reyb Posted January 7, 2008 Author Share Posted January 7, 2008 [quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1442940' date='Jan 7 2008, 09:10 AM']rey b whats up ? what paul is talking about is apostles precahing another jesus not found in the bible. read all the scripture around this, he talks about preaching without a charge. as in saying the gospel should be spread freely and not as a way to make money. he calls these apostles "super apostles" because in their own mind they regard themselfes more superior then the apostle paul. he even goes as far as to say do not be fooled for even satan masquaredes around as an angel of light. so it is no suprise that his ministers do the same also. so by them wanting to get rich and loveing the world they have come along and preached another jesus. a jesus who wants you to be rich and a jesus that is going to come back and rapture you while leaving others behind. a lot of these false teachers are anti catholic and claim the catholic church is the beast of revelations. paul sums up these SUPER apostles by saying their end fate will corilate to their deeds. i didnt quote the scripture now but i can find it and post it. i studied this a while back. so basically paul is refering to apostles who see the gospel as a way to become rich and by doing so they preach another jesus then the jesus of the bible. Godbless p.s. look around today, there is plenty of false teachers teaching a lot of false doctrine[/quote] Our subject is not (yet) about 'gain' - money,honor or whatever. It is about Jesus - Who is that Jesus they preached and honored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 [quote name='reyb' post='1442943' date='Jan 7 2008, 09:36 AM']Our subject is not (yet) about 'gain' - money,honor or whatever. It is about Jesus - Who is that Jesus they preached and honored.[/quote] ok ???? but you keep makeing reference to back up what your saying with what paul said....and if you open up Gods word and read it you will see that is what he's talking about when he refers to another jesus being preached....he's taking about preachers preaching without a charge, and by how some wanting to become rich they have turned jesus into a way to make money and therefore are preaching another jesus......the stuff your getting at is way out there and has nothing to do with what paul was talking about when he references another jesus being preached....peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 7, 2008 Author Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1442999' date='Jan 7 2008, 02:02 PM']ok ???? but you keep makeing reference to back up what your saying with what paul said....and if you open up Gods word and read it you will see that is what he's talking about when he refers to another jesus being preached....he's taking about preachers preaching without a charge, and by how some wanting to become rich they have turned jesus into a way to make money and therefore are preaching another jesus......the stuff your getting at is way out there and has nothing to do with what paul was talking about when he references another jesus being preached....peace[/quote] Will you please show it to us in reference to that verse and other verses? Please show it to me in the bible - that the above 'interpretation' is what Apostle Paul really meant. Edited January 7, 2008 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 7, 2008 Author Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) [quote name='mortify' post='1442924' date='Jan 7 2008, 02:57 AM']My first question is why would you not be satisfied with sacred scripture? The New Testament writings are our earliest sources on the life of Christ, many of them written twenty or thirty years after His resurrection, and are themselves based off much earlier oral traditions and (perhaps) writings. It's impossible to explain the existance of a religion like Christianity without accepting that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth.[/quote] I do accept that the scripture is the written testimony of true witnesses of Jesus Christ but, I do not accept their (reader's) 'interpretation'. Now about your 'Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth' this is the subject of our discussion - if these true witnesses are truly referring to him or not. Edited January 7, 2008 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I'm not sure I understand. Why do you believe the scripture to be written by true witnesses if you doubt whether they are writing about Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 8, 2008 Author Share Posted January 8, 2008 [quote name='mortify' post='1443226' date='Jan 8 2008, 02:14 AM']I'm not sure I understand. Why do you believe the scripture to be written by true witnesses if you doubt whether they are writing about Jesus?[/quote] Please read [post="1438688"]Luke -Is he a true witness of Jesus Christ?[/post] thread. Again, I do not doubt that they are witnessing and testifying for the real Jesus but , whether they are referring to this historical Jesus or not, is the subject of our discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 [quote]The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form. There is another piece - of supposed to be evidence of the existence of historical Jesus - which was mentioned by Eusebius, Bishop of Ceasaria in his writing and he is the first writer who did it (according to the Lost of Books of the bible) - that is, the Epistles of Jesus Christ and Agbarus King of Edessa.[/quote] ------ please see [url="http://www.silcom.com/~barnowl/chain-letter/archive/he1795u_jesus_sab.htm"]http://www.silcom.com/~barnowl/chain-lette...u_jesus_sab.htm[/url] [indent]The first writer who makes any mention of the Epistles that passed between Jesus Christ and Agbarus, is Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, who flourished in the early part of the fourth century. For their genuineness, he appeals to the public registers and records of the City of Edessa in Mesopotamia, where Agbarus reigned, and where he affirms that he found them written in the Syriac language. He published a Greek translation of them, in his Ecclesiastical history. The learned world have been much divided on this subject; but, notwithstanding that the erudite Grabe, with Archbishop Cave, Dr, Parker, and other divines, has strenuously contended for their admission into the canon of Scripture, they are deemed apocryphal. The Rev. Jeremiah Jones observes, that the common people in England have this epistle in their houses, in many places, fixed in a frame, with the picture of Christ before it; and that they generally, with much honesty and devotion, regard it as the word of God, and the genuine Epistle of Christ.[/indent][indent][size=1][i]Page 62, The Lost Book of the Bible, Random House Value Publishing, Inc. 201 East 50th Street, New York, New York 10022 [url="http://www.randomhouse.com"]http://www.randomhouse.com[/url] [/indent][/i] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) Why this 'Epistle of Jesus Christ and King Agbarus' did not accepted as a true word of God? Edited January 9, 2008 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 [quote name='reyb' post='1443433' date='Jan 8 2008, 04:25 PM']Please read [post="1438688"]Luke -Is he a true witness of Jesus Christ?[/post] thread. Again, I do not doubt that they are witnessing and testifying for the real Jesus but , whether they are referring to this historical Jesus or not, is the subject of our discussion.[/quote] If you're asking whether we can prove the Evangelists faithfully reported what they personally witnessed or heard from a witness, we can't. We can only say that there are independent sources which agree on who Jesus was, and that these sources were written by eye witnesses or by people who learned from them, and that they have been faithfully preserved through out the ages. But this shouldn't be discouraging because we can't prove anything that was said or done by some person of antiquity, or even in present times. There is greater evidence for the historical Christ and who He was than any person who lived in those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 [quote name='mortify' post='1443531' date='Jan 8 2008, 10:42 PM']If you're asking whether we can prove the Evangelists faithfully reported what they personally witnessed or heard from a witness, we can't. We can only say that there are independent sources which agree on who Jesus was, and that these sources were written by eye witnesses or by people who learned from them, and that they have been faithfully preserved through out the ages. But this shouldn't be discouraging because we can't prove anything that was said or done by some person of antiquity, or even in present times. There is greater evidence for the historical Christ and who He was than any person who lived in those times.[/quote] I think you have not yet read my post in Luke - Is He a true witness of Jesus Christ thread - as I have said ' I do earnestly hold and accepted that the writer of the Gospel of Luke is a true witness of Jesus Christ' but, whether he is referring to this historical Jesus - that is another story. So Please do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 [quote name='mortify' post='1443531' date='Jan 8 2008, 10:42 PM']There is greater evidence for the historical Christ and who He was than any person who lived in those times.[/quote] Now, regarding evidence/s of this historical Christ - can you please inform us? If you find anything please post it here for our ready reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 [quote name='reyb' post='1443566' date='Jan 9 2008, 12:55 AM']I think you have not yet read my post in Luke - Is He a true witness of Jesus Christ thread - as I have said ' I do earnestly hold and accepted that the writer of the Gospel of Luke is a true witness of Jesus Christ' but, whether he is referring to this historical Jesus - that is another story. So Please do it.[/quote] You have to explain what you mean when you say he was a witness of Jesus but still may not be referring to the Historical Jesus. Are you suggesting St Luke was a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 [quote name='reyb' post='1443568' date='Jan 9 2008, 12:58 AM']Now, regarding evidence/s of this historical Christ - can you please inform us? If you find anything please post it here for our ready reference.[/quote] This information is easily accessible, have you tried to find it? [b]http://www.tektonics.org/[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 [quote name='reyb' post='1443566' date='Jan 9 2008, 12:55 AM']I think you have not yet read my post in Luke - Is He a true witness of Jesus Christ thread - as I have said ' I do earnestly hold and accepted that the writer of the Gospel of Luke is a true witness of Jesus Christ' but, whether he is referring to this historical Jesus - that is another story. So Please do it.[/quote] There is only one Jesus, as listed in the New Testament and discussed by the Early Church Fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) [quote name='mortify' post='1443716' date='Jan 9 2008, 03:12 PM']You have to explain what you mean when you say he was a witness of Jesus but still may not be referring to the Historical Jesus. Are you suggesting St Luke was a liar?[/quote] That is, if the writer of the Gospel of Luke and all witnesses are referring to this historical Jesus in their testimony but, I am not the one who says 'He is a liar'. Just to remind you again, this historical Jesus is just a belief - a reader's interpretation to the Holy Scripture but, it does not mean he is the true Jesus revealed to them by God. [post="1438688"]Please read this.[/post] Edited January 9, 2008 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts