Originally posted by Son of Man
Buddah (from what I understand) never claimed divinity, Jesus did. (and backed up his claim)
Yes, Jesus was a teacher, but so much more...
Jesus never said, "I am divine". What Jesus did say, was twisted and distorted by the early Church. Many things were added, like the virgin birth, a Babylonian tradition of their god like kings. And healing the sick and raising the dead were all added as propaganda to attract converts to the religion.
In some parts of the world Buddha is looked at in the same way that many people here see Jesus: a divine being, an incarnation of god in the physical realm. So it did Buddha no good to say he was not divine.
Jesus never claimed to be divine! 😂
Man you are funny.
In John 8:58-59, we find a raging discourse between the Pharisees and Jesus. The debate builds up into hatred of Christ on the part of the Jews. The text says, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” Why did they pick up stones to stone Him? Because they knew exactly what was being said. Jesus was claiming to be the deliverer of the Israelites from Egypt. He was the “I Am” who talked with Moses in Exodus chap.4 at the burning bush. This is enhanced when we remember his previous discussion with them in John 5:17-19 Jesus makes some statements that the Pharisees cannot stand, “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God.
Also, John 17:5 reads, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Jesus has a divine glory before the world even existed. The only way such a glory could be ascribed to Jesus if he was divine.
“Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” (John 6:46) This means that Jesus Christ was aware of His divine nature as present with the Father before time was created.
John 14:1 says, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.” Jesus sets Hiimself as equal with The Father. The safme belief that people have in God should also be given to Him. Believing in God is believing in Christ because they are the same.
"Having the nature of or being a deity." Is the defintion of divine.
Jesus qulifies.
Oh, the miracles were not fabricated.
They were also talked about by a 1st century Jewish historian, Josephus.
(yes, he is outside The Bible)
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed SURPRISING DEEDS, (caps mine) and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared".
This reference reveals several key things:
1) Jesus was known as a wise man and was highly regarded.
2) Apparently Josephus is referring to Jesus' miracles.
3) Jesus was a teacher of truth for many Jews and Gentiles.
4) Jesus was killed on a cross by Pontius Pilate.
5) Jesus appeared alive the third day after being killed.
6) Predictions by the prophets came true in Christ.
This is one refrence of one of quite a few.
7) Jesus is the Christ or Messiah.
I beg to differ. Jesus was no revolutionary. I have shown some evidence that Jesus miracles were not fabricated, can you prove otherwise?
And all the earliest Christian Gospel manuscripts have had those very words of Jesus. So the things Jesus claimed were always there and no invention. Oh, yes it is good to disscuss these things, thank you. 👆
Originally posted by Son of Man
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed SURPRISING DEEDS, (caps mine) and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared".
The paragraph you quoted was forged and inserted later....
surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 9th century. However there are citations in other writers of antiquity.
The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about A.D. 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form. Most scholars consider this strong evidence that this passage existed in manuscripts of the Antiquities of the Jews at that time, though skeptics have suggested that Eusebius himself might be the author of the passage .
Concerns about interpolations
However, it is significant that Origen, writing in about A.D. 240, fails to mention it, even though he does mention the less significant reference to Jesus, as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (book 20, ch. 9). Starting in the 17th century, this has given rise to the suggestion presented by Protestant philologists that the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the earliest copies, or did not exist in the present form.
Some modern historians reject the passage as an interpolation (i.e. forgery), on other grounds, for several reasons inherent in the text. In its context, passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and thus the thread of continuity, of "sad calamities," is interrupted by this passage. The context, without the testimonium passage reads:
"...So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. <insertion> About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome..."
The passage 3.3 also fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorff, 2002. It is also argued that 'He was [the] Christ' can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian; he characterized his patron Vespasian as the foretold Messiah.
The deepest concerns about the authenticity of the passage were succinctly expressed by John Dominic Crossan, in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (1991): "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish." Three passages stood out: "...if it be lawful to call him a man... He was [the] Christ... for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." These seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. Consequently many secular historians dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation.
Lastly it should be noted that the entire passage is also found in one manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War. Lower Criticism has shown this to be an interpolation as other manuscripts are extant that do not contain it including the modern standard text of The Jewish War.
Originally posted by Son of Man
I beg to differ. Jesus was no revolutionary. I have shown some evidence that Jesus miracles were not fabricated, can you prove otherwise?
And all the earliest Christian Gospel manuscripts have had those very words of Jesus. So the things Jesus claimed were always there and no invention. Oh, yes it is good to disscuss these things, thank you. 👆
You gave no proof. The documents you have quoted are suspect and have to be confirmed by other documents. Many other documents about Jesus give erroneous information like; I saw a program on the history channel about books that were banned from the bible. One of these books, that was very popular in the early church, was a story about Jesus as a child. This book gives an account of Jesus accidentally pushing a playmate off the ruff of a house and the boy dies. Jesus then resurrects the boy. Now this story is most likely not true, just stories for the public. When the bible was put together it was a political process and the “truth” was not always of highest importance. There are hundreds of versions of the bible from this time (~100 AD) and many books that are in one version but not in another.
You have to believe; there is no proof one way or the other. I know the mythology you believe in, I was once like you (a Christian), but I was hurt by the most evil people and they were Christians. For many years I was nothing, not even an atheist. I fully rejected Christianity because all I saw was, evil people. It wasn’t until I met some Buddhists that I began to know Jesus like people. So, I don’t believe in Christianity because of what I have seen. Now I read the words of Jesus and they alone make complete sense when looked at through the eyes of a Buddhist. I believe that Jesus was a Buddhist in his teachings, rather it was a direct influence of indirect I do not know.
Debbiejo, please I ask sincerly,go here http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm it talks about the controversy of the refrence from Josephus, and wether its authentic or not. (trust me its good 🙂)
Why so many translations?
many reasons, on main one is for over three hundred years the King James Version, published in 1611, was the prominent translation used in most Protestant churches. However, as the English language continued to change, it became increasingly more difficult for people to understand the Old English vernacular. Faced with the obvious need for our society to understand God’s Word, scholars sought to update the scriptures into more contemporary language.Dr. Lewis Foster, one of those who helped translate the NIV and the NKJV says, “It is necessary to continue making new translations and revising old ones if people are to read the
Word of God in their contemporary languages. With the passage of time, words change in meanings. For instance, in King James’ day the word ‘prevent’ could mean ‘come before’ but not necessarily in a hindering way. So the translators in that day rendered 1 Thes. 4:15, ‘For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.’ But today the word ‘prevent’ has lost that earlier meaning (come before), so it must be translated differently to convey the proper meaning: ‘According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not ‘precede’ those who have fallen asleep’ (NIV). ...To keep the translation of God’s Word living it must be kept in the living language the people are using.”¹
That refrence about Jesus killing a kid and rasing him is mid second century gnostic litteature.
P.S, the Christians doung "evil things" are not really christian they claim to be, but claiming and not producing "fruit" means nothing.
Originally posted by Son of Man
...That refrence about Jesus killing a kid and rasing him is mid second century gnostic litteature.P.S, the Christians doung "evil things" are not really christian they claim to be, but claiming and not producing "fruit" means nothing.
The show did not say that is was gnostic and they did tell about gnostic text. I think (and I don't know) that it was just a book that someone wrote to try and fill in the missing years.
If what you say in the P.S. is true then most Christians are not Christians.
This shows that Jesus was worshipped long befor the conucil of Nicea:
Pliny the Younger as governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 A.D. wrote (in his Letters 10.96-97) to Emperor Trajan regarding the early Christian church, their worship of Christ, and how he persecuted, tortured, and murdered them:
"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so."
This example shows quite clearly that even the Romans knew that Jesus was being worshipped and wanted to "check and cure" "the contagion of this superstition" that had "spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms
I will read through it, but if you look at this writing with and without that paragraph inserted into Josephus works, it clearly shows that it makes no since and breaks the flow of thought...Not the mark of a good historian, which he was.....So, of course you are going to find sources on each side trying to discredited/credit this controversial piece of history...To me it stands as inserted..
I also have to writings of early church father works, gnostic, and other historical references and councils....
Before the 1611 KJ, the Geneva Bible (which I have) was widely held and that is the one brought to America by the Pilgrims....In the side notes written by the Reformers...and his side notes....All the Revelation and prophecies, were not futuristic.....IF you compare the 1611 KJ, which was changed to suit "King James", and the Geneva Bible, you will find many changes..... Good side notes BTW.
In 1620 the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth with their Bibles and a conviction derived from those Bibles of establishing a new nation. The Bible was not the King James Version. When James I became king of England in 1603, there were two translations of the Bible in use; the Geneva Bible was the most popular, and the Bishops' Bible was used for reading in churches.In addition to being a threat to the king of England, the Geneva Bible was outspokenly anti-Roman Catholic, as one might expect. Rome was still persecuting Protestants in the sixteenth century. Keep in mind that the English translators were exiles from a nation that was returning to the Catholic faith under a queen who was burning Protestants at the stake. The anti-Roman Catholic sentiment is most evident in the Book of Revelation: "The beast that cometh out of the bottomless pit (Rev. 11:7) is the Pope, which hath his power out of hell and cometh thence." In the end, the Geneva Bible was replaced by the King James Version, but not before it helped to settle America.
In addition to being a threat to the king of England, the Geneva Bible was outspokenly anti-Roman Catholic, as one might expect. Rome was still persecuting Protestants in the sixteenth century. Keep in mind that the English translators were exiles from a nation that was returning to the Catholic faith under a queen who was burning Protestants at the stake. The anti-Roman Catholic sentiment is most evident in the Book of Revelation: "The beast that cometh out of the bottomless pit (Rev. 11:7) is the Pope, which hath his power out of hell and cometh thence." In the end, the Geneva Bible was replaced by the King James Version, but not before it helped to settle America.
Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus"
-- Thomas Jefferson
In previous articles published in The Essene Path, I have briefly touched on the topic of how Paul, the self-proclaimed Apostle, violently opposed the original vegetarian Essene Christianity of Jesus, first by killing and imprisoning its leaders, then by infiltrating the movement and leading a schism. The schism led by Paul -- a meat-eating version of Christianity -- replaced the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul. As briefly described in previous articles, "Paulianity" evolved into the Roman Catholic Church and gave birth to all of what is considered mainstream Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. Whereas I have briefly touched on this topic in previous articles, it is the purpose of this article to deal with it in great depth. I will begin by setting the stage; I will describe early Christianity as it existed prior to the advent of Paul. What were the main tenets of this pre-Pauline, Essene Christianity? What was the early Christian doctrine of salvation? Having set the stage, I will describe in detail the schism led by Paul which evolved into modern Christianity. I will conclude this expose´ with a call to action: A CALL TO REJECT PAULIANITY AND RETURN TO ESSENE NAZARENE CHRISTIANITY. The choice is simple, yet profound; and every Christian must make it: YAHSHUA (Jesus) OR PAUL?
The terms "Nazarene" and "Ebionite" are central to a correct understanding of early, pre-Pauline Christianity. Why? Because certain specific beliefs and practices can be identified with those terms. We know from many sources that both terms -- Nazarene and Ebionite -- are associated with: vegetarianism, reincarnation, God as both Father and Mother, communalism, pacifism, an absolute prohibition against slavery, absolute sobriety (no intoxicating drinks or drugs), equality of men and women, holistic health and Essene Yoga. THOSE ARE THE BELIEFS AND PRACTICES OF THE VERY FIRST CHRISTIANS, the beliefs and practices of the ESSENE NAZARENE EBIONITES
And what was the doctrine of salvation of these early, pre-Pauline Christians? They believed that SALVATION IS DEPENDENT UPON FOLLOWING THE SAVING TEACHINGS OF YAHSHUA (Jesus). In a profound contrast with the theology of Paul -- which became orthodox Christianity ("Paulianity"😉 -- the literature of the Essene Nazarene Ebionites NEVER TAUGHT SALVATION VIA BELIEF IN THE SACRIFICIAL DEATH OF JESUS ON THE CROSS. The Pauline doctrine which asserts that you can only be saved by believing that Jesus died for your sins, is called ATONEMENT. The Essene Nazarene Ebionites had a very different doctrine of Atonement; it was AT-ONE-MENT. They believed that to be AT-ONE with God (the goal of religion) one must follow THE SAVING TEACHINGS OF YAHSHUA, not simply believe in his sacrificial death. The Essene Nazarene Ebionites based their doctrine of salvation on the actual instructions they personally received from Yahshua before his crucifixion. Unlike Paul, who NEVER EVEN MET JESUS, the leaders of the Essene Nazarene Ebionites were PERSONALLY TRAINED AND INITIATED BY THEIR SPIRITUAL MASTER, YAHSHUA. In The Essene New Testament, Jesus tells his disciples that blood sacrifice cannot bring salvation:
Jesus was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him, "Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Can blood offerings take away sin?" Jesus answered, "No blood offering of beast or bird or man can take away sin. For how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.... For sins against the Law of God there can be no remission, except by repentance and amendment."
So, Jesus made quite clear that no blood sacrifice -- not even his own -- can provide salvation for your sins; rather, you must quit sinning (repent) and follow his SAVING TEACHINGS. And that was the doctrine of salvation of the Essene Nazarene Ebionites.
http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm
I need more coffee...It's early....Hope this makes some since to you about the Difference between Paul and Jesus teachings.
Some differences between Paul and Jesus:
Paul taught that it was okay for the Elect to eat meat sacrificed to idols;
Jesus honored women and found in them his most devoted followers, but Paul proclaimed the inferiority of women and said that they must obey the will of men;
"Wives be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. As the church is subject to Christ, so must wives be subject to their husbands in everything."
In all Christian churches, the women should keep silent whenever in church. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate.... If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.... If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, he must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is true and from the Lord God."
The Essenes forbade slavery but Paul ordered Christian slaves to obey their Christian masters;
Although Paul never met Jesus, he ignored the instructions of the Apostles who had been personally trained by Jesus, replacing the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles with his own very different teachings;
Paul was, in the view of the Essene Christians, the "demon-driven enemy of the Messiah."
Paul had been the enemy of Essene Christianity from the beginning, and because he failed in his former open hostility he had craftily infiltrated the movement to destroy it from within, leading a schism which became numerically strong enough to subdue the original church.