Hmmmmmm

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

You have a fine questioning mind when it comes to challenging most things but not here. If there is no objective data, it wasn't supposed to be.


Imagine accepting the same type of answer given by the IRS or the sheriff when it comes to the 'law'.

"The requirement to pay taxes is not the important thing or (the sic) it would have been recorded."

Just use this answer for all questions.

Why didn't 40 contemporay historians write about Jesus?

"The requirement to (fill in ) is not the important thing or it would have been recorded."


My amazement is why an otherwise good mind would waste a portion of it with this kind of thinking?

You are not alone. Many, if not most folks, buy the IRS, traffic laws, etc. using the same kind of reasoning.



BoyntonStu

We are not speaking of IRS matters or man's law here. We are speaking about what is important to YHWH. They are spiritual matters. I Corinthians 2:14: But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of YHWH; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." Not all things are to be revealed in Scripture. There are certain things that are not to be known or we will not know until we go home. YHWH said in Isaiah 55:8,9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are 'your ways My ways,' deslares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."

Do not presume to know why things have been left out of Scripture. You do not have the mind of YHWH, nor do you know why the date of Yeshua's birth was left out. If you claim to know then proof please!!

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

Why didn't 40 contemporay historians write about Jesus?

Just because "40 contemporary historians" did not write about Yeshua does not mean He did not exist. If He did not exist where is the proof? Either prove your claim or move on. You have not proven any of what you espouse. You have brought forth hearsay and conjecture at best.

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Just because "40 contemporary historians" did not write about Yeshua does not mean He did not exist. If He did not exist where is the proof? Either prove your claim or move on. You have not proven any of what you espouse. You have brought forth hearsay and conjecture at best.

Any logical argument begins with a positive statment.

"Prove that you do not beat your wife" type arguments are, put simply; foolish.

You want to prove the Jesus existed, fine. Prove it!

If I wanted to 'prove' Evolution, I would present the numerous obsevations and measurements of mankind. You could take it or leave it.

If I ask a reasonable question, the answer of 'that's the way it is supposed to be" is not satisfactory to me. Obviously, it is to you.

"You have brought forth hearsay and conjecture at best."

"The "New Testament" brought forth hearsay and conjecture at best."

Come on! Written 3 generations after Jesus supposedly existed.


BoyntonStu

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

Any logical argument begins with a positive statment.

"Prove that you do not beat your wife" type arguments are, put simply; foolish.

You want to prove the Jesus existed, fine. Prove it!

If I wanted to 'prove' Evolution, I would present the numerous obsevations and measurements of mankind. You could take it or leave it.

If I ask a reasonable question, the answer of 'that's the way it is supposed to be" is not satisfactory to me. Obviously, it is to you.

"You have brought forth hearsay and conjecture at best."

"The "New Testament" brought forth hearsay and conjecture at best."

Come on! Written 3 generations after Jesus supposedly existed.


BoyntonStu

C'mon Stu. You are the one that brought the claim forth that Yeshua does not exist, not me. Prove the claim, if you can. I have given you what the Scriptures say and since they bear witness of themselves, that's the proof. Since YHWH is who He says He is, He said what He meant and meant what He said. If you think you can shake my faith, think again. You are the one making the claims and I am only asking you to prove it? If you can't then quit making them. My proof is in the Scritptures and I stand by what it says.

Isaiah 9:6:"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Matthew 1:21-23 "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Yeshua, for it is He who will save His people from there sins. Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'BEHOLD THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,' which translated means 'YHWH with us.'" (Also see Isaiah 7:14) Now Stu, if you say this did not take place, proof of claim please.

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

C'mon Stu. You are the one that brought the claim forth that Yeshua does not exist, not me. Prove the claim, if you can. I have given you what the Scriptures say and since they bear witness of themselves, that's the proof. Since YHWH is who He says He is, He said what He meant and meant what He said. If you think you can shake my faith, think again. You are the one making the claims and I am only asking you to prove it? If you can't then quit making them. My proof is in the Scritptures and I stand by what it says.

Isaiah 9:6:"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Matthew 1:21-23 "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Yeshua, for it is He who will save His people from there sins. Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'BEHOLD THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,' which translated means 'YHWH with us.'" (Also see Isaiah 7:14) Now Stu, if you say this did not take place, proof of claim please.

