Jesus Christ, was he sent for all mankind?

[GeratTzedek]

I had witnessed several opponents of KJV, but I prefer to use it. Like all Bible versions, each has its problems. I grew up with it; so, it is not a big deal since I have become comfortable in understanding the laguage it uses. If you understand the language, there are fewer issues. I also use cross references if I have some difficulty in understanding. Watch out! Little Lamb. Don't diss my KJ. Those are fighting words. You are inciting my to a fight.

I agree. The KJV is far from the best, but its the version I memorized everything from as a child, and believe you me, it was a lot of memorization. It will always sound more poetic to me.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Irenaeus was one of the foremost early apologists against all the heresies that you believe are true.

Interestingly when we talk about Irenaeus, and the apostoloc tradition, we find that Irenaeus believed Jesus died of old age!

I was shocked myself to read this, but it is true. Read this:

For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all,

He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

 

[Secundulus]

Interestingly when we talk about Irenaeus, and the apostoloc tradition, we find that Irenaeus believed Jesus died of old age!

I was shocked myself to read this, but it is true. Read this:


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

That does not say he died of old age. It is speculation by Irenaeus that he was not crucified until he was 50 years old. Look at all the text in your link.

 

[Islam_mulia]

That does not say he died of old age. It is speculation by Irenaeus that he was not crucified until he was 50 years old. Look at all the text in your link.

Those were the writings of Irenaeus, whom you state as "one of the foremost early apologists against all the heresies", and whose writings totally contradict the gospel writers.

Notice in his writing, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm
Irenaeus did not mention anything about crucifixion of Christ.

In fact, Irenaeus, labelled 'false' those who believe the gospel's narration that Jesus preached for only one year.

INTERESTING!

I am trying to find another statement of Eusebius who stated that Father Papias did not believe in the crucifixion and resurrection. Will post once I have them.

Which strikes me as odd.

Catholics and Orthodox follow the 'traditions' and non-sola scriptura. Yet I have read a few statements from the early church fathers (will post other INTERESTING writings) whose accounts contradicts the bible's.

The same question Irenaus asked, "whom then should you rather believe"?

 

[KCDAD]

For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

But of course, Muslims dismiss scriptures as corrupted and undependable. Muslims rely solely upon the Q'uran as we depend upon the Bible. That's why Muslims will never agree with Jews and Christians on much more than there is One God and he asks moral behavior from us.

I guess you also dismiss the writing of the Jewish authors of the New Testament that show clearly that Jesus was sent to the Gentiles both Roman, Greek and Arab, Persian and Asian. Why would they write something so blatantly against their own interests?

 

[Secundulus]

Those were the writings of Irenaeus, whom you state as "one of the foremost early apologists against all the heresies", and whose writings totally contradict the gospel writers.

Notice in his writing, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm
Irenaeus did not mention anything about crucifixion of Christ.

In fact, Irenaeus, labelled 'false' those who believe the gospel's narration that Jesus preached for only one year.

INTERESTING!

I am trying to find another statement of Eusebius who stated that Father Papias did not believe in the crucifixion and resurrection. Will post once I have them.

Which strikes me as odd.

Catholics and Orthodox follow the 'traditions' and non-sola scriptura. Yet I have read a few statements from the early church fathers (will post other INTERESTING writings) whose accounts contradicts the bible's.

The same question Irenaus asked, "whom then should you rather believe"?

Ireneaus was addressing specific Gnostic heretics, not Christians.

Also, Irenaeus said this: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.v.html

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.
​

He confirms the crucifixion. He confirms the resurrection, and he says that people like Muhammed and you who deny these truths are condemned to eternal hell.

You need to do better research before you quote the Apostolic Fathers.

 

[KCDAD]

You need to do better research before you quote the Apostolic Fathers.

No, he doesn't. With a little luck it would slipped by unchallenged, and next time it probably will.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Ireneaus was addressing specific Gnostic heretics, not Christians.

I agree his writings were against the heretics.

Nevertheless, his writings are very much against what was written in the gospels.

Who would have thought that, Ireneaus, Ireneaus of all people, would say Jesus live up to 50 years old?

How would this following of 'tradition' helps you Catholics and Orthodox when this tradition tells you something the bible does not teach?

 

[Secundulus]

I agree his writings were against the heretics.

Nevertheless, his writings are very much against what was written in the gospels.

Who would have thought that, Ireneaus, Ireneaus of all people, would say Jesus live up to 50 years old?

How would this following of 'tradition' helps you Catholics and Orthodox when this tradition tells you something the bible does not teach?

How old he was is irrelevant. I don't know why Ireneaus speculated on that since I have not read that writing in detail. It doesn't matter anyway since his age is not important. Who he was, what he said, and what he did is what is important. On these points, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant all agree. It may be summed up in the Nicene Creed of which I am sure you are familiar.

