Who is Jesus?

[paarsurrey]

Jesus was there at the beginning of creation of all things that were created. He was not one of them. See verse 3 for proof of that.
We know that He was not created at all.The Watchtower does tend to ignore things like John 1:3 and add "other" 4 times in Col 1 where it is not in the Greek and twist the meaning of other passages in order to get their doctrine about who Jesus is.

Excerpt from the post of friendBrian2:" Jesus was there at the beginning of creation of all things that were created." Unquote

It is a wrong notion, Jesus never existed at the beginning of creation of all things that were created, I get. It was God-the-Father/Jehovah/Allah who created every things, Jesus himself was born in helpless condition of innocent Mary, so helpless that Jesus was circumcised as per the teachings of Moses I figure. If Jesus was circumcised, why don't the Christians follow and get circumcised as was Jesus done, the Christians are to follow innocent Jesus and they are not to follow (sinful) Paul , please?
Right?
Paul and Pauline-Church thus mislead the credulous Christians away from the teachings of Jesus and ousted them from the sign of following Abraham, fixed by God-the-Father/Jehovah/Allah, I understand, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

Excerpt from the post of friendBrian2:" Jesus was there at the beginning of creation of all things that were created." Unquote

It is a wrong notion, Jesus never existed at the beginning of creation of all things that were created, I get. It was God-the-Father/Jehovah/Allah who created every things, Jesus himself was born in helpless condition of innocent Mary, so helpless that Jesus was circumcised as per the teachings of Moses I figure. If Jesus was circumcised, why don't the Christians follow and get circumcised as was Jesus done, the Christians are to follow innocent Jesus and they are not to follow (sinful) Paul , please?
Right?
Paul and Pauline-Church thus mislead the credulous Christians away from the teachings of Jesus and ousted them from the sign of following Abraham, fixed by God-the-Father/Jehovah/Allah, I understand, please. Right?

Regards

When I say Jesus was there I am referring to John 1:1 where it says the Word was there, and later we discover that the Word referred to in John 1:1 is the pre human Jesus.
Christians are not circumcised because circumcision is for the Jews, the sons of Abraham. Christians do not need to be circumcised but it does not matter if they are circumcised or not, it is just that it is not a requirement of the New Covenant. Some Jews thought it should be a requirement of the New Covenant and wanted all Gentile Christians to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, but that wrong idea was squashed early in Church history. (See Acts 15) It was squashed by the leadership of the early Church and not just by Paul. The early Church was not the Pauline Church. Paul, because of his theological training, was able to connect the dots about the New Covenant and connect it to the Old Covenant with the Jews through Moses, and because of his education did plenty of writing of letters to various churches from which we can see the theology of the early Church, which was the same as that of the other Apostles.
The Moses Covenant was not meant to be permanent but the New Covenant is permanent and it all was decided by God the Father.

 

[capumetu]

Well obviously we disagree and you teach Jesus was a created being when the Bible tells us that ALL THINGS that have come into existence have come into existence through Jesus. (John 1:3)
John 1:3 also shows us that the NWT is wrong at John 1:1 when it says "and the Word was a god" because we know that God is the only uncreated being. So who was this uncreated Word being? Not "a god".
I think you are purposely missing the point of the Isa 44:24 quote, which shows that the only one there spreading out the heavens and the earth was in fact Jehovah. This means that Jesus is Jehovah, since Jesus was there and the heavens are the work of His hands.
Speaking of Jesus, Heb 1:10 says
(From the New World Translation) Heb 1:10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.
Also this is a quote from Psalm 102:25 speaking about God. I guess that means the Watchtower should have translated "O Lord" as "O Jehovah".

The Watchtower denies all the meanings of the word "firstborn" and the reason for that is that they want their doctrine to be right about Jesus being a created being.
Israel is called the firstborn of God even though Israel was not the first nation to come into existence. God gave them their inheritance a long time before He gave the later son, Israel, it's inheritance, yet Israel is called the firstborn. Firstborn means the one who takes the priority. (see Deut 32:8, Exodus 4:22)
We see a similar thing in Psalm 89:27 which refers prophetically to Jesus and says:
Psalm 89:27 And I will appoint him to be my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
You don't appoint a son to be firstborn if the only way to be is to be born first.
And if you think that being "of creation" in Col 1:16 shows Jesus was created,,,,,,,,,,,,no it does not,,,,,,,,,,,,it shows that the uncreated Son of God stepped into creation when He became a man.

