by Christ Alone 494 Replies latest social current
Tammy; For got to say this.
I have a personal relationship with my wife, unconditional
love. I know her and I will do anything to make her happy
and she the same for me. The problem, you have this
personal relationship with Jesus but what about his Father.
When you say personal relationship with Jesus are you
saying God? Why don,t people say they have a personal
relationship with God instead of Jesus?
But those searches all included looking at God through someone/thing else OTHER than simply looking at God through Christ.
Interesting. And how did you conclude that? Are you sure about it? Because you are so very wrong, I don't even know how you came up with it. Perhaps because you don't really believe the many things I have said about my search. ALL those searches included this? Really? Tell me more.
When you say personal relationship with Jesus are you
saying God? Why don,t people say they have a personal
relationship with God instead of Jesus?
This is easily explained by the Bible, Jam.
John 5:23 - that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
Phil 2:9 - Therefore God exalted him (Jesus) to the highest place and gave him the name (Jesus) that is above every name,
John 17:11 - I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me-(Jehovah?)-so that they may be one as we are one.
2Thess 1:12 - We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:18 - Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
You see, it's all to be about Jesus. John 5:39-41 says that it is by coming DIRECTLY TO JESUS, that one has eternal life. Accepting a personal relationship with Jesus IS accepting a personal relationship with God. But it was Jesus DIRECTLY that we were to have this relationship. We can talk to God at any time (whether it is our Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit) If we honor the Son then we ARE honoring the Father.
This bible scholar also has some valid points about Jesus' missing years.
Thought this topic could use a little levity.
ChristAlone:
Do you have an answer for me?
Why does Paul, Jesus' biggest booster, not have anything at all to say about his sayings or his miracles?
Comment by Christ Alone: ...Just the ones who are unwilling to look.
How assuming of you. If someone hasn't found things the same as your mind believes, then they haven't looked. They are unwilling.
I could comment on myself but I will comment on millions who are devout in their search and beliefs and found something completely different, be it a tribal God or a multitude of gods.
"Condescending" may not be a strong enough word to describe your attitude.
Why does Paul, Jesus' biggest booster, not have anything at all to say about his sayings or his miracles?
Several reasons. Number one is that Paul was not an apostle while Jesus was on earth. He never had direct contact with Jesus on earth. Also, IF the gospels had already been written (which I do not believe they had been while Paul was writing) he didn't have them to refer to. Paul's message was not about what Jesus did on earth. He took the assumption that those in the churches already knew what Jesus did. There was no need to reiterate. Paul said that the things Jesus taught on earth were a beginning. They were the milk. But it was time to press on to what it really meant to be a Christian. He expounded on what Jesus already taught and what Christians already believed. There was no need to tell them what they already believed due to eye witness knowledge.
Further, Paul already KNEW what the Christians believed about Jesus. He persecuted them for it. So there was no need to again tell them what they already knew about Jesus.
And it's not accurate to say that Paul NEVER quoted Jesus. 1 Cor 11:23-25 says: " For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “ Take , eat ; this is My body which is broken for you ; do this in remembrance of Me .” In the same manner He alsotook the cup after supper, saying, “ This cup is the new covenant in My blood . This do , as often as you drink it , in remembrance of Me .”
I know that many DO dispute all the apostles, but to try and only dispute Paul IS to dispute all the apostles. The conversion of Paul happened only a few years after Jesus' ministry. The apostles would have wanted to preserve what they were teaching about Jesus (as contained in the gospels). The would never have allowed Paul to begin teaching something that changed or distored the teachings of Jesus. Paul spent three years adding to what he already knew about Jesus. Then he met with Peter and James. (Ga 1:18-19). Then after spending 14 years of ministry to the Gentiles, he met with the older men in Jerusalem and they officially endorsed him. (Ga 2:1-9)
Think about this. Most scholars say that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, Luke. However, Acts rarely quotes what Jesus said before his death. The fact that Luke quotes Jesus hundreds of times, does not lesten the validity of Acts because Acts does not quote Jesus.
Also, we only have Paul's letters. We don't have the record of his speeches. He spent LONG periods of time establishing and training churches. His oral teaching may have included even more quotations of Jesus than what a brief letter (usually written in times of trial) would have contained.
Finally, Paul frequently referred to Jesus as a real historical person. He never denigraded Jesus' status. He frequently referred or alluded to Jesus and the traditions Jesus set down numerous times.
So Pistoff, no I do not agree that Paul created a new religion and went off on a tangent that cannot be supported by the gospels. I haven't seen anything that I can see that Paul wrote that disagrees with the gospel accounts.
Yes I am trying to learn Coptic. I'm doing a one year stand alone course at a local college. There are twelve of us in the class and most others seem to be interested in the language from an Egyptology perspective rather than biblical studies, but