|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:57 pm
 |
|
|
 |
I'm surprised by the responses saying they didn't know Jesus was still alive according to the Christian belief. My cousin asked me the same thing just two days ago ("Is Jesus alive"?), but I just chalked it up to his learning disability. He watches the movies every year with my grandmother (during those Easter/Christmas months). I suspect that people hear "resurrection" but don't know 100% that it means "to come back to life". I also noticed how secular people confuse "resurrection" with "ascension", and use it in a more mystical sense instead of the literal "going up into the clouds, getting further and further away until you see him no more".
The first chapter in the Book of Acts would clear that up. The Book of Acts in general is a pretty neglected book even amongst believers.
Quote: Acts 1:1-11 (NIV) 1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Footnotes:
a. Acts 1:5 Or in
b. Acts 1:5 Or in
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:05 pm
|
|
|
|
real eyes realize I'm surprised by the responses saying they didn't know Jesus was still alive according to the Christian belief. My cousin asked me the same thing just two days ago ("Is Jesus alive"?), but I just chalked it up to his learning disability. He watches the movies every year with my grandmother (during those Easter/Christmas months). I suspect that people hear "resurrection" but don't know 100% that it means "to come back to life". I also noticed how secular people confuse "resurrection" with "ascension", and use it in a more mystical sense instead of the literal "going up into the clouds, getting further and further away until you see him no more". The first chapter in the Book of Acts would clear that up. The Book of Acts in general is a pretty neglected book even amongst believers. Quote: Acts 1:1-11 (NIV) 1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Footnotes:
a. Acts 1:5 Or in
b. Acts 1:5 Or in
It is a very interesting thread. I had no idea that people knew so little about Christianity, or that they had such warped ideas about what it means to be a Christian. I honestly thought people were just trolling. I've always thought that since we live in the West, and we are more exposed to Christian teaching, being previously Christian nations, that people would know more about it. It seems to me like there is a huge missionary field out there, of people who think they know what Christianity is, but have it all wrong. The scariest thing is though, when we as Christians get essential doctrines wrong, like the nature of salvation. I am going to take notes from this, on how to approach people. Some people have no idea why Christians even approach them to talk about Jesus. We need to start of very slowly with these people, and explain why, before how. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:47 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:26 pm
|
|
|
|
Ok, let's start with questions number 1. Since there are a few posters I will have to post this over a period of time. Questions # 1. Who is Jesus Christ, according to Christianity?
Here are a few of the answers given:
"A (insert racist term) carpenter who believes in everything modern Christian evangelicals/the Pope doesn't."
He was the son of a carpenter, yes, but he was also the Son of God as other posters pointed out. So we see that they got part of the questions right.
In Christianity there is no room for racism. Jesus is the great equalizer (Galatians 3:28.). As for Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity they draw from the same source, but end up with different conclusions. Such as the as what is necessary for salvation as an example. It is only natural that is opinions of doctrines are conflicting that there will be disagreement, and I would say it is quite healthy because a silence on these matters is dangerous. If one of us is wrong, and the other right, we need to disagree.
"The son of God born to the virgin Mary and Joseph."
"Son of God, coming of Christ, savior of the people through self-sacrifice."
"Jehovah's son.. The messiah."
"He is the savior who died for everyone's sins. Too bad he didn't do any of what the jewish messiah was supposed to do according to the OT and (Edit: the MESSIAH) dying for sins is a foreign concept in the OT and Judaism."
Is dying for sins a foreign concept in the OT? Let us investigate this;
Leviticus 17:11
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.
The “regular” daily offering consisted of the slaughter of two male lambs; one each morning and one each evening.
Exodus 29:38-39
38 “This is what you are to offer on the altar regularly each day: two lambs a year old. 39 Offer one in the morning and the other at twilight.
We see that animals were in fact sacrificed as an atonement for sin, God in His great mercy made it so that there would be a substitute and their blood was shed for the temporary remission of sin, so we see that dying for sin for someone else is not a foreign concept to the Old Testament, or to Judaism. The penalties of a number of sins were punishable by stoning, meaning death in the OT. What God did was allow the animals as substitutionary atonement, but they were imperfect as a sacrifice, meaning they could not cover your sins once and for all, a new sacrifice was required over and over again. A perfect sacrifice was required to cover all sins completely (Hebrews 10:14-24).
1. He fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament (Lk. 24:44). He was born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14) in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); he was God with us (Isa. 9:6). He performed miracles (Isa. 35). He suffered vicariously that we might be forgiven of sins (Isa. 53). He established his kingdom in the days of the Roman kings (Dan. 2:44). Indeed, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, so that when he died on the cross he could say, "It is finished" (Jn. 19:28-30).
2. He fulfilled all that was typified by the Old Testament sacrifices. The sacrifices of the Old Testament foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Old Testament Sacrifices
BURNT OFFERINGS
a. Male, without blemish (Lev. 1:3).
b. Offered continually (Ex. 29:38-39).
c. To make atonement (Lev. 1:4).
MEAL OFFERING
a. Lev. 2: a gift to God in grateful acknowledgment that the offer owed everything to God.
PEACE OFFERINGS
a. Purpose: indicates a right relationship with God; expresses fellowship and thanksgiving (Lev. 7:12).
New Testament Sacrifice
JESUS OUR ATONEMENT
a. Without blemish (Heb. 4:15).
b. Offered once for all (Heb. 9:28; 10:9-11).
c. To make atonement (Heb. 9:12).
JESUS OUR BREAD OF LIFE
a. Jesus our bread of life (Jn. 6:35).
JESUS IS OUR PEACE
a. Jesus is our peace (Eph. 2:14).
b. We enter fellowship with God through him (1 Jn. 1:3).