You: Well obviously we disagree and you teach Jesus was a created being when the Bible tells us that ALL THINGS that have come into existence have come into existence through Jesus. (John 1:3)
Me: Clearly Jesus did not create himself sir. The Word of verse 1 the first creation was the beginning. In the beginning was referring to the creation.

You: John 1:3 also shows us that the NWT is wrong at John 1:1 when it says "and the Word was a god" because we know that God is the only uncreated being. So who was this uncreated Word being? Not "a god".

Me: Why did your translators add an a at Acts 28:6 since it was written exactly the same way at Jn 1:1? I say it was a deliberate alteration by your translators, not ours. Perhaps you have forgotten that Jesus was almost stoned for claiming to be God, what did he tell the people? The fact is sir this is his reply:
(Matthew 27:43) . . .He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.. . .
(John 10:36) . . .I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

You: I think you are purposely missing the point of the Isa 44:24 quote, which shows that the only one there spreading out the heavens and the earth was in fact Jehovah. This means that Jesus is Jehovah, since Jesus was there and the heavens are the work of His hands.
Me: If Jesus was Jehovah, what chance do we have since he lied at Mark 10:40, and 13:32?

 

[paarsurrey]

When I say Jesus was there I am referring to John 1:1 where it says the Word was there, and later we discover that the Word referred to in John 1:1 is the pre human Jesus.
Christians are not circumcised because circumcision is for the Jews, the sons of Abraham. Christians do not need to be circumcised but it does not matter if they are circumcised or not, it is just that it is not a requirement of the New Covenant. Some Jews thought it should be a requirement of the New Covenant and wanted all Gentile Christians to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, but that wrong idea was squashed early in Church history. (See Acts 15) It was squashed by the leadership of the early Church and not just by Paul. The early Church was not the Pauline Church. Paul, because of his theological training, was able to connect the dots about the New Covenant and connect it to the Old Covenant with the Jews through Moses, and because of his education did plenty of writing of letters to various churches from which we can see the theology of the early Church, which was the same as that of the other Apostles.
The Moses Covenant was not meant to be permanent but the New Covenant is permanent and it all was decided by God the Father.

John and Acts are neither written by Jesus nor dictated by Jesus, I understand, and hence unauthorized ascribed to Jesus and his teachings, I figure. Right?
So, one agrees that that the present Christianity whether it was made by (sinful) Paul or by the (sinful) Church has nothing to do with Jesus s/o Mary who was a Jew and was circumcised as a sign that he was from the line of Abraham as mentioned in Genesis:

"everlasting covenant" Genesis 17: 9-10

9 And God said to Abraham, "And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations.
10 This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8212/jewish/Chapter-17.htm

Right?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

For a start, if you do not know, the way you can answer parts of a post at a time and have those parts appear in a box above what you say is to put the command in the square brackets [ ] at the start of the bit you want to reply to and then put this command at the end of the bit you want to reply to. [/QUOTE]
Then you can type away on your reply and when finished you can do the same for the next bit of what I said that you want to reply to.
But you may be happy with the way you are doing it.

You: Well obviously we disagree and you teach Jesus was a created being when the Bible tells us that ALL THINGS that have come into existence have come into existence through Jesus. (John 1:3)
Me: Clearly Jesus did not create himself sir. The Word of verse 1 the first creation was the beginning. In the beginning was referring to the creation.

I surrounded all of what you wrote, including what you said I said, and it will hopefully appear in a box above what I am typing now.
Jesus did not create Himself. Good thinking. And if everything that came into existence came into existence through Jesus, the Word, that means that nobody brought the Word into existence. He has always existed.

You: John 1:3 also shows us that the NWT is wrong at John 1:1 when it says "and the Word was a god" because we know that God is the only uncreated being. So who was this uncreated Word being? Not "a god".

