|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 22:21:41 GMT -5
I don't think so. He must copy it from a book.
- Yes, -Bob did copy it from a book, Nathan.
Who do you think this person is? Williston, Bob, I Will Disentangle Myself . . . and Leave, LitFire Publishing, 2018. pp. 231-233.Why waste time writing it over and over again, especially for people who don't really want to know anyway. So I just copy and paste.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 22:22:43 GMT -5
The gospel of Mark, is a nephew of Barnabas= John Mark was NOT an eyewitness of Jesus Resurrection. John Mark mentioned for the first time in Acts chapter 14. John and Matthew were eyewitnesses of Jesus own resurrection and they wrote it in their gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John DID NOT write the four gospels themselves. they may have used scribes to do it that doesn't take anything away from their testimony....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2020 22:22:50 GMT -5
I could see the way the writing which he posted that it came from a book. That was why I said it was NOT his writing to your post. Whatever, but it isn’t really true. For it says the Christians had early recognition/respect in Rome. They did not. The Jewish Christians were the first Christians there, then there were Gentile Christians that joined them but The Jews maintained the leadership roles. Then the Emperor didn’t like it because the Jewish Christian didn’t worship the emperor as part of their religion. That was the requirement for all religions, which there were many in Rome. But the Jewish Christians and their Gentile followers said there was only one God. So the emperor drove the Jews out. The Gentile Christians stayed and when Nero became emperor they were persecuted often burned at the stake “lighting up Nero’s gardens at night”. Paul finally arrived at Rome as a prisoner but was given a house where he was allowed visitors. Nero and a Paul locked horns and Nero beheaded Paul. There were very few Christians left in Rome or Judea in the reign of Nero, who was spurred on by his mother’s hatred of Christians. STR, -can you give us notes on the source references for your statements? I am sure that you are aware that all such writings do provide that.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 22:29:05 GMT -5
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John DID NOT write the four gospels themselves. they may have used scribes to do it that doesn't take anything away from their testimony.... And then, maybe not -- don't forget the need for translators.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 22:31:52 GMT -5
Whatever, but it isn’t really true. For it says the Christians had early recognition/respect in Rome. They did not. The Jewish Christians were the first Christians there, then there were Gentile Christians that joined them but The Jews maintained the leadership roles. Then the Emperor didn’t like it because the Jewish Christian didn’t worship the emperor as part of their religion. That was the requirement for all religions, which there were many in Rome. But the Jewish Christians and their Gentile followers said there was only one God. So the emperor drove the Jews out. The Gentile Christians stayed and when Nero became emperor they were persecuted often burned at the stake “lighting up Nero’s gardens at night”. Paul finally arrived at Rome as a prisoner but was given a house where he was allowed visitors. Nero and a Paul locked horns and Nero beheaded Paul. There were very few Christians left in Rome or Judea in the reign of Nero, who was spurred on by his mother’s hatred of Christians. STR, -can you give us notes on the source references for your statements? I am sure that you are aware that all such writings do provide that.How did Peter become the first pope if the Romans didn't like him?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 22:36:19 GMT -5
I could see the way the writing which he posted that it came from a book. That was why I said it was NOT his writing to your post. Whatever, but it isn’t really true. For it says the Christians had early recognition/respect in Rome. They did not. The Jewish Christians were the first Christians there, then there were Gentile Christians that joined them but The Jews maintained the leadership roles. Then the Emperor didn’t like it because the Jewish Christian didn’t worship the emperor as part of their religion. That was the requirement for all religions, which there were many in Rome. But the Jewish Christians and their Gentile followers said there was only one God. So the emperor drove the Jews out. The Gentile Christians stayed and when Nero became emperor they were persecuted often burned at the stake “lighting up Nero’s gardens at night”. Paul finally arrived at Rome as a prisoner but was given a house where he was allowed visitors. Nero and a Paul locked horns and Nero beheaded Paul. There were very few Christians left in Rome or Judea in the reign of Nero, who was spurred on by his mother’s hatred of Christians. I quote myself - with source reference available: I begin this chapter by distinguishing between believers (in Jesus) and Christians – believers being those who believed Jesus to be a normal human being, rather than a christ. It’s doubtful that the terms Christian and Christianity originated among any of Jesus’ followers in Palestine. According to the Bible, the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.1 Interestingly, Antioch is the Greek city where Paul, a Hellenistic Jew and Roman citizen who had never met Jesus, had been preaching. There’s significance to that event in that it occurred outside the influence of Jesus’ Palestinian ministry. We have evidence of meaningful