Parture

The Bible says they agreed on Jesus being the creator, for Paul says he met with them and they added nothing to what he knew of Jesus being God, that He ministered for 3 years and was resurrected and is the creator of all things. This multiple attestation is important and can not be overlooked.

The James being spoken of is not James one of the apostles who early on martyred as stated in Scripture, or some unknown James in the 500, but this James who was still alive is the brother of Jesus as the Bible says-the James we ought to know from the Word as there is no other.

Jesus' "brothers" — James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses — are mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Even in the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1) the Jewish historian describes James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ".

Paul refers to James, at that time the only prominent Christian James in Jerusalem, as an Apostle. In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul, recounting his conversion, recalls "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

This was the first time Paul met with the apostles. Elsewhere he writes he met with them again and again, including John.

Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

Cephas (Κηφας)
John 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John, you shall be called Cephas", which is translated 'Peter'. (New International Version) 1 Corinthians 1:12

But I say that each of you says "I am of Paul", or "I am of Apollos", or "I am of Cephas", or "I am of Christ". Galatians 1:18 NRSV

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; In these passages, 'Cephas' is given as the nickname of the apostle better known as Simon Peter. The Greek word is transliterated Κηφᾶς (Kēphâs).

The apostle's given name appears to be Simon, and he is given the Aramaic nickname, kêfâ, meaning 'rock'. The final sigma (s) is added in Greek to make the name masculine rather than feminine. That the meaning of the name was more important than the name itself is evidenced by the universal acceptance of the Greek translation, �*�*τρος (Petros).

Conclusion: Peter is Cephas, James we are talking about here is the blood brother of Jesus.

Not at all. Luke who wrote Acts was with Paul and imparts the experience of Paul. Acts was on the heart of Luke daily from the day the events took place or he first heard of them from his co-worker Paul.

What he says in 2 Cor. 12 is that he was caught up to third heaven in that experience, or something similar in seeing Jesus; this was the only time he saw Jesus concurrent with Luke's explanation on the road to Damascus when those with Paul also saw the light and heard the voice, but were not taken up in spirit to third heaven. These were Paul's words in Acts 22,

6 "As I was on the road, nearing Damascus, about noon a very bright light from heaven suddenly shone around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?'

8 " `Who are you, sir?' I asked. And he replied, `I am Jesus of Nazareth, the one you are persecuting.' 9 The people with me saw the light but didn't hear the voice.

10 "I said, `What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord told me, `Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that you are to do.'

11 "I was blinded by the intense light and had to be led into Damascus by my companions.

The difference being not only this, but that Jesus said He is God, was multiply attested in His walk and resurrection, and promised He would return again. This agrees perfectly with the need for a perfect sacrifice to atone for sins which our creator performed on the cross. No human being met as many prophecies fulfilled (62) as Jesus did that were predicted by the prophets. In fact, calculations show it is humanly impossible.

Many do not want to believe as a sign of their independency from their creator. That is their choice, but not without consequences.

I am pleased you haven't been able to reproduce here any alleged refutation mysteriously elsewhere.

GenesisNemesis

And is still untestable theological nonsense.

But I'm not obligated to believe in God because of my choice. So, why would there be consequences?

Parture

Truly this is tested by historical record of multiple attestation agreed by the writers of the NT and prophecies fulfilled it would happen in religio-historical context. There was not only an expectation it would happen; it actually happened by the overwelming evidence you can't counter with anything.

If your argument is you can't test it, then you can't accept anything in history as the truth, which would be mean we would have no need for historians, or for that matter that which happened one second ago. Moreover, you have no reason to believe it to be false, nor can you propose an alternative account to explain these eyewitness testimonies, so all you have is yourself on a pedestal sitting on sand.

You are obligated to believe in God not because of your choice, but because you are made in God's image with a spirit of God-consciousness, so you have no excuse by your choice to remain independent from Christ Jesus.

Hence, eternal consequence remains. That is why there is a hell, because your soul can't be annihilated, and the choice is before you as clear as day. Pascal, a Christian, warned you too.

Dean Anderson

Nothing to see here, folks. He's gone.

Leptin Resistant

A few guys getting together and agreeing that Jesus was the creator constitutes evidence for the Christian god being the creator? I'm pretty sure that every religion has that kind of "evidence" to support itself.

I suppose you don't see the circularity of your thinking. The bible is correct because the bible says so. Wonderful.

spamandham

Paul also states he did not receive his gospel from men, but instead, directly from his vision of Jesus. Whether or not Cephas, James, and John thought that Jesus was the creator, Paul never states, as far as I'm aware.

Paul does not say anything about Jesus ministering for 3 years, or at all for that matter. The multiple attestation is absolutly irrelevant on at least 2 counts.