Me: Why did your translators add an a at Acts 28:6 since it was written exactly the same way at Jn 1:1? I say it was a deliberate alteration by your translators, not ours. Perhaps you have forgotten that Jesus was almost stoned for claiming to be God, what did he tell the people? The fact is sir this is his reply:
(Matthew 27:43) . . .He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.. . .
(John 10:36) . . .I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Acts 28:6 is translated that way also in the New World Translation no doubt and it is because of a combination of grammar and context.
With John 1:1 there is big disputing about the grammar and what that means and I am told that the way the NWT translates John 1:1 is grammatically correct, even if many disagree. However we don't have to even think about the grammar to know that the NWT is wrong.
All we need do is look at John 1:3 and see the the Word was not created, He never came into existence, but was always existing. This means that the Word is God, not a god.
We know the the Word was not "the God" whom He was with in John 1:1, but nevertheless He was God.
That does not mean there were 2 Gods however. The scriptures tell us there is only one God.
The Word was the Son of God, as you say, and the Son of God was the God of Thomas in John 20:28-31
The Son of God (John 20:31) is the Lord and the God of Thomas (John 20:28)
That is whom Jesus was claiming to be, the Son of God who is God.
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The Jews tried to stone Jesus because He claimed to be the Son of God. They knew that He meant that He was claiming equality of nature with God His Father because a Son has the same nature as His Father.
The Jews may have been expecting the Messiah to say that He was the Son of God but did not expect Him to claim that He was THE Son of God. They must have thought He was going to claim sonship just as the Kings of Judah were called sons of God or something like that.
Your belief about the sonship of Jesus is similar to what the Jews thought the Messiah would be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and they were wrong, as John 1:1-3 and John 20:28-31 and many other passages show us.

You: I think you are purposely missing the point of the Isa 44:24 quote, which shows that the only one there spreading out the heavens and the earth was in fact Jehovah. This means that Jesus is Jehovah, since Jesus was there and the heavens are the work of His hands.
Me: If Jesus was Jehovah, what chance do we have since he lied at Mark 10:40, and 13:32?

Not at all. We are told in the Old Testament that Jehovah is One (Deut 6:4) but that ONE is a "compound" one, where the one can be made up of more than one.
We see this in other places in the Old Testament with this word. eg Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
2 people, 2 bodies but one flesh.
God is One but that does not mean that does not have a Son who is the same nature as He is or that He has no Spirit who lives and comes from Him and is actually called Jehovah in the New World Translation. (2Cor 3:17)

 

[Brian2]

John and Acts are neither written by Jesus nor dictated by Jesus, I understand, and hence unauthorized ascribed to Jesus and his teachings, I figure. Right?
So, one agrees that that the present Christianity whether it was made by (sinful) Paul or by the (sinful) Church has nothing to do with Jesus s/o Mary who was a Jew and was circumcised as a sign that he was from the line of Abraham as mentioned in Genesis:

"everlasting covenant" Genesis 9:10

9 And God said to Abraham, "And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations.
10 This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8212/jewish/Chapter-17.htm

Right?

Regards

If you only believe what Jesus wrote then you may as well not believe any of the New Testament, and no doubt you do not believe it, only what Muhammad said about it.
The Abrahamic Covenant is the one mentioned in Genesis 17 and is a promise to be the God of his descendants and give them the land of Canaan, and Abraham and his male descendants should be circumcised. Ishmael also was circumcised but God said that Ishmael was not to be Abraham's heir and that the inheritance would go through Isaac and the descendants of Abraham would be through Isaac, but that Ishmael would also become a nation because he was the son of Abraham also. (Gen 21:11-13)
I suppose you do not believe that also, even though it has come to pass.
So isn't it true that the Jews have been given Israel by God or do you only believe what Muhammad said about the Bible?

 

[paarsurrey]

If you only believe what Jesus wrote then you may as well not believe any of the New Testament, and no doubt you do not believe it, only what Muhammad said about it.
The Abrahamic Covenant is the one mentioned in Genesis 17 and is a promise to be the God of his descendants and give them the land of Canaan, and Abraham and his male descendants should be circumcised. Ishmael also was circumcised but God said that Ishmael was not to be Abraham's heir and that the inheritance would go through Isaac and the descendants of Abraham would be through Isaac, but that Ishmael would also become a nation because he was the son of Abraham also. (Gen 21:11-13)
I suppose you do not believe that also, even though it has come to pass.
So isn't it true that the Jews have been given Israel by God or do you only believe what Muhammad said about the Bible?

I did not quote anything from Quran . I mentioned what is written in Genesis.
As far as John is concerned,
It is a wrong notion that the four Gospels were written by the apostles who recorded what Jesus said:

“The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, “the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason.”
” It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.”
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel and Gospels

John is not authored by John so why believe in what is written in it. Right?

Regards

 

[Riders]

Lord and Messiah but not God. Crucified for our sins but not raised up from the dead. He was a member of the Essenes in New testament time, and started the Christian religion by bringing mysticism to Jewish folks, and possibly a member of the Messiah movement going on back then.

