Sojourner553

Radorth, I don't think most of us have the time to educate you on the basics. (Why not check out a library book on other religions???)

Still, to answer your question (without going to the length of DavidH or NOGO...)

* * *

If you go by NUMBER OF spectacular MIRACLES claimed in all religions: Krishna has got to be the winner! (Afterall some of Jesus' miracles are pretty weak upon analysis.)

<a href="http://sangha.net/messengers/krishna.htm#Krishna," target="_blank">http://sangha.net/messengers/krishna.htm#Krishna,</a>

So do you think the above miracle stories of Krishna make it true, Radorth??? Krishna is also "older" than Jesus....


Sojourner


PS:
Here is a link analyzing some of Jesus' reported miracles and their similarities:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a>

Here's one for Mithra (the savior mystery god where (seems to me) a lot of the borrowing/sharing of myths with Jesus occurred.)

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK3.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK3.TXT</a>

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Sojourner

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

No problem. Give me three accounts, supposedly written by three different contemporaries or disciples, each containing a description of at least 5 miracles.

Shit, that's too easy. Give us a hard one, eh? I can get you accounts of artificial alchemical gold from the treasury of Sung China, with recipes for making it, and affirmation that it actually works stretching out over hundreds of years. Big deal.

In any case, the Synoptics are most certainly not independent, and John probably isn't either.

Further, indepedence may not mean anything. There are numerous legends about Holger Danske, Ogier, Oliver....independent, from several countries. But alas, he is a fictional hero.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

You must understand that DavidH is a fundie who believes that the Bible is inerrant.

NOGO

"Saviour of all men"

Hyperbole ... I will let Jesus speak about his mission.

Matthew 15:24
... "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."


John 10:30 "I and the Father are one,"

Often quoted to mean that Jesus is God. Yet the whole NT testifies against this interpretation.

John 10
34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?
35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Jesus explains his statement and nowhere does he state that he is God.

John 17:11
"I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given me, that they may be one even as We are.

Jesus is saying that his disciples are one in THE SAME SENSE as Jesus and the Father are one.

John 17
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in me through their word;
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent me.
22 "The glory which You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;

Just as we are one
All this means is that they are of like minds or that Jesus and later the disciples have received the word of God.

Also read Hebrews 1 and see if you can argue that Jesus is one with the Father.

Radorth

I see, so we should spend 2 hours writing an Easter story, but you guys can't spend 5 minutes giving us 3 Easter show-stoppers. Of course after the beating you took on the "contadictions" poll, I can see why you are avoiding this question. I trust the phrase "stupendous error" will be avoided hence.

Radorth

Godless Dave

The writers of the gospels were not contemporaries of Jesus, so I don't understand how this question is relevant.


Hercules

Mithras

Krishna

davidH

Well, Wordsymth has remained silent after my last post - also which you Nogo have not addressed.
Those verses from Hebrews I have already explained when answering Wordsymth - and still there is silence about the "Son" being referred to as Yahweh............

Nogo,

You have shown me nothing of the sort - all the verses you interpret are based on Jesus being the Word of God.

I addressed this and so far there has been no reply to my last post.
Nogo, you have done what Wordsymth did and tried to interpret the verses around Heb 1 v 8 , but have declined to comment on that.

Again the verses in the OT - the distinctions remain after you debated them with me.

Again after debating that Jesus is the Word of God whenever he refers to (everything that suggests that he and God are one) has fallen to pieces.

It is based on 1 verse that in my last post I examined again, also never mind the fact that you don't know what the "Word" was.
Also the clash between u and Wordsymth - he believes that "the annointed" refers only to Jesus and that the "Word" of the Lord came only to Jesus and that was why noone else was called "the Word" or made claims like Jesus did.

Nogo, it falls to pieces and the only thing remaining is that Jesus is saying that he is God.
All the other verses that I give in my last post confirm this and that the Word of God came out of Jesus mouth - not that he was it.

Again take for example the worship that is allowed only to God. Whenever someone bowed and worshipped before Jesus he did not forbid it - why was that? It was because he was God.
Like the disciples in the boat after he had walked on the water - listen to what it says;

etc.


Nogo, again you post up the same stuff again.

We have already discussed this, but there's this other point I would like to make Nogo.

"and sent into the world.."

etc. We have already discussed this before, Jesus is clearly referring to himself as having come from heaven. This can't be so if he is a man like us - but if he is God - like he claims everywhere else then it is true.

Yes, but again as we discussed look at the theme of Jesus prayer - it is Unity. That is what Jesus is talking about here, Nogo all this has been brought up and you have been silent about it.

Again it's the Unity that is mentioned at the end of the prayer straight after those verses that you have mentioned - in v 23.
It explains what he is talking about.

Also what was this "word" that Jesus brought that if people accepted it then they would be saved? This is important for you to answer Nogo.

Read what I have already written in my last post and see if you can argue against it. I have shown clearly.

davidH

Radorth - I am interested, what was this "contradictions" poll and could you give a link to it?

Cheers

Radorth

Huh? I'm just asking for something comparable, with comparable eyewitness accounts which I can't locate anywhere.