differences between Paul and the original twelve apostles from the beginning. When Paul went to Palestine to meet with James and the others, they told him to take note that there were thousands of Jews there which believed, and they [were] all zealous of the law.2 They obviously pointed that out because Paul had taught that the Law did not bring salvation, but punishment.3 Further, they accused him of teaching all the Hellenistic Jews to forsake Moses.4 He was instructed to purify himself, walk orderly, and keep the law.5 His reputation had preceded him, and as the apostles had warned him he was confronted by a mob of angry Jews – their reasons obvious. As it turned out it was the Romans who came to his rescue6 because they recognized he hadn’t offended any Roman law.7 Paul, however, did confess to his Jewish heresy,8 to his faith in Christ,9 and that he knew Jesus lived,10 a blaspheme when naming a dead Jewish messiah. There is no account of the apostles coming to his defense, and when he faced trial he claimed his Roman right to justice from none other than the Roman emperor.11 The New Testament doesn’t address what became of the believers in Palestine after Jesus’ crucifixion, but their influence spread even to other Jews throughout the Diaspora. Peter obviously went to Rome – he’s reputed to have been the first bishop of Rome. He was possibly there before Paul arrived. Missionaries had been sent out from Jerusalem, and Peter wrote of his disapproval of converts who did not keep the Jewish law. He wrote in typically Jewish manner about the ministries of Paul and his followers, that the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.12 His interpretation of Paul’s perceived freedom from the Law is not unlike the traditional Jewish perception of gentile wickedness and uncleanness.13 Peter’s attitude on this matter was the norm among the original apostles, because it was on instruction from James, their apparent coordinator, that he separated himself and his Jewish followers from Paul and his gentile followers.14 It’s commonly believed among modern Christians that the early Christians in Rome were persecuted. This is true, but somewhat out of context. Peter’s followers, or believers, had already found respect, if not other believers, among the Roman elite; but Paul’s Christian followers did not associate with them.15 The believers in Rome had so negatively reacted to Paul’s message that he decided to preach only to gentiles, for they [would] listen.16,17 It was those Christians who were persecuted. Paul in his own account described his resistance to the apostles in Jerusalem, how he felt about their interference with his followers.18 This explains why Saint Peter became the first pope in Rome, and Saint Paul, who much later became the father of Christianity, was executed in Rome. The Bible did not yet exist.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2020 23:02:16 GMT -5
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John DID NOT write the four gospels themselves. they may have used scribes to do it that doesn't take anything away from their testimony.... Wally, -none of the gospels were written right at the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
This is a good place to start for basic research.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 23:04:04 GMT -5
they may have used scribes to do it that doesn't take anything away from their testimony.... Wally, -none of the gospels were written right at the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
This is a good place to start for basic research.we all know that some say as early at the 40's some say later in the 60's....
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 23:49:41 GMT -5
we all know that some say as early at the 40's some say later in the 60's.... It really doesn't matter what "some" people say, the vast majority of people have no clue what factual matters a small number of extremely qualified people are able to prove. It's not smart to refute their findings just because they offend our "faith" claims.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 20, 2020 0:17:56 GMT -5
we all know that some say as early at the 40's some say later in the 60's.... Anyone can say, write or change anything on Wiki... Wally, The atheists on TMB are NOT going to believe Matthew, Peter, and John the apostle were eyewitnesses of Jesus life, death and resurrection. We read Peter and John wrote it in their epistles. John wrote in I John 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Peter wrote II Peter 1:16-18 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (Matthew 17:1-8)
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 1:11:34 GMT -5
STR, -can you give us notes on the source references for your statements? I am sure that you are aware that all such writings do provide that. How did Peter become the first pope if the Romans didn't like him? I didn’t say anything about Peter. No one really knows HOW Peter become the first pope. He wasn’t in Rome when the emperor chased the Christian Jews out of Rome. He apparently did not go to Rome until after Paul had been given a house there as a prisoner if even then. There has been no REAL definitive evidence Peter was ever in Rome. It is a story told by first century Christians long after the fact. The main “working” of Jesus’ gospel was done early on by the Christian Jews. And when they were run out of Rome the Gentile Christians carried on. The Catholics didn’t have a church in Rome until the 3rd century. Britannia
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 1:37:11 GMT -5
