Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I don't understand why Christians began to say that the laws given by God through Moses stopped applying to Christians (covered through the Torah/Old Testament).

I am aware that in the New Testament, Jesus was supposed to have set a new covenant between God and followers. Where that is, I'm not sure and what about that passage negates Mosaic Law?

Also, I thought the law of God was forever and always. Again, I'm not sure if that is in the Torah, just me thinking out loud.

It's their way of being able to ignore some of the contradictions and general nastiness of God in the Old Testament....at least that's how I see it. Because you're right, I don't recall a specific passage.

The conflicting testimonies are the result of an editing process between the followers of Paul and those of James.

Let me give an example of what I mean (and yes, I used this in other post but this is to just bring it back to light because it is relevant):

*This is a group of excerpts from the Bible I put together about eating things unclean to you (God said do not ever touch them) that obviously conflict between the Old And New Testament

Old Testament:

Leviticus 11:1-8

"The the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "give the following instructions to the Isarelites: The animals you may use for food include those that have completely divided hooves and chew the cud. You may not, however, eat the animals named here because they either have split hooves or chew the cud, but not both. The camel may not be eaten, for though it chews the cud it does not have split hooves. The same is true of the rock badger. and the hare, so they also may never be eaten. And the pig may not be eaten for though it has split hooves, it does not chew the cud. You may not eat the meat of these animals or touch their dead bodies. They are ceremonially unclean for you."

Isiah 66:17

"Those who 'purify' themselves in a sacred garden, feasting on pork and rats and other forbidden meats, will come to a terrible end," says the Lord.

------------------------------------------------

New Testament

Act 10:9-16

"The next day as Cornelius' messengers were nearing the city, Peter went to the flat roof to pray. It was about noon, and he was hungry. But while lunch was being prepared, he felt into a trance. He saw the sky open and something like a large sheet was let down by its four corners. In the sheet were all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds. Then a voice said to him, "Get up, Peter,; kill and eat them."

"Never, Lord," Peter declared. "I have never in all my life eaten anything forbidden by our Jewish laws."

The voice spoke again, "If God says something is acceptable, don't say it isn't." The same vision repeated itself three times. Then the sheet was pulled up again to heaven."

Romans 14:20-23

"Don't tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves. But what it is wrong to eat anything if it makes another person stumble. Don't eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble. You may have faith to believe that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by doing something they know is all right."

Mark 7:14-23

"Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen." he said, " and try to understand. You are not defiled by what you eat; you are defiled by what you say and do. Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made.

"Don't you understand either? he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again.

And then he added, " It is the thought-life that defiles you. For from within out of a person's heart comes evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now this is just on what and what not to eat. How it goes from "a terrible end" for eating unclean foods to "you are not defiled by what you eat" is unclear to me. There are plenty of examples of this on various topics and Paul is an ass but anyway....

I'm just wondering is there a passage about the new covenant that I overlooked. Even the disciples questioned Jesus in the verse I put up from Mark so obviously something was off.

Well, the Old Covenant was very applicable in its time and it was important then. However, it is important because it created the way for Jesus to come. The old covenant demanded sacrifice -> Jesus as the once and for all sacrifice, etc. This raises the question of why there was ever an old covenant in the first place, which is tricky question. Personally, I believe that the old covenant was an effective way of caring for His people (ie. the Jews) and anyone else that wanted to be apart of it (Isaiah 56:6) as it really creates a healthy lifestyle physically and morally if you follow it. For example, pork was actually a dangerous meat in those days as pigs are rife with parasites and other diseases. Nowadays that isn't as applicable and therefore it's not that important. Another explanation for not eating pork was that pigs were used in Canaanite fertility rites and God was trying to create a nation set apart from all others (can't find verse right now... but it exists). Now the old covenant was not perfect and that is admitted in the Bible, so the pattern was established for the coming of Jesus for when the old covenant would be inferior to the old.

It is important to see the old covenant so that we better understand God, but it is not so important that we need to dwell on it as much because we now have a better covenant.

