Is JESUS GOD? Lets see what the BIBLE has to say; God Jhn 1:1; Mat 1:23; Isa 40:3 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever Hbr 1:8 The Mighty God Isa 9:6 The Everlasting God Isa 40:28 The True God 1Jo 5:20 My Lord and my God Jhn 20:28 God my Saviour Luk 1:47 Over all, God blessed for ever.Amen Rom 9:5 God manifest in the flesh 1Ti 3:16 Our God and Savior 2Pe 1:1 The great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ Tts 2:13 Emanuel, God with us Mat 1:23
@tifforo1 I've listed the order of events. I simply don't agree with what you maintain. It's clear hat Mary Magdalene leaves and returns at different times than the other women. If you don't agree, explain where I must be wrong.
Have you ever looked at a harmony of the Gospels with chronological events listed side by side? It all fits.
The fact that the Gospels are so different in their perspectives and yet still may be harmonized is one of the strongest evidences that this is factual history.
@jcr4runner I should also add that the order of events is listed chronologically in 1 Cor. 15:4-7 as well and this fits the Gospel accounts. So we have FIVE accounts that corroborate each other.
Each account proceeds in order, but each has parts that the others leave out.
It's not possible to make a harmony in so small a space here. It's best done in five columns. If you are really OPEN to searching it out, you will see it is not only possible, but also plausible and likely.
Which of the three explanations covers the part where Matthew 28 has angels telling Mary what happened to Jesus, while John 20 has Mary saying she didn't know what happened to him?
@tifforo1 All three. The two accounts include events that occurred at different times in a different context. Each includes information the other leaves out. And each is told from the eyewitness perspectives of different people.
It is possible to create a chronological harmony of the four post-resurrection accounts in which everything agrees.
1. Mary went and told the disciples the tomb was empty.
2. Then other women were at the tomb and the angels told them what happened.
Matthew 28 has the angel outside the tomb telling "the women" (the two Marys) what happened - while they were still standing in front of the tomb immediately after the stone was rolled away. The angel invites them to "see the place where he lay", implying that they haven't gone in yet when he tells them these things. Mark 16 and Luke 24 state that a group of women including Mary Magdalene entered the tomb, were told of the ressurection, and "told all these things to the apostles."
Based on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it really is not plausible that Mary would be as unaware of what had happened as John has her when she says "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." There is nothing in the synoptic gospels to indicate that Mary Magdalene left before the angel(s) explained what had happened - ESPECIALLY if you consider Mark 16:9-11 to be legitimate verses (those verses are disputed).
@tifforo1 The plausible way to understand it is with a harmony of the verses written side by side. It's very simple.
If you presuppose the Resurrection didn't happen, then it is all implausible. You suppose the "synoptic" Gospels ought to be "more harmonized" than the later John.
If you suppose that it did happen, then the accounts can be harmonized with no contradictions. You will presuppose that John was an eyewitness (as he claims) and the other writers were hearing it from eyewitnesses.
This explanations are weak. The first one, that mathew records Jospeh, but not mary doesn't even makes sence. If mathew knew the scripture well enough to know the messiah must be discended from David, he'd know an adopted father wasn't of the seed (sperm) of david. So he wouldn't bother to include an irrelevant geneology and not the relevant one of the mother. If both geneologies were found in the same gospel that might make sence, but they're not and it doesn't.
@humanistheart There are different ways to trace genealogies. Each person has four grandparents and then each branch splits in two ways. In the Hebrew way of tracing lineage it was through the father -- but same instances required a different branch.
@jcr4runner First of all, in the time when the messianic prophicies were made, lineage was traced through the father. But by the time christians claim jesus existed, it had been changed to the mother, due to the rape of jewish women from conquerors, such as the assyrians, the babylonians, or the romans. Mary's lineage is never given and joseph wasn't a blood relation, so no, not even the bible depicts jesus as descended from David.
@humanistheart Patriarchal lineage can be convoluted through adoption, remarriage to a close relative, a sonless father, a childless father. In every case, the Law required an heir through a living male relative. Mary and Joseph were both part of the line of David and their lines crossed -- one being close to the birth of Jesus.
The church fathers close to the time of the NT had a detailed explanation of how the lines went. The explanation in the video is actually a simplification of this.
@jcr4runner " the Law " And you base that on what? And no, mary's lineage is never given, and jospeh was not the blood father. The prophicy clearly stipulates the SEED of david, as in blood descendant. So no, even the fictional bible fails to present jesus as a messiah.
The detail is of no consequence. What is of consequence is that we come to know God as a child, full of innocence, full of longing. This can only be achieved by trusting in your own heart, having no doubts in your mind, full of love. When we stop trying to analyze what is clearly a mystery, we will not only know God, but see him where it matters most.
How do we know the last supper lasted arround three hours? was that the standard amount of time for a supper in those days or does it explicitly say in the bible it was around three hours?
apologetic, apologetic. most christians I have spoken with are expert at this skill. The only way you will truly understand christianity is to take a discompassionate look at it. the Quran will give you the answers to the 'real Jesus'. No plagiarism involved. No subtractions nor additions by any Councils for any reason whatsoever.
catholic and christian people can't accept this point of view (right or wrong) because they prefer to remain blind because their faith and beliefs are the only thing they really have.
These scholars speak of Jesus as if he would were a normal man. He was not...that is the point. I can at times tell my self that there is no god and take things into my own hands. However it is not long before God corrects me. Never does the bible say you must believe in Jesus ,but if you wanna go to heavan you have to go through Christ to get there. believe it or not it is a choice.
Funny how the defense is based on the English bible, dis-regarding translation.
Jesus didn't say "Love your enemy" This makes no sense. Nobody can really "Love" an enemy. It was lost in translation. Shift to Buddhism from which Jesus got this - he said "Have compassion for your enemy" something that is totally understandable. Again coming from Buddhism and mis-translated from Latin to English.
concerning Love your enemy as you quoted form Mathew 5:44.
The Word in the Original Greek(not Latin) is:
agapao--To love (in a Social or Moral sense).
I think your just repeating something you have heard from someone without knowledge of the Text. The New Testiment wasn't written in Latin and has nothing to do with Buddhism.
It makes perfect sense to Love your enemies. One doesn't pick his own enemies they come against you without your effort and you should love them not retaliate.
Moses, Joshua and many Kings of Israel has said similar things also. It is one of the prime reasons the Israeli military does not just wipeout its many enemies. Its all a part of not judging others. Jesus did not preach peace, he preached obediance to the Lord Jehovah his teachings are lessons on how to achieve eternal life.
You can't understand the bible unless you read buddhism. Christianity is Dharmic Religion applied to Judaism. Jesus wasn't trying to start a new religion, he was trying to fix Judaism. The disciples screwed it all up.
No offense, but the scholars who imagine the Gospels contradict only prove their poor scholarship. Time and again I've investigated their claims only to find that their knowledge of the original languages would flunk first-year seminary. They don't understand rhetorical styles, they don't do isagogical examination, they just flat don't do what a scholar should do. It's appalling.
Yes, their isagogical examination is appalling. (I had to look that one up!)
Did you know that Anne Rice (Vampire fiction and historical novel writer) became a Christian after doing research on the Jesus of liberal scholarship?
She wrote that in all the historical research she had done in writing dozens of novels, she had never seen such poor scholarship. On top of that, they don't hide that fact that they have an agenda -- that they actually despise Jesus and want to discredit Him.
Wow, jc4runner. That's amazing. I wonder how many other people believe in Christ after viewing the bad scholarship of the debunkers. Yet another way God uses the wrath of man to praise Him, huh. Thanks for telling me this, you made my day!
celioabatti 1 year ago
@tifforo1 I've listed the order of events. I simply don't agree with what you maintain. It's clear hat Mary Magdalene leaves and returns at different times than the other women. If you don't agree, explain where I must be wrong.
Have you ever looked at a harmony of the Gospels with chronological events listed side by side? It all fits.
The fact that the Gospels are so different in their perspectives and yet still may be harmonized is one of the strongest evidences that this is factual history.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner I should also add that the order of events is listed chronologically in 1 Cor. 15:4-7 as well and this fits the Gospel accounts. So we have FIVE accounts that corroborate each other.
Each account proceeds in order, but each has parts that the others leave out.
It's not possible to make a harmony in so small a space here. It's best done in five columns. If you are really OPEN to searching it out, you will see it is not only possible, but also plausible and likely.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
There's no fake Jesus, for the fake Jesus to be a myth.
A fake myth that captured people for thousands of years! C'mon, gimme a break!! Lol
comali2212 1 year ago
Which of the three explanations covers the part where Matthew 28 has angels telling Mary what happened to Jesus, while John 20 has Mary saying she didn't know what happened to him?
tifforo1 1 year ago
@tifforo1 All three. The two accounts include events that occurred at different times in a different context. Each includes information the other leaves out. And each is told from the eyewitness perspectives of different people.
It is possible to create a chronological harmony of the four post-resurrection accounts in which everything agrees.
1. Mary went and told the disciples the tomb was empty.
2. Then other women were at the tomb and the angels told them what happened.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner
Matthew 28 has the angel outside the tomb telling "the women" (the two Marys) what happened - while they were still standing in front of the tomb immediately after the stone was rolled away. The angel invites them to "see the place where he lay", implying that they haven't gone in yet when he tells them these things. Mark 16 and Luke 24 state that a group of women including Mary Magdalene entered the tomb, were told of the ressurection, and "told all these things to the apostles."
tifforo1 1 year ago
@jcr4runner
Based on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it really is not plausible that Mary would be as unaware of what had happened as John has her when she says "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." There is nothing in the synoptic gospels to indicate that Mary Magdalene left before the angel(s) explained what had happened - ESPECIALLY if you consider Mark 16:9-11 to be legitimate verses (those verses are disputed).
tifforo1 1 year ago
@tifforo1 The plausible way to understand it is with a harmony of the verses written side by side. It's very simple.
If you presuppose the Resurrection didn't happen, then it is all implausible. You suppose the "synoptic" Gospels ought to be "more harmonized" than the later John.
If you suppose that it did happen, then the accounts can be harmonized with no contradictions. You will presuppose that John was an eyewitness (as he claims) and the other writers were hearing it from eyewitnesses.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@tifforo1 On the first day of the week (Sunday) the stone is moved. The three woman are at the tomb. Mary Magdalene runs to tell Peter.
Peter arrives at tomb while the two women were still at the tomb (Mk 16:1).
Two men (or angels) appear. One angel speaks. The two women leave the tomb to tell the other disciples. They see Jesus and He speaks to them.
Then Mary returns. Jesus and Mary speak. She is alone with Jesus. She clings to Jesus. He tells her to go tell all the disciples.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
This explanations are weak. The first one, that mathew records Jospeh, but not mary doesn't even makes sence. If mathew knew the scripture well enough to know the messiah must be discended from David, he'd know an adopted father wasn't of the seed (sperm) of david. So he wouldn't bother to include an irrelevant geneology and not the relevant one of the mother. If both geneologies were found in the same gospel that might make sence, but they're not and it doesn't.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart There are different ways to trace genealogies. Each person has four grandparents and then each branch splits in two ways. In the Hebrew way of tracing lineage it was through the father -- but same instances required a different branch.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner First of all, in the time when the messianic prophicies were made, lineage was traced through the father. But by the time christians claim jesus existed, it had been changed to the mother, due to the rape of jewish women from conquerors, such as the assyrians, the babylonians, or the romans. Mary's lineage is never given and joseph wasn't a blood relation, so no, not even the bible depicts jesus as descended from David.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart Patriarchal lineage can be convoluted through adoption, remarriage to a close relative, a sonless father, a childless father. In every case, the Law required an heir through a living male relative. Mary and Joseph were both part of the line of David and their lines crossed -- one being close to the birth of Jesus.