STR, -can you give us notes on the source references for your statements? I am sure that you are aware that all such writings do provide that. How did Peter become the first pope if the Romans didn't like him? No Christians were liked in the first century and even down into the 2nd century. Christians were persecuted very much.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jan 20, 2020 8:22:57 GMT -5
Curious . Is it your understanding or “belief” ,then , that a believer in Jesus is supposed to follow all the Old Testament laws , with rigid interpretation? Alvin Yes. Jesus was a Jew who would be appalled by his followers not abiding by the Mosaic law. He certainly wasn't a Christian and he certainly did not agree with most of what Christians believe. Especially the part where they think that they can cherry pick what they believe is still relevant in the OT and what is not. I am thankful that Christians don't believe like Jesus did and that they don't uphold all the horrific practices in the OT, but I am very sure Jesus would not approve. This flies in the face of what you just said. Nothing unbelievable you can claim about this act also. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” - John 8:3-11 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:3-11&version=NIVThe sermon on the mount also disagrees with you.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jan 20, 2020 9:40:57 GMT -5
Yes. Jesus was a Jew who would be appalled by his followers not abiding by the Mosaic law. He certainly wasn't a Christian and he certainly did not agree with most of what Christians believe. Especially the part where they think that they can cherry pick what they believe is still relevant in the OT and what is not. I am thankful that Christians don't believe like Jesus did and that they don't uphold all the horrific practices in the OT, but I am very sure Jesus would not approve. This flies in the face of what you just said. Nothing unbelievable you can claim about this act also. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” - John 8:3-11 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:3-11&version=NIVThe sermon on the mount also disagrees with you. The sermon on the mount as it is called was Jesus preparing for the age of grace. He was not against the old law, or condemning it, but was superceding it with the more perfect age of grace. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, this was a kangaroo court and as the text says, it was an attempt to entrap Jesus. Whilst indeed the woman faced the death penalty, this was only meant to be applied in just cases. A proper trial was meant to take place which involved proper jusice, mercy and faith, according to the circumstances and only after a proper hearing was the death penalty to be applied if appropriate. Other verdicts or punishments could be applied. The Pharisees had forgotten all that in their attempt to trap Jesus, but they themselves were guilty of an unjust trial. Here (below) is what Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees elsewhere, about how they wrongly applied the old law. What he wrote in the sand may have had something to do with this? Perhaps the circumstances of the case actually suggested mercy instead of the death penalty to be a just verdict? However, the Pharisees would have none of it and Jesus more or less said...'have it your own way, but he that is without sin cast the first stone!' If this was a case where mercy should have been applied, then Jesus brought about that verdict! Matthew 23.23 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Virgs)
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 11:19:45 GMT -5
This flies in the face of what you just said. Nothing unbelievable you can claim about this act also. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” - John 8:3-11 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:3-11&version=NIVThe sermon on the mount also disagrees with you. The sermon on the mount as it is called was Jesus preparing for the age of grace. He was not against the old law, or condemning it, but was superceding it with the more perfect age of grace. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, this was a kangaroo court and as the text says, it was an attempt to entrap Jesus. Whilst indeed the woman faced the death penalty, this was only meant to be applied in just cases. A proper trial was meant to take place which involved proper jusice, mercy and faith, according to the circumstances and only after a proper hearing was the death penalty to be applied if appropriate. Other verdicts or punishments could be applied. The Pharisees had forgotten all that in their attempt to trap Jesus, but they themselves were guilty of an unjust trial. Here (below) is what Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees elsewhere, about how they wrongly applied the old law. What he wrote in the sand may have had something to do with this? Perhaps the circumstances of the case actually suggested mercy instead of the death penalty to be a just verdict? However, the Pharisees would have none of it and Jesus more or less said...'have it your own way, but he that is without sin cast the first stone!' If this was a case where mercy should have been applied, then Jesus brought about that verdict! Matthew 23.23 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Virgs) One blazingly blatant problem with the adulterous woman’s accusers was the fact they didn’t bring her partner of the crime. A pure sign of prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jan 20, 2020 11:21:07 GMT -5
