The Passion is a big winner

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Romans828
For consideration sake ........


If the Crucifixion was in 30 A.D., Paul's Conversion was as early as 34 A.D., and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37 A.D., then we could see that the time between the event of Christ's crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time and hardly long enough for legend to creep in and corrupt the story. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness accounts to Christ's death, burial, and post death appearances. Paul himself had seen the Lord Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul's account agreed with the other Apostles' account and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the year 54.
So, since 1 Corinthians was written as early as 54 A.D., that would mean that from the event (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) to writing it down is 24 years. That is a very short period of time. Remember, there were plenty of Christians around who could have corrected the writings of Paul if he was in error. But we have no record at all of any corrections or challenges to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ from anyone: Roman, Jew, or other Christians.
We must note here that some critics of the Bible claim that there is no extrabiblical evidence of Christ (not true) and that because of it, He didn't exist. The sword cuts both ways. If they can say that Jesus' events aren't real because there is no extrabiblical evidence mentioning them, then we can also say that since there are no extrabiblical accounts refuting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then it must be true. In other words, lack of extrabiblical writings does not prove that Christ did not live and did not die.
Furthermore, Paul corroborated the gospel accounts (He wrote before the gospels were written) and verified several things:

* Jesus was born in as a Jew (Gal. 4:4),
* Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23)
* and Jesus was crucified (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8).
* Jesus was buried in rose again (1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4).

Obviously, Paul considered Jesus was a historical figure, not a legend or a myth. Furthermore, Paul was a man of great integrity who suffered much for his faith. He was not the kind of person to simply believe tall tales. After all, he was a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and a heavy persecutor of the Church. Something profound had to happen to him to get him to change his position, abandon the Jewish faith and tradition, suffer persecutions, whippings, jail, etc. The most likely event that fits the bill is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, and appeared to Paul, just as Luke said in Acts 9.

Jesus was crucified 30 years after his crucifiction???

OMG, it must be true!

Paul was born after Jesus died. I hope you're not a fact checker.

And if truth be known, Christianity should really be called "Paulism" because Christians spend more time listening to Paul (a man who never met Jesus, but claimed to have "visions" of him more than 35 years after the fact) than they do to the supposed words of Jesus.

Re-read your completely wrong........

Where do you get that from my paragraph? Cant you read and comprehend?

Paul was a contempory of Jesus, Paul was converted 4 years after his death.

Um, no. Check your dates. Paul didn't have his visions until more than 30 years AFTER the DEATH of Jesus.

Way to be a retard

For future reference AD = Anno Domini (the year of our lord in latin).

 

[Romans828]

JackBurton,

Ok your right............

The History of the world is your oyster......... We are not worthy...........

Call CNN, call the Pope, call the President, STOP ALL THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JACK BURTON solves the mystery of the Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have singlehandly figured it all out, you sir are amazing.


You sure do spend a whole lot of time obsessing over disproving other peoples fairy tales

All joking aside, best of luck and have a nice life. Discussing this issue with you is impossible given your "knowledge base"

 

[Riprorin]

Joesephus also commented on the death of James, Jesus' brother:


Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9


CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Joesephus also commented on the death of James, Jesus' brother:


Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9


CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Man, that is amazing! He DID mention Jesus in his works. I must have been mistaken. Like I said, Jesus' name was injected in his works after the fact and were obvious forgeries. But hey, you have proven me wrong. Since he originally mentioned Jesus in his works, he MUST have mentioned the crucifiction that caused such an uproar within the Jewish community. After all, he was documenting the Jewish rebellion. It's funny, when he does mention it it looks like he mentions the crucifixion just in passing. Was this just a small event? It doesn't look like a small event when I saw The Passions of The Christ and read the Bible. It's kind of like a historian doing a documentary on WWII and just mentions Hitler in passing.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I've also read that all of the 'historical' documents (of which there aren't many?) have serious flaws...such as forgery.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Romans828
JackBurton,

Ok your right............

