), contradicts his rendition in numerous ways:

    And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come upon Jerusalem. And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son. On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart. All the remaining families-every family apart, and their wives apart. - Zechariah 12:9-14.

    Which doesn’t fit Anthony’s explanation, from his article:

    “In the above passage the Lord says that the people will “look on Me whom they have pierced,” and tells us that the house of David and Jerusalem’s inhabitants will mourn for Him, i.e. Yahweh, the pierced one”

    That presents a problem, as the invisible God can now actually be pierced. How can you pierce the invisible, all powerful, eternal God who is YHWH? Unless of course, he’s not referring to YHWH the Father, but the other person who is also God, the son, who is Mal’ak YHWH, the Word, the Incarnate Word. We just went meta, you have a God who has two other personalities and one of those two personalties has other personalities that are also eternal but co-equal with each other, but also fully God. His interpretation of these verses is really “special” to say the least. From the Judaic rendition, Anthony’s eisegesis amounts to nothing but mere attempts again at correcting the beliefs of the Jews from whom according to Anthony, Zechariah was from.

    YHWH Kills Himself with His own Sword.

    To those of you who have managed to reach this far without asserting that Anthony has lost the plot, it gets worse:

    “A third passage in Zechariah of some significance is found in Zechariah 13 and is closely related to the passage in Zechariah 12. For just as Yahweh said in 12:10 that He would be pierced, so in Zechariah 13 we are told not only that false prophets, by the Lord’s decree, will come to such a fate, i.e. they would be pierced through, but even the Shepherd of Yahweh would experience a terrible fate, no doubt the piercing mentioned in 12:10, and back of it would be the Lord’s own sword. Most significantly for present purposes is the fact that “the Shepherd,” –indeed, “My Shepherd,” – is identified by Yahweh not only as one distinct from Himself, but as “My Associate.”

    So according to Anthony:

    YHWH says false prophets would be pierced.
    YHWH will pierce Himself.
    YHWH will become a Shepherd.
    YHWH who is a shepherd will pierce/ stab Himself with His own sword, a punishment meant for false Prophets.
    At this point, I’m not sure if Anthony is arguing for Christianity or against it. I’ll leave that judgement up to you.

    Conclusion.

    I have aptly demonstrated that Anthony’s premises are self contradictory, dynamic, erratic and that he has gone above and beyond to refute his own argumentation. He has demonstrated that he does not grasp the true nature of YHWH, at one point he tries to demonstrate that God will kill himself, with a punishment meant for cursed persons with false teachings by his own sword. At another time he tries to demonstrate that God, even though He is invisible and without a known form, became an angel, thus contradicting his Bible and his doctrine. None of those points demonstrate the case for YHWH being Mal’al YHWH. At no time did he present a viable case for his self contradicting premises:

    Argument 1:
    Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
    Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

    Argument 2:
    Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
    Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

    I look forward to seeing how Anthony will actually attempt to address these issues and when he shall admit his faulty logic. It is my view, that his reinterpretation of Judaic scripture is not only embarrassing for himself , but for the Christian religion as a whole. I do apologize to my Christian brethren if his erratic statements were insulting in anyway.

    wa Allaahu Alam.

    http://callingchristians.com/2012/06...het-zechariah/

  10. #295
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    the STABBING of jc's side


    http://vridar.org/2013/07/26/blood-a...-of-john-1934/


    “and the New Testament picks up on this language saying that “all will see Him, even those who pierced Him.”

    notice how john has used the stabbing of jesus’ side to his apologetic advantage. if this was FICTION , then john placed alledged eyewitnesses in FICTION and preplans a narrative which will help him support his case .

    john: appearance 1

    It being, therefore, evening, on that day(day of alledged ressurection), the first of the sabbaths, and the doors having been shut where the disciples were assembled, through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith to them, ‘Peace to you;’ 20and this having said, he shewed them his hands and side; the disciples, therefore, rejoiced…. 21jesus, therefore, said to them again…’

    Appearance 2

    And after eight days, again were his disciples within, and Thomas with them…saith to Thomas, ‘Bring thy finger hither, and see my hands, and bring thy hand, and put [it] to my side, and become not unbelieving, but believing.’

    3rd appearance @ the Sea of Galilee

    this [is] now a third time Jesus was manifested to his disciples, having been raised from the dead.

