Who is Jesus?

[Brian2]

I'm not aware the church retained any records from the 1st century. There is a disputed epistle from Clement that Biblical scholars claim dates from 90 CE or so. Do you know of any such authentic records dated to before 90 CE? I am not.

Most, if not all of the New Testament was written before 90CE. John's Gospel is probably the exception. These documents are records that the church retained from the first century and they retained them because they were seen as authentically by apostles or people who knew apostles and others who had seen and heard Jesus.
The secular historians bring secular bias into their dating and assume that the prophecy of the temple destruction must have been written after 70AD and that the writers would probably not be people who knew Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not aware of a single secular historian who mentions the resurrection as if it were fact. Tacitus as we all know mentions a "Christ who suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pontius Pilate" but that's all he says. Are you aware of any secular historians from the 1st or 2nd century who mention the resurrection?

I don't know of a secular historian who speaks about the beliefs of Christians, including the resurrection. If a secular historian did mention the resurrection as if it were a fact then he would automatically not be a secular historian but would be a biased religious historian and not to be trusted even if his sources were good. And really the sources for the gospels were excellent.

 

[Brian2]

He didn't????

Of course he did not admit to lying at Romans 3:7. He is in the middle of a theological discourse and is making a point, but not about himself. If you say he admits to lying at Romans 3:7 then you may as well say he taught that we should do evil so that good may result, as verse 8 says.
Romans 3:7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

 

[capumetu]

We know that a religion was born but when it comes to a Jesus we have to settle for a little ambiguity. Pre-gospel Christianity appears totally different than post-gospel Christianity. Christianity thrives on these texts to this day.

I know it is just a word sir, but there was no pre-gospel Christianity. It is true Jehovah had His nation, and you are correct, with very different laws under that covenant.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Of course he did not admit to lying at Romans 3:7. He is in the middle of a theological discourse and is making a point, but not about himself. If you say he admits to lying at Romans 3:7 then you may as well say he taught that we should do evil so that good may result, as verse 8 says.
Romans 3:7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

What is Paul's falsehood, then?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I don't know of a secular historian who speaks about the beliefs of Christians, including the resurrection. If a secular historian did mention the resurrection as if it were a fact then he would automatically not be a secular historian but would be a biased religious historian and not to be trusted even if his sources were good. And really the sources for the gospels were excellent.

Highly educated Greek scholars writing the gospels in highly literate Greek, living 75 years after the events and living a thousand miles from Israel?? Excellent???????

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Most, if not all of the New Testament was written before 90CE. John's Gospel is probably the exception. These documents are records that the church retained from the first century and they retained them because they were seen as authentically by apostles or people who knew apostles and others who had seen and heard Jesus.
The secular historians bring secular bias into their dating and assume that the prophecy of the temple destruction must have been written after 70AD and that the writers would probably not be people who knew Jesus.

We have nothing surviving today, therefore it's just church tradition as to the dating. Some scholars date them to the 2nd century.

 

[lukethethird]

I know it is just a word sir, but there was no pre-gospel Christianity. It is true Jehovah had His nation, and you are correct, with very different laws under that covenant.

Most of the epistles were written before the gospels including Paul's.

 

[Brian2]

What is Paul's falsehood, then?

Paul is not saying that he has lied at Romans 3:7.
In a discussion I could say a similar thing. "If through my lies about what the Bible says someone is saved then why should God condemn me? What is wrong with doing wrong so that good may come from it? Actually that is the sort of thing that people wrongly say that I do, and their condemnation of such a thing is good."
That does not mean that I lie about the Bible, it is just part of a discussion, an argument I may be making.

 

[Brian2]

Highly educated Greek scholars writing the gospels in highly literate Greek, living 75 years after the events and living a thousand miles from Israel?? Excellent???????

Luke was a physician and so was educated.
Having a scribe write what someone else was dictating is not unheard of.
The last part of John's Gospel could be implying that others may have written what John had said.
Maybe even a couple or a few people would act as scribes.
John's gospel was the latest and that is maybe 60 years later.
As I have said, normal dating methods for the text show the first century and before 70AD.
Ignoring what the early church says about the gospels and guessing where and when based on how things are said in a particular gospel seems to be how the modern secular historians work when they say that prophecy is not true and so the gospels had to have been written after 70AD. (actually the only gospel written after 70AD has not got the prophecy about the Temple in it)
The early Christians missionaries were travelling people so writing as they were journeying is a reasonable assumption however.

 

[Brian2]

We have nothing surviving today, therefore it's just church tradition as to the dating. Some scholars date them to the 2nd century.

JUST church tradition in a church that treasured and preserved authentic gospels and quoted from them in their writings.
Some scholars are biased and need to do something with their time to justify their employment.