This flies in the face of what you just said. Nothing unbelievable you can claim about this act also. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” - John 8:3-11 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:3-11&version=NIVThe sermon on the mount also disagrees with you. The sermon on the mount as it is called was Jesus preparing for the age of grace. He was not against the old law, or condemning it, but was superceding it with the more perfect age of grace. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, this was a kangaroo court and as the text says, it was an attempt to entrap Jesus. Whilst indeed the woman faced the death penalty, this was only meant to be applied in just cases. A proper trial was meant to take place which involved proper jusice, mercy and faith, according to the circumstances and only after a proper hearing was the death penalty to be applied if appropriate. Other verdicts or punishments could be applied. The Pharisees had forgotten all that in their attempt to trap Jesus, but they themselves were guilty of an unjust trial. Here (below) is what Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees elsewhere, about how they wrongly applied the old law. What he wrote in the sand may have had something to do with this? Perhaps the circumstances of the case actually suggested mercy instead of the death penalty to be a just verdict? However, the Pharisees would have none of it and Jesus more or less said...'have it your own way, but he that is without sin cast the first stone!' If this was a case where mercy should have been applied, then Jesus brought about that verdict! Matthew 23.23 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Virgs) What punishment was meted out to male adulterers?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 11:24:40 GMT -5
The sermon on the mount as it is called was Jesus preparing for the age of grace. He was not against the old law, or condemning it, but was superceding it with the more perfect age of grace. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, this was a kangaroo court and as the text says, it was an attempt to entrap Jesus. Whilst indeed the woman faced the death penalty, this was only meant to be applied in just cases. A proper trial was meant to take place which involved proper jusice, mercy and faith, according to the circumstances and only after a proper hearing was the death penalty to be applied if appropriate. Other verdicts or punishments could be applied. The Pharisees had forgotten all that in their attempt to trap Jesus, but they themselves were guilty of an unjust trial. Here (below) is what Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees elsewhere, about how they wrongly applied the old law. What he wrote in the sand may have had something to do with this? Perhaps the circumstances of the case actually suggested mercy instead of the death penalty to be a just verdict? However, the Pharisees would have none of it and Jesus more or less said...'have it your own way, but he that is without sin cast the first stone!' If this was a case where mercy should have been applied, then Jesus brought about that verdict! Matthew 23.23 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Virgs) What punishment was meted out to male adulterers? They were supposed to be stoned to death also. EDIT: Leviticus 20:10. And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 20, 2020 11:29:51 GMT -5
we all know that some say as early at the 40's some say later in the 60's.... Anyone can say, write or change anything on Wiki... Wally, The atheists on TMB are NOT going to believe Matthew, Peter, and John the apostle were eyewitnesses of Jesus life, death and resurrection. We read Peter and John wrote it in their epistles. John wrote in I John 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Peter wrote II Peter 1:16-18 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (Matthew 17:1-8)
It has nothing to do with atheists, Nathan.
It is biblical scholars that research the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jan 20, 2020 11:33:51 GMT -5
The sermon on the mount as it is called was Jesus preparing for the age of grace. He was not against the old law, or condemning it, but was superceding it with the more perfect age of grace. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, this was a kangaroo court and as the text says, it was an attempt to entrap Jesus. Whilst indeed the woman faced the death penalty, this was only meant to be applied in just cases. A proper trial was meant to take place which involved proper jusice, mercy and faith, according to the circumstances and only after a proper hearing was the death penalty to be applied if appropriate. Other verdicts or punishments could be applied. The Pharisees had forgotten all that in their attempt to trap Jesus, but they themselves were guilty of an unjust trial. Here (below) is what Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees elsewhere, about how they wrongly applied the old law. What he wrote in the sand may have had something to do with this? Perhaps the circumstances of the case actually suggested mercy instead of the death penalty to be a just verdict? However, the Pharisees would have none of it and Jesus more or less said...'have it your own way, but he that is without sin cast the first stone!' If this was a case where mercy should have been applied, then Jesus brought about that verdict! Matthew 23.23 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Virgs) What punishment was meted out to male adulterers? They were made to gather up the stones before and after the stoning. That could take a long time especially if their aiming was off.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2020 14:05:57 GMT -5