The History of the world is your oyster......... We are not worthy...........

Call CNN, call the Pope, call the President, STOP ALL THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JACK BURTON solves the mystery of the Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have singlehandly figured it all out, you sir are amazing.


You sure do spend a whole lot of time obsessing over disproving other peoples fairy tales

All joking aside, best of luck and have a nice life. Discussing this issue with you is impossible given your "knowledge base"

Yes, I'm using the Devil's tools against you, facts and logic.

 

[Riprorin]

It's funny, when he (Josephus) does mention it it looks like he mentions the crucifixion just in passing. Was this just a small event? It doesn't look like a small event when I saw The Passions of The Christ and read the Bible. It's kind of like a historian doing a documentary on WWII and just mentions Hitler in passing.

For the entire period of 10 years around which Jesus died, Josephus devotes only "one small page" in his War, and six pages in the Antiquities. Therefore, it is actually quite significant that Josephus devotes any attention to Jesus at all.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Romans828
For consideration sake ........


If the Crucifixion was in 30 A.D., Paul's Conversion was as early as 34 A.D., and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37 A.D., then we could see that the time between the event of Christ's crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time and hardly long enough for legend to creep in and corrupt the story. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness accounts to Christ's death, burial, and post death appearances. Paul himself had seen the Lord Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul's account agreed with the other Apostles' account and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the year 54.
So, since 1 Corinthians was written as early as 54 A.D., that would mean that from the event (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) to writing it down is 24 years. That is a very short period of time. Remember, there were plenty of Christians around who could have corrected the writings of Paul if he was in error. But we have no record at all of any corrections or challenges to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ from anyone: Roman, Jew, or other Christians.
We must note here that some critics of the Bible claim that there is no extrabiblical evidence of Christ (not true) and that because of it, He didn't exist. The sword cuts both ways. If they can say that Jesus' events aren't real because there is no extrabiblical evidence mentioning them, then we can also say that since there are no extrabiblical accounts refuting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then it must be true. In other words, lack of extrabiblical writings does not prove that Christ did not live and did not die.
Furthermore, Paul corroborated the gospel accounts (He wrote before the gospels were written) and verified several things:

* Jesus was born in as a Jew (Gal. 4:4),
* Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23)
* and Jesus was crucified (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8).
* Jesus was buried in rose again (1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4).

Obviously, Paul considered Jesus was a historical figure, not a legend or a myth. Furthermore, Paul was a man of great integrity who suffered much for his faith. He was not the kind of person to simply believe tall tales. After all, he was a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and a heavy persecutor of the Church. Something profound had to happen to him to get him to change his position, abandon the Jewish faith and tradition, suffer persecutions, whippings, jail, etc. The most likely event that fits the bill is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, and appeared to Paul, just as Luke said in Acts 9.

Jesus was crucified 30 years after his crucifiction???

OMG, it must be true!

Paul was born after Jesus died. I hope you're not a fact checker.

And if truth be known, Christianity should really be called "Paulism" because Christians spend more time listening to Paul (a man who never met Jesus, but claimed to have "visions" of him more than 35 years after the fact) than they do to the supposed words of Jesus.

Re-read your completely wrong........

Where do you get that from my paragraph? Cant you read and comprehend?

Paul was a contempory of Jesus, Paul was converted 4 years after his death.

Um, no. Check your dates. Paul didn't have his visions until more than 30 years AFTER the DEATH of Jesus.

Way to be a retard

For future reference AD = Anno Domini (the year of our lord in latin).

Yeah, that little bit did slip my mind.

I guess I'm supposed to ride the short bus from now on, huh?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Romans828
For consideration sake ........


