|
Author
|
Topic: The historical Jesus didn't create a new religion!
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
I think andy is looking for cookies!~ [LIST]
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
hello, andersbranderud, you wrote quote:
Hello Eden, Ribi Yehoshua was the Messiah. Hello!! Didn’t you read my post??
Okay, andersbranderud, I have reread (fast) through your Topic and could NOT find the place where you said that “Jesus was the Messiah who died for your sins and who rose again on the 3rd day” and "ascended into heaven".
You make mention of Judaic Mâshiakh Ribi Yehoshua, but nowhere do you state that you have personally decided that Jesus is the Messiah who died on the cross for you and who rose again on the 3rd day and ascended from Bethany and was taken up into heaven."
nstead you say things like quote:
Following the teachings of the Judaic Mâshiakh (Messiah) Ribi Yehoshua – that is doing one’s utmost to practice the 613 commandments of Torah - also brings the inner joy, purpose and happiness of working intimately with him to bring about, and participate in, the Messianic era, enjoying a higher level of communion with ha-Sheim - the Creator - as party to Yirmeyâhu's (Jeremiah’s) New Covenant.
It is NOT Jesus’s teaching that we try to do the 613 commandments of Torah[/b]; Jesus reduced the laws to two “love the LORD God of Israel with all your heart” and “love your neighbor as yourself”, for “this is the whole law”.
May I ask you, andersbranderud, I understand that you think that Ribi Yehoshua was the Messiah, but do you believe that the Messiah Jesus died for your sins on the cross and died and rose again on the third day and ascended to heaven from Bethany by the mount of Olives, while the disciples looked on? And this Messiah is coming the second time as King of king and will take over the earth and rule over the earth from Jesusalem? Do you believe all that also, or do you just believe that “Ribi Yeshoshua Jesus was the Mâshiakh”?
The ONLY thing you said was quote:
Hello Eden, Ribi Yehoshua was the Messiah. Hello!! Didn’t you read my post??
So I did read your post. It may be that you think that the Messiah was "only a Great Teacher" but "not the Lord from heaven"?
1 Corinthians 15:47
The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Even regarding your Topic title, "Jesus didn't create a new religion!", how can that be? Ribi Yeshoshua Himself said through Paul,
Galatians 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
John 3:7
Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born again.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
All the truly disputed words found in the Greek New Testament could be printed on one half of one page in a Greek New Testament. And not one Christian doctrine would be called into question.
Thus the preservation of the text of the Bible confirms our conviction that Scripture is the Word of God. God not only gave us His Word, but has guarded it, so that today we too can read the Bible, and hear His living voice.
(THE BIBLE READER’S COMPANION)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
![[Bible]](graemlins/bible.gif) The New Testament Canon
An inherited idea
In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “canon,”—or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible,”—that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the “Canon of the Old Testament.”
Something imposed on the church
The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of Divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.”
By divine authority
But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christ’s own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been “made sufficient ministers of a new covenant”; for (as one of themselves argued) “if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.” Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a Divine revelation, but it was also preached “in the Holy Ghost” (1 Peter 1:12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were “of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:13). Their own commands were, therefore, of Divine authority (1 Thessalonians 4:2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (2 Thessalonians 2:15). “If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,” says Paul to one church (2 Thessalonians 3:14), “note that man, that ye have no company with him.” To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37).
Accepted like the Old Testament
Inevitably, such writings, making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old “Bible”; placed alongside its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship—a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (1 Thessalonians 5:27; Colossians 4:16; Revelation 1:3).
In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the “Scriptures” were not a closed but an increasing “canon.” Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches “men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Spoken about from the start
We say that this immediate placing of new books—given the church under the seal of apostolic authority—among the Scriptures already established as such, was inevitable. It is also historically evinced from the very beginning. Thus the apostle Peter, writing in a.d. 68, speaks of Paul’s numerous letters not in contrast with the Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16)—that is, of course, those of the Old Testament.
Uniting OT and NT quotes
Paul combines the book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of “Scripture” (1 Timothy 5:18): “For the Scripture saith, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn’ [Deuteronomy 25:4]; and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his hire’” (Luke 10:7).
New Testament books treated as additional Scriptures
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand.
