Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Explaination of Mark 13:28-31 | Mark 13:28 | SRN | 33185 | ||
Please don't answer a question with a question, because you don't have an answer. Of course do think I suck things out of my thumb? Judges 9;10-11 for starters. Trees talking to trees? I used to read the bible as it is but that did nothing for me and I asked God about this and almost instantly I began to see that to take everthing you're told literally is the cause of blindness, but once you realize that 'ask and you'll receive' is not a statement but a command from Jesus, you'll be freed from the hell of the five senses. Your Spirit in the Spirit |
||||||
2 | Explaination of Mark 13:28-31 | Mark 13:28 | Morant61 | 33187 | ||
Greetings SRN! Since I don't know you, I don't really know what you do with your thumb! :-) But, I wasn't aware that you asked me a question. All I saw in your response to my post was the statement that "Fig Tree" referred to a splinter political group (one of many). I was just curious as to your source for this information. I have never heard of it before. Concerning Judges 9:10-11, obviously this passage is an allegory or parable. A good literalist understands that one should read poetry as poetry, history as history, narrative as narrative, ect.... If you clarify your question, I will be glad to share my thoughts with you. But please, tone down the hostility! We are all friends here! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Explaination of Mark 13:28-31 | Mark 13:28 | SRN | 33609 | ||
No hostilities intendedn OK. I'm just learning too. I do often see things in the bible when I read them and they stand out. oh, fig tree is just one, perhaps we'll at some stage get to them I do have a whole 'theory' from gen - rev, but for now we'll focus on this. I do believe Jesus' parables and miricles had far deeper meanings than is written. There is no dounbt in my mind that he was of political persuasion. The whole period of rebellion against the romans started half century years before Jesus tells the eders and pharosees he'll break the temple down and build it up again in three days. Jesus just brought it to a head. He lead but had representitive for each province. Fig tree is so prominent that it's just makes sense that they were talking about an affiliated body. There were even those not affiliated but on the same mission. To destroy Rome. Jesus however sees that by going up against them violently will be the end of Israel and urges them rather to change their hearts if they wish to survive. I'm going of track here but my point of fig tree is still my belief that it represents the pointbthat there were bodies of rebel movements. |
||||||
4 | Explaination of Mark 13:28-31 | Mark 13:28 | Morant61 | 33633 | ||
Greetings SRN! Thanks for the response! Not to be rude, but without evidence, an opinion is meaningless. There is not any historical evidence that Jesus lead a rebellion against Rome. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Consider the following: 1) John 16:15 - "Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself." Here was the perfect opportunity to lead a rebellion against Rome, but He rejected it. 2) John 18:28 - " Jesus said, ‘‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”" Here Jesus plaining denies having any earthly kingdom or desiring to fight for a kingdom. 3) Mark 12:14: Here the pharisees tried to trick Jesus with the loaded question, "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?". If Jesus had been a political zealot seeking to overthrow Rome, He would have been forced to answer 'no'. The zealots held that it was "unlawful to acknowledge the sovereignty of a Gentile ruler." (F. F. Bruce, "New Testament History", pg. 96.) Yet, He acknowledges that it is okay to pay taxes to Rome. So, since there is no historical or Biblical evidence to support that Jesus was a politial leader or that "fig tree" referred to a political group, I would have to reject that opinion. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Explaination of Mark 13:28-31 | Mark 13:28 | SRN | 33770 | ||
Thank you. You have actually confirmed my belief in Jesus being a leader of at least one rebellion body. Luke 22 he is clearly at a point where a battle seems the only way but Jesus makes a choice and asks and accepts weapons. Jesus then desides rather to ask God about this because it's the last thing Jesus wants."Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." [this was discussed earlier] Jesus handed himself over as an attempt to show his followers that a violence will be the end of Israel. Which of course we know happened. Not to be offensive but our only sourse that Jesus existed is the bible. [I'll start a new line to discuss this]We going faith here aren't we. I enjoy your feed backs please don't get me wrong I. JESUS IS LORD OF MY LIFE. |
||||||
6 | Explaination of Mark 13:28-31 | Mark 13:28 | Morant61 | 33783 | ||
Greetings SRN! Actually, it is not true that the Bible is our only source which confims the existance of Jesus. There are other, not many to be sure, secular, religious, and historical records which refer to Jesus. My source for the following quotes is Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a verdict". 1) Cornelius Tacitus: "Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius:..." (pg. 84). 2) Lucian: Referred to Christ as "...the mn wh was crucified in Palestie because he introduced this new cult into the world....Furthermore, their first lawgve persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have trasgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." (p. 84). 3) Flavius Josephus: "Now there was about thistime 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 a receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." (p. 84-85). 4) Seutonius: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigaton of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." (p. 85). 