1. If the attestations are not first hand, but instead build on eachother over the period of many years, then there is really nothing but the original attestation upon which they are built.

2. Even if there were multiple independent attestations, which there are not, the idea of conspiracy/fraud is not so outrageous as to be discounted.

Must we take Mormonism seriously, simply because 8 men signed their names affirming they had seen the golden plates of Moroni?

You have totally missed the point regarding the 500. It isn't that James is a member of the 500, but rather, that Paul refers to '500 brethren', having nothing whatsoever to do with James, but everything to do with the rather obvious induction that no-one has 500 actual blood brothers. This is as close to proof as you can hope for, in regards to ancient history, that Paul used the term 'brother' loosely as a title rather than a sign of kinship.

Is it your position, that someone must have actually had 500 blood brothers, and that those 500 blood brothers are who Paul was referring to? If not, then why do you insist that 'brother' refers to blood brotherhood in regards to James?

So what? So you've established that Paul knew a guy named James who was renouned in the Jerusalem church. Had you asked, I would not have debated that point!

I agree that the general presumption that Cephas = Peter is based on the transliteration argument regarding rocks. Again, who cares? Maybe Paul's Cephas is indeed later known as Peter among the gospel writers. It's merely a matter of rigor to point out that this need not be the case.

You can't use the Gospels to put thoughts into Paul's head. They were written later...perhaps even 100+ years later.

The first conclusion has some merit, though not conclusive. The second has no merit at all (see the argument regarding the 500 brethren).

No serious scholar dates the Gospel of Luke to match such a scenario. Recent scholarship dates Mark as the earliest Gospel, with Matthew next, then Luke, and then John. Matthew builds on Mark. Luke builds on Matthew.

Paul didn't write Acts. Acts was written by someone else (generally agreed to be the same author as the Gospel of Luke as much as 100+ years after Paul).

You are arguing that some later author knows better than Paul does regarding Paul's own vision that he wrote about.

And, many want to believe patent nonsense as a sign of their emotional immaturity and inability to accept their own mortality. That is their choice, but not without consequences.

But we won't name names now, will we?

Do you know I am unable? Isn't it possible that I merely see you as one of hundreds of drive-by proselytizers not worth any serious investment of my time?


Ok, so I see Parture has already been banned. I did warn him!

Mihilz

Fruitcake! :rolling:

driver8

I'm surprised this stayed at BC&H. For whatever reason, this guy is gone, but on the chance he comes back to look...

Bad start. You're close to the truth but about to confuse simple causality with purposeful action.

Yep, damned if you didn't. The train's already off the track.

I recommend you study a little elementary physics and if you're up to it some basic thermodynamics might shed a little light on your confused state of mind. What you'll discover is that atomic and molecular level interactions are quite well understood, and they strangely enough explain all observable phenomena much more clearly than you do. Further, you'll discover that the earth is not a "closed system" from a thermodynamic perspective and its the presence of the long-worshipped sun that has enabled these seemingly miraculous events to take place on earth, including the development of life. Come on out into the light and worship the only true "god" there is, the sun. Seemingly, the ancients were much wiser than you. This process has not been a directed process except in the sense that we are a product of the elements of the periodic table and their properties and products thereof are a given.

...
Well, I think I just beat the pants off your drivel. And as to what you know "scientifically", well...

...
Too funny. Whatever your self-declaration is, I hope you seek some education. You have self-smarted yourself into a state of ignorance where there can be no logic.

Jack the Bodiless

Hey, fuckwit! (I gather there isn't a rule about insulting non-members, and DeParture isn't a member... )
...Completely backwards! MOST events in the Universe are uncaused! Quantum vacuum fluctuations are uncaused, and they greatly outnumber caused events!! The Universe is a seething mass of uncaused events!!!

funinspace

But you just said everything has to have a cause. Therefore your god needs a creator as well. Pointing towards magic doesn’t fix your dilemma. Either the dilemma is real or it is not. That would be Logic. And it would apply to your magic as well. If the universe exists within cyclical big bangs, it would extend in time like it does in space. Yes this is also speculation, since our science cannot get back to the big bang event, let alone to before it. Therefore, it is an unknown, that humans will have ponder for now at least. Without full knowledge, or full answers on either side.

Nope we don't know this. But it is claimed by many, just as claims are made by followers of Allah, Joseph Smith, Venshu, Buddha.

Really, Chinese and Japanese scholars trust the writings of Paul? Wow that is big news.

<snip -- preaching>

Scientifically we know this, do we? Is this we made up of "me, myself and I"?

ROTFLMAO…pure logic… I'd recommend taking a course in Logic from your local University Dept. of Philosophy, you need a few pointers. I think you are confusing religious dogma for logic.