    The Road to Emmaus luke: app 1

    13And, lo, two of them were going on during that day to a village, distant sixty furlongs from Jerusalem…

    28And they came nigh to the village whither they were going, and he made an appearance of going on further, 29and they constrained him, saying, ‘Remain with us, for it is toward evening,’ and the day did decline, and he went in to remain with them. 30And it came to pass, in his reclining (at meat) with them, having taken the bread, he blessed, and having broken, he was giving to them, 31and their eyes were opened…’ 33And they, having risen up the same hour, turned back to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven, and those with them…

    36and as they are speaking these things, jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith to them, ‘Peace — to you;’ 37and being amazed, and becoming affrighted, they were thinking themselves to see a spirit. 39see my hands and my feet, that I am he; handle me and see, because a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me having…. 41and while they are not believing from the joy, and wondering, he said to them, ‘Have ye anything here to eat?’ 42and they gave to him part of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb, 43and having taken, he did eat before them,

    And, lo, I do send the promise of my Father upon you, but ye — abide ye in the city of Jerusalem till ye be clothed with power from on high.’

    And he led them forth without — unto Bethany, and having lifted up his hands he did bless them, 51and it came to pass, in his blessing them, he was parted from them, and was borne up to the heaven

    Matthew

    women report to deciples on day of alledged ressurection:

    “And they remembered his sayings, 9and having turned back from the tomb told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest”

    16And the eleven disciples went to Galilee (Galilee is some 70 miles distance from Jerusalem) , to the mount where jesus appointed them, 17and having seen him, they bowed to him, but some did waver. 18And having come near, jesus spake to them…

    notice that it is only john who says that thomas put his finger in jesus’ side?
    notice that both matthew and luke have deciples look at jesus’ body, but not one of them, including mark, mention the stab wound /hole in the side of jesus? jesus CAME near…

    jesus tries to prove that he isn’t a spirit in luke and tells his deciples to look @ his hands and feet and to “handle him” because spirits don’t have flesh/bones. then jesus eats fish. notice that the hole in the side caused by the stab is NOT mentioned? if it was noticable like a massive wound and if the wound convinced doubting tom , then why did luke bypass it and FOCUS on other parts? why would that be?

    1.

    “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

    37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.d

    38The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.e 39And when the centurion,f who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died,* he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!

    matthew

    “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

    50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.d

    51At that moment the curtain of the templee was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks splitf 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and* went into the holy cityg and appeared to many people.

    54When the centurion and those with him who were guardingh Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”i
    Luke 23

    44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

    47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away.

    WHY ? no post ressurected jesus has a STAB wound in his SIDE because none of the synoptics have jesus STABBED by one of the guards. if you are honest with yourself you will admit that something is fishy here.after declaring jesus “son of god” and a guard seeing the people ” beat their breasts” somebody decides to grab a sword and stab jesus on the cross? how likely is that if you only had the synoptic stories? this is not “complementary detail” this is FRAUD created to fill in a gap CREATED by the synoptics.

    notice that not only is the stabbing of jesus not mention before his alledged ressurection , but no hole in jesus’ side is focused on AFTER his alledged ressurection, a strange thing, considering that synopicts left out clues for the stabbing.



    may i ask what your opinion is on the post posted on POSTED BY MANSUBZERO | JULY 10, 2013, 8:05 PM above the LINK i posted? if the stabbing of jesus was “prophecy” and it was also used as proof to convince doubting tom, why did the synoptics feel that it is better to inform about so called prophecies which talk about divinding jesus’ clothes? note in the post above how each synoptic writer misses opportunity to inform listeners about the hole in jesus’ side even though each focuses on jesus’ flesh? doesn’t something look at here? it is as if the christians are INVENTING because they are thinking that thier DOUBT may occur in thier audiences and so they must fix up the problem.


    mark:
    33At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).b

    35When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”

    36Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

    37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

    38The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died,c he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”

    40Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph,d and Salome. 41In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

    luke:
    44It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”e When he had said this, he breathed his last.

    47The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” 48When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

    john:
    The Death of Jesus

    28Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

    31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”c 37and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”d

    mark:44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.

    john: 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

    now here is something strange, matthew has judas full fill a prophecy

    Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

    matthew says:
    At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection ande went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

    54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

    in matthew conclusion, he ADDS the words

    but some doubted
    and he also says

    Then Jesus came to them and said.