 

[capumetu]

For a start, if you do not know, the way you can answer parts of a post at a time and have those parts appear in a box above what you say is to put the command in the square brackets [ ] at the start of the bit you want to reply to and then put this command at the end of the bit you want to reply to.

Then you can type away on your reply and when finished you can do the same for the next bit of what I said that you want to reply to.
But you may be happy with the way you are doing it.



I surrounded all of what you wrote, including what you said I said, and it will hopefully appear in a box above what I am typing now.
Jesus did not create Himself. Good thinking. And if everything that came into existence came into existence through Jesus, the Word, that means that[] nobody brought the Word into existence. He has always existed.[/quote] Jesus was begotten sir, that means he was the offspring of Jehovah. Jehovah has many spirit sons, all who came into existence by creation, however Jesus is referred to as the only begotten son of God. Why? Because only Jehovah existed, therefore he was created exclusively by Jehovah's hands. He was the firstborn of all creation



Acts 28:6 is translated that way also in the New World Translation no doubt and it is because of a combination of grammar and context.
With John 1:1 there is big disputing about the grammar and what that means and I am told that the way the NWT translates John 1:1 is grammatically correct, even if many disagree. However we don't have to even think about the grammar to know that the NWT is wrong.
All we need do is look at John 1:3 and see the the Word was not created, He never came into existence, but was always existing. This means that the Word is God, not a god.
We know the the Word was not "the God" whom He was with in John 1:1, but nevertheless He was God.
That does not mean there were 2 Gods however. The scriptures tell us there is only one God.
The Word was the Son of God, as you say, and the Son of God was the God of Thomas in John 20:28-31
The Son of God (John 20:31) is the Lord and the God of Thomas (John 20:28)
That is whom Jesus was claiming to be, the Son of God who is God.
[]John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” [/quote] Thomas was excited, hence the addition of the exclamation point. Thomas was a disciple of Jesus sir, therefore worshiping the God Jesus worshiped.
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The Jews tried to stone Jesus because He claimed to be the Son of God. They knew that He meant that He was claiming equality of nature with God His Father because a Son has the same nature as His Father.
The Jews may have been expecting the Messiah to say that He was the Son of God but did not expect Him to claim that He was THE Son of God. They must have thought He was going to claim sonship just as the Kings of Judah were called sons of God or something like that.
Your belief about the sonship of Jesus is similar to what the Jews thought the Messiah would be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and they were wrong, as John 1:1-3 and John 20:28-31 and many other passages show us.



Not at all. We are told in the Old Testament that Jehovah is One (Deut 6:4) but that ONE is a "compound" one, where the one can be made up of more than one.
We see this in other places in the Old Testament with this word. eg Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
2 people, 2 bodies but one flesh.
God is One but that does not mean that does not have a Son who is the same nature as He is or that He has no Spirit who lives and comes from Him and is actually called Jehovah in the New World Translation. (2Cor 3:17)[/QUOTE]

Jehovah is God, the Father of Jesus just as the Bible states sir. Best worship Jehovah exclusively as Jesus taught as those who do not obey his teachings will be removed at his return 2 Thes 1:6-9

 

[capumetu]

For a start, if you do not know, the way you can answer parts of a post at a time and have those parts appear in a box above what you say is to put the command in the square brackets [ ] at the start of the bit you want to reply to and then put this command at the end of the bit you want to reply to.

Then you can type away on your reply and when finished you can do the same for the next bit of what I said that you want to reply to.
But you may be happy with the way you are doing it.



I surrounded all of what you wrote, including what you said I said, and it will hopefully appear in a box above what I am typing now.
Jesus did not create Himself. Good thinking. And if everything that came into existence came into existence through Jesus, the Word, that means that nobody brought the Word into existence. He has always existed.

I did what you said sir, you can see the results, even where I put in the [] [/quote] marks, didn't work.

