Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is false. Yahweh has always been God from the beginning of creation. Yahweh wasn't given anything. He has always existed the way He is. Yahweh does not derive anything from false gods.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proving With The Bible That Jesus Was NEVER Needed And Is A Con Artist
- Thread starter Only Reason
- Start date
I believe that is false. Yahweh has always been God from the beginning of creation. Yahweh wasn't given anything. He has always existed the way He is. Yahweh does not derive anything from false gods.
The Gospel of John contradicts the Synoptic Gospels on multiple points, and isn't the words of Yeshua.
The terminology Salvation in Hebrew is Yeshua (H3444); when this word is properly studied across the Tanakh, we can show King David was prophesied to be Yeshua in the New Testament, and due to the Pharisaic authors making up Christianity (Paul, & Simon), they have confused the world.
In my opinion.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
From God... But we have to accept it in order to pass it on.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
I don't agree.
I think that if a person believes in God, and that Jesus is the Messiah who preached about "Our Father"
[ Our Father, whom art in heaven], then that is all that is necessary.
i.e. they believe in God and that Jesus is "the Christ"
Jesus was not equating “ego eimi” with a statement of identity!
(You’re using others’ inaccurate interpretations to reach that conclusion.)
Ego eimi is simply a statement relating to existence. Jesus used it many times; in John 8:58, Jesus was saying he existed before Abraham was born. That’s the question he was answering.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that depends on what one thinks is necessary. If one wishes to sin and go to Hell, then Jesus is superfluous.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
Who said anything about Jesus being superfluous?
This all seems terribly far afield. Reviewing the actual Messianic prophesies as written by the undisputed experts on the subject - the Jewish authors themselves - we find the absence of:
A virgin birth
A crucifixion
A resurrection
A second coming (hard to believe the Messiah wouldn't get everything right the first time)
A birth in Bethlehem
Any divine qualities - which is precisely why the Jews rejected Jesus the second divinity was ascribed to him.
And then suddenly this is all ignored by the gospel authors, and dozens...hundreds....thousands of 'prophesies' have sprung up over the centuries. The fraudulent nature of the gospels is proven by the virgin birth myth all by itself. It really seems quite obvious.
A virgin birth
A crucifixion
A resurrection
A second coming (hard to believe the Messiah wouldn't get everything right the first time)
A birth in Bethlehem
Any divine qualities - which is precisely why the Jews rejected Jesus the second divinity was ascribed to him.
And then suddenly this is all ignored by the gospel authors, and dozens...hundreds....thousands of 'prophesies' have sprung up over the centuries. The fraudulent nature of the gospels is proven by the virgin birth myth all by itself. It really seems quite obvious.
Can you prove Lord of the Rings has fraudulent intent? You can't, but someday it could be used to perpetrate fraud. The gospels aren't written to you, and it appears you lack the expertise to even investigate whether they are fraudulent. So does the OP, which is why I never bothered with it. This thread is useless, unless somebody can establish that the gospels are written to be taken literally. Nobody can in my experience demonstrate that. Rather it is easy to show they are not meant to be taken literally, word for word or as literal accounts in this universe.
Other purposes for the gospels are easy to come up with. Alibis.
LOTR would seem to be irrelevant to this topic. Isaiah 7:14 was used by the gospel authors as a prophesy of the Messiah. It is not. So the options are that these learned jewish authors were ignorant of their own OT list of Messianic prophesies - or they committed fraud. You're welcome to assume they were just stupid - but then, they were stupid over and over.....
I can't see you as a skeptic if you're peddling this. The gospels are clearly not intended to be read literally.LOTR would seem to be irrelevant to this topic. Isaiah 7:14 was used by the gospel authors as a prophesy of the Messiah. It is not. So the options are that these learned jewish authors were ignorant of their own OT list of Messianic prophesies - or they committed fraud. You're welcome to assume they were just stupid - but then, they were stupid over and over.....
And I can't see you as a Christian if you deny the fundamental claim that Jesus was born of a virgin - not allegorically, but in fact. But I have seen the tendency among many christians to suddenly claim "Oh, that wasn't meant to be literal..." As so many of their previous claims are shown to be false. Soon, the entire bible will be reduced to allegory.