STR it was Paul that concocted the Christos belief. Not the Jews. I never said that he was in danger from teaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, you did. I said that he was in trouble for not preaching that Mosaic law needed to be upheld. That was the reason for the Purification ritual he had to undertake in order to be safe. I'm not sure why you brought that up if it was the Asian Christians. He wasn't where the Asian Christians were when he went to Jerusalem? Snow, Paul taught the same Christ follower beliefs that the 11 and 70 taught. He did NOT TELL THE JEWS NOT TO CIRCUMSIZE but the Gentile converts which the 11 and James the elder supported in Jerusalem. The 11 and James sent a letter to the Gentile converts saying so. Paul was not the one who gave the name “Christians” to the believers. It was the society at Antioch that gave them that name. As to giving “Christ” name to Jesus, he did it himself; but of course he used the Armaic term Messiah. But our Bible translated it to Christ. Well that doesn't jive with what I have learned by reading something other than the bible. But it really doesn't matter what I know, it's what you believe that matters.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2020 14:10:52 GMT -5
He certainly was considered to be a false teacher. He was talking about Christians that weren't Jews not needing to uphold the Mosaic Law. One of the biggest problems was he said they didn't need to be circumcised. Also, Paul taught about the Christos and the resurrection which the Jewish branch of Christians didn't believe. Mark, the first gospel, was revised at a later date to include the resurrection so the teaching lined up with the other later gospels that were written with a Gentile/Hellenistic slant. So who considered him a false teacher out of the 11?. The 11 agreed that the Gentiles did not need the mosaic law. Neither did the Jews for that matter but many rejected that. This does not mean trying to uphold the law in Gods original intent like Jesus suggests in Matthew 5 is a bad thing. Just realise that we never can, and Jesus came to full fill the Law. So if we only 1/100th full fill the intent of the law, do you trust Jesus will fill the rest (99). If Marks Gospel was changed how does the story change?. I would suggest to you that if there was no contradictions I would discredit the bible as it would be a conspiracy. Multiple authors over multiple years and you expect it to be perfect, how so?. Inspired word of God written by man. But yet many see the contradictions as a conspiracy and see it statically. The resurrection story wasn't in the original Gospel of Mark. It was added at some point later to jive with the Gospels of Luke and Matthew which did. The first followers never believed he died and came back from the dead. Others like Paul did. Pauls writings were actually written before the synoptic gospels were scribed and they weren't written by the Actual apostles Mark Luke and Matthew. The Gospel of John is supposed to be the only one of the 4 that was actually written by one of the apostles and it's interesting that it's the one that is based on a more mystical slant than the synoptic gospels.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2020 14:19:19 GMT -5
STR, -can you give us notes on the source references for your statements? I am sure that you are aware that all such writings do provide that. How did Peter become the first pope if the Romans didn't like him? It's so interesting to see how people ignore things that just don't match with what they want to believe. If they just took some courses or read some research books on the subject that would view the history of their religion in a whole different light. Especially the trinity doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2020 14:25:11 GMT -5
Yes. Jesus was a Jew who would be appalled by his followers not abiding by the Mosaic law. He certainly wasn't a Christian and he certainly did not agree with most of what Christians believe. Especially the part where they think that they can cherry pick what they believe is still relevant in the OT and what is not. I am thankful that Christians don't believe like Jesus did and that they don't uphold all the horrific practices in the OT, but I am very sure Jesus would not approve. This flies in the face of what you just said. Nothing unbelievable you can claim about this act also. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” - John 8:3-11 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:3-11&version=NIVThe sermon on the mount also disagrees with you. Jesus was more rigid than the rest in many ways. He also brought in the teachings of other religions, primarily Buddhism. I agree that he was more lenient when it came to women than the Mosaic law states he should have been, but in many ways he was far more rigid. He disagreed with the priests of his time and what they were doing. He felt the law had been corrupted and he was very upset about that. But there is really no point in getting into this deeper because you are unwilling to study what really happened or believe it. That's fine. That's what believing with faith is all about. But if you read some books regarding indepth research of the bible and the times, you'd find a very different story than the one Christians today are taught.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2020 14:27:32 GMT -5