“New books,” “old books”
The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolic circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
New name modeled on Old Testament
The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called “The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms” (or “the Hagiographa”—“Holy Writings”), or more briefly “The Law and the Prophets,” or even more briefly still “The Law”; so the enlarged Bible was called “The Law and the Prophets, with the Gospels and the Apostles”; while the new books apart were called “The Gospel and the Apostles,” or most briefly of all “The Gospel.”
Ignatius
This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (a.d. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., “ad Philad.” 5; “ad Smyrn.” 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (“ad Philad.” 6). “When I heard some saying,” he writes, “Unless I find it in the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books]—by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better,” etc.
The New Testament lies hidden in the Old
Here Ignatius appeals to the “Gospel” as Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the answer in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the well-known saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is first made clear in the New. What we need now to observe, however, is that to Ignatius the New Testament was not a different book from the Old testament, but part of the one body of Scripture with it; an accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it.
Part of the oracles of God
From the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, 2 Clement) of “New Books” (Ignatius), called the “Gospel and Apostles” (Ignatius, Marcion), was already part of the “Oracles” of God (Polycarp, Papias, 2 Clement), or “Scriptures (1 Timothy, 2 Peter, Barnabas, Polycarp, 2 Clement), or the “Holy Books” or “Bible” (Testt. XII. Patt.).
The “Gospel” and “The Apostles”
The number of books included in this added body of New Books, at the opening of the second century, cannot be satisfactorily determined by the evidence of these fragments alone. The section of it called the “Gospel” included Gospels written by the apostles and their companions” (Justin), which beyond legitimate question were our four Gospels now received. The section called “The Apostles” contained the book of Acts (The Testt. XII. Patt.) and epistles of Paul, John, Peter, and James. The evidence from various quarters is indeed enough to show that the collection in general use contained all the books which we at present receive, with the possible exceptions of Jude, 2 and 3 John and Philemon. And it is more natural to suppose that failure of very early evidence for these brief booklets is due to their insignificant size rather than to their non-acceptance ….
Apostolic authorship
Let it be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the “canon.” Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the “canon” of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as “law.” Hence Tertullian’s name for the “canon” is “instrumentum”; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded—as their “Instrument,” or “Law,” or “Canon”—can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in 1 Timothy 5:18 with Deuteronomy as equally “Scripture” with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture.
Apostolic authority
The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books,—of “The Gospel and the Apostles,”—Justin tells us, were “written by the apostles and their companions.” The authority of the apostles, as by Divine appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they themselves had written.
B.B. Warfield
(Encyclopedia of Bible Facts)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Au contrair Andy. Your head is in the sand, and I am concerned for you. On Christ "the Solid Rock," I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. Here is a really excellent NT reference for you:
1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
Intellegence is a curse by Yeshua's standards. Blessed are you if you are stupid. Amen! Thank the Lord exceedingly! I am pleased to be so for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Indeed, if I were not, I would 'choose' it for the benefit of the grace of my God. Get a grip if you would fear for your soul.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
andersbranderud
New Member
Member # 7411
|
posted
Michael,
You keep on sticking you head in the sand.
All intelligent readers think it is ludricous!
As I said the NT has not been preserved! It contains errors!
Repetition:
[b] Even Christian scholars widely acknowledge (e.g. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible) tens of thousands of redactions by Roman Hellenist idolaters that --some time BETWEEN 135 C.E. and the earliest (4th century CE) sources of the NT (see, for example, the late Oxford historian James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue).
From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who are followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism
Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
There you go. It does in fact contradict 'natural laws'. There is a reason for this. It is because this is a spiritual dispensation!
Did you read what I said about: the NT can be validated, character by character, just as the Torah can by way of the "Bible Code." It is dictated by God, not by man. There is no error.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
This is what I mean:
quote:
YOU SAID: demonstrates that all three of the major sects of first century Judaism followed both written and oral Torah.
It is not so. This will have been the group of whom Paul preached that they were in error. For 'life' does not come by the law. Man cannot keep the Torah. And the sacrifice which the Torah calls for was sacrificed already for us; the Lamb without Blemish. And keeping the Torah by 'effort' is an offense to His sacrifice for it will not work. For this understanding one must know the NT.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
andersbranderud
New Member
Member # 7411
|
posted
Michael.
Yes, before I was a Christian for 6 years. I read the NT a lot!! It contradicts Torah and the natural laws. It cannot be validated.