I'm hoping that helps. Keep asking if it doesn't...



Now for the second question... Note that it is called a new covenant for the House of Israel (ie. the Jews). So it is a new covenant for them, but the new covenant is also extended freely to the Gentiles as well whereas before they had to bind themselves to it. Before the new covenant Gentiles could still be saved by faith in God and His promised Messiah without binding themselves to the old covenant.

And it's not ignorant, it is quite honestly one of the most debatable and hardest concepts in the Bible. In fact, in case you were wondering, the Bible itself calls the argument over whether the old covenant still applies debatable.

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
- Romans 14:1, 13-15

Really it doesn't matter what anyone believes on the matter so long as they follow that belief.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, the Old Covenant was very applicable in its time and it was important then. However, it is important because it created the way for Jesus to come. The old covenant demanded sacrifice -> Jesus as the once and for all sacrifice, etc. This raises the question of why there was ever an old covenant in the first place, which is tricky question. Personally, I believe that the old covenant was an effective way of caring for His people (ie. the Jews) and anyone else that wanted to be apart of it (Isaiah 56:6) as it really creates a healthy lifestyle physically and morally if you follow it. For example, pork was actually a dangerous meat in those days as pigs are rife with parasites and other diseases. Nowadays that isn't as applicable and therefore it's not that important. Another explanation for not eating pork was that pigs were used in Canaanite fertility rites and God was trying to create a nation set apart from all others (can't find verse right now... but it exists). Now the old covenant was not perfect and that is admitted in the Bible, so the pattern was established for the coming of Jesus for when the old covenant would be inferior to the old.

It is important to see the old covenant so that we better understand God, but it is not so important that we need to dwell on it as much because we now have a better covenant.

I'm hoping that helps. Keep asking if it doesn't...



Now for the second question... Note that it is called a new covenant for the House of Israel (ie. the Jews). So it is a new covenant for them, but the new covenant is also extended freely to the Gentiles as well whereas before they had to bind themselves to it. Before the new covenant Gentiles could still be saved by faith in God and His promised Messiah without binding themselves to the old covenant.

And it's not ignorant, it is quite honestly one of the most debatable and hardest concepts in the Bible. In fact, in case you were wondering, the Bible itself calls the argument over whether the old covenant still applies debatable.

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
- Romans 14:1, 13-15

Really it doesn't matter what anyone believes on the matter so long as they follow that belief.

Cool points

Ok, got that. Oh and appreciate all this by the way.

One more question: What was the way to salvation BEFORE the New Covenant?

This particular question I've never been sure how to answer at all.

Originally posted by chithappens
Ok, got that. Oh and appreciate all this by the way.

One more question: What was the way to salvation BEFORE the New Covenant?

This particular question I've never been sure how to answer at all. Before Jesus there wasn't really a distinct heaven and hell. There was a place called "Sheol". It's really a long and interesting topic imo. But basically the general idea is that those that believed in God were kept in Sheol in the "bosom of Abraham" (which is a section of Sheol reserved for believers) and when Jesus died He descended into Sheol and those there that believed in God and accepted the Messiah of the new covenant that had been promised were raised into heaven.

Jews and Muslims believe in heaven and hell also right? Or do they have something else detailing heaven and hell?

I'm not entirely sure about Muslims, but Jews believe in Sheol after death which can either be peaceful or painful.

muslims believe in a very similar concept to hell as christians. a lake of fire, etc. however, it is far more trancendant than the confined christian model.

and well, jesus said himself "i came not to destroy{the techings of old}"
so if anything contradicting the old testament/torah/10 commandments is attributed to him than he was lying or the attributed thing isnt true.

in reality, the old and new testament ARE severely contraedicting. wonder what thats says aboutr jesus and christinity as a whole.

Destroy =/= fulfill. Jesus fulfilled the OT and created the promised new covenant. It's pretty clear and dry. Furthermore, Jesus did not change anything to do with worship, or morals, or anything of the sort.

first off what is the connection ur making with destroy and fulfill????

he clearly means to not destroy OLD TEACHINGS. please do not misinterpret it to try and reconcile it with the new testament. it isnt clear or dry at all.

and are you sure there arent any chages???? changing the sabbath? changing the law about not eating pigs/swine?????? there are NUMEROUS more significant changes. not to mention he changed the very CRITERIA of entering heaven{actually not him but paul}. but if you believe in the bible then u have to think about how suddenly accepting jesus's crucification became the new and ONLY criteria for entering heaven. its a definite change from the torah etc.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
first off what is the connection ur making with destroy and fulfill????

he clearly means to not destroy OLD TEACHINGS. please do not misinterpret it to try and reconcile it with the new testament. it isnt clear or dry at all.

and are you sure there arent any chages???? changing the sabbath? changing the law about not eating pigs/swine?????? there are NUMEROUS more significant changes. not to mention he changed the very CRITERIA of entering heaven{actually not him but paul}. but if you believe in the bible then u have to think about how suddenly accepting jesus's crucification became the new and ONLY criteria for entering heaven. its a definite change from the torah etc. Interestingly enough, during the time of Moses a large number of Hebrews fell ill due to eating the "unclean" animals. By Jesus time preparation methods for pork and other "unclean" creatures was refined such that few fell ill due to these items. Dietary and cleanliness laws are universal to religion, is it any wonder that such should exist and adapt to the current settings? Also, the New Testament does not actually state a doing away with of the dietary law by deity, it merely states that Peter should eat whatever the gentile fed him because God told him to eat with him, it is interpretation by the early apostles and those reading the text that there was a doing away with the dietary law.

Did Christ actually change the requirements for entering Heaven? Or did he clarify the requirements?

There is no single requirement for getting into Heaven. Christ himself stated it was easier for a camel to enter through the eye of the needle (a small gate in the wall) than it was for a rich man to get into Heaven (it is impossible for a Camel to enter through this gate). He stated many requirements for entering Heaven, there are merely groups of people that pick and choose which verse they believe is/are the "only" requirements rather than following all of the requirements Christ stated. Christ stated that if a person loved and accepted him, that person would get into Heaven. He also stated that if a person loved and accepted him, he'd keep all the commandments. When Christ stated this what commandments were in place? So to accept or love Christ, all the Commandments must be kept.

Originally posted by chithappens
I don't understand why Christians began to say that the laws given by God through Moses stopped applying to Christians (covered through the Torah/Old Testament).

I am aware that in the New Testament, Jesus was supposed to have set a new covenant between God and followers. Where that is, I'm not sure and what about that passage negates Mosaic Law?

Also, I thought the law of God was forever and always. Again, I'm not sure if that is in the Torah, just me thinking out loud.

Bro im pretty bloody sure that Jesus said in the New Testament that Jesus said "I didnt come to get rid of the old law but confirm it." I used to debate with Christians alot so I cant remember the reference. Then again I guess there stuff that contradicts that.

It's important to keep in mind that nearly the entire history of Christianity (and its interpretation of the Bible) is marked by the MGIBTYG mindset of Christians determined to "prove"--at any cost--that their faith was superior to Judaism (indeed, superior to every faith). This is why Christianity way well hold the distinction of being history's bloodiest religion (with Islam apparently a close second).

It is also important to keep in mind that Jesus himself was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith. Basically, he rallied against the ossification of his religion, just like many rally against calcified, organized religion today. For him, the Torah was the Law, period, and fulfillment meant living fully by that Law, setting himself as the example, not the replacement.

Paul founded Christianity, mainly for Gentile consumption, after being rejected by the Jews who did not agree Jesus was the Messiah. In part to make salvation easier, Gentiles did not have to study Torah, just accept Jesus as savior, an easier proposition, especially in a time when illiteracy was much higher than it is today.