Acts 28:6 is translated that way also in the New World Translation no doubt and it is because of a combination of grammar and context.
With John 1:1 there is big disputing about the grammar and what that means and I am told that the way the NWT translates John 1:1 is grammatically correct, even if many disagree. However we don't have to even think about the grammar to know that the NWT is wrong.
All we need do is look at John 1:3 and see the the Word was not created, He never came into existence, but was always existing. This means that the Word is God, not a god.
We know the the Word was not "the God" whom He was with in John 1:1, but nevertheless He was God.
That does not mean there were 2 Gods however. The scriptures tell us there is only one God.
The Word was the Son of God, as you say, and the Son of God was the God of Thomas in John 20:28-31
The Son of God (John 20:31) is the Lord and the God of Thomas (John 20:28)
That is whom Jesus was claiming to be, the Son of God who is God.
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The Jews tried to stone Jesus because He claimed to be the Son of God. They knew that He meant that He was claiming equality of nature with God His Father because a Son has the same nature as His Father.
The Jews may have been expecting the Messiah to say that He was the Son of God but did not expect Him to claim that He was THE Son of God. They must have thought He was going to claim sonship just as the Kings of Judah were called sons of God or something like that.
Your belief about the sonship of Jesus is similar to what the Jews thought the Messiah would be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and they were wrong, as John 1:1-3 and John 20:28-31 and many other passages show us.



Not at all. We are told in the Old Testament that Jehovah is One (Deut 6:4) but that ONE is a "compound" one, where the one can be made up of more than one.
We see this in other places in the Old Testament with this word. eg Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
2 people, 2 bodies but one flesh.
God is One but that does not mean that does not have a Son who is the same nature as He is or that He has no Spirit who lives and comes from Him and is actually called Jehovah in the New World Translation. (2Cor 3:17)[/QUOTE]

 

[Brian2]

I did not quote anything from Quran . I mentioned what is written in Genesis.
As far as John is concerned,
It is a wrong notion that the four Gospels were written by the apostles who recorded what Jesus said:

“The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, “the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason.”
” It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.”
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel and Gospels

John is not authored by John so why believe in what is written in it. Right?

Regards

You are quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Catholic Church accepts the authorship of the gospels. What you quote does not show the gospels were not written by the authors whose names are attached.
If anything it points the other way and also that the 4 gospels were in use as a collection near the start of the 2nd century.

 

[Brian2]

I surrounded all of what you wrote, including what you said I said, and it will hopefully appear in a box above what I am typing now.

Keep practicing, and looking at the results and if not successful just click on edit and change what you did and keep doing it like that (by clicking on 'edit') till you get it right.

Jehovah is God, the Father of Jesus just as the Bible states sir. Best worship Jehovah exclusively as Jesus taught as those who do not obey his teachings will be removed at his return 2 Thes 1:6-9

I just looked at 2 Thess 1:6-9 and was wondering, what is the gospel for the 144,000 and what is the gospel for the other sheep?

 

[paarsurrey]

You are quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Catholic Church accepts the authorship of the gospels. What you quote does not show the gospels were not written by the authors whose names are attached.
If anything it points the other way and also that the 4 gospels were in use as a collection near the start of the 2nd century.

Is it ,In other words, one's acknowledges that Jesus s/o Mary neither wrote the 4-Gospels himself, nor Jesus dictated anything to the 4 Anonymous scribes, nor any of the (sinful) scribes was a witness of the event of Jesus' crucifixion and his death on the Cross, which is the main theme of the 4-Gospels, please? Right?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

Is it ,In other words, one's acknowledges that Jesus s/o Mary neither wrote the 4-Gospels himself, nor Jesus dictated anything to the 4 Anonymous scribes, nor any of the (sinful) scribes was a witness of the event of Jesus' crucifixion and his death on the Cross, which is the main theme of the 4-Gospels, please? Right?
Regards

Jesus did not write any New Testament books but John was the apostles of Jesus and Matthew was the apostle of Jesus and Luke got his information from those who were there from the beginning, who knew what Jesus did and said. Mark is said to have gotten what he wrote from Peter the apostle.
John's Gospel has this quote of Jesus in it:
John 14:25 All this I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
So the Holy Spirit was to remind the disciples of Jesus about what He had said to them.
John is said to have seen Jesus die and all the others and Jesus mother and Mary Magdalene saw this also.
All the apostles and Mary, Jesus mother and Mary Magdalene were witnesses that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus did not write any New Testament books but John was the apostles of Jesus and Matthew was the apostle of Jesus and Luke got his information from those who were there from the beginning, who knew what Jesus did and said. Mark is said to have gotten what he wrote from Peter the apostle.
John's Gospel has this quote of Jesus in it:
John 14:25 All this I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
So the Holy Spirit was to remind the disciples of Jesus about what He had said to them.
John is said to have seen Jesus die and all the others and Jesus mother and Mary Magdalene saw this also.
All the apostles and Mary, Jesus mother and Mary Magdalene were witnesses that Jesus rose from the dead.