    11 deciples, 70 miles away from jerusalem see jesus’ flesh, but some doubted.
    would you really want to tell your community “SOME doubted” and not tell them how the doubt was answered?
    if the guards REPORT became FAMOUS AND known to every jew, then MATTHEW wasted money and space tell a community what they ALREADY knew. what he should have told his community was HOW 70 miles away from jerusalem, the doubt was answered.
    he can have jesus COME near and speak, but he can’t have deciples focus on jesus’ side?

    john:Peace to you;’ 20and this having said, he shewed them his hands and side; the disciples, therefore, rejoiced…. 21jesus, therefore, said to them again…’

    SEE something here? jesus’ FIRST appearance in john has the deciples LOOK @ jesus’ SIDE
    john will later use jesus’ SIDE to answer toms doubts.

    matthew says “some doubted” and mark says “they didn’t say nothing to anyone because they were afraid” so this means the women were not filled with joy otherwise they would have opened thier mouths and if they had FAITH , they would HAVE opened thier MOUTHS.

    LUKE:
    36and as they are speaking these things, jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith to them, ‘Peace — to you;’ 37and being amazed, and becoming affrighted, they were thinking themselves to see a spirit. 39see my hands and my feet, that I am he; handle me and see, because a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me having…. 41and while they are not believing from the joy, and wondering, he said to them, ‘Have ye anything here to eat?’ 42and they gave to him part of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb, 43and having taken, he did eat before them,

    here you would think the hole in jesus’ SIDE would be brought to the deciples ATTENTION, but lukes jesus’ is only contrasting spirit jesus from flesh jesus and if flesh jesus HAD a pierced side, then why wasn’t that handled?

    another intersting thing to note is that johns jesus does not eat fish. why would demi god in his post ressurected body consume meat? and where would that meat go after digestion? so this could be one reason why john does not want to attribte disgestion to his jesus.

  11. #296
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?


  12. #297
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    The Devil’s Father and Gnostic Hints In the Gospel of John
    http://vridar.org/2013/12/11/the-dev...ospel-of-john/

    How John Used Mark: Investigating the Methods of the Fourth Evangelist (Part 1)
    by Tim Widowfield

    http://vridar.org/2013/12/10/how-joh...gelist-part-1/

  13. #298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?


  14. #299
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    572

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    Shabir Ally tells why he believes Islam is the reasonable religion and Christianity is not. First he says that if Jesus is God and Jesus died who was running the world? That is a silly question. First of all, Jesus rose from the dead. I would ask Ally, if a watchmaker dies and comes back to life after three days who is running his watch. The Lord created the heavens and set everything in motion and it runs its prescribed course. It is held together by the word of His power who is Jesus the incarnate word of God. God's word never dies; it is living; it is eternal and uncreated!

    The flesh of Jesus died. God never died. After Jesus' death, His soul and spirit preached to souls in the hereafter. The word of God is quick and powerful it is piercing even to the dividing the soul and the spirit the joints and marrow and it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. We are made in God's image. I am a soul, I have a body and a spirit. Am I three people? No, I am one. I can not make my soul a person and my spirit one, but God is not limited the way man is in a spiritual sense or a physical one.

    Ally said Christians have a problem, because Jesus said the father is greater. That means a greater and lesser god. He errs not knowing the Scriptures or the power thereof. Jesus was less than the father in position, office and function only, but He was, is and will always be the word of God who is equal in nature, essence and character. Moreover, the fact that Jesus said the father is greater shows that he was the son of God; it shows that God is His father.

    As a man Jesus was a little lower than the angels and subordinate to the father like a son is to His father in life on earth, but the father is no more a person or human than his son. In Christ dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily; therefore, Jesus is all that God is but not all there is to God.

    There were many other things Ally said such as religion has to be reasonable. Who says that, and what Scripture is that in??? He elevates human reason and logic above the word of God and therefore makes that his god! I challenge him at all points of his debate.
    Last edited by Burninglight; 5th January 2014 at 02:27.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

  15. #300
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    572

    Default Re: jesus in genesis?

    Since I believe Jesus is the total Spiritual sum of all things, I accept Shawn's presentation more than the skeptic's doubts! I believe the truth is lost in Ally's explanation of Christianity because he is a master a semantics!
    Last edited by Burninglight; 6th January 2014 at 21:58.
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

Similar Threads

  1. Dear Jesus How to get to heaven (Jesus`s salvation
    By Rima in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2nd January 2013, 07:32
  2. Muhammad repeating creation from Genesis
    By sumuque in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 14th February 2012, 15:41
  3. Revival of 'Jesus(pbuh) Model' not Jesus(pbuh) himself
    By Roswell in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th June 2007, 15:40
  4. The fate of Jesus/Was Jesus Substituted?
    By Ansar Al-Haq in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 23rd November 2004, 17:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •