Historical Jesus

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1588622' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:51 PM']Very Well stated. You are rigth about the historical accuracy being consistent to across 3 generations. I've read about it before somewhere...there is a name for it..."Something" Rule...3rd person rule or something...

Anyway, from a historical perspective if you were to say interview someone for some event that happened in the past...your interviewees could not be greater than one person removed from an eye-witness. So for example...[color="#0000FF"]let's take the Apostle John who most likely lived well into the 70s, 80s, or 90s AD by modern estimates. John was an eye witness of Jesus Christ himself. Now John (and his first generation of individuals who knew Jesus personally) is entitled to the greatest degree of historical accuracy in terms of trusting his word over anyone else in that generation that DIDN'T know Jesus personally. So the disciples of John the Apostle would have been educated by the utmost authority (or one of the utmost authorities on who Jesus really was because he knew Jesus in life)[/color]. The disciples can be said to have received authentic historical information about Jesus. So I am a historian who comes along...I want to speak at the very LEAST to John's disciples if I cannot talk to John himself. John himself would be able to provide the best information. John's disciples lie within realm of verifiable historical truth because their information came from an eye witness. John's disciples' disciples may be able to teach with authority...but they can no longer speak with [i]historical [/i]authority about the life of Jesus.

As mortify said, every book of the new Testament was written while either one of Christ's Apostles or immediate disciples were around to give historically accurate information...OR one of that first generation of disciples who learned truth from Christ's Apostles/disciples. The books were written within this timeframe and as mortify said and so I trust that their is no distinction between the "Historical Jesus" and the "One True Jesus Christ" which you seem bent on trying to artifically dichotomize from one another.[/quote]

[indent]Are you referring to the writer of the Gospel of John?[/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]Okay let us start from here. Let us assume that the writer of the Gospel of John is John the Evangelist, the disciple who was standing near Mary while Jesus is dying on the Cross. (John 19:26) although according to some studies, to wit…

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[indent]The Gospel of St. Matthew is one of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a synoptic gospel…. The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist….. Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry…possibly writing in Antioch, c 80-85 or c 80-90.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of Mark is the second of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a synoptic gospel. It is anonymously written[1] but traditionally ascribed to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a disciple of Peter….Following Augustine of Hippo, see also Augustinian hypothesis, the Gospel of Mark was traditionally believed by Christian churches to be based on the Gospel of Matthew, an epitome, and accordingly, it is placed after that gospel in most Bibles. However, most contemporary scholars regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels (c 70). According to the two-source hypothesis, it was one source for material in the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of John the fourth gospel in the canon of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to John the Evangelist….Most scholars regard the work as anonymous,[9][10][11] and date it to 90–100.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of Luke is a synoptic Gospel, and is the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament…. Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14) but scholars are divided on this issue.[6]….Most scholars accept the two-source hypothesis, that the text is based in part on the Gospel of Mark and a now lost document, and place the composition of Luke between 80 and 90. A few scholars postulate an earlier date. Marcion circa 144, appears to have used this gospel, but he called it the Gospel of the Lord.[7]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Luke"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Luke[/url][/indent]

[indent]Saint Paul the apostle, the "Apostle to the Gentiles"[2] (ca 5 - 67CE) was, together with Saint Peter and James the Just,….Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself.[7][8] As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles[9] sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon of Scripture. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul[/url][/indent]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
….all of synoptic gospel writers are anonymous or not yet fully recognize and all of these gospels are known or believed to have been written in year c70 – 100 AD while Apostle Paul was accepted to exist in this world in year ca 5-67AD. Now, if the Gospel writers are truly referring to the historical Jesus and Peter which is mentioned by Apostle Paul in Gal 1:18 is the Apostle of Jesus, your first Pope as the Roman Catholic Church is claiming, Why Apostle Paul never said ‘Jesus Christ died according to his disciples, for example, according to Peter, John, Matthew or whoever’. Why he said in 1 Cor 15:3-8

[indent][color="#FF0000"]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures , 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures , 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born[/color].

NIV [/indent]
He said ‘according to the Scriptures’. Is it possible that he referring to the synoptic Gospels? How about the year and dates of these synoptic gospels?

He even said in ‘Gal 1:11-12

[indent][color="#FF0000"]I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ[/color]. [/indent]

He said ‘I did not receive it from any man’. Therefore he never learn this gospel even from Peter or John or any disciples you are saying. He received it directly from God.

Now, if Jesus is really the historical Jesus and was believed ascended to heaven in ca 32-34 then Apostle Paul must have been mentioned something like ‘I saw him and I am one of the many who wanted to crucify him for I am a Pharisee’ because Apostle Paul or Saul existed in this world in year ca 5-67.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These discrepancies are some of the many contradicting evidences that a bible scholar will find hence, some of them lost their belief and trust to the scripture as ‘inspired’ word of God. But, they neglect the very important phrase and that is, the ‘other Jesus’ mentioned by Apostle Paul. They are lost not because the Scripture is not inspired. They are loser because they believe in historical Jesus.
[/indent]

Edited July 2, 2008 by reyb

[Veridicus]

I believe any further discussion would be fruitless between us. You are arguing for a distinction between the [i]modern [/i]historical view of Jesus Christ and the [i]actual [/i]historical person of Jesus Christ in his own time. I agree. So does Benedict XVI. To keep debating about the potential merit of any historical scholarship is also pointless I believe because you have a firm foundation in the positions you are purporting that I really have no desire or intention to seek to undermine. God Bless.

You may be interested in reading this book by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger):

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/0385523416"]http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-...I/dp/0385523416[/url]

He criticizes modern scholarship pretty harshly in the opening pages of the book.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='reyb' post='1588943' date='Jul 2 2008, 05:46 AM'][indent]Okay let us start from here. Let us assume that the writer of the Gospel of John is John the Evangelist, the disciple who was standing near Mary while Jesus is dying on the Cross. (John 19:26) although according to some studies, to wit…

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[indent]The Gospel of St. Matthew is one of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a synoptic gospel…. The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist….. Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry…possibly writing in Antioch, c 80-85 or c 80-90.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of Mark is the second of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a synoptic gospel. It is anonymously written[1] but traditionally ascribed to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a disciple of Peter….Following Augustine of Hippo, see also Augustinian hypothesis, the Gospel of Mark was traditionally believed by Christian churches to be based on the Gospel of Matthew, an epitome, and accordingly, it is placed after that gospel in most Bibles. However, most contemporary scholars regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels (c 70). According to the two-source hypothesis, it was one source for material in the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of John the fourth gospel in the canon of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to John the Evangelist….Most scholars regard the work as anonymous,[9][10][11] and date it to 90–100.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of Luke is a synoptic Gospel, and is the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament…. Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14) but scholars are divided on this issue.[6]….Most scholars accept the two-source hypothesis, that the text is based in part on the Gospel of Mark and a now lost document, and place the composition of Luke between 80 and 90. A few scholars postulate an earlier date. Marcion circa 144, appears to have used this gospel, but he called it the Gospel of the Lord.[7]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Luke"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Luke[/url][/indent]

[indent]Saint Paul the apostle, the "Apostle to the Gentiles"[2] (ca 5 - 67CE) was, together with Saint Peter and James the Just,….Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself.[7][8] As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles[9] sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon of Scripture. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul[/url][/indent]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
….all of synoptic gospel writers are anonymous or not yet fully recognize and all of these gospels are known or believed to have been written in year c70 – 100 AD while Apostle Paul was accepted to exist in this world in year ca 5-67AD. Now, if the Gospel writers are truly referring to the historical Jesus and Peter which is mentioned by Apostle Paul in Gal 1:18 is the Apostle of Jesus, your first Pope as the Roman Catholic Church is claiming, Why Apostle Paul never said ‘Jesus Christ died according to his disciples, for example, according to Peter, John, Matthew or whoever’. Why he said in 1 Cor 15:3-8

[indent][color="#FF0000"]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures , 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures , 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born[/color].

NIV [/indent]
He said ‘according to the Scriptures’. Is it possible that he referring to the synoptic Gospels? How about the year and dates of these synoptic gospels?

He even said in ‘Gal 1:11-12

[indent][color="#FF0000"]I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ[/color]. [/indent]

He said ‘I did not receive it from any man’. Therefore he never learn this gospel even from Peter or John or any disciples you are saying. He received it directly from God.

Now, if Jesus is really the historical Jesus and was believed ascended to heaven in ca 32-34 then Apostle Paul must have been mentioned something like ‘I saw him and I am one of the many who wanted to crucify him for I am a Pharisee’ because Apostle Paul or Saul existed in this world in year ca 5-67.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These discrepancies are some of the many contradicting evidences that a bible scholar will find hence, some of them lost their belief and trust to the scripture as ‘inspired’ word of God. But, they neglect the very important phrase and that is, the ‘other Jesus’ mentioned by Apostle Paul. They are lost not because the Scripture is not inspired. They are loser because they believe in historical Jesus.
[/indent][/quote]

First, you just don't make any sense reyb. It seems to me that it is quite difficult for you to formalize your arguments with any cohesion.

Second...Wikipedia? Tssk, tssk. Next time cite something with a little more....oomph.

and third...

[quote]….all of synoptic gospel writers are anonymous or not yet fully recognize and all of these gospels are known or believed to have been written in year c70 – 100 AD while Apostle Paul was accepted to exist in this world in year ca 5-67AD. Now, if the Gospel writers are truly referring to the historical Jesus and Peter which is mentioned by Apostle Paul in Gal 1:18 is the Apostle of Jesus, your first Pope as the Roman Catholic Church is claiming, Why Apostle Paul never said ‘Jesus Christ died according to his disciples, for example, according to Peter, John, Matthew or whoever’. Why he said in 1 Cor 15:3-8

[indent][color="#FF0000"]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures , 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures , 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born[/color].

NIV [/indent]
He said ‘according to the Scriptures’. Is it possible that he referring to the synoptic Gospels? How about the year and dates of these synoptic gospels?[/quote]

It could be possible that it was referring to some of the synoptic accounts that were being passed “orally” as in Oral Tradition before they were actually written as in Written Tradition. It also might point to affirming some of the Hebrew Scriptures as in (Pss 2, 7; 16, 8-11).

It doesn’t matter what years the synoptic gospels were written, they existed as Oral Tradition before they were written.

[quote]He said ‘I did not receive it from any man’. Therefore he never learn this gospel even from Peter or John or any disciples you are saying. He received it directly from God.[/quote]

This is why it's hard to take you serious some times. What do you think he means by Gospel? Does he mean scriptures or the "good news?" Or "his good news?" The content of his "good news" he learned through a revelation of Jesus Christ, not excluding his using Christian confessions of Jesus. Above all, this affirms his calling as a Christian missionary. His "good news" is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and doesn't come from man hence their rightful place in the New Testament.

[quote]These discrepancies are some of the many contradicting evidences that a bible scholar will find hence, some of them lost their belief and trust to the scripture as ‘inspired’ word of God. But, they neglect the very important phrase and that is, the ‘other Jesus’ mentioned by Apostle Paul. They are lost not because the Scripture is not inspired. They are loser because they believe in historical Jesus.[/quote]

Weak....and painfully incoherent.

Paz

Kiris

[mortify]

[quote name='reyb' post='1588943' date='Jul 2 2008, 03:46 AM']….all of synoptic gospel writers are anonymous or not yet fully recognize and all of these gospels are known or believed to have been written in year c70 – 100 AD while Apostle Paul was accepted to exist in this world in year ca 5-67AD. Now, if the Gospel writers are truly referring to the historical Jesus and Peter which is mentioned by Apostle Paul in Gal 1:18 is the Apostle of Jesus, your first Pope as the Roman Catholic Church is claiming, Why Apostle Paul never said ‘Jesus Christ died according to his disciples, for example, according to Peter, John, Matthew or whoever’. Why he said in 1 Cor 15:3-8[/quote]

First of all we know who the authors of these gospels are, the same names have always been applied to the same gospels and we are well aware that certain Apostles and disciples wrote gospels. One of our earliest witnesses is St Papias, who himself took it upon himself to collect many teachings of the apostles, and he himself ascribed certain gospels to certain people. With regards to St John's Gospel, St Ireneus tells us St Polycarp who knew St John personally, said the same John that rested his head on Jesus' bosom is the same John that wrote the gospel. I think these men are reliable and know what they're talking about.

You should ask yourself what evidence scholars have to suggest the gospels weren't written by eye witnesses. Firstly they believe the gospel authors borrowed from each other and therefore they couldn't have been written by eye witnesses ("Why would one eye witness borrow from another?" They ask.) Supposing borrowing did occur, there are explanations that don't require rejecting an eye witness writer. For one thing the Apostle/Disciple could have recognized the other's writing as inspired, and so he would have used the foundation God laid, and then applied what the Holy Spirit was inspiring him personally.

There is at least one verse that many say shows St Paul quoted Luke's gospel:

[color="#0000FF"]For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and [b]"The worker deserves his wages."[/b] [/color]1 Timothy 5:18

[color="#0000FF"]Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, [b]for the worker deserves his wages.[/b] Do not move around from house to house.[/color] Luke 10:7
[quote]These discrepancies are some of the many contradicting evidences that a bible scholar will find hence, some of them lost their belief and trust to the scripture as ‘inspired’ word of God. But, they neglect the very important phrase and that is, the ‘other Jesus’ mentioned by Apostle Paul. They are lost not because the Scripture is not inspired. They are loser because they believe in historical Jesus.[/quote]

I think I know which scholar you have in mind, he has written many popular books on textual criticism, though I wouldn't take him as the sole scholar on scripture. You should consider other scholars who truly affirm the historicity of Christ. Although I haven't read it, N.T. Wright supposedly wrote an excellent book on the historicity of Christ's resurrection. Perhaps you ought to balance your views?

[mortify]

An excellent source on the authenticity of the new testament:

[size=4][u][b][url="http://www.tektonics.org"]www.tektonics.org[/url] [/b][/u][/size]


It's written by a protestant but still very cool

[Socrates]

After all these pages, I still can't figure out what the heck Reyb's trying to argue.

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1589017' date='Jul 2 2008, 10:21 AM']I believe any further discussion would be fruitless between us. You are arguing for a distinction between the [i]modern [/i]historical view of Jesus Christ and the [i]actual [/i]historical person of Jesus Christ in his own time. I agree. So does Benedict XVI. To keep debating about the potential merit of any historical scholarship is also pointless I believe because you have a firm foundation in the positions you are purporting that I really have no desire or intention to seek to undermine. God Bless.

You may be interested in reading this book by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger):

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/0385523416"]http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-...I/dp/0385523416[/url]

He criticizes modern scholarship pretty harshly in the opening pages of the book.[/quote]
[indent]May I know what you mean by – ‘You are arguing for a distinction between the modern historical view of Jesus Christ and the actual historical person of Jesus Christ in his own time.’?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1589716' date='Jul 2 2008, 11:01 PM']After all these pages, I still can't figure out what the heck Reyb's trying to argue.[/quote]

I am simply saying - Jesus Christ of the Apostles and Holy Prophets is not the historical Jesus. The Scripture is correct and true but it does not speak about this historical Jesus. This historical Jesus is just an interpretation or assumption or conclusion by a reader to the scripture but it does not follow that this Jesus is the true Jesus.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='reyb' post='1590667' date='Jul 3 2008, 11:19 PM']I am simply saying - Jesus Christ of the Apostles and Holy Prophets is not the historical Jesus. The Scripture is correct and true but it does not speak about this historical Jesus. This historical Jesus is just an interpretation or assumption or conclusion by a reader to the scripture but it does not follow that this Jesus is the true Jesus.[/quote]

Now you see this made sense.......false....but at least coherent

Peace

[reyb]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1591398' date='Jul 4 2008, 03:50 PM']Now you see this made sense.......false....but at least coherent

Peace[/quote]
[indent]Prove it in the light of the scripture. Correct me please.[/indent]

[mortify]

[quote name='reyb' post='1591862' date='Jul 5 2008, 07:16 AM'][indent]Prove it in the light of the scripture. Correct me please.[/indent][/quote]

lol, how can scripture serve as proof when you don't believe it accurately portrays Jesus Christ?

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='reyb' post='1591862' date='Jul 5 2008, 09:16 AM'][indent]Prove it in the light of the scripture. Correct me please.[/indent][/quote]

Nah...I'm Catholic...I don't need to prove it "in the light of Scripture." I think you need to move on to another topic 'cause apparently you haven't proved anything either.

Peace

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' post='1591898' date='Jul 5 2008, 10:19 AM']lol, how can scripture serve as proof when you don't believe it accurately portrays Jesus Christ?[/quote]


[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1591902' date='Jul 5 2008, 10:21 AM']Nah...I'm Catholic...I don't need to prove it "in the light of Scripture." I think you need to move on to another topic 'cause apparently you haven't proved anything either.

Peace[/quote]
Okay.

[reyb]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1591398' date='Jul 4 2008, 02:50 PM']Now you see this made sense.......false....but at least coherent

Peace[/quote]
[indent]I am back.
Why you said '...[post="1590667"]false'[/post]? Did I say something wrong? Can you please explain it to me, where is it?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' post='1591898' date='Jul 5 2008, 09:19 AM']lol, how can scripture serve as proof when you don't believe it accurately portrays Jesus Christ?[/quote]

[indent]Mortify,

I will say it again....

I am simply saying - Jesus Christ of the Apostles and Holy Prophets is not the historical Jesus. The Scripture is correct and true but it does not speak about this historical Jesus. This historical Jesus is just an interpretation or assumption or conclusion by a reader to the scripture but it does not follow that this Jesus is the true Jesus. [/indent]

[indent]...Because there is another Jesus who is not the historical Jesus.[/indent]

[tinytherese]

Seriously, this book called "The Case for Christ" is great! This real live atheist or perhaps agnostic depending on how you look at him, interviews a lot of scholars about Our Lord. Adn he pulls no punches. He asks a lot of tough ones. He asks about scripture, if the witnesses in the New Testament were credible witnesses, if the New Testament is even accurate, if the historical Jesus matches up with the one in the gospels, whether or not He had sanity (since He was some carpenter who claimed to be God,) if he matched the characteristics of who God would be, archeological evidence about Him, if He really did die, and if the resurrection even happened.

Fascinating book. I learned so much from it.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1707968' date='Nov 22 2008, 03:29 PM']Seriously, this book called "The Case for Christ" is great! This real live atheist or perhaps agnostic depending on how you look at him, interviews a lot of scholars about Our Lord. Adn he pulls no punches. He asks a lot of tough ones. He asks about scripture, if the witnesses in the New Testament were credible witnesses, if the New Testament is even accurate, if the historical Jesus matches up with the one in the gospels, whether or not He had sanity (since He was some carpenter who claimed to be God,) if he matched the characteristics of who God would be, archeological evidence about Him, if He really did die, and if the resurrection even happened.

Fascinating book. I learned so much from it.[/quote]
I have that book, and I've read it. However, it's only convincing depending on what you require as "proof." The evidence is still fairly scant and requires a lot of faith to believe.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Oh no, not this thread again!

[reyb]

[indent]To Mitluin and Desmond,

Since we are talking about the historical Jesus I posted something for your judgment.[/indent][indent]Acts 2:22-36
[color="#FF0000"]
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him:

[indent]"'I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.' [/indent]

"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

[indent]"'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '[/indent]


"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." [/color]NIV[/indent]
[indent]-----------------------[/indent]
[indent]To the above verses it is very easy to see that Jesus (the historical Jesus) had already come, and this is what you are telling us in our last discussion in Holy Trinity – The Devil Doctrine. But why don’t we continue our reading in that book and we will find this verse... [/indent]
…………..
[indent]In Acts 3:17-20

[color="#FF0000"]"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you — even Jesus.[/color]
NIV[/indent]
[indent]------------------------[/indent]

[indent]Now, if we will consider Jesus as the historical Jesus, who already died and resurrected, why it is written ‘that he may send the Christ who has been appointed for you – even Jesus? What is this verse really mean?[/indent]