You'd try to tell me what a Christian is. That's hilarious.And I can't see you as a Christian if you deny the fundamental claim that Jesus was born of a virgin - not allegorically, but in fact. But I have seen the tendency among many christians to suddenly claim "Oh, that wasn't meant to be literal..." As so many of their previous claims are shown to be false. Soon, the entire bible will be reduced to allegory.
The gospels are written strictly to be read by people who are Jewish and who are living under Roman oppression, Jews who are dealing with certain important questions that matter to such Jews in that situation. These questions are what the gospels address: Why is the temple destroyed? Did we do something wrong? Why bear with the Romans? Why not be like Judas or Barabbas? Why be so forgiving? How could any of these bloodthirsty Romans learn to be peaceful? These discussions are not meant to be understood by outsiders and Roman people. They certainly aren't intended to defraud anyone. Under the Romans, Jerusalem is invaded and crushed. 30,000 men are crucified in a short span of time. Many Jews become slaves and prisoners. They need a way to discuss things without the Roman authorities interfering. They can't discuss the fall of the temple openly or defame the name of the emperor. So how do they discuss them as a community, do you think? Any ideas? I can think of four and a sign shaped like a fish that can be carved into a door.
And basically they aren't intended to defraud anyone.
So was the virgin birth deemed by Christianity to be a factual event or was it just a story? Because if the latter, there appears to be some 1.5 billion christians - at least - that disagree with you. I'm not interested in fringe views.
Its not fringe. Every prophecy mentioned in any of the four gospels is about Israel. This is not an accident, not an oversight by writers and not a fringe view; but for a long time and up until the last couple of centuries my life would be in danger had I said such a thing or written any such thing publicly. The current freedom of religion which you and I enjoy preserves my life and allows my to state the obvious, so its not fringe. We couldn't back then talk openly about this elephant, but we can today. Just as people today may openly say they are atheists, I may openly discuss this fact about the gospels.
Any prophecy that any gospel says pertains to Jesus, just look it up in a concordance and see where the scripture says it is to Israel, about Israel. It is so. If you didn't know that, now you do. All I'm saying is its not to commit fraud. It is to save lives. The cryptic writing is for the purpose of preserving life not for committing fraud. That's not fringe either.
Strongs Concordance for one refutes your claim, as do the dozens of Christian ministers, pastors, priests, rabbis, and bible scholars I have engaged over the last 5 decades. If your view is not fringe, I don't know what. Take care and good luck.
And may you someday become familiar with the topic. As a skeptic, your view is even more fringe than you think this one is.Strongs Concordance for one refutes your claim, as do the dozens of Christian ministers, pastors, priests, rabbis, and bible scholars I have engaged over the last 5 decades. If your view is not fringe, I don't know what. Take care and good luck.
That hardly matters in the face of other claims of divinity made by him and for him. Here's a few:
- Jesus is omnipresent (in Matthew 28:20, he says “and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”).
- Jesus is omniscient (in John 16:30, the author admits, “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things”).
- Jesus is omnipotent (Matthew 28:18: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,” Jesus says).
Well, if this site has polls enabled, I'd be interested in seeing just how many people here agree with you.
He said this after his resurrection. He proved himself obedient to God, until he was killed. So after he was resurrected by God, as a spirit creature (1 Peter 3:18), he could accomplish that, since he said that “all authority” had been “given” him.
God doesn’t need authority to be given him, does he? Jesus wasn’t claiming to be Almighty God.
Someone else saying that? That really means nothing. So Jesus didn’t say it… that would be important.
What did Jesus say? He said “concerning that day and hour, nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the son, but only the Father.” — Mark 13:32
Oh my goodness…. Yes, “given” him. God has had it from the gitgo.
Where do you get this from?
Love is a divine attribute…
Question: In Daniel 9, how would the Messiah be “cut-off with nothing for himself”, and being cut-off, how could he “finish off sin”, as the prophecy further states?