Funny Durant doesn't buy them. Maybe he never heard of a fire which burned for a thousand years going out when Krishna was born, from other than the Krishna's. He apparently feels the Roman records of persecutions give sufficient non-Christian credence to their widespread existence. The above stories seemed to me to have obvious inventions and then I do not recall any of them offering to impute righteousness to anybody, so I gave Jesus an extra "unique" point, I admit.

Sorry to bring him up again, but

1. FM asked for it.

2. No one referring to Jesus as "He" is given much of an ear, so all we have to work with here is pretty much what skeptics say. Fortunately they oftimes contradict one another and resort to hypebole, or we might have to give up.

Radorth

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

davidH

Ex-preacher,

Yes, but Anne Frank has the choice, and what a simple but life changing one it is.
All Jesus asks is that you believe in him and trust him to forgive you your sin and follow him.

That was the only choice that has to be made that really matters, if Anne Frank didn't or hasn't then who's fault is that?
Is God to be blamed for us refusing an amazing gift that he offers to us?

Maybe rather you think it is a terrible religion because it allows no room for compromise..you can't have it both ways, which is what a lot of people would like to have it.


Nogo you asked me to explain this verse;

Interestingly it is these verses that you have avoided (read my post up the top of page 9).

Obviously you recognise that this verse is referring to Jesus - good because it is.
Why is it? Because of Verse 8 where it starts off by saying,

"But about the Son he (God) says, "Your throne, O God (Yahweh), will last forever and ever..."

So you have Just acknowledged that this verse 8 is talking about Jesus because verse 9 follows right on (talking about the same person).
How then do you explain Jesus being told by God that "your throne, O GOD (Yahweh) will last forever and ever" ?

NB Jesus is called God by God ......exactly what I have been saying all along - the Trinity.

Now about the verse you gave;

Companions has to be referring to angels - since that is what this all starts off with in v5 and then finishes with in verse 14.
If you read my post on page 9 I explain this passage because Wordsymth brought up the same thing.
Again the "God, your God" is referring to the Father.
You might say this can't be so etc etc, but it is clearly laided out in verse 8, God says to Jesus, "Your throne O GOD..."

Again you misunderstand the verses you read Nogo.

"in these last days" - doesn't mean the end of the World (which never came) it means in the days when the World is soon to end.
BTW Nogo - It is very very close at the minute, prophecy is being fulfilled regarding our times now.

"Through whom he made the World" doesn't mean that Jesus = Word, this is a theory that is shattering, unless you can explain everything I brought up in the post on page 9.
Also verse 8 contradicts this and shows you the truth.


Again you contradict everything that you have been saying before this;
If by John 1v1 you see Jesus as being "the Word of God" then you must also acknowledge that John 1v1 says , "The Word was with God and the Word was God"
If the Word was God then of course it would have always been better than the angels since God created them.
But if you acknowledge that Jesus was God and became a man (a man who is "lower than the angels") then these verses make sense.

Anyway I won't answer any more of this because I have already answered it in that post on page 9 so read it and it should answer your questions.

Sojourner553,

Yeah, but again like the water example the Trinity can exist and yet there still be one God.

Also did you check out the distinctions in the OT that I had posted up and already debated - they are still distinctions.

However I have yet to find a Jewish site where there is a forum where I can ask some questions.

You won't by any chance have heard of any decent ones?

Cheers , And yes I know that this is what you are trying to get at.
But you are showing me interpretations that undermine the whole gospel message and also contradict other passages of scripture.
Once you treat everything metaphorical anything can be said to mean what the verses are trying to say, but what I am trying to show you is that there is no need to interpret the scripture, what it says it says.
If Jesus says,"I and the Father are one" then it could mean that they were one in Unity and purpose.
But when you put that with other scripture then you see that this is not what Jesus was trying to get at.
Jesus saying he was sent from heaven, saying that he'll be glorified with the glory he had with God before the world began.
His Kingdom not of this place (note place and not time peroid) and then all the other verses in the gospels and letters to the churches.

It is clear that Jesus is not referring to himself "being the Word" when he says he is from heaven etc. Also the problems this presents with the John 1v1 were it was taken from etc.

Jesus is clearly saying that he is from God, and no other interpretation can make sense - the pharisees trying to stone him etc. They knew what he meant.

That's why I say that to interpret it any different from what it says is trying to force a theory into a place where it doesn't fit.

sorry but I have to go now Sojourner553 - will try and answer the rest of what you put down tomorrow if possible.
Yo, got any thoughts on what I posted on page 9 ?

Peter Kirby

Yes, but are all these versions what the Greek really means? The NIV Bible will not just put in words that aren't in the Greek, so the words in Greek are probably (when taken in context) used to mean this here.

Unless you Peter Kirby can prove otherwise? You've put down the Greek but it means nothing to most of us here, who have no means of understanding what each word means etc.

Use of other translations doesn't prove that the Greek doesn't say this.
And even if you do take it to mean that the words of Jesus aren't his own - how does that relate to Jesus being called "the Word" in John 1 v 1 which is use to say that Jesus was only "the Word of God"?

Have to head.
Cya.