NOGO

Luke was a believer. He wrote what other people told him was true. He was not a liar; he was manipulated as you are.

So you think that believer never lie for the cause? Believer will never lie to convince others of their faith?

I can see this at work even today. This issue arose on my debate with DavidH above. Just look at this verse from two different bibles.

John 12:44 :: New International Version (NIV)
Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.

John 12:44 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.

As DavidH said the word "only" changes the meaning of the whole sentence. The NIV in this case is guilty of Bible correcting. An outright lie to promote a specific doctrine.

Notice also the capital letter in "Me" which also slants the text toward a certain doctrine.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

davidH

ok wordsymth I'll reply to you now.

hmmmm, if that was the case then how come all the other prophets that brought the word of the LORD to the Israelites where never once referred to as the Word?
In what way was Jesus different from all the others before him in that he is called the Word?

Because if you say that the Word embodied God's will and teachings - then surely all the other prophets would have been referred to in the same manner. If that were the case then JtB would also have been referred to as "the Word" since he brought God's word to the peoples.

The water example helps show how this can be so - I showed Nogo this a few answers ago.

Hang on you have lost me here. What exactly are the 3 different aspects of the single being that you are talking about?

I gave a few verses in my answer to Nogo (the really long one).

I'll paste them below;

So the words of God were given to Jesus....if they were given to him how can he be them?
If he was the word then there why did he need to recieve them?

Jews picked up stones to stone him - they knew what he was saying.
Again there's nothing in this passage that you can take to show that Jesus is referring to the word of the Lord and not himself.

Note the my word - how can it be his word when it comes from the Father and is God's word - ie his laws and teachings?

Again this is him showing that he is God.

Again no mention of the word of God - Jesus is clearly showing himself to be God.
Nogo tried to answer this saying that we could see the word - you can only hear it.

Again - the word was given to Jesus - ie the Father taught him what to say. Nowhere is Jesus saying that he is the embodiment of the word, but in saying this he is saying that he is not.

Again

Note the "my"

ok....but wasn't it only the word /the law that you would be saved by?
that being the law of God......which Jesus calls his?

Wordsymth - note "my" word. Not God's word which you claim John 1 v 1 is talking about.

how could Jesus have come down from heaven? - Even metaphorically he cannot be shown to speaking about anything else than himself, again there is no mention of Jesus even hinting that he is the embodiment of the word.

I think those will do for the moment.
You see Wordsmyth, Jesus is showing himself to be God.

No, the distinction is perfectly clear. The confusion amoung the "early" Christians was because of those that Paul and others write about
ie. That the ressurection had already taken place and Jesus had already returned etc.

And wordsymth you are correct about the parables, they have a meaning behind them, but what about when Jesus isn't talking in parables?
Are you still to not take them literally?

If you take the Bible literally it all agrees and there are no contradictions and you will find the truth.
To not take it literally was the mistake that led to the bloodshed and conflicts. The catholic church and old Protestant churches - that was why no layman could read the Bible but it was read in latin (or whatever) not even in the layman's language, then the priest gave his interpretation to the layman.
Those laymen where under the control of those church leaders - they could interpret anything they wanted from it and the people would do as they said.

That is the extreme danger of not taking the Bible literally - it has been proven in history.

Take it literally and you will find the truth and life.

Jesus was annointed with the Holy Spirit when he was Baptised. - That was when his ministry started.

Again here, no other prophet that also did this was referred to as the Word - only, "the word of the LORD came to....".

Therefore is this really what John is saying?
This and all the other verses don't seem to suggest it.

Then you wrote;

Nope it isn't. The Father = God , the Holy Spirit = God , Jesus = God.

The Bible says that Jesus was sent from his Father, therefore in saying that Jesus was the lamb of God contradicts nothing - since the Father is God.

(As an aside Jesus was called the Lamb of God because of the sacrifice that he was going to become to take away the sin of the world.)
The lamb in the OT was used as a sacrifice to have forgiveness of sins.

- This raises an issue - how did JtB know that Jesus was going to do this?

Yeah, but wordsymth you have no scripture to back up any of this. Infact the scripture contradicts this.
The subject of the verse is Jesus. - There's no alluring to the Word or the message or anything else. It's only Jesus that John was referring to.
It's the same with Jesus saying that he came from heaven.

And yes Jesus was fully man - just as he was fully God.

No John is making no such distinction between Jesus the man and the Word.
You haven't read the whole passage or you would have clearly seen what is going on.


ok let me put in the previous passage.

Wordsymth it is so clear from this passage that John the Baptist is referring to him as the one being from the earth and Jesus being the one from heaven.
This is confirmed by Jesus when he says that he came from heaven.

How you got your interpretation from this I don't know for it's meaning is clear.

hmmmmm, if this is so then you get something very awkard that you have to explain.

How then do you explain this verse.

If Jesus was the embodiment of God's laws and mandates etc. Then why does Jesus say that these same mandates will never get anyone saved?
Surely if he was the embodiment of these mandates then he himself couldn't say this because to say it would mean that he didn't have eternal life.

Distinction between the law and Jesus - the law was powerless...so how could Jesus be the embodiment of it?

(Read Romans 7 v 7-13)

Again Jesus saying this here doesn't fit in with your interpretation.

No, they are different. It was Jesus and the Holy Spirit communing together - there is nothing absurd about that.

There is also something else for you to consider.

Paul is identifying Jesus with Yahweh here...

So Thomas believed he was God after the ressurection.

Again Jesus is shown to be God.

This verse is talking about Jesus - this is why John referred to Jesus in John1 as the Word.
Then again about Jesus.

This is a name given only to God.

All these verses go to show that Jesus is God from what the gospel writers have written and what was believed back then.

To try and portray all that Jesus wrote about himself as referring to the word of God is wrong becaues it contradicts scripture.

How can the word of God/ the law not be able to save and yet you say that Jesus says believe in me (ie the law) and you will be saved?

It doesn't fit in with the rest of scripture - Jesus is portraying himself to be God -in everything that he says.

Nogo you raised some more points - I'll reply later again though this answer also applies to you.

davidH

Yo Nogo - before you go accusing a certain translation or anything maybe you should check up the greek on that verse to see what it really means.

Jayhawker Soule

Myth is accretive. The verses prove nothing. They suggest a Judaic subtext to an otherwise Hellenist-inspired Christology.

BTW: 'the text proves the proposition because the proposition is found in the text', is bankrupt apologetics.

NOGO

I think that you complete missed the point and your answer does not address it at all.

Let me try again.

The problem is the word "my" just before "God".
Jesus is saying that the Father is "HIS GOD" as well as being the God of Mary and the rest.

If Jesus and the Father are one then Jesus would not speak of the Father as his God. You need to address this.

On to other things.

From my previous post to you, you will understand that what Jesus says is veiled in theo-speak and that Jesus always comes back to the theme of the "Word" of God.

You asked for my interpretation of some verses. Here they are.

John 1
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Note the words "he has explained him". It does not say he has seen him.

As you keep repeating Jesus said "he who has seen me has seen the Father".
Is Jesus saying that the Father has the appearance of a man?
No, this is again theo-speak. The word "seen" here is figurative. Remember John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time"
The "Word" has explained him.
The Word is the begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father and who has explained the Father.
The Word is what Jesus claims to have received from God. The Word is not Jesus.
That's my interpretation.


John 1:12
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Who is "Him"?

Compare with John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I
have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Him = Word of God

When a disciple receives the word of God he becomes born again as a child of God and has eternal life.


John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The Son here is the Word and whoever receives the Word has eternal life.
Compare again to John 6:63 "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life".


John 8:
51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."
56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

I assume here that Jesus is saying things in his typical theo-speak and that is why they make no sense. Note verse 56 where Jesus says that Abraham rejoiced to see his day and that he saw it. The question is which day is that?

If you answer this question I will give you my interpretation of verse 58.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Radorth

You're behind the latest curve Nogo. In order to refute my "History's most gifted conspirators" thread, most skeptics were forced to take the approach that the NT writers did not lie. (Although a few said they did lie, contradicting the others as usual) If you say the writers knowingly lied, you are obliged to prove it, since the burden of proof is on the slanderer. (See my 10 or so points). You also get to explain this enormous conspiracy, with nobody saying "I was there and it didn't happen." Or "I overheard Luke and Mark making up a story." Or "Paul never believed in a historical Jesus." Sorry, my faith doesn't stretch that far. At least the lying theory explains the miraculously short duration of the Jesus Myth assembly time.