The sermon on the mount as it is called was Jesus preparing for the age of grace. He was not against the old law, or condemning it, but was superceding it with the more perfect age of grace. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, this was a kangaroo court and as the text says, it was an attempt to entrap Jesus. Whilst indeed the woman faced the death penalty, this was only meant to be applied in just cases. A proper trial was meant to take place which involved proper jusice, mercy and faith, according to the circumstances and only after a proper hearing was the death penalty to be applied if appropriate. Other verdicts or punishments could be applied. The Pharisees had forgotten all that in their attempt to trap Jesus, but they themselves were guilty of an unjust trial. Here (below) is what Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees elsewhere, about how they wrongly applied the old law. What he wrote in the sand may have had something to do with this? Perhaps the circumstances of the case actually suggested mercy instead of the death penalty to be a just verdict? However, the Pharisees would have none of it and Jesus more or less said...'have it your own way, but he that is without sin cast the first stone!' If this was a case where mercy should have been applied, then Jesus brought about that verdict! Matthew 23.23 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Virgs) One blazingly blatant problem with the adulterous woman’s accusers was the fact they didn’t bring her partner of the crime. A pure sign of prejudice. Of course there was a bias against women. They weren't worth as much as men. Leviticus outlines the difference in shekels between males and females and the females always come out as worth less. It was a patriarchal society where women were not of the same worth and judgment reflected that.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 16:19:34 GMT -5
How did Peter become the first pope if the Romans didn't like him? I didn’t say anything about Peter. No one really knows HOW Peter become the first pope. He wasn’t in Rome when the emperor chased the Christian Jews out of Rome. He apparently did not go to Rome until after Paul had been given a house there as a prisoner if even then. There has been no REAL definitive evidence Peter was ever in Rome. It is a story told by first century Christians long after the fact. The main “working” of Jesus’ gospel was done early on by the Christian Jews. And when they were run out of Rome the Gentile Christians carried on. The Catholics didn’t have a church in Rome until the 3rd century. Britannia Yes, Peter and Paul were in Rome at the same time. But Peter wasn't the "Christian" -- he was a Jewish believer. Jews were ok in Rome in Paul's day -- but Peter's Jewish followers had rejected Paul and his fellow believers just like the Jewish believers in Jerusalem had rejected Paul when he was there.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 20, 2020 16:38:00 GMT -5
- Yes, -Bob did copy it from a book, Nathan.
Who do you think this person is? Williston, Bob, I Will Disentangle Myself . . . and Leave, LitFire Publishing, 2018. pp. 231-233.Why waste time writing it over and over again, especially for people who don't really want to know anyway. So I just copy and paste. *** Hey! Did you copy and paste from me? bob.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 16:39:42 GMT -5
I didn’t say anything about Peter. No one really knows HOW Peter become the first pope. He wasn’t in Rome when the emperor chased the Christian Jews out of Rome. He apparently did not go to Rome until after Paul had been given a house there as a prisoner if even then. There has been no REAL definitive evidence Peter was ever in Rome. It is a story told by first century Christians long after the fact. The main “working” of Jesus’ gospel was done early on by the Christian Jews. And when they were run out of Rome the Gentile Christians carried on. The Catholics didn’t have a church in Rome until the 3rd century. Britannia Yes, Peter and Paul were in Rome at the same time. But Peter wasn't the "Christian" -- he was a Jewish believer. Jews were ok in Rome in Paul's day -- but Peter's Jewish followers had rejected Paul and his fellow believers just like the Jewish believers in Jerusalem had rejected Paul when he was there. It wasn’t the Judean Jews who gave Paul problems, it was the Asian Jews. Everything I’ve read says there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. He wrote about being in Babylon which is where a number of the scattered tribes of Israel were. The Israelis are who Peter sought to administer to. Paul was in Rome twice. The first time when he was a prisoner and the second time when he was in one of his journeys to distant lands, evidently coming back from Spain, etc. Peter and Paul locked horns because Peter had come to the Gentile converts and he ate WITH THEM UNTIL other Jews came from Jerusalem. Then he disassembled and drew apart, even causing Barnabus to dissemble and draw apart from the Gentiles when they ate. This is when Paul jumped Peter’s case because he was declaring by his actions that the Gentile converts were “still unclean”, even after Peter himself had had the experience where God had told Peter to not call what God had cleansed to be unclean. Peter had to say Paul was right. The strange thing is in Paul’s letters he never mentioned Peter being in Rome while Paul was there and since Peter was an original Apostle it is doubtful Paul would have fore gone that if he’d been in Rome. The Jews had a very hard time Understanding that Jesus had fulfilled the law to every jot and tittle, so they were reluctant to let it go and still are. But Jesus said while on the cross, “It is finished. “. He came to give a New Testament/covenant because the old did not do what it was meant to do and that was to act as a schoolmaster to the Jews keeping them in God’s graces, but no! They took on other gods.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 16:56:16 GMT -5
How did Peter become the first pope if the Romans didn't like him? No Christians were liked in the first century and even down into the 2nd century. Christians were persecuted very much. I know. That's why Paul's followers were killed and Peter's weren't. Peter was not considered a "Christian" and Paul was.
|
|