Just thought you all should see this from the other side of the fence.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's important to keep in mind that nearly the entire history of Christianity (and its interpretation of the Bible) is marked by the MGIBTYG mindset of Christians determined to "prove"--at any cost--that their faith was superior to Judaism (indeed, superior to every faith). This is why Christianity way well hold the distinction of being history's bloodiest religion (with Islam apparently a close second).

It is also important to keep in mind that Jesus himself was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith. Basically, he rallied against the ossification of his religion, just like many rally against calcified, organized religion today. For him, the Torah was the Law, period, and fulfillment meant living fully by that Law, setting himself as the example, not the replacement.

Paul founded Christianity, mainly for Gentile consumption, after being rejected by the Jews who did not agree Jesus was the Messiah. In part to make salvation easier, Gentiles did not have to study Torah, just accept Jesus as savior, an easier proposition, especially in a time when illiteracy was much higher than it is today.

Just thought you all should see this from the other side of the fence.

Totally agree.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's important to keep in mind that nearly the entire history of Christianity (and its interpretation of the Bible) is marked by the MGIBTYG mindset of Christians determined to "prove"--at any cost--that their faith was superior to Judaism (indeed, superior to every faith). This is why Christianity way well hold the distinction of being history's bloodiest religion (with Islam apparently a close second).

It is also important to keep in mind that Jesus himself was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith. Basically, he rallied against the ossification of his religion, just like many rally against calcified, organized religion today. For him, the Torah was the Law, period, and fulfillment meant living fully by that Law, setting himself as the example, not the replacement.

Paul founded Christianity, mainly for Gentile consumption, after being rejected by the Jews who did not agree Jesus was the Messiah. In part to make salvation easier, Gentiles did not have to study Torah, just accept Jesus as savior, an easier proposition, especially in a time when illiteracy was much higher than it is today.

Just thought you all should see this from the other side of the fence.

Cool point.

I see at you are saying. Basically Christianity wouldn't be necessary as an extension of Judaism, if the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

But unfortunately for the Jewish nation, many of them didn't and so IMO, Christianity is a necessity.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in reality, the old and new testament ARE severely contraedicting. wonder what thats says aboutr jesus and christinity as a whole.


I couldn't disagree more I believe that Jesus was the literal, symbolic and spiritual fulfillment of hundreds Old Testament beliefs, practises and prophecies

Well one thing I will say is this. Paul seems to have distorted the teachings of Jesus and I think he had his own agenda.


Originally posted by leonheartmm

in reality, the old and new testament ARE severely contraedicting. wonder what thats says aboutr jesus and christinity as a whole.

Yeah but dont forget there are forgeries in the Bible that were put in there to further certain agendas.

Originally posted by willRules
Cool point.

I see at you are saying. Basically Christianity wouldn't be necessary as an extension of Judaism, if the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

But unfortunately for the Jewish nation, many of them didn't and so IMO, Christianity is a necessity. Interesting you should put it that way. I remember reading something years ago about Maimonides (a Jewish philosopher during the Middle Ages). His feeling was also that Christianity and Islam were necessary to spread the truth of the One God, since Judaism was generally not a proselytizing religion.

The entire subject of the Christ is very confusing to me, as is the record of his life and ministry, (i.e., the Gospels). Saying that there are contradictions between the Old and New Testaments is like saying old cheese stinks worse than new cheese.

What truly interests me are (as Alfheim seems to have hinted above) the rather apparent contradictions between the Gospels, (i.e., all of the Gospels - including the Christian canon and the apocrypha - as well as the textual variants between manuscripts of the same Gospel).

I myself believe that in his heart, Jesus the Christ would have called himself a Jew, and that, whether or not he was the Messiah, he saught to fulfil the Rabbinic prophecies and not to destroy or invalidate them. The later proprietors of the belief in the Christ managed to do that, at least in the minds of the believers.

