Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ElijahW" data-source="post: 57118427" data-attributes="member: 275668"><p>Faith and beliefs are not the same thing. You get the faith from those who raised you (usually) but your beliefs grow with you as your understanding grows. Like all Christians are united in our faith in Jesus but divided in our beliefs about him.</p><p></p><p>I still dont know the answer to, if you think that the spirit of Israel should be understood anthropomorphically like you do Wisdom in Proverbs.</p><p></p><p>Then what is the point of four stories of a messiah that fails? And why so many groups, all over, that worship a messiah that exists only in heaven? Unless it was that an earthly messiah, that is victorious, was off the list of possibilities for those groups.</p><p></p><p>So they were all con artists trying to pull one over on their audience. So the conspiracy starts with the writes of the Gospel doing what they intended to do. Tricking people into thinking the guy in the story actually existed.</p><p>The problems you have with understanding how this started from a historical core would be what are relevant. </p><p> You dont think I have elaborated enough that the philosophers and the poets had different understandings of spiritual entities? Do I need to go into that further? What arent you getting? You realize they are in opposition to one another, correct?</p><p></p><p> Then what problems are you having with why Matthew is responding to concepts introduced by Paul? I dont understand your dilemma here.</p><p></p><p>So he was still doing the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism with faith in Jesus as the messiah? The messiah is just only to have ever or will ever exist in heaven? And what happened to these groups? What writings belong to them outside the NT?</p><p></p><p>Its about establishing a king who died for the people as the authority, so the people stop worshiping the kings who want the people to die for them. Getting rid of the authority was seen as the first step to establishing the kingdom of heaven, which would lead to the resurrection of the dead. None of this can start without the concept being introduced to the people of an authority figure dying for the people. Any difficulties understanding how his blood sacrifice is related to our salvation from the orthodox perspective?</p><p></p><p>Socrates introduces the trinity, in the sense of Father, spirit, matter. Philo is credited with the messiah being the personification of the Logos. The writers of the NT letters Collision Corinthians and Hebrews all are working with the idea of Jesus personifying the spirit. The history we assume from the evidence we have. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> Now what about your conspiracy theory? When does Paul get used to explain a historical Jesus sacrifice and by whom? </p><p></p><p> Yeah it wasnt sufficient in explaining how Christianity started. Sorry, keep working on it.</p><p></p><p></p><p> What do I need to explain, when I go with the church history we all know? What problems are you having in understanding the formation of Christianity coming from a messiah claimant sacrificing his life?</p><p></p><p>Thanks for the platitude but what does it matter if it was 30, 300, or 300,000 martyrs that planted the seeds of the church? What is your point in saying that they were exaggerated? What is the magic number you think they needed to achieve to spread the faith? </p><p></p><p>So how much or many of the persecutions of Christians in Foxes book of Martyrs do you think are made-up, until they start to tie into actual history? Your answer is too vague since you have some martyrs early on. Anyone you think is legit we would know of?</p><p></p><p> It seems to be the case. What person or text do you think you have an understanding of what they are talking about? You dont know going on in the Gospels, you dont know if Paul was superstitious or philosophical. Or if it even matters that you understand the differences.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> No you didnt. I can see the one comment you made. And thats the problem. You arent trying to push or support this theory on the forum where people know about it. You are trying to take an idea from one forum and push it at another forum where people arent aware of the arguments made against it on the forum you got the idea from.</p><p></p><p></p><p> I dont have a dispute with Dohertys theory. Doherty doesnt have the evidence to support his interpretations. Thats a fact. Just like you dont have the evidence to support your interpretations that you got from Doherty is a fact. There isnt any dispute going on. If you choose to accept that fact of go with denial is your choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ElijahW, post: 57118427, member: 275668"] Faith and beliefs are not the same thing. You get the faith from those who raised you (usually) but your beliefs grow with you as your understanding grows. Like all Christians are united in our faith in Jesus but divided in our beliefs about him. I still dont know the answer to, if you think that the spirit of Israel should be understood anthropomorphically like you do Wisdom in Proverbs. Then what is the point of four stories of a messiah that fails? And why so many groups, all over, that worship a messiah that exists only in heaven? Unless it was that an earthly messiah, that is victorious, was off the list of possibilities for those groups. So they were all con artists trying to pull one over on their audience. So the conspiracy starts with the writes of the Gospel doing what they intended to do. Tricking people into thinking the guy in the story actually existed. The problems you have with understanding how this started from a historical core would be what are relevant. You dont think I have elaborated enough that the philosophers and the poets had different understandings of spiritual entities? Do I need to go into that further? What arent you getting? You realize they are in opposition to one another, correct? Then what problems are you having with why Matthew is responding to concepts introduced by Paul? I dont understand your dilemma here. So he was still doing the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism with faith in Jesus as the messiah? The messiah is just only to have ever or will ever exist in heaven? And what happened to these groups? What writings belong to them outside the NT? Its about establishing a king who died for the people as the authority, so the people stop worshiping the kings who want the people to die for them. Getting rid of the authority was seen as the first step to establishing the kingdom of heaven, which would lead to the resurrection of the dead. None of this can start without the concept being introduced to the people of an authority figure dying for the people. Any difficulties understanding how his blood sacrifice is related to our salvation from the orthodox perspective? Socrates introduces the trinity, in the sense of Father, spirit, matter. Philo is credited with the messiah being the personification of the Logos. The writers of the NT letters Collision Corinthians and Hebrews all are working with the idea of Jesus personifying the spirit. The history we assume from the evidence we have. Now what about your conspiracy theory? When does Paul get used to explain a historical Jesus sacrifice and by whom? Yeah it wasnt sufficient in explaining how Christianity started. Sorry, keep working on it. What do I need to explain, when I go with the church history we all know? What problems are you having in understanding the formation of Christianity coming from a messiah claimant sacrificing his life? Thanks for the platitude but what does it matter if it was 30, 300, or 300,000 martyrs that planted the seeds of the church? What is your point in saying that they were exaggerated? What is the magic number you think they needed to achieve to spread the faith? So how much or many of the persecutions of Christians in Foxes book of Martyrs do you think are made-up, until they start to tie into actual history? Your answer is too vague since you have some martyrs early on. Anyone you think is legit we would know of? It seems to be the case. What person or text do you think you have an understanding of what they are talking about? You dont know going on in the Gospels, you dont know if Paul was superstitious or philosophical. Or if it even matters that you understand the differences. No you didnt. I can see the one comment you made. And thats the problem. You arent trying to push or support this theory on the forum where people know about it. You are trying to take an idea from one forum and push it at another forum where people arent aware of the arguments made against it on the forum you got the idea from. I dont have a dispute with Dohertys theory. Doherty doesnt have the evidence to support his interpretations. Thats a fact. Just like you dont have the evidence to support your interpretations that you got from Doherty is a fact. There isnt any dispute going on. If you choose to accept that fact of go with denial is your choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
Top
Bottom