But (sinful) apostle John did not write the Gospel of John. Right?
The (sinful) apostle Matthew did no write the Gospel. Right?
The (sinful) apostle Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark. Right?
The (sinful) apostle Luke did not write the Gospel of Luke. Right?
And none of them was an eyewitness of the event of Jesus' Crucifixion and Jesus' cursed death on the Cross. Right?
If they were eyewitness, where were they standing and observing the event in the public. Right?
They had all deserted the place and runaway scared of their own death so none is recorded to be there to be eyewitness, and rest is the story for the credulous Pauline-Christians. Right?

Regards

 

[capumetu]

Keep practicing, and looking at the results and if not successful just click on edit and change what you did and keep doing it like that (by clicking on 'edit') till you get it right.



I just looked at 2 Thess 1:6-9 and was wondering, what is the gospel for the 144,000 and what is the gospel for the other sheep?

Good question Brian, likely you realize that all fall under the law of the Christ. Perfect law needs no changes, and it is established. Every single individual on earth fall under the same law. Interestingly however, the Greek portion of the Bible, although we all benefit from it, was written to and for Christs brothers, those of the anointed.

The other sheep are basically judged upon what they did to support Jesus brothers in their assignment
(Matthew 25:40) . . .the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

 

[Brian2]

But (sinful) apostle John did not write the Gospel of John. Right?
The (sinful) apostle Matthew did no write the Gospel. Right?
The (sinful) apostle Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark. Right?
The (sinful) apostle Luke did not write the Gospel of Luke. Right?
And none of them was an eyewitness of the event of Jesus' Crucifixion and Jesus' cursed death on the Cross. Right?
If they were eyewitness, where were they standing and observing the event in the public. Right?
They had all deserted the place and runaway scared of their own death so none is recorded to be there to be eyewitness, and rest is the story for the credulous Pauline-Christians. Right?

Regards

It is recorded that John and Mary (Jesus mother) and her sister(could have been a cousin) and Mary Magdalene were there, and standing where Jesus could see them. Jesus spoke to them while dying.

John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

The disciple whom Jesus loved is John.

 

[Brian2]

Good question Brian, likely you realize that all fall under the law of the Christ. Perfect law needs no changes, and it is established. Every single individual on earth fall under the same law. Interestingly however, the Greek portion of the Bible, although we all benefit from it, was written to and for Christs brothers, those of the anointed.

The other sheep are basically judged upon what they did to support Jesus brothers in their assignment
(Matthew 25:40) . . .the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

I don't see anything about the Greek Scriptures being written for just a relatively small number of Christians. If you are told that then it sounds like a theory of the Watchtower with no support in God's Word. Is there any direct support for it or is it all just theories about what passages refer it,,,,,,,,,,,reading things into the passages?
eg. What you wrote about Matt 25:40 is not evidence, it is reading something into the passage which may or may not be there.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Legends written down in the gospels have Jesus ranging anywhere from a great prophet in Mark to a demi-god in Matthew and Luke to a full-on god in John. he wore so many hats in the gospels we can't get a real picture of what he actually was. Was he an apocalyptic prophet, a shaman, a faith healer, a revolutionary, a wise teacher? Someone mention he was a conglomeration of John the Baptist and a faith healing prophet named Yeshua, this is reasonable. Since the gospels are not based on anything tangible, just the writers' imaginations we really can't say who or what this Jesus character really was or if he even existed. It's likely he is based on one or several people who seemed to make an impression on the daily lives of the people back the--enough that stories started circulating upon which the gospels are based.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is recorded that John and Mary (Jesus mother) and her sister(could have been a cousin) and Mary Magdalene were there, and standing where Jesus could see them. Jesus spoke to them while dying.

John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

The disciple whom Jesus loved is John.

Excerpt from the post of friend Brian2 :
" It is recorded that John and Mary (Jesus mother) and her sister(could have been a cousin) and Mary Magdalene were there, and standing where Jesus could see them. Jesus spoke to them while dying."

But Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke were not present there and Mary- the mother and other women present there did neither write anything nor did they dictate anything to Matthew, Mark, John, and or Luke. Right?
Why cannot one accept this accuracy, please? Right?
Did Jesus give the teaching to his followers to never accept the accuracy of the matters and side with made-up things, please? Right?
These are the mythical things that Pauline-Christianity created without any teaching of innocent Jesus as to why Christianity has become a breeding ground of Atheism, I understand. Right?
#119 ^

Regards