Originally posted by willRules
Interesting. can't say I've heard of the philosopher before though. I'd imagine he comes in at a much, much later date than my area of expertise





I couldn't agree more about Jesus validating the Jewish practises, being from Jewish descent. However the four gospels are full of Jesus saying "I'm gonna turn it all upside down cos I'm the one the Jews have been waiting for, the Messiah"

Well I don't see many contradictions in major details regarding the four gospels. If anything it's amazing how accurate and similar they are considering they were written and different times, by different people from arguably different sources Not to mention the fact that if it was all made up, then why would these men would be tortured and be willing to be die for their beliefs?

I agree with what you have said about Jesus except I disagree with the last sentence. Before the writers of the gospels or latter "champions of the faith" would be even able to write down of (if you consider it all a load of tosh) "fabricate" the events, this doesn't account for things like all the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies Jesus fulfilled which would have generated enough controversy at the time amongst the pharisees, Sadducee's and other Jewish leaders of the time

Plus Christian believers were not the only people quick to make distinctions between Jesus and the Jewish practises. Sources outside the Bible from that time (Such as Josephus or Babylon Talmud) mention Jesus and some of the feats he performed but they do not call him the messiah, unlike the gospels

Regarding the Gospels, I really only meant the different ancient manuscripts. There are a myriad of variations found in the texts. I'll try to post some tonight.

I didn't mean to infer that anything recorded in the New Testament was a fabrication; I just meant to say that the later works clearly turned the message of the Christ into a new religion, something (I am sure) the Christ did not intend.

That doesn't sway me. Roman biographers stated things as facts that are now clearly fabrications or stories which developed over time.

There are so many things regarding the Gospels and the later texts which make me uneasy. For one, the Gospels (including the non-canon) were written between (about) 10-40 years after the Crucifiction, and the writers of those Gospels and their sources are nowadays scrutinized rather carefully.

The Council Of Nicea also was responsible for putting forgeries in the Bible. Paul never met Jesus as far as I know but he did fall out with followers of Jesus who knew Jesus becuase he was creating stuff that Jesus never taught.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The Council Of Nicea also was responsible for putting forgeries in the Bible. Paul never met Jesus as far as I know but he did fall out with followers of Jesus who knew Jesus becuase he was creating stuff that Jesus never taught.

I agree that Paul never met Jesus but it is debatable as to if the council of Nicea were responsible for putting forgeries in scripture. (It would have been difficult at this stage anyway as many pieces of new testament scripture were available, if you knew where to look!) I believe the council of Nicea were responsible for collecting the scripture into a 66 book format that we know. The left out over 200 pieces of other scriptures which are known as gnostic gospels and non-canonical texts due to the fact that they contained very little historical accuracy and could in no way be written anywhere near the time of Jesus and contain information from people who knew Jesus directly Unlike the other books which were included.

Originally posted by willRules
I agree that Paul never met Jesus but it is debatable as to if the council of Nicea were responsible for putting forgeries in scripture. (It would have been difficult at this stage anyway as many pieces of new testament scripture were available, if you knew where to look!) I believe the council of Nicea were responsible for collecting the scripture into a 66 book format that we know. The left out over 200 pieces of other scriptures which are known as gnostic gospels and non-canonical texts due to the fact that they contained very little historical accuracy and could in no way be written anywhere near the time of Jesus and contain information from people who knew Jesus directly Unlike the other books which were included.

They were excluded for that reason. The Gnostic gospels where left out because the basic principals of Gnostic beliefs are anti establishment and are focused on the individual and not the authority of the church.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They were excluded for that reason. The Gnostic gospels where left out because the basic principals of Gnostic beliefs are anti establishment and are focused on the individual and not the authority of the church.

Yeah that as well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They were excluded for that reason. The Gnostic gospels where left out because the basic principals of Gnostic beliefs are anti establishment and are focused on the individual and not the authority of the church.

Not to mention the fact they were composed well outside the time of the cannon of the new testament by people who would have not have been able to claim any more information than the canonical four gospels.

Originally posted by willRules
Not to mention the fact they were composed well outside the time of the cannon of the new testament by people who would have not have been able to claim any more information than the canonical four gospels.

Im pretty sure the council of nicea adding parts to the bible long after Jesus death and Pauls.