Find out more in my testimonial at www.netzarim.co.il ; click at the link “Christians” at the first site; then click at my photo.
About NT:
• [a] The documentation by the earliest Church historian Eusebius (EH III.xxvii.4-6), is that the original followers of Ribi Yehoshua (the Netzarim, Hellenized to "Nazarenes") refused and rejected the NT, BECAUSE it was an addition that contradicts Tanakh (ibid., inter alia) and
• [b] Even Christian scholars widely acknowledge (e.g. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible) tens of thousands of redactions by Roman Hellenist idolaters that --some time AFTER 135 C.E. and the earliest (4th century CE) sources of the NT (see, for example, the late Oxford historian James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue).
From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who are followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism
Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
andersbranderud, have you ever read the NT? Particularly, have you ever read it keeping in mind what obeying the law is about? Or, do you resist the NT because it is redacted? Because the NT can be validated, character by character, just as the Torah can by way of the "Bible Code."
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
scythewieldor
unregistered
|
posted
Dear Believers,
This is the perfect example of something on which I wrote in the "Mystery of Israel and Judah" thread. The sons of the devil do the lusts of their father, sowing tares in the field.
quote:
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
quote:
Mat 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Carol: Excellent job of contending for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Anders: Think "millstone". How long can you hold your breath? Doesn't matter. What you're asking for is much worse than that.
quote:
Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
![[Wink]](wink.gif) So much for reaching out huh?
quote:
Dude! quote:
"Don't think that I came to uproot the Torah or the Neviim [prophets], but rather I came to reconcile them with the Oral Law of emet (truth). Should the heavens and ha-aretz (the land, particularly referring to Israel) exchange places, still, not even one ' (yod) nor one ` (qeren) of the Oral Law of Mosheh shall so much as exchange places; until it shall become that it is all being fully ratified and performed non-selectively. For whoever deletes one Oral Law from the Torah, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be called "deleted."
When one reads scripture wanting to reinforce what he thinks or believes, he cannot 'see'. Therefore what he sees, Jesus literally equates to mud. Selah! To that end HE also said, "Take heed that the light that is in you is not darkness." What this means is to take care that what you believe is not religious in nature, but which misses the goal. This means take care that it is not merely concept.
He did not come to reconcile any with the oral law, as you understand it. Jesus IS 'the fulfillment' of the law. Therefore HE came to reconcile them to HIM. HE came to reconcile them to the fullfillment, effectively eliminating the need to 'do' the Torah, but rather to 'have' the fulfillment accomplished for them by submission to Christ.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
andersbranderud
New Member
Member # 7411
|
posted
Hello Eden,
Ribi Yehoshua was the Messiah. Hello!! Didn’t you read my post??
Regarding Mashiakh
www.netzarim.co.il; click at “History Museum” in the left menu; click at “Mashiakh” in the top menu; click at “Mâshiakh of Tana"kh Subverts Tana"kh
to be the Mâshiakh?” to the right of the burning scroll”
According to Scholars (for example Bart Ehrman) in leading universites NT has been redacted. I won’t accept your argumentation from NT. It contradicts Torah and according to Devarim 13 (Deuteronomy) it is false!
Ribi Yehoshua said:
"Don't think that I came to uproot the Torah or the Neviim [prophets], but rather I came to reconcile them with the Oral Law of emet (truth). Should the heavens and ha-aretz (the land, particularly referring to Israel) exchange places, still, not even one ' (yod) nor one ` (qeren) of the Oral Law of Mosheh shall so much as exchange places; until it shall become that it is all being fully ratified and performed non-selectively. For whoever deletes one Oral Law from the Torah, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be called "deleted." Both he who preserves and he who teaches them shall be called Ribi in the Realm of the heavens. For I tell you that unless your Tzedaqah (righteousness) is over and above that of the Sophrim (Torah Scribes), and of the [probably 'Herodian'] Rabbinic-Perushim (corrupted to "Pharisees"), there is no way you will enter into the Realm of the heavens! “
Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu 5:17-20.
and
“Take heed against false Neviim [Prophets] who come to you in wool like sheep, but inside they are wolves who extort. You shall recognize them by their works. Do men pick grapes from a stinging-nettle? Or figs from a thistle? So, every green tree is unable to produce evil fruit, and a dried-up tree is unable to produce good fruit."”
Ribi Yehoshua warned for false prophets who don’t produce good fruit = defined as don’t practise the commandments in Torah according to Halakhah (oral Torah). See Devarim (Deuteronomy) 13:1-6.
Now you are confronted with the very words of historical Ribi Yehoshua [in the above quotes]. You can’t rebel and reject the very words he claims to follow. If you don’t follow Ribi Yehoshuas Torah-teachings, than you don’t follow Ribi Yehoshua.
So why not start following Ribi Yehoshua by practising Torah including Halakhah non-selectively? To follow him by practising the commandments in Torah including helping the needy gives true meaning of life!!
From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who are followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism
Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
 The Incarnation
1. C. S. Lewis calls the Incarnation “myth become fact.” Scattered generously throughout the myths of the ancient world is the strange story of a god who came down from heaven. Some tell of a god who died and rose for the life of man (e.g., Odin, Osiris and Mesopotamian corn gods). Just as the Garden of Eden story and the Noah’s flood story appear in many different cultures, something like the Jesus story does too.
For some strange reason, many people think that this fact—that there are many mythic parallels and foreshadowings of the Christian story—points to the falsehood of the Christian story. Actually, the more witnesses tell a similar story, the more likely it is to be true. The more foreshadowings we find for an event, the more likely it is that the event will happen.
2. There is an analogy in art to the possibility of the Incarnation; an answer to the objection that it is impossible and self-contradictory. Suppose an author inserted himself into his own novel or play or movie as one of his own characters. This character would have a double nature, and would have “come down from heaven,” so to speak—the heaven of the author’s mind—yet he would be a completely human character interacting with the other characters in the story. Alfred Hitchcock frequently did this, inserting himself into his own movies as a character for a fleeting moment. If he can do it, why can’t God?
3. Which brings us to the very simple and logical argument: How do you, the critic who says the Incarnation is impossible, know so much that you can tell God what he can or cannot do? The skeptic should be more skeptical of himself and less skeptical of God. If the objection is that the doctrine of the Incarnation claims too much, claims to know too much, the response is that to deny it claims to know much more. (Logically, a universal negative proposition is the hardest kind to prove.)
4. The same point can be put more positively. If a being exists worthy of the name “God,” that being must be omnipotent, that is, able to do anything that is intrinsically possible, anything that is meaningful, anything that does not involve a self-contradiction (like a rock that is not a rock, or a rock too heavy for infinite power to lift). But the Incarnation, however miraculous, is not a self-contradiction. Therefore the Incarnation is possible.
5. It is possible not only from the side of the Creator but also from the side of the creature. A human being can be transformed, taken up into God somewhat as subhuman food is transformed into the human body, physical sounds are transformed into spiritual music; form and color become art, natural affection becomes charity, or ego-consciousness becomes mystical experience. This principle of transformation runs throughout the world.
6. Finally, the fact that it is possible for one person to have two opposite natures can be seen (as we saw above) in the most familiar of all things: yourself. You are one person, yet you both are and are not spatially measurable. The gap between our physical and spiritual natures, between a few million electrons zapping across the synapses of Einstein’s brain and his discovery that E = MC2, is hardly more startling than the gap between the two natures of Christ.
(Handbook of Christian Apologetics)
John 10:30 (NLT)
The Father and I are one.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
 What Is Christ?
Huston Smith notes, in The World’s Religions, that only two people ever astounded their contemporaries so much that the question they evoked was not “Who is he?” but “What is he?” They were Jesus and Buddha. The answers these two gave were exactly opposite. Buddha said unequivocally that he was a mere man, not a god—almost as if he foresaw later attempts to worship him. Jesus, on the other hand, claimed in many ways to be divine.
The problem of Jesus’ identity emerges from the data. The data are the four Gospels, which inform us about the claims he made about himself and the claims others made about him. In all four Gospels the claim is shockingly strong.
Jesus called himself the “Son of God”—that is, of the same nature as God. A son is of the same nature, the same species, the same essence, as his father. Jesus called God his Father: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9).
He also claimed to be sinless: “Which of you can convict me of sin?” He claimed to forgive sins—all sins, against everyone. The Jews protested: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” They were much more clear-thinking theologians than the modernists, who “nuance” this claim. The only one who has the right to forgive all sins is the only One who is offended in all sins, namely, God. I have a right to forgive you for your sins against me, but not for your sins against others.