And then course if you deny they intentionally lied, redacted truth, etc, and presume they merely spread around what they heard, you are obliged to explain another historically unprecedented miracle. How did they get that much detailed info assembled from scattered myths, rumors and coffee shop chatter in so short a time? Given ED's claim that they didn't get going until about 100, you are looking at maybe 70 years for a myth to grow from drawing board to finished product. To say nobody lied to get it all done strains my faith to the breaking point.

And whether it was made from myths or lies, what was their motive? The answers to this question have been pathetically weak. (I'd go with "they were obviously masochists." It fits in with known facts so much better.

I marvel ya'll go to these lengths, when about all you have to do to save the world from Jesus is disprove the resurrection. When you guys, especially Jesus-mythers, have done, Durant, Wells and Schonfield will still be selling books. But IMO, they are real skeptics.

Radorth

Vorkosigan

You also get to explain this enormous conspiracy, with nobody saying "I was there and it didn't happen."

They did, as Doherty points out.

[/b] Or "I overheard Luke and Mark making up a story." Or "Paul never believed in a historical Jesus." Sorry, my faith doesn't stretch that far. At least the lying theory explains the miraculously short duration of the Jesus Myth assembly time.

How did they get that much detailed info assembled from scattered myths, rumors and coffee shop chatter in so short a time? [/b]

What miraculously short time? The NT myths grew out of a much older matrix, that of Jewish messianism, and go back to the second century BCE. The story took shape over the first century CE, but it had old roots.

In any case, myths grow up extremely fast. 100 years is plenty of time, it only takes one person to imagine it, after all. There are plenty of cases of rapid growth of myth -- look at the legends surrounding Shi Huang Ti, Hong Xiu-chuan, the Cargo Cults, the Faust tales, Hong of the Hongs....

[b]And whether it was made from myths or lies, what was their motive? The answers to this question have been pathetically weak. (b]

The only thing pathetically weak is your grasp of social processes. Believers always tell each other stories to reinforce in-group values and identities. The early Christians were making up stories to tell each other. They wrote fictions, based on Old Testament tales and collections of sayings then in circulation. Whether and these NT fictions relate to some individual person is impossible to say now.

I marvel ya'll go to these lengths, when about all you have to do to save the world from Jesus is disprove the resurrection.

Alas, if that were only all.....

BTW, we're all still waiting for the methodology that scholars are using to separate myth from fact in these stories. But don't worry, I don't expect too much from trolls.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

There are two things that you are overlooking.

One is the war and destruction of the Jewish state. "I was there and this did not happen this way" simply does not happen even in the best of times but in a war situation where people have other things on their minds, forget it. I would go as far as saying that Christianity would not have made it if the Jewish state had not been destroyed.

This arguement would be good if it was in time of peace and most Jews had been converted to Christianity. The fact that this did not happen is that they objected.

The second is this 70 year period. I simply do not buy it. Think out of the box, man. Even the book of Enoch which is deamed to have been written more than 100 years before Jesus talks about the "Son of Man". This may not prove anything but you cannot prove that Jesus started it all either. My guess is that Christianity started way before Jesus is deamed to have been born. The stories were simply attributed to him at a later stage.

I also happen to believe that 70 years is enough considering that it was a time of instability and the Christian sect was waiting for the end of the world. I would think that this mindset is fertile ground for myths.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

What would you expect from a 'real christian' who sees himself as a 'real scholar'?

Radorth

Vorkosigan will now attempt to back up his claim that a BIG bunch of folks, including Romans, just decided to make up a story about the Messiah, based on reports of a non-existent person, and lots of other non-existent people all in one century, and did it in spite of vicious persecution.

Please give us another example in all of history which includes so many people writing so many different accounts and letters (many from jail) in such a short time.

We wanna believe. Help our unbelief!

Radorth

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>