Yes they certainly did.

Oh just thought I'd add the Noahide laws since we're talking about the Talmud.

In the Talmud, Rabbi Yochanan explains:

Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not worship false gods.
Do not be sexually immoral.
Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
Do not curse God.
Set up courts and bring offenders to justice

The word "commanded" (VaYetzav) is a reference to laws of justice for it says in Gen. 18:19, "For I have known him so he will COMMAND (Yitzaveh) his children after him to keep the way of the Lord and righteousness and justice."
"And the Lord" (HaShem) implies the prohibition of blasphemy. As it says in Lev. 24:16, "He who blasphemes the name of THE LORD (Hashem) shall die."
"God" (Elokim) is a reference to idolatry for it says in Ex. 20:3 "You shall have no other Elokim before me".
"The Man" (Ha Adam) is the prohibition of murder. God explicitly commands Noah (Gen. 9:6), "If one sheds the blood of THE MAN (Ha Adam), by man shall his own blood be shed."
"Saying" (Laymor) refers to sexual misconduct or adultery, as the prophet Jeremiah (3:1) says, "Saying (laymor), if a man divorces his wife..."
"From all the trees of the Garden" is an implicit prohibition of theft. It shows that permission is needed to take something that is not explicitly yours.
Likewise, "you may eat" implies that there are things which may not be eaten (the limbs of a live animal).

Nowhere is it mention the possiblity of hell.

Originally posted by willRules
Not to mention the fact they were composed well outside the time of the cannon of the new testament by people who would have not have been able to claim any more information than the canonical four gospels.

The Gospels where not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

They were put together much later from several sources including the Q Gospel.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Gospels where not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

They were put together much later from several sources including the Q Gospel.

Hang on, let me read my original statement........

Originally posted by willRules
Not to mention the fact they were composed well outside the time of the cannon of the new testament by people who would have not have been able to claim any more information than the canonical four gospels.

Yep, I can't see anywhere where I said they were written by those guys (Even though they still could be, it's very much speculation on your part to say they weren't just as much as it is for someone to say they were.)

Plus I am very much aware of the fact that Mark was composed somewhere between 40 AD to 70 AD with Matt and Luke being around the 70 AD Mark and John a little later

I am also aware of the four source hypothesis that indicates that Matthew and Luke may have a similar source known as the Q document The Q document is still a matter of much debate (mostly over its existence) but the real question should be, assuming there is a Q document, would it make a difference? Many scholars still attest Mark was still composed as a separate source

Originally posted by Alfheim
Im pretty sure the council of nicea adding parts to the bible long after Jesus death and Pauls.

That's still very much speculation that has been fed mostly by Dan Brown in the recent years with his book

How can jesus die, if he never even exsisted?

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
How can jesus die, if he never even exsisted?

There are more historical documents to suggest the evidence of Jesus than Julius Caesar

Originally posted by willRules
There are more historical documents to suggest the evidence of Jesus than Julius Caesar

Like what?

Originally posted by willRules
There are more historical documents to suggest the evidence of Jesus than Julius Caesar

You have been reading way too much Christian propaganda. I believe that Jesus did exist, but there is not more historical documents to suggest the evidence of Jesus than Julius Caesar.

Yessuah of Nazareth is a fictional character, a popular religious motif, and a Sun Deity wrapped in one.

There are 16 historical documents to confirm the existence of Julius Caesar. Most of these are now copies which can be dated back to 900 AD ish and are in reference to a two year period of his life known as the Gaelic wars of 55 and 54 BC. As I think I have already mentioned in this thread there are 25,366 copies of the new testament composed in a form prior to format that collected it into the Bible of 66 books. There are estimated to be 56,000 copies in their original respective languages

Originally posted by willRules
There are 16 historical documents to confirm the existence of Julius Caesar. Most of these are now copies which can be dated back to 900 AD ish and are in reference to a two year period of his life known as the Gaelic wars of 55 and 54 BC. As I think I have already mentioned in this thread there are 25,366 copies of the new testament composed in a form prior to format that collected it into the Bible of 66 books. There are estimated to be 56,000 copies in their original respective languages

None of these 25,366 are historical text, though. Besides, the concept of the "Son of God" or "God man" predates Christianity.