Jesus claimed to save us from sin and death. He said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will never die.” He said he had come from heaven, not just earth, and that he would return again from heaven at the end of the world to judge everyone. Meanwhile, he gave us his flesh to eat, and said that this would give us eternal life.
Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter. For a Jew, changing names was something only God could do, for your name was not just a human, arbitrary label, but your real identity, which was given to you by God alone. In the Old Testament, only God changed names, and destinies—Abram became Abraham, Sarai became Sarah, Jacob became Israel. An orthodox Jew who got his name legally changed was excommunicated.
Jesus kept pointing people to himself, saying “Come unto me.” Buddha said, “Look not to me; look to my dharma (doctrine).” Buddha also said, “Be ye lamps unto yourselves.” Jesus said, “I am the light of the world.”
Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad and other religious founders performed no miracles and did not rise from the dead. Jesus offered his many miracles and his resurrection as evidence for his divinity.
Most clearly and shockingly of all, he invited crucifixion (or stoning) by saying: “Very truly, I tell you [i.e., I am not exaggerating or speaking symbolically here; take this in all its force], before Abraham was, I am” (Jn 8:58). He spoke and claimed the sacred name that God revealed to Moses, the name God used to name himself (Ex 3:14). If he was not God, no one in history ever said anything more blasphemous than this; by Jewish law, no one ever deserved to be crucified more than Jesus.
Who then was Jesus, really?
You cannot even ask the question without implicitly choosing among answers. The very wording of the question, in the past tense (“Who was Jesus?”) or the present (“Who is Jesus?”), presupposes its own answer. For those who believe his claim do not say that he was divine, but is divine. Divinity does not change or die or disappear into the past. Furthermore, if he really rose from the dead, he still is, and is very much alive today.
(Handbook of Christian Apologetics)
John 14:6 (NLT)
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
hello, andersbranderud. Consider the following astonshing fact.
Even if Jesus of Bethlehem/Nazareth was merely an "extraordinarily good man", consider how he was captured by the Jews, then turned over the Romans.
Now it is well-known that when one is in custody of an occupier, the captive cannot say to the captor, "I want you to kill me on Passover". (For Jesus was to be our Passover Lamb.)
For his Roman captors will say to the captured Jesus, "We will tell you when we are *&%#@ good and ready to kill you"...right?
But Jesus of Bethlehem-Nazareth (Micah 5:2), of the tribe of Judah, born of the royal family of King David, born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:20), this captive Jesus managed to get himself killed right on the Passover:
John 13:1
Now before the feast of the passover when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them to the end.
John 19
14 And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour {noon}: and he {Proconsul Pontius Pilate} said to the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha.
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
Acts 4:10
Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, but whom God raised from the dead, even by Him does this man now stand here before you whole again.
andersbranderud, believe the gospel and be saved, before He comes and before you die:
2 Corinthians 6:2
(For he said, I have heard you in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I helped you: look, now is the accepted time; and see, now is the day of salvation.)
Save yourself while there is yet time.
Be blessed in Jesus of Bethlehem-Judah-David.
Micah 5:2
2 But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall He come forth unto Me who is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings-forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
And consider this also, that in 70 A.D. all the genealogical records of Judah-Benjamin went up in flames, along with the city of Jerusalem.
Do you think God would let the Messiah come to earth AFTER the genealogical records were destroyed, so that no one could verify His genealogy?
Matthew 1
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
...
15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 And Jacob begat Joseph {Yawceph} the husband of Mary {Miriam}, of whom was born Jesus {Yehoshua}, who is called Christ {Messiah}.
John 7:42
Has not the scripture said, That Christ {Messiah} comes of the seed of David and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
andersbranderud, you ignore these things at your own peril.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Thanks Eden,
andersbranderud is not a believer in our wonderful Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Let's see if we can reach out to him.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Good topical addition, Carol Swenson. ![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif)
Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
We have all sinned and deserve God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Jesus, the creator and eternal Son of God, who lived a sinless life, loves us so much that He died for our sins, taking the punishment that we deserve, was buried, and rose from the dead according to the Bible. If you truly believe and trust this in your heart, receiving Jesus alone as your Savior, declaring, "Jesus is Lord," you will be saved from judgment and spend eternity with God in heaven.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
All About Jesus Christ.org
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-jesus.htm
Historical Jesus: A Recent Movement to Reinterpret the New Testament Record
The search for the “Historical Jesus” is a rather recent undertaking of so-called scholars and realists, who look to dissect the Biblical record and paint a real picture of the man, Jesus. For about the last 100 years, including most recently, the Jesus Seminar, intellectual debate has made its way into the mainstream media based on the supposed goal of “separating historical fact from mythology.” The problem is that the entire “Historical Jesus” movement is a product of the 20th Century philosophy of naturalism, in that all debate begins with a shared, yet concealed, presupposition – that anything outside the realm of natural explanation can never be backed by historical evidence. In a nutshell, the movement holds that it's impossible for the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like people walking on water, food multiplying, and people being raised from the dead. Of course, this is not scholarly evaluation of the historical evidence or Biblical manuscripts – this is strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism.
Historical Jesus: The Unchanging Reality of the New Testament Record
When examined, the “Historical Jesus” movement of the last 100 years has unearthed nothing that undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that Jesus was merely a “good man.” There is no “new evidence” debunking the accounts of miracles and the resurrection based on new analysis of “myth theory” over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the nature and content of the New Testament record than ever before. Actually, except for the propagated view of the mainstream media, the trend in the last two decades has been for liberal scholars to become more conservative in their views on the reliability of the New Testament record, not less. Recent finds in archaeology are showing more (not less) consistent detail of the time, culture, religion and politics at the time Jesus walked the earth. At the same time, Biblical manuscript credibility has taken great leaps forward (not backward). Do these things prove the miracles or resurrection of Jesus? No. However, when these things are combined with the record of historical accuracy, messianic prophecy, early church growth, Christian persecution, and extra-biblical sources, we see powerful substance (not mythology) underlying the claim that the writers of the New Testament record were eye-witnesses to the events themselves.
For instance, we know from sources outside the Bible that the Apostle Paul died during Nero’s persecution in 64 A.D. We also know that Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before 64 A.D. Since Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, we know that Gospel must have been written even earlier still. Any scholar, including those in the “Historical Jesus” movement, will tell you that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Luke. This supports the writing of Mark in the 50s A.D., only about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. Outside the Gospels, no legitimate scholar will dispute that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s. Why is this important? Because Paul declares that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that New Testament letter. Galatians is another undisputed letter of Paul written in the mid-50s. Why is this important? Because Paul discusses his interaction with Peter and James, two of Jesus’ primary disciples, at least 14 years earlier in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1. Finally, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul proclaims the earliest record of the Christian creed, in which Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and was raised from the dead three days later. Why is this early creed so important? Because scholars, using the historical records of Paul and his early travels to Damascus and Jerusalem, place the above creed at about 35 A.D., just 3 to 5 years after the death of Jesus Christ.
Historical Jesus: The True Record
The “Historical Jesus” movement holds that the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted as the stories of Jesus evolved into the late 1st or early 2nd century. However, this theory is not supported by the evidence. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts, giving detailed geographic, political and cultural details to bolster the record. All of the manuscript evidence presented above is dramatic, because it establishes that basic Christian doctrine developed far too quickly for a myth to intervene and distort the historical record, especially when so many witnesses were still alive to contradict the alleged errors or myths.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
Well yes that is true, they were very glad to do it too. I stand corrected... ![[Kiss]](graemlins/Kiss.gif)
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
Kingo, they did keep the laws
"after" they joined with the nation of Israel.
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
Well MH most of Jesus' grandmothers were..how can I say this bad girls..they sure didn't keep the laws.
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Member 7411, you are looking at what Jesus did, and not what HE said.
quote:
Following the teachings of the Judaic Mâshiakh (Messiah) Ribi Yehoshua – that is doing one’s utmost to practice the 613 commandments of Torah - also brings the inner joy, purpose and happiness of working intimately with him to bring about, and participate in, the Messianic era, enjoying a higher level of communion with ha-Sheim - the Creator - as party to Yirmeyâhu's (Jeremiah’s) New Covenant.
There is much to be appreciated in the epistles also, which will do much to help the willing to come to understanding of how that 'doing the Torah' will not accomplish 'participation' in the Messianic era, or bring a higher level of communion. Rather one will miss participating by this distraction.
