This Man

[nesseeee]

Loved this video - thank you! Shame is, however, I somehow how got sucked into the banter between hammersley1967 & leiger40 and they wrecked it for me and others alike I'm sure on this Good Friday! It's not about you!!!! If you don't like what you see, hear or read, don't watch, listen or read it and especially don't blow for everyone else!

[nozari011]

i can only stand in awe and wonder... im so sorry God... You are truly amazing lord... truly amazing!

[Hammersley1967]

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Jesus Christ

Matthew Chapter 10, verse 34.

"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division"

Jesus Christ

Luke Chapter 12, verse 51.

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

Jesus Christ

Luke 14, Chapter 14, verse 26.

[leiger40]

(1)

Matthew 10 : 34

Jesus did not come to bring peace on earth, but to strengthen our relationship with God. There will never be worldwide peace, because there are those that will never commit themselves to Jesus and will do terrible things.

[leiger40]

(2)

Luke 12 : 51

This is the same thing as the last passage. We should praise Jesus above all for his sacrifice for us, and love him much more than we love our own family and friends.

[leiger40]

(3)

Luke 14 : 26

This is referring to our sinful lives. No matter how pure our intentions, we sin and we blame others for their sin.

>> "And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." - Luke 13 : 27

>> "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." - Luke 13: 33

Read things in context, and you will understand!

[Hammersley1967]

"Read things in context, and you will understand!"

What "context"?

All I see is the references that I cited and your spin on them. That is, what you would like them to mean and therefore what you consequently read into them.

Where is the wider textual context?

[leiger40]

What "context"?

Where is the wider textual context?

What I 'read into' it is an understanding based on what I know about the authors of the historical texts, & what I know about their literary technique.

Both questions were the same. Here's the answer.

1. Read the whole paragraph, or whole chapter, not just a single line pulled from the text

2. Read the whole book that the verse is taken from (Matt/Luke), or find out more about who wrote it, why it was written, & when it was written.

[Hammersley1967]

"who wrote it, why it was written, & when it was written."

And you have definitive proof positive of "who wrote it, why it was written, & when it was written"?

If you do, then you have conclusive theological data at your disposal that has eluded the entire academy of Christian scholars throughout all history.

THAT IS IMPRESSIVE!!!

[leiger40]

"THAT IS IMPRESSIVE!!!"

It sure is, I'm glad you agree :)

We know within a range of about 10 years when each of the Gospels was written.

For example, Mark is the oldest Gospel included in the bible, and was written approximately 30 years after Jesus' death.

The others were written shortly after, the gospels of Matthew and Luke, then the gospel of John.

We also know to whom the gospels were written, which helps modern day scholars to understand the reason for why they were written.

[leiger40]

Answer this question.

Why is it generally accepted - by renowned christians and *atheists* alike - that a man named Jesus lived, preached the word of a God he believed in, and died on a cross?

It's also generally accepted that the gospel writers GENUINELY believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them later.

[Hammersley1967]

[1]

"Answer this question.

Why is it generally accepted - by renowned christians and *atheists* alike - that a man named Jesus lived, preached the word of a God he believed in, and died on a cross?"

No, it is not generally accepted by *atheists*

that a man named Jesus lived, preached the word of a God he believed in, and died on a cross...

Why? Because there is no definitive evidence for it. Atheists are almost unanimously and unequivocally realists and subscribers to the scientific method.

[Hammersley1967]

[2]

A collection of writings which were written, at the earliest, 30 years after the death of someone (who may or may not have ever existed) and then transcribed by a succession of self interested and sociopolitically motivated "scholars" is hardly conclusive evidence for anything.

[jehjahlu]

If I were going to write something untrue about myself, I think that I would have sought to write something that was praiseworthy, not put out all of my failings, lack of holiness and betrayals of others. Besides, had it all been lies and made up stories, why did others who would have lived to see what actually occured not refute what was written at some point? There are more historial references of Jesus Christ than there are about Alexander the Great.

[Hammersley1967]

"I think that I would have sought to write something that was praiseworthy, not put out all of my failings, lack of holiness and betrayals of others."

Who's "failings, lack of holiness and betrayals"?

Christ? If the man existed at all, he apparently did not put one word to paper.

The Apostles? Most expert biblical scholars agree that each Gospel was written by multiple authors and altered greatly by the succession of transcribers throughout the millennia since their initial authorship.

[jehjahlu]

The apostles' failings and betrayals. If you were making up a story about someone, and you were to add yourself into the story, you would want to paint yourself in a good light if it were unable to be proven false. Transcribers who were to copy manuscripts were burned at the stake, or were hung or tortured by the Vatican or the Kings if even one letter was changed, and the books were burned. The Bible is the most unchanged historical document in history; the original manuscripts still exist.

[Hammersley1967]

[i]

"Transcribers who were to copy manuscripts were burned at the stake, or were hung or tortured by the Vatican or the Kings if even one letter was changed, and the books were burned."

Absolute rubbish! It is now well known that scribes added, altered, and embellished the style of the texts as they were copied and translated. There is proof of this in the transcriptional texts themselves (ie notes in the margins).

[Hammersley1967]

[ii]

We also know that entire books are left out of and added to certain versions of the bible. Ever read anything about the advent of the King James Bible and how the text was deliberately written in an "ancient style" - with lots of "thees", "thous", "thys", etc added for dramatic effect even though those terms were long extinct from the English language by 1604? The Gospel of Thomas? What about The Book of Revelation? By the 3rd Century most canons included it but some rejected it.

[jehjahlu]

Adding thees and thous and thys doesn't change the original meaning of what was written, they all translate to "you". That's dialect- not embellishment, like saying "black' as opposed to "negro", they mean the same thing. The "Gospel of Thomas" is a Gnostic text, and the Gnostic texts were not even written until 300-400 AD, whereas Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written within the first century.

[Hammersley1967]

[a]

Nope! Wrong again! Although The Gospel of Thomas has traditionally been referred to as "The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas", the contemporary consensus amongst biblical experts is that the substance of the text dates from the first century. Theissen and Merz (1998), in particular, argue the genre of a collection of sayings was one of the earliest forms in which material about Jesus was handed down.

[Hammersley1967]

[b]

They assert that other collections of sayings, such as the Q document and the collection underlying Mark 4, were absorbed into larger narratives and no longer survive as independent documents, and that no later collections in this form survive. Meyer also asserts that the genre of a "sayings collection" is indicative of the first century, and that in particular the "use of parables without allegorical amplification" seems to antedate the canonical gospels.

[Hammersley1967]

[c]

I can provide many, many scholarly references that support this expert consensus.

Would you like them for your perusal?

[leiger40]

"Would you like them for your perusal? "

Yes, gladly. A list of publications would be a good read I'm sure.

[jehjahlu]

The general consensus now is that the Q document is not part of Mark 4 but has to do with an Old Testament book that they have not been able to identify.

[jehjahlu]

It is true that some historians in 1998 did believe the Gospel of Tomas did originate from the first century, and during that time some considered it an old christian text, the majority of historians to date believe it is a late 2nd or early 3rd century text. And based on what is contained in the Gospel of Thomas, it is clearly a gnostic text- it references the person being god and not Christ being God, it has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

[Hammersley1967]

(A)

"the majority of historians to date believe it is a late 2nd or early 3rd century text."

No, sorry this is NOT correct. As I said, the OVERWHELMING scholastic consensus is that the G.O.T. is derived from the first century and probably predated ALL the canonical Gospels (Davies 1999). Similarly Earl Doherty argues that when the Gospel of Thomas does parallel Q or the New Testament, it shows a less developed, more "primitive" or "original" form than the latter. Sorry but that's the way it is

[jehjahlu]

The scribes I am referring to under King James were commissioned scribes who were meticulous- they would have to write it word for word from Greek to English or they would be killed for errors. Under the Catholic empire, the monks transcribed the texts from Greek to Latin, and were whipped or beat for errors/embellishing. The only difference between the Bibles are the changes in dialect; there are no embellishments within the texts in terms of what is written or the accounts contained in them.

[leiger40]

Those "notes in the margins" are a result of the bible originally being written in Greek.

One word in greek can be translated into many different English meanings, therefore the context of the chapter needs to be understood before it can be translated.

The notes in the margins (or at the bottom of the page) in your Bible explain the minor differences between similar translations.

[Hammersley1967]

"The Bible is the most unchanged historical document in history"

Read below...

[Hammersley1967]

[a]

"Besides, had it all been lies and made up stories, why did others who would have lived to see what actually occurred not refute what was written at some point?"

Did you not read the previous posts? The scriptures were written between 30 and 100 years AFTER the death of Christ in as far flung (from Israel) places as Rome and Greece? If there were any eyewitnesses in the first instance, they would have been either long dead or unaware of the textual accounts that had been written.

[jehjahlu]

You could say the same things about Julius Caesar. Historical records of Jesus are recorded in a shorter span of time than of any other historical figure in history. There are MORE secular textual references of Jesus' existence than there are of Julias Caesar. There is less physical evidence of Alexander the Greats' existence in history than of Jesus, who has only about three recovered written documents of his existence, and yet you consider them to be more real than Jesus in history?

[jehjahlu]

The Romans as well as the Jews have secular accounts of Jesus that were unrelated to the texts in the Gospels. The soldiers under Pontius Pilate even wrote reports of the events surrounding Jesus and the aftereffects of the crucifixion. The Romans were occupying Israel, and would have known if the apostles were lying, especially since they were so opposed to Jesus. The eyewitnesses would not have all been dead- many historians agree Matthew and Mark were written between 40-60 AD.

[Hammersley1967]

"The Romans were occupying Israel, and would have known if the apostles were lying, especially since they were so opposed to Jesus."

So you have evidence of Roman military historians who concurred with the Apolistic accounts of Christ walking on water, rising from the dead, etc?

A reference would be helpful...

[jehjahlu]

The Roman soldiers had to give an account to their generals about what took place at the site of Jesus' burial. At least 15 soldiers were at the doorpost of the site where Jesus was said to have resurrected from. If they lied, they would be put to death. 15 Roman soldiers could not have lost a body, especially when sealed with a stone at least 2 tons in weight, affixed with the official Roman seal. There are secular accounts of officials who reported Jesus' body missing, causing upheaval.

[Hammersley1967]

"The eyewitnesses would not have all been dead- many historians agree Matthew and Mark were written between 40-60 AD."

So... at the time of the original authorship the reliable eyewitnesses would have been between 60 - 80 years old. Have you got any idea of the life expectancy back then?

I ask again, how would they have immediate access to the texts and how would they express their objections to any inaccuracies given that they were (a) illiterate and (b) had no means of mass communication?

[jehjahlu]

The Jewish were not illiterate- they were expected to read and write, the Pharisees had to be able to read and write the Torah, and most people back then knew how to read and write Greek. If there was a large event. it would have spread from country to country- people travelled between Israel and other non-jewish regions because they had trade routes that took many people from different regions into Israel and vice versa, because Israel was a trading port to many regions outside of itself.

[Hammersley1967]

WRONG!

The Pharisees had to be able to read and right, and yes, a select few of them had a command of Greek and even Latin. However, I don't recall any Pharisee derived Gospels...do you?

The rank and file peasants that supposedly followed Christ would quite definitely have been illiterate.

[Hammersley1967]

"it would have spread from country to country- people traveled between Israel and other non-Jewish regions because they had trade routes that took many people from different regions into Israel and vice versa, because Israel was a trading port to many regions outside of itself."

So... your talking about traveling, transcontinental, translinguistic Chinese whispers aren't you?

And what do you suppose the corruptibility potential for that would be?

Its all getting a bit silly now isn't it?

[jehjahlu]

Historians agree the closer the original text is to a person's life or death , the greater chance they exist. Jesus has more texts closer to the date of his death than any other great historical figure- Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, Julias Ceasar, Ghengis Khan. Even if you took away the New Testament, there is more physical evidence and secular textual references of Jesus than any one person in history. Based on that alone, Jesus would be the most real person to ever exist in history.

[Hammersley1967]

"Jesus has more texts closer to the date of his death than any other great historical figure- Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, Julias Ceasar, Ghengis Khan."

Bullshit! Plato, Socrates, and Julias Ceasar all had historical accounts of them WRITTEN DURING THEIR LIFETIME.

"there is more physical evidence and secular textual references of Jesus"

Physical evidence of Jesus? Now what, pray tell, would that be? Pleeaaase try to answer that question!

[Hammersley1967]

"there is more physical evidence and secular textual references of Jesus"

More PHYSICAL EVIDENCE than Ghengis Khan? Sorry, wrong again. Ghengis Khan's genetic legacy has been traced back to the 13th Century. Every central Asian male has an identical mutation on his Y sex chromosome that traces back to a super ancestor (Khan) in the early 13 century.

You seem to be making baseless and patently FALSE assertions in the vain hope that you will not be challenged...

Oh well!

[Hammersley1967]

"Jesus would be the most real person to ever exist in history."

Really? More real than Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin?

Come on!!!

[Hammersley1967]

"It's also generally accepted that the gospel writers GENUINELY believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them later."

The "general acceptance" of a third partys "genuine belief" in something is adequate proof?

BELIEF IN BELIEF = PROOF?

Are you serious?

At best, this is drawing a very, very long bow. At worst, it's grasping at straws...

[leiger40]

Now, the fact that they believed the resurrection actually happened doesn't make it fact. They could have been disillusioned, correct?

Yet are you going to say that the thousands that claimed 2 have seen him were disillusioned? Every single one? And they all "imagined" the same thing at the same time?

The gospel writers had access to eye-witness testimony about Jesus as they were writing shortly after his death.

[Hammersley1967]

"The gospel writers had access to eye-witness testimony about Jesus as they were writing shortly after his death."

Shortly after his death? You admit yourself that Mark was written at least 30 years after the death of "Christ". Do you remember with accuracy what happened 30 years ago?

John? Most scholars agree on a range of 90 - 100 AD (F.F. Bruce 1981, p.7). Moreover, most modern experts conclude that the author was an unknown non-eyewitness (Brown, Edward & Achtemeier (1978), p.198).

[Hammersley1967]

"They could have been disillusioned, correct? Yet are you going to say that the thousands that claimed 2 have seen him were disillusioned?"

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that the meaning that you are ascribing to the term "disillusion" is correct.

I think the term that you are looking for is not "disillusioned" (meaning: disenchanted or disheartened) but rather "delusional" (meaning: a false or mistaken belief or idea about something)...

[Hammersley1967]

"thousands that claimed 2 have seen him"

THOUSANDS witnessed the resurrection? Where, may I ask, did you derive this figure? From my recollection of the bible, I seem to recall that only a few insiders (his mother, the Apostles, Mary Magdalene, etc) supposedly claimed to "see" him after his supposed "death".

How convenient!!!

However, I'm not a biblical scholar (i.e. person who wastes a lot of time reading a very questionable text).

Care to provide a biblical (or secular) reference?

[MusicMajor25]

What an awesome video! I really would have tried to speak to the romans who scourged him and crucified him. I would have tried to speak to them and try to reason with them. I probably wouldn't succeed, and if I was living back then, I probably would have been crucified right along side him, but I'd really do anything for him, to show how much he means to me.

[matjb2007]

good job bro

[christchica]

Amazing video. Great job...

[dantemoonlight]

Whats the Name of this Song By Chance?

[snova45]

This Man; singer Jeremy Camp

[rberding]

Nice video. I will post soon a story about another opinion of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't have the materialon hand to make a nice video like this. My story will be more realistic for humans that do not believe in wonders.

[Tigerteeth5EXY]

GLORY TO GOD AMEN 8)

[thelordscall]

Beautiful.... Please view my video and if it touches You please help in sharing the message...God bless You...

[mattv03]

Wow, I can't even think any way to discribe how amazing that video is.

[lilxblondii]

ohh my gosh. GREAT VID. i got teary eyed.

very moving.

[djemil5]

Another amazing video.

[jasonsilver]

Is it possible to get an AVI or MPEG of this file to use in our church?

[giacoloratura]

Very moving. Thank you.

[jean594]

WOW..what a wonderfull video...

[SantaBarbaraDianne]

wow..beautiful..just beautiful

[christgurl]

awesome video. please make more.