The quotes are mistranslated predictions. We can get into them another time. They do not prove anything. Shall be and is ar not the same.


The best scholars in the world can not definitively say that Jesus ever existed, much less the other tales of wondrous things.

BTW This is also true of Moses.

Boyntonstu

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

The quotes are mistranslated predictions. We can get into them another time. They do not prove anything. Shall be and is ar not the same.


The best scholars in the world can not definitively say that Jesus ever existed, much less the other tales of wonrous things.

BTW This is also true of Moses.

Boyntonstu

According to who's standard Stu? Who says they are mistranslations? More of your worldly scholars? Many have tried to disprove the Bible accounts and have failed in the process. I will not continue to debate you on these issues. I have asked you to prove your claims and you cannot. There have been many archeological discoveries proving the accuracy of Scripture. End of story.

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

According to who's standard Stu? Who says they are mistranslations? More of your worldly scholars? Many have tried to disprove the Bible accounts and have failed in the process. I will not continue to debate you on these issues. I have asked you to prove your claims and you cannot. There have been many archeological discoveries proving the accuracy of Scripture. End of story.

Is the word "UNICORN" a correct translation?

BoyntonStu

[iamfreeru2]

I have been through this one. The KJV is a translation of a translation. I do not use the KJV except only as reference material. Some swear by it; I do not. Good try though.

By the way, the translation I use rightfully renders it "wild ox." The NASB

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

I have been through this one. The KJV is a translation of a translation. I do not use the KJV except only as reference material. Some swear by it; I do not. Good try though.

By the way, the translation I use rightfully renders it "wild ox." The NASB

OK. The translation of that word is correct.

Another person on this forum might say, "Unicorn was there because 'God' wanted it to be there".

This raises a question: Why didn't you trust the KJV version in the first place? Did you not trust the clergy who claimed that the KJV is the word of 'God'?

What VERSION in your opinion has zero errors of translation?

Did you believe before you read 'the bible' or did you read 'the bible' before you believe?

Boyntonstu

[leatherlips]

Was Jesus Christ a real, historical person?

The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2,*21-23.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63,*64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century*C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44.

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145.

The historian H.*G.*Wells said that a man’s greatness can be measured by ‘what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him.’ Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: “By this test Jesus stands first.”

Yet, strangely, some say that Jesus never lived—that he is, in effect, a creation of some first-century men. Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant argued: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably? The reference work The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.”

Yes, think about it. Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. “Dates before that year are listed as*B.C., or before Christ,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. “Dates after that year are listed as*A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our*Lord).”

. Jesus evidently was born in the month of Ethanim (September-October) of the year 2*B.C.E., was baptized about the same time of the year in 29*C.E., and died about 3:00 p.m. on Friday, the 14th day of the spring month of Nisan (March-April), 33*C.E. The basis for these dates is as follows:

Jesus was born approximately six months after the birth of his relative John (the Baptizer), during the rule of Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus (31*B.C.E.–14*C.E.) and the Syrian governorship of Quirinius (see REGISTRATION for the probable dates of Quirinius’ administration), and toward the close of the reign of Herod the Great over Judea.—Mt 2:1, 13, 20-22; Lu 1:24-31,*36; 2:1, 2,*7.

His birth in relation to Herod’s death. While the date of Herod’s death is a debated one, there is considerable evidence pointing to 1*B.C.E. (See HEROD No. 1 [Date of His Death]; CHRONOLOGY [Lunar eclipses].) A number of events intervened between the time of Jesus’ birth and Herod’s death. These included Jesus’ circumcision on the eighth day (Lu 2:21); his being brought to the temple in Jerusalem 40 days after birth (Lu 2:22,*23; Le 12:1-4,*8); the journey of the astrologers “from eastern parts” to Bethlehem (where Jesus was no longer in a manger but in a house—Mt 2:1-11; compare Lu 2:7, 15,*16); Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt with the young child (Mt 2:13-15); followed by Herod’s realization that the astrologers had not followed his instructions, and the subsequent slaughter of all boys in Bethlehem and its districts under the age of two years (indicating that Jesus was not then a newborn infant). (Mt 2:16-18) Jesus’ birth taking place in the fall of 2*B.C.E. would allow for the time required by these events intervening between his birth and the death of Herod, likely in 1*B.C.E. There is, however, added reason for placing Jesus’ birth in 2*B.C.E.