~ ![[Cross]](graemlins/cross.gif) ~
Now, obedience to the law, was in the OT, for the purpose of Israel's being sanctified unto God. Notice that when every individual stringently adhered to the Torah, then Israel was corporately sanctified unto HIM. Good thing!It took each individual to accomplish this. But.... adhering to the law had another purpose. The lineage of Jesus was in, and through Israel. Disobedience to the law potentially threatend the lineage of the coming Messiah.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Dear andersbraderud, you say nothing about the miraculous Jesus and about the resurrected Jesus on the 3rd day and the ascended Jesus and the coming-back Jesus.
Those aspects of Jesus are way more important than the historical Jesus; no one can get saved by your historical Jesus; but they can get saved by the miraculous, resurrected, ascended, and coming-back Jesus.
be blessed, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
andersbranderud
New Member
Member # 7411
|
posted
This post will be about the historical Jesus. Who was he? Did he or his followers create a new religion?
According to historical scholarship [sources: see at the bottom of this post] he practised what corresponds to today’s Orthodox Judaism all his life. His followers were called Netzarim – that is Hebrew [it means offshoot (of a olive tree)] and is a name in the Jewish Bible that is used for Messiah.
During the first century those who practised Judaism were very devoted their religion. Just like King David and all other Jews throughout history they practised Torah (Instruction) – the Instructions of the Creator – with joy! The most prominent university professors in this field Prof. Elisha Qimron , author of the most authoritative treatise on 4Q MMT, demonstrates that all three of the major sects of first century Judaism followed both written and oral Torah.
Louis Feldman (”The Omnipresence of the G*od-Fearers,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 1986.09-10, p. 45, 58ff) observes: “the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts”
Year 7 B.C.E Ribi Yehoshua were born in Bethlehem. His father name was Yoseif and his mothers name was Miriam. His parents were practising Jews.
According to world-recognized authorities in this area Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee (a Torah-practising Jewish group - who according to 4Q MMT practised both written and oral Torah). As the earliest church historians, most eminent modern university historians, our web site (www.netzarim.co.il) and our Khavruta (Distance Learning) texts confirm, the original teachings of Ribi Yehoshua were not only accepted by most of the Pharisaic Jewish community, he had hoards of Jewish students.
He took care of sick and made it popular to pray in what corresponds to today’s Orthodox synagogues. The genealogically non-priest, Hellenist “Wicked Priest” Temple-Sadducees felt that their power was threaten by Ribi Yehoshua. They decided to get him crucified by the Romans. The Romans convicted and crucified Ribi Yehoshua year 30 C.E.
Ribi Yehoshua’s followers Netzarim were expelled from Jerusalem 135 C.E: together with all other Jews. The first Christian bishop Markos replaced the fifteenth leader of Netzarim. This Christian bishop didn’t have permission to do this. What the Paul the apostate and later the founder of Christianity did was to take some concepts that Ribi Yehoshua had taught; they distorted the concepts and included them in the religion which they practiced – Hellenism – the religion of the Greeks. (Sources: See Ecclesiastical History (EH IV.v.1-4; EH V.xii.1) )
Anyone educated in this field knows that the only sect of Judaism that had rabbis was the Pharisee and even the Christian NT described him as a rabbi. Parkes, Bagatti, Wilson, Charlesworth; all world-recognized authorities in this area leave no doubt that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee, of the school of Hileil - who was also Pharisee. There is no serious dispute about that among scholars in the field. Ribi Yehoshua taught in "synagogues"; which were a strictly Pharisee institution.
Following the teachings of the Judaic Mâshiakh (Messiah) Ribi Yehoshua – that is doing one’s utmost to practice the 613 commandments of Torah - also brings the inner joy, purpose and happiness of working intimately with him to bring about, and participate in, the Messianic era, enjoying a higher level of communion with ha-Sheim - the Creator - as party to Yirmeyâhu's (Jeremiah’s) New Covenant.
If you want to learn about the Historical Ribi Yehoshua, whom Orthodox Jews can live with (witness the Netzarim Jews in Raanana, Israel, members in good standing in an Orthodox synagogue), you must start with books like How Jesus Became Christian by Prof. Barrie Wilson (most bookstores) and Who Are The Netzarim? (publ. www.schuellerhouse.com) by Israeli Orthodox Jew, Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David.
From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) whom is followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism
Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