 

[Islam_mulia]

How old he was is irrelevant. I don't know why Ireneaus speculated on that since I have not read that writing in detail. It doesn't matter anyway since his age is not important. Who he was, what he said, and what he did is what is important. On these points, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant all agree. It may be summed up in the Nicene Creed of which I am sure you are familiar.

That is the problem with Christians. On the one hand, you, Secundulus, was very bold in introducing Irenaeus as the "foremost early apologist" hoping to convince us that the early christian fathers kept the "traditions" and hence you have all the evidence to point to the biblical narratives.

When I referred you to the same Ireneaus, you now said his writings on Jesus age was "irrelevant". Why was Jesus living until 50 years considered "not important". Remember, Ireneaus also said it is "false" to believe Jesus preached for one year only... he did it till 50, at least.

Why was the writings of the early fathers "relevant" then, but now become "irrelevant" since you know the gospels did not support Irenaus claim?

 

[KCDAD]

We presume Jesus was in his thirties... there is no reason not to presume it could be wrong. So he lived into his fifties before be crucified... what's the big deal?

 

[Islam_mulia]

We presume Jesus was in his thirties... there is no reason not to presume it could be wrong. So he lived into his fifties before be crucified... what's the big deal?

It is NO BIG DEAL unless you believe the timeline in the bible narratives fits our historical understanding.

If, for example, you believe Jesus was crucified when he was 30+ during Pilate's time, how could this be historically accurate when Ireneaus and Papias claimed Jesus was alive till the time of King Trajan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan)

Either the biblical account or the "traditions" are WRONG... or there are other things that are not open and transparent for us to see and decide.

 

[français]

So you show two people.. Why don't you show Josephus, and all of those Christian scholars?

Gosh, you try and start a debate about the most stupid things. You think you know it all.. G-d help you, because you need it!

 

[Secundulus]

That is the problem with Christians. On the one hand, you, Secundulus, was very bold in introducing Irenaeus as the "foremost early apologist" hoping to convince us that the early christian fathers kept the "traditions" and hence you have all the evidence to point to the biblical narratives.

When I referred you to the same Ireneaus, you now said his writings on Jesus age was "irrelevant". Why was Jesus living until 50 years considered "not important". Remember, Ireneaus also said it is "false" to believe Jesus preached for one year only... he did it till 50, at least.

Why was the writings of the early fathers "relevant" then, but now become "irrelevant" since you know the gospels did not support Irenaus claim?

Do you misquote me on purpose or are you just inherently dishonest. I said his age is irrelevent, not the writings of Ireneaus.

 

[Islam_mulia]

So you show two people.. Why don't you show Josephus, and all of those Christian scholars?

Gosh, you try and start a debate about the most stupid things. You think you know it all.. G-d help you, because you need it!

Josephus was NOT an early christian father.

My point was that while some Christians claimed the "traditions" they follow are accurate and fruitful in explaining and defending the bible and their faith, they forget that the same early christian fathers "wrote things" that might not be consistent with the bible.

You therefore need to make a choice: the "tradition" or the "scripture".

 

[Secundulus]

Josephus was NOT an early christian father.

My point was that while some Christians claimed the "traditions" they follow are accurate and fruitful in explaining and defending the bible and their faith, they forget that the same early christian fathers "wrote things" that might not be consistent with the bible.

You therefore need to make a choice: the "tradition" or the "scripture".

Scripture is inspired and inerrant. The Church Fathers were not. What is your point?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Scripture is inspired and inerrant. The Church Fathers were not. What is your point?

Of course they are inspired and inerrant.

It is only bad interpretations and translations by Christ-ians that make them appear "errant".

http://www.christianforums.com/t5800024-the-man-in-zech-823.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Zechariah 8:23 Thus sayeth YHWH-of Hosts: in-Days, the-those, which They-shall-take-fast/hold a-hem/wing, Ten Mortals/Men/0582 'enowsh, from-all Tongues-of the-Nations.
And-They-take-fast/hold in-hem-of/03671 kanaph a-Man, a-Y@huwdiy, to-say We-are-going with-You that We-hear Elohiym with-You.

Mark 6:56 And wheresoever He went into villages, or into cities, or into fields/hamlets in the marketplaces, they place the being sick and were beseeching Him that only the fringe of the garment of Him they may be touching, and as manysoever as touch of Him/it, were saved.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Scripture is inspired and inerrant. The Church Fathers were not. What is your point?

That's what you say. Some of you Christians believe in sola scriptura, some do not and "tradition" plays an important part.

Why do some Christians stick to "traditions" that can be questionable??

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's what you say. Some of you Christians believe in sola scriptura, some do not and "tradition" plays an important part.

Why do some Christians stick to "traditions" that can be questionable??

That is ME!!!!!

 

[Secundulus]

That's what you say. Some of you Christians believe in sola scriptura, some do not and "tradition" plays an important part.

Why do some Christians stick to "traditions" that can be questionable??

You are arguing about his age. that is not a tradition so your argument is spurious.