Originally posted by willRules
There are 16 historical documents to confirm the existence of Julius Caesar. Most of these are now copies which can be dated back to 900 AD ish and are in reference to a two year period of his life known as the Gaelic wars of 55 and 54 BC. As I think I have already mentioned in this thread there are 25,366 copies of the new testament composed in a form prior to format that collected it into the Bible of 66 books. There are estimated to be 56,000 copies in their original respective languages

How many historical buildings from the time of Jesus have his name written in stone? How many coins have his image on them?

Originally posted by willRules
That's still very much speculation that has been fed mostly by Dan Brown in the recent years with his book No, it's not. I've read it before the Dan Brown books came out. It's quite historical.


Yes, I think its meaning is a person can be of flesh and be of god stated more clearly in the Gnostics. It's a desire to be closer to what god is. This is what James brother of Jesus was stating. However, those books were not included in the Cannon. It was James, not Paul that was to lead the faith and teaching of Jesus.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
None of these 25,366 are historical text, though. Besides, the concept of the "Son of God" or "God man" predates Christianity.


Well firstly I don't remember saying that the Son of God doesn't predate Christianity. There were numerous phrases which numerous religions of the time used, one of the most well known ones outside Christianity was Mithrasism (I don't know if I spelt that right ).

Secondly these 25,366 texts are a collection of original manuscripts or copies of the original scripts which can be dated by most historians to a time before the Bible was collected into it's 66 book format and most probably all before the time of Constantine or before the council of Nicea where the Bible was collected together

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How many historical buildings from the time of Jesus have his name written in stone? How many coins have his image on them?

Why would there be? Despite the mass following Jesus gained, the majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah. Why would there suddenly be buildings and coins of him? That would imply some sort of military leader which is what some of the disciples believed Jesus to be originally

As for Caesar, well there would be more evidence, if the Roman's hadn't introduced the concept of Damnatio memoriae and now as much as I would love to know about Caeser, it's possible that the Romans themselves prevented us from learning more

Originally posted by willRules
Why would there be? Despite the mass following Jesus gained, the majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah. Why would there suddenly be buildings and coins of him? That would imply some sort of military leader which is what some of the disciples believed Jesus to be originally

As for Caesar, well there would be more evidence, if the Roman's hadn't introduced the concept of Damnatio memoriae and now as much as I would love to know about Caeser, it's possible that the Romans themselves prevented us from learning more

That is actually a good answer. People who have their faces on coins and who have buildings named after them tend to be part of the establishment. Jesus was not.

They can add whatever they want, they can delete whatever they want.

I'm skeptical of most things before the era of media until I read multiple sources

Originally posted by willRules
Why would there be? Despite the mass following Jesus gained, the majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah. Why would there suddenly be buildings and coins of him? That would imply some sort of military leader which is what some of the disciples believed Jesus to be originally

As for Caesar, well there would be more evidence, if the Roman's hadn't introduced the concept of Damnatio memoriae and now as much as I would love to know about Caeser, it's possible that the Romans themselves prevented us from learning more

Well, you said there was more documentation of Jesus then Caesar, and I was showing you how wrong you are. Jesus was a revolutionary who was killed before he could over throw the Roman Empire.

Originally posted by willRules
Well firstly I don't remember saying that the Son of God doesn't predate Christianity. There were numerous phrases which numerous religions of the time used, one of the most well known ones outside Christianity was Mithrasism (I don't know if I spelt that right ).

Secondly these 25,366 texts are a collection of original manuscripts or copies of the original scripts which can be dated by most historians to a time before the Bible was collected into it's 66 book format and most probably all before the time of Constantine or before the council of Nicea where the Bible was collected together

That wasn't my point, these 25,366 aren't historical documents. Not one historian at the time mentions a Yasuah of Nazareth which was my point. Furthermore, unless all the documents are consistent and not contradictory. It's pointless to even mention them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, you said there was more documentation of Jesus then Caesar, and I was showing you how wrong you are.