If the Crucifixion was in 30 A.D., Paul's Conversion was as early as 34 A.D., and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37 A.D., then we could see that the time between the event of Christ's crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time and hardly long enough for legend to creep in and corrupt the story. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness accounts to Christ's death, burial, and post death appearances. Paul himself had seen the Lord Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul's account agreed with the other Apostles' account and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the year 54.
So, since 1 Corinthians was written as early as 54 A.D., that would mean that from the event (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) to writing it down is 24 years. That is a very short period of time. Remember, there were plenty of Christians around who could have corrected the writings of Paul if he was in error. But we have no record at all of any corrections or challenges to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ from anyone: Roman, Jew, or other Christians.
We must note here that some critics of the Bible claim that there is no extrabiblical evidence of Christ (not true) and that because of it, He didn't exist. The sword cuts both ways. If they can say that Jesus' events aren't real because there is no extrabiblical evidence mentioning them, then we can also say that since there are no extrabiblical accounts refuting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then it must be true. In other words, lack of extrabiblical writings does not prove that Christ did not live and did not die.
Furthermore, Paul corroborated the gospel accounts (He wrote before the gospels were written) and verified several things:

* Jesus was born in as a Jew (Gal. 4:4),
* Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23)
* and Jesus was crucified (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8).
* Jesus was buried in rose again (1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4).

Obviously, Paul considered Jesus was a historical figure, not a legend or a myth. Furthermore, Paul was a man of great integrity who suffered much for his faith. He was not the kind of person to simply believe tall tales. After all, he was a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and a heavy persecutor of the Church. Something profound had to happen to him to get him to change his position, abandon the Jewish faith and tradition, suffer persecutions, whippings, jail, etc. The most likely event that fits the bill is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, and appeared to Paul, just as Luke said in Acts 9.

Jesus was crucified 30 years after his crucifiction???

OMG, it must be true!

Paul was born after Jesus died. I hope you're not a fact checker.

And if truth be known, Christianity should really be called "Paulism" because Christians spend more time listening to Paul (a man who never met Jesus, but claimed to have "visions" of him more than 35 years after the fact) than they do to the supposed words of Jesus.

Re-read your completely wrong........

Where do you get that from my paragraph? Cant you read and comprehend?

Paul was a contempory of Jesus, Paul was converted 4 years after his death.

Um, no. Check your dates. Paul didn't have his visions until more than 30 years AFTER the DEATH of Jesus.

Way to be a retard

For future reference AD = Anno Domini (the year of our lord in latin).

Yeah, that little bit did slip my mind.

I guess I'm supposed to ride the short bus from now on, huh?

OMG, I never thought I'd see the day when Amused admitted he was mistaken!!

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I've also read that all of the 'historical' documents (of which there aren't many?) have serious flaws...such as forgery.

The view that this passage is a forgery or a "total interpolation" is not a majority view. Most scholars agree that at least some portion of the passage is genuine. For those phrases that are questionable, some scribe(s) may have added the questionable phrases as commentary which was later carelessly incorporated into the text.

Here are the phrases in bold that are deemed "questionable" by some scholars.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,

for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.

He was the Christ,

 

[microphobia]

funny sh!t, keep it up guys

 

[Romans828]

Heads up, to those contributing to this thread only Mr. Burton has logic and facts on his side. I know because he said so

Hey JackBurton,

Just think of how much good advise you could have gave Constantine the Great, if you had been alive in circa 300AD (need some help with AD?), you yourself could have changed the course of world history LOL LOL LOL

 

[CraigRT]

not going to watch it.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I've also read that all of the 'historical' documents (of which there aren't many?) have serious flaws...such as forgery.

The view that this passage is a forgery or a "total interpolation" is not a majority view. Most scholars agree that at least some portion of the passage is genuine. For those phrases that are questionable, some scribe(s) may have added the questionable phrases as commentary which was later carelessly incorporated into the text.

Here are the phrases in bold that are deemed "questionable" by some scholars.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,

for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.