5) Plinius Secundus: "...they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god..." (p. 86). 6) Tertullian: "Tierus accordingly, in those days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the Senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ." (p. 86). 7) Thallus and Julius Africanus both refer to the darkness which occurred at the death of Christ. (p. 86). 8) The Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion: Asks, "What advantage did the Jews gainfrom executing their wise King?" (p. 87). 9) Several of the Jewish Talmuds mention details of Christ's life and death. (p. 88). There may even be more that I am not aware of, but all of these are historical documents written by people who lived in the same century as Christ and who all were aware of Him. Thus, it is not true that the Bible is the only evidence that we have of Jesus' existence. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Explaination of Mark 13:28-31 | Mark 13:28 | SRN | 33785 | ||
I must admit I was a bit rash in my statement. Although it is true to a degree. We can't be sure it wasn't all in the enthusiasm of the times. Taken from the the original gospels and run with. I have documents of Jesus being in Tibet and India. I have gospels according to Mary, Thomas and Philip. With histories to claim as fact. Your second paragraph on sophists. I don't know how knowledgeable you're on Gnostic Christianity. I know you were pointing out historical Jesus but sophists don't believe in Jesus as an entity per se/ Have a good week-end | ||||||
8 | Explaination of Mark 13:28-31 | Mark 13:28 | Morant61 | 33787 | ||
Greetings SRN! Have a good week-end!!! I have to work every weekend! :-( Thanks for the thought though! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | Historical Jesus questioned? | Mark 13:28 | SRN | 34154 | ||
I was expecting a response on the sophist theory/s. But I'm glad you didn't because I read again through it and am fasinated/confused. Your quote; Part1 2) Lucian: Referred to Christ as "...the mn wh was crucified in Palestie because he introduced this new cult into the world Is this your belief? Jesus was a 'cult' leader. part2 ....Furthermore, their first lawgve persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have trasgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods. Why the referal to greek gods rarher than fullfillment of scripture?/ part 3 and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." (p. 84). I just read a book on the subject of the myth goddess Sophia, and everything in there is so far from what we're actually discussing here, a new strain [no pun intended] would be needed. No a very convincing extract to prove the actual existence of Jesus. |
||||||
10 | Historical Jesus questioned? | Mark 13:28 | Morant61 | 34187 | ||
Greetings SRN! The occasion of these quotes was your remark that there was no other evidence, other than the Bible, for the existence of Jesus. Thus, I provided several historical quotes which indicate that Jesus was an historical figure, with whom the rest of the world was aware. However, that doesn't mean that I agree with each statement or opinion listed in these quotes. I will touch upon each of your questions. 1) No, I do not consider Jesus to be a cult leader. However, that is what Lucian believed about Jesus. Under our modern definition of a cult (general definition), Christ would be a "cult" leader in the sense that He began a splinter group from Judaism. This is what the references to "cult leader" refer to, the breaking away or starting of a new group. 2) Why did Lucian refer to the Greek gods? Simple, he wasn't a Christian. To him, the Christians were foolish for worshipping Christ and not the Greek gods. Thus, his comment is simply part of his attempt to poke fun at Christianity. 3) Lucian's reference to Christ as a sophist can be taken one of two ways (given that he is poking fun of Christians in this passage, not supporting them). a) He could be calling Jesus a name. At one point in history, a 'sophist' was a put down of one who taught only for money. Thus, he could be saying this about Jesus. b) He could be describing Jesus' ministry with the only word he could think of to describe it. Lucian was trained in rhetoric and was familiar with Sophistry. Sophists would often travel around and teach. Thus, he may simply be trying to describe Jesus as a traveling teacher. Either way, the tone of the quote is hostile to both Jesus and Christianity. Yet, acknowledges that Jesus did in fact exist. If Lucian were aware, and he lived early enough to know, that Jesus did not actually exist and was simply a myth, then Lucian would have been able to use that evidence to further poke fun at Christianity. The fact that he doesn't is evidence of the existence of Jesus. So, I would consider this very powerful evidence for the existence of Jesus. Lucian was not a Christian, did not agree wih Christianity, and considered Christians foolish. Yet, even he acknowledges that Jesus lived and was crucified. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
11 | Historical Jesus questioned? | Mark 13:28 | SRN | 34283 | ||
Thank you Tim. You've cleared a lot up for me there. I was sute I was reading you correctly. I do believe in Jesus that Jesus walked the earth. I do believe however that Jesus' was more of a public figure than is led to believe. I used to just believe it then not believe it then I would believe Lucifer to be the superior God. I was a junkie I loved my neighbors like I loved myself and I hated myself. I tried all kinds of ways to get away from myself. Then I read started thinking about Jesus the man. I began to investigate and learn and talk. Now JESUS is the POWER. I'm leaving the forum now as I got a warning from the foundation bla bla because some didn't agree but they right I'm not going to put a millstone around my neck and go to the bottom of the ocean because of being misunderstood. There is so much more to learn but I'm not going to get it here. Good bye and PRAISE GOD FOR GIVING US THE CHOICE TO THINK. |
||||||