 

[capumetu]

Most of the epistles were written before the gospels including Paul's.

The gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sir. Mark and Luke was written during the same time period as the epistles, Matthew before, and John afterward. But what is the relevance to the topic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sir. Mark and Luke was written during the same time period as the epistles, Matthew before, and John afterward. But what is the relevance to the topic?

No. Check your Bible history. The epistles predate gospels.

Mark was first, about 70CE. Matthew and Luke, both of which copied large parts from Mark were ten to twenty years later and John was about ten years or more after them.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Paul is not saying that he has lied at Romans 3:7.
In a discussion I could say a similar thing. "If through my lies about what the Bible says someone is saved then why should God condemn me? What is wrong with doing wrong so that good may come from it? Actually that is the sort of thing that people wrongly say that I do, and their condemnation of such a thing is good."
That does not mean that I lie about the Bible, it is just part of a discussion, an argument I may be making.

I see it differently. So do a lot of people. What if a promising teen is accused of negligent homicide and is guilty and the parent takes the rap for the child by admitting (s)he killed the person? Same thing can be said. "If through my lie a good person can be saved from prison why will you condemn me for it?"

 

[Brian2]

I see it differently. So do a lot of people. What if a promising teen is accused of negligent homicide and is guilty and the parent takes the rap for the child by admitting (s)he killed the person? Same thing can be said. "If through my lie a good person can be saved from prison why will you condemn me for it?"

Some things I find hard to understand. This is one of them. Paul in context is obviously just making an argument and you want to see it as Paul saying that he lies for the sake of the God.
To me it is just a matter of plain English.
What you said about the parent lying to protect the child is interesting. Are you saying that the parent is right and so Paul could lie for God and not think it is wrong?
If you are saying that it is your opinion about that particular situation but does not alter what Paul was saying in the Romans 3 passage.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Some things I find hard to understand. This is one of them. Paul in context is obviously just making an argument and you want to see it as Paul saying that he lies for the sake of the God.
To me it is just a matter of plain English.
What you said about the parent lying to protect the child is interesting. Are you saying that the parent is right and so Paul could lie for God and not think it is wrong?
If you are saying that it is your opinion about that particular situation but does not alter what Paul was saying in the Romans 3 passage.

>>>>>Are you saying that the parent is right and so Paul could lie for God and not think it is wrong?

Exactly. Paul was on a mission from God in his mind--get as many converted to Jesus by any means possible. The end justified the means. Paul had no compunctions about using deceit to accomplish this because in the end the person's soul got saved. That's all he cared about.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Some things I find hard to understand. This is one of them. Paul in context is obviously just making an argument and you want to see it as Paul saying that he lies for the sake of the God.
To me it is just a matter of plain English.
What you said about the parent lying to protect the child is interesting. Are you saying that the parent is right and so Paul could lie for God and not think it is wrong?
If you are saying that it is your opinion about that particular situation but does not alter what Paul was saying in the Romans 3 passage.

One postscript I'd like to add, Brian. I don't discount the possibility your interpretation is correct. The fault to my mind lies in how Paul worded his passage, or maybe the translation into English twisted the context. Paul should have said something like "Some may think I lie to advance the gospel. I don't. But even if I did would it be so bad if it accomplished the purpose?"

That would have left no questions.

 

[paarsurrey]

>>>>>Are you saying that the parent is right and so Paul could lie for God and not think it is wrong?

Exactly. Paul was on a mission from God in his mind--get as many converted to Jesus by any means possible. The end justified the means. Paul had no compunctions about using deceit to accomplish this because in the end the person's soul got saved. That's all he cared about.

One said," Paul was on a mission from God "

Well, I don't agree with one one the above expression, please. Since, (sinful) Paul had faked a vision, so won't it be appropriate to say that Paul had a mission from the Devil instead, please? Right?

Regards
_____________
"Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matt 7:22-23)

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

One said," Paul was on a mission from God "

Well, I don't agree with one one the above expression, please. Since, (sinful) Paul had faked a vision, so won't it be appropriate to say that Paul had a mission from the Devil instead, please? Right?

Regards
_____________
"Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matt 7:22-23)

The quote actually was "Paul was on a mission from God IN HIS MIND". Doesn't mean he actually was, just that he thought he was. And I agree. He likely faked the vision.

 

[Brian2]

>>>>>Are you saying that the parent is right and so Paul could lie for God and not think it is wrong?

Exactly. Paul was on a mission from God in his mind--get as many converted to Jesus by any means possible. The end justified the means. Paul had no compunctions about using deceit to accomplish this because in the end the person's soul got saved. That's all he cared about.

That however does not reflect what Paul was saying in his argument in Romans 3. Paul was saying opposite of that and that he did not lie to win converts.
It does not matter what you think of Paul, we need to go on what the text tells us.