Originally posted by willRules
As for Caesar, well there would be more evidence, if the Roman's hadn't introduced the concept of Damnatio memoriae and now as much as I would love to know about Caeser, it's possible that the Romans themselves prevented us from learning more


Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
That wasn't my point, these 25,366 aren't historical documents. Not one historian at the time mentions a Yasuah of Nazareth which was my point. Furthermore, unless all the documents are consistent and not contradictory. It's pointless to even mention them.

Umm sorry, I'm a tad confused as to what you are saying? Historians at the time probably didn't mention Jesus, but the authors of Matthew, mark Luke and John did. If "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" weren't historians are you suggesting it's not a historical document? These are books of the new testament and are part of those 25,366 copies

But that's my point. They must be consistent, otherwise they wouldn't be called copies of the new testament, they'd be called alternate versions of the new testament And having varying copies of supposed truth would not have helped the faith to grow like it did at that time

Originally posted by willRules
Umm sorry, I'm a tad confused as to what you are saying? Historians at the time probably didn't mention Jesus, but the authors of Matthew, mark Luke and John did. If "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" weren't historians are you suggesting it's not a historical document? These are books of the new testament and are part of those 25,366 copies

But that's my point. They must be consistent, otherwise they wouldn't be called copies of the new testament, they'd be called alternate versions of the new testament And having varying copies of supposed truth would not have helped the faith to grow like it did at that time

No, "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" did not write any books. The gospels were constructed from other books like the Q gospel. These are "History"; these are religious text. They support the Christian mythology.

I have the book of "Q".. Geez, which books don't I have...

Originally posted by debbiejo
I have the book of "Q".. Geez, which books don't I have...

The Lotus sutra.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" did not write any books. The gospels were constructed from other books like the Q gospel. These are "History"; these are religious text. They support the Christian mythology.

Thanks Shaky.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Lotus sutra.
No...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" did not write any books. The gospels were constructed from other books like the Q gospel. These are "History"; these are religious text. They support the Christian mythology.

Originally posted by willRules
I am very much aware of the fact that Mark was composed somewhere between 40 AD to 70 AD with Matt and Luke being around the 70 AD Mark and John a little later

I am also aware of the four source hypothesis that indicates that Matthew and Luke may have a similar source known as the Q document The Q document is still a matter of much debate (mostly over its existence) but the real question should be, assuming there is a Q document, would it make a difference? Many scholars still attest Mark was still composed as a separate source

Originally posted by debbiejo
I have the book of "Q".. Geez, which books don't I have...

The original? You could make a lot of money from that. There are plenty of scholars who would probably sell you their right arm

Wow, I'm gonna run back to the Borders Book Store and buy up all the rest of the originals too..........

Thanks for the tip..

Originally posted by willRules


You are contradicting yourself.

Is there a link showing what things are acceptable in the New Covenant but not in the Old Covenant?

I keep finding random things out but I just wonder if there is a sort of whole listing somewhere

Feceman says that the Torah is to serve as a Historical Reminder of God's relations with the Human Race.

Originally posted by chithappens
I don't understand why Christians began to say that the laws given by God through Moses stopped applying to Christians (covered through the Torah/Old Testament).

I am aware that in the New Testament, Jesus was supposed to have set a new covenant between God and followers. Where that is, I'm not sure and what about that passage negates Mosaic Law?

Also, I thought the law of God was forever and always. Again, I'm not sure if that is in the Torah, just me thinking out loud. Their reasoning is that Jesus's death blotted out the Law, which he never said it did. True Christians, followers of Jesus should follow all the Bible, both Old and New Testament. Paul worshippers only follow the New Testement.

Jesus said "Not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled and heaven and earth are destroyed."

*Looks out window*...Hmm.....