[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

I really could have some fun ripping this apart, its a translation fron Ancient Greek consequently the answer "I am" can also be read as The I am is here.

I suppose you are using one of the newer dumbed down version of the Bible, I use the older and more reliable Catholic Bible, upbringing sorry to say

and sitting at gods right hand should be read as sitting at the right hand of the power,

they are both quotes from scriptures namely Exod 3:14 and Ps 110:1 see also Dan 7:13.

It wasnt an affirmation of being the Christ, it was an answer to question the high priests right to question him. throughout his ministry he challenged the Pharisees and priests, this was a direct challenge against the authority of the Sanhedrin.


As in the case of the John references as well:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

Bear i mind though John was again wrote in Anciet Greek so the translation we have do not draw on the full context of the original Aramaic words the man himself used .

While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I really could have some fun ripping this apart,
snip

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

snip

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

this whole paragraph is nonsensical and just plain incorrect,

Mark was written mid to late 50s AD to mid to late 60s AD

John was written 70-100 AD

Mark was eyewitness dictation from Peter

John was an apostle, one of the 12 disciples ("the disciple whom Jesus loved"), John the son of Zebedee.


This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

Thats why everyone believes in Jesusand the Gospels isnt it, because it cant be ripped apart. Incidentally it was your interpretation of the passages you quoted that i referred to.

Basic Christian tenets are mulled over argued over and ripped apart in churches, schools and seminaries everyday and have been since shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, so no its not arrogant and self righteous, Get over it.

Believing the words that are put in front of you are the words of God, who had them wrote specially for you is And that your interpretation or beliefs in them is the only correct belief or interpretation is.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.

As for their actual date of origin, no one can say, the dates you quote are the earliest best guess, however when the author called Mark wrote his gospel he was aware of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing, this happened in 70 AD/CE.

As for being a dictation from Peter. Peter knew the area where he had been born and lived, Mark obviously hadnt been there, this is evidenced by some of the accounts of the travels of Jesus.

Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Glasgow and Dublin. See also Mark 11:1. Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. this could also rule out a direct dictation, couldnt it?

The earliest accurate historical reference to the Gospels as belonging to any particular writer wasn't until the 2nd century AD.

As for John the apostle being the actual author of the gospel bearing his name thats is extremely unlikely, its possible a student of his started it, however studies of it has shown it being penned by at least two people. A fact born out by the Gospel itself, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',

It is more than likely the three synoptic gospels were drawn from one historical source whether this was Mark itself or the Gospel of the Hebrews or even the mythical Q document, who knows.

But if you want to believe that the apostles who's names they bear wrote them, feel free, thats what Faith is about.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Thats why everyone believes in Jesusand the Gospels isnt it, because it cant be ripped apart. Incidentally it was your interpretation of the passages you quoted that i referred to.

Your claim was that it was not Biblical to claim that Jesus did proclaim that he was God and that it incorrect. It may be worth asking what you think Jesus was?



Basic Christian tenets are mulled over argued over and ripped apart in churches, schools and seminaries everyday and have been since shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, so no its not arrogant and self righteous, Get over it.

Christians believe that Jesus is God. The Bible teaches that God is one in essence, three in Person: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is fully God. God is not three gods but three in one. This is not a mathematical contradiction. Although humans cannot completely grasp the paradox of the tri-unity of God, we trust His revelation is true. Christians do not believe in three gods. Our one God manifests Himself in three Persons. If you do not believe that then you are not a Christian

Believing the words that are put in front of you are the words of God, who had them wrote specially for you is And that your interpretation or beliefs in them is the only correct belief or interpretation is.

Sorry that does not make sense!


As for their actual date of origin, no one can say, the dates you quote are the earliest best guess, however when the author called Mark wrote his gospel he was aware of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing, this happened in 70 AD/CE.

These dates are commonly held by our best Biblical historians and the Christian Church.

As for being a dictation from Peter. Peter knew the area where he had been born and lived, Mark obviously hadnt been there, this is evidenced by some of the accounts of the travels of Jesus.

Is a minority view and not commonly held by the Christian Church

Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Glasgow and Dublin. See also Mark 11:1. Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. this could also rule out a direct dictation, couldnt it?

as above

The earliest accurate historical reference to the Gospels as belonging to any particular writer wasn't until the 2nd century AD.

Not sure what you are driving at but i can see how far down the Wikipedia page for the Gospel of Mark you are!

As for John the apostle being the actual author of the gospel bearing his name thats is extremely unlikely, its possible a student of his started it, however studies of it has shown it being penned by at least two people. A fact born out by the Gospel itself, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',

Biblical evidence and external evidence from church fathers suggest that you are wrong as does the Christian Church and 2000 yeas of Christianity

It is more than likely the three synoptic gospels were drawn from one historical source whether this was Mark itself or the Gospel of the Hebrews or even the mythical Q document, who knows.

But if you want to believe that the apostles who's names they bear wrote them, feel free, thats what Faith is about.

all of what you say seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than relying on that you rely on Biblical and historical weight of evidence.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

all of what you say seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than relying on that you rely on Biblical and historical weight of evidence.

So the bible is 100% factually true?

God made the first man, Adam and the first women, Eve and everyone else is descended from them?

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

So the bible is 100% factually true?

God made the first man, Adam and the first women, Eve and everyone else is descended from them?

The Bible has many literary styles: poetry, allegory, historical fact, eyewitness account, love song, poetry, prophesy, psalms, proverbs and apocalyptic revelations. You read it as literature, paying close attention to form, figurative language and fantasy imagery.