He was the Christ,

Those are commentaries? You've got to be kidding me! Normally, when I make a "comment" (or note), I don't try and add them to the body of work I am commenting on. Usually they are to the side, or a place where there would be no question it is a comment. The ONLY people that would accept the forgeries as "comments," are Christians. Without the comments, the statement reads more like this:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works.

Hmmm, not as exciting is it? Kind of sounds like a regular man, huh?

 

[Romans828]

Hmmm, not as exciting is it? Kind of sounds like a regular man, huh?

Yep regular man regular God nothing special

Its sad that this myth has completely shaped all world history, Im telling you Jack if only you could have lived back then you could have set everybody straight.

Maybe you still can............ Maybe we can get you on Larry King live or something

 

[PlatinumGold]

actually, Jack Burton is right. and that's a perspective from a christian. i'm a very devout christian, i believe that christ is my lord and that he has saved me. BUT

Even Christ himself said "spiritual things are spiritually discerned". that in order to see or understand spiritual things you MUST be born again.

to argue logic with jack burton only proves that you don't believe in the words of jesus.

 

[thawolfman]

But seriously what was the deal with the baby?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
actually, Jack Burton is right. and that's a perspective from a christian. i'm a very devout christian, i believe that christ is my lord and that he has saved me. BUT

Even Christ himself said "spiritual things are spiritually discerned". that in order to see or understand spiritual things you MUST be born again.

to argue logic with jack burton only proves that you don't believe in the words of jesus.

As I have said, logic is a the tool of the Devil!

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: thawolfman
But seriously what was the deal with the baby?

Its a twist on "The Madonna"

As I have said, logic is a the tool of the Devil!

Hey, just in case you didnt know the devil is "real" too..........

while your saving the world from Jesus perhaps you could free us all from satans grasp also

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Romans828

Hmmm, not as exciting is it? Kind of sounds like a regular man, huh?

Yep regular man regular God nothing special

Its sad that this myth has completely shaped all world history, Im telling you Jack if only you could have lived back then you could have set everybody straight.

Maybe you still can............ Maybe we can get you on Larry King live or something

If I lived back then I'd do a couple of card tricks and you would be calling ME Jesus now. New Bible, "and Jesus performed magical tricks for his apostles." And you'd be agruing now, "how else could you explain how Jesus knew Peter was holding....THE ACE OF SPADES!"

 

[thawolfman]

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: thawolfman
But seriously what was the deal with the baby?

Its a twist on "The Madonna"

Hmm?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: thawolfman
But seriously what was the deal with the baby?

Its a twist on "The Madonna"

As I have said, logic is a the tool of the Devil!

Hey, just in case you didnt know the devil is "real" too..........

while your saving the world from Jesus perhaps you could free us all from satans grasp also

Well Satans is gonna have to wait, I'm struggling from the graps of Bigfoot now.

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: thawolfman

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: thawolfman
But seriously what was the deal with the baby?

Its a twist on "The Madonna"

Hmm?

You know.......

Mother Mary and the Christ child verses satan/evil and its "child"

satan wanted to so that it would always protect its young, wouldnt let him suffer..........

attempting to place more seeds of doubt with Jesus maybe

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: thawolfman

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: thawolfman
But seriously what was the deal with the baby?

Its a twist on "The Madonna"

Hmm?

You know.......

Mother Mary and the Christ child verses satan/evil and its "child"

satan wanted to so that it would always protect its young, wouldnt let him suffer..........

attempting to place more seeds of doubt with Jesus maybe

I was thinking it was a sign of things to come. Just as Jesus was born from God the antiChrist will be born of the devil.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
actually, Jack Burton is right. and that's a perspective from a christian. i'm a very devout christian, i believe that christ is my lord and that he has saved me. BUT

Even Christ himself said "spiritual things are spiritually discerned". that in order to see or understand spiritual things you MUST be born again.

to argue logic with jack burton only proves that you don't believe in the words of jesus.

As I have said, logic is a the tool of the Devil!

wait

i thought my post was logical, does that mean i'm of the devil too??