Indeed, Jesus did fulfill all that was foreshadowed by the sacrifices of the Old Testament.
3. Jesus fulfilled all that was typified by the tabernacle worship. The Old Testament worship in the Tabernacle was divinely revealed by God to foreshadow the true tabernacle of which it was a type (Heb. 8:2). The tabernacle was divided into two partitions: a holy place and a most holy place.
The people could not enter into either place; they could only approach the altar of burnt offering. The priest entered the holy place every day to keep the altar of incense burning. Once a year, the high priest entered into the most holy place to make atonement for sin.
Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people. The Holy Ghost, this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while was the first tablernacle was yet standing: which was a figure of the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;. . . . It was therefore necessary that the pattern of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Heb. 9:6-9,23-24).
Christ fulfilled that which was typified by the tabernacle worship.
3. Christ fulfilled the Precepts of t;e Old Testament by his own perfect obedience. The Scriptures teach the sinlessness of Jesus (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:20-22). He demonstrated in his life the righteousness which the law required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:42 pm
|
|
|
|
More answers to question number one;
"Jesus is the son of God, who was birthed by Mary. Christians also believe that Jesus is the next Messiah of the Old Testament? (I think)"
We believe he is the only Messiah. It is important to point that out. That we believe there are no other Messiah's (Acts 4:12).
"Jesus Christ is the son of God, born through Joseph and virgin Mary (though virgin does not mean she had not yet had intercourse, but simply she was a pure being). He is the one who will deliver mankind."
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
The Hebrew word translated as “virgin” is ‛almah. While it is sometimes translated as “young woman,” we must look at the context to determine what it means in this particular instance. The birth prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 was to be a special sign from the Lord—a clear demonstration of His power. As young women regularly conceive and give birth, that would hardly make for a unique indicator. If ‛almah only meant “young woman” here, then any one of the billions of births since then could be claimed as a fulfillment of prophecy.
Furthermore, when Matthew quoted this passage, he used the Greek word parthenos, which specifically means “virgin” or “chaste.” Even Bible versions which translate ‛almah as “young woman” in Isaiah, such as the NET, render parthenos as “virgin” in Matthew. Also, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, uses the word parthenos in our passage.
Luke 1:27 identifies Mary as a parthenos, and in Luke 1:34, she identified herself as such when she stated, “I do not know a man.” This is confirmed in Matthew 1:25 where we are told that Joseph “did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”
The question of the virgin birth then becomes primarily a matter of biblical authority. To reject it, one must also reject the complete accuracy of the Bible. But is there more to it than that? Were there any theological reasons which necessitated the virgin birth of the Messiah?
Jesus is both fully human (Hebrews 2:14) and fully God (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9). As a human He “was in all points tempted as we are” (Hebrews 4:15), yet as God He does not have a sin nature (2 Corinthians 5:21). However, since all men are born into sin as a result of Adam’s disobedience (Romans 5:12) many theologians have postulated that the lack of a human father would prevent the sin nature from being passed on to Jesus. While this is plausible, we must be careful because the Bible never explicitly states that sin nature is genetic and passed through the father.
We can still reach certain absolute conclusions. First, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of prophecy. Second, Mary definitely conceived as a virgin. Third, the virgin birth was a wonderful and miraculous demonstration of God’ power. And finally, we must accept the virgin birth on the principle of biblical authority
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:31 am
|
|
|
|
Question number 2: Is there any historical evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible?
"Technically speaking, there isn't any evidence of him inside the Bible, just a declaration of his existence."
That depends on whether you accept the Bible as being accurate, and truthful, or if you reject it. There's plenty of evidence that indicates that the Bible is what is says it is and in doing so gives credibility to the evidence presented for Jesus, if you accept the evidence. Internal consistency, archaeology and volume and accuracy of copies etc.
"That I'm aware of no. There has been talk (that I remember) that Jesus could've roamed the Earth, but as the saviour and son of God? That's another story."
Evidence from Tacitus
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible. This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life." He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?" The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it.
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D. But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshiping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!
Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshiped Jesus as God!
I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:07 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:03 am
|
|
|
|
4. Why do Christians reject other religions as being false?
Answers;
1. No Xtian would ever give me a straight answer.
2. Quite frankly I've no idea since there's been evidence to the Bible being a copy of several other religions with the same story of the saviour being born of a virgin. Ironic.
3. Because everyone wants to think they're right and the bible says so.
4. Because the trinity and all the other bs is all made up from the devil...
5. The same reason other religions believe Christianity is false. They are normally raised a certain religion, or often they choose the religion of their culture. They're told their religion is the right one, and they believe it.
6. I'm not sure. It depends on different people's view of it.
7. Because there can only be one god, the Abrahamic one, and other religions don't really have room for the special role that Jesus has to occupy—I would guess anyway. Many Christians don't necessarily say that other religions are false, they're able to justify a more tolerant position by claiming a more metaphorical or spiritual approach to religion.
8. Because it's one of the commandments, like, no other god can be worshipped or something.
9. Sadly I am not sure why, all religions should respect other's beliefs. Even if they think it's wrong, its the other person's beliefs, not theirs. So they have no rights to reject other people's beliefs.
10. because that's what they grew up hearing about. that's what they've been told. basically, because they're right and you're wrong
11. Because all the other religions do the same thing. And I think because it's one of the commandments? I don't really remember. Do they even reject other religions?
12. Because they think Jesus/God is the only way to get to Heaven.
13. Because they believe what the Bible says.
14. I think its because they believe the other gods are not real.
15. Because, like every other religion, they believe theirs is the right one.
16. It probably has something to do with the commandment of believing in only one god... but most religions seems to be like thise sadly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