The church fathers close to the time of the NT had a detailed explanation of how the lines went. The explanation in the video is actually a simplification of this.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner " the Law " And you base that on what? And no, mary's lineage is never given, and jospeh was not the blood father. The prophicy clearly stipulates the SEED of david, as in blood descendant. So no, even the fictional bible fails to present jesus as a messiah.
humanistheart 1 year ago
The detail is of no consequence. What is of consequence is that we come to know God as a child, full of innocence, full of longing. This can only be achieved by trusting in your own heart, having no doubts in your mind, full of love. When we stop trying to analyze what is clearly a mystery, we will not only know God, but see him where it matters most.
oldproji 2 years ago
How do we know the last supper lasted arround three hours? was that the standard amount of time for a supper in those days or does it explicitly say in the bible it was around three hours?
bhfourteen 2 years ago
what do u mean 'god gave us all 4'?? do u know how many gospels there were. tell me. id like to know... is it 40, 50 or even 80
adrenalinjunkie007 2 years ago
apologetic, apologetic. most christians I have spoken with are expert at this skill. The only way you will truly understand christianity is to take a discompassionate look at it. the Quran will give you the answers to the 'real Jesus'. No plagiarism involved. No subtractions nor additions by any Councils for any reason whatsoever.
adrenalinjunkie007 2 years ago
catholic and christian people can't accept this point of view (right or wrong) because they prefer to remain blind because their faith and beliefs are the only thing they really have.
lilyfig 2 years ago
These scholars speak of Jesus as if he would were a normal man. He was not...that is the point. I can at times tell my self that there is no god and take things into my own hands. However it is not long before God corrects me. Never does the bible say you must believe in Jesus ,but if you wanna go to heavan you have to go through Christ to get there. believe it or not it is a choice.
hamace 2 years ago
Funny how the defense is based on the English bible, dis-regarding translation.
Jesus didn't say "Love your enemy" This makes no sense. Nobody can really "Love" an enemy. It was lost in translation. Shift to Buddhism from which Jesus got this - he said "Have compassion for your enemy" something that is totally understandable. Again coming from Buddhism and mis-translated from Latin to English.
JohnKeating5McCain 3 years ago
concerning Love your enemy as you quoted form Mathew 5:44.
The Word in the Original Greek(not Latin) is:
agapao--To love (in a Social or Moral sense).
I think your just repeating something you have heard from someone without knowledge of the Text. The New Testiment wasn't written in Latin and has nothing to do with Buddhism.
It makes perfect sense to Love your enemies. One doesn't pick his own enemies they come against you without your effort and you should love them not retaliate.
Riverfrog72 3 years ago 5
Totally agree with your comment!!!
gbologa 2 years ago 2
I am pleased to inform you that you have been owned by Riverfrog72 and CIR229.
kazuya1196 2 years ago
Moses, Joshua and many Kings of Israel has said similar things also. It is one of the prime reasons the Israeli military does not just wipeout its many enemies. Its all a part of not judging others. Jesus did not preach peace, he preached obediance to the Lord Jehovah his teachings are lessons on how to achieve eternal life.
hamace 2 years ago
You can't understand the bible unless you read buddhism. Christianity is Dharmic Religion applied to Judaism. Jesus wasn't trying to start a new religion, he was trying to fix Judaism. The disciples screwed it all up.
JohnKeating5McCain 3 years ago
No offense, but the scholars who imagine the Gospels contradict only prove their poor scholarship. Time and again I've investigated their claims only to find that their knowledge of the original languages would flunk first-year seminary. They don't understand rhetorical styles, they don't do isagogical examination, they just flat don't do what a scholar should do. It's appalling.
brainouty 3 years ago
Yes, their isagogical examination is appalling. (I had to look that one up!)
Did you know that Anne Rice (Vampire fiction and historical novel writer) became a Christian after doing research on the Jesus of liberal scholarship?
She wrote that in all the historical research she had done in writing dozens of novels, she had never seen such poor scholarship. On top of that, they don't hide that fact that they have an agenda -- that they actually despise Jesus and want to discredit Him.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Wow, jc4runner. That's amazing. I wonder how many other people believe in Christ after viewing the bad scholarship of the debunkers. Yet another way God uses the wrath of man to praise Him, huh. Thanks for telling me this, you made my day!
brainouty 3 years ago
Good job
CooFrank 3 years ago