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 willRulesInteresting 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.
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.
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 Mindship
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.
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 😄
Originally posted by Melcórë
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.
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 ✅
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.
Originally posted by Melcórë
That doesn't sway me. Roman biographers stated things as facts that are now clearly fabrications or stories which developed over time.
Yes but archaeological evidence in Israel and Palestine would suggest a degree of accuracy to many Bible passages. There are places mentioned in the bible which many Archaeologists claimed to by a myth until they were found. Evidence of cities dating back to Biblical times and beyond ✅ They have also found evidence of wars which are only mentioned in the Bible and many historians and archaeologists would argue that the Bible can be a reliable source for uncovering archaeological evidence to suggest many of these pieces of scripture are in fact true.
Originally posted by Melcórë
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.
Mark is dated somewhere between 40 and 70 Ad which is the earliest recorded Gospel. However in later books there are passages which have been dated earlier than this which refer to Jesus as the Christ and mention the resurrection ✅
Logically you can't write a book until the events occur anyway. Also when you take into account that the number of copies produced during the dates you mentioned are around 25,366, this would suggest many people felt there was something worth writing down and mentioning. Most scholars have issues as to if someone really called Matthew wrote Matthew and didn't just adapt an earlier version of the text. However like I say there are sooooo many copies from around that time (estimated at 56,000 in their respective original languages) that there could not have been much variation to the texts otherwise the copies would say different things and then they wouldn't be copies ✅
Matt, Mark, Luke and John are all dated by most historians within the first century. (The last and youngest book in the Bible is John's revelation which most scholars agree to be written in 96 AD under the reign of Roman Emperor Domitian) as for the non-canonical and gnostic gospels which weren't included in the Bible, these are books that are unreliable as scripture as they were composed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries at the earliest by people who would not have been alive during the time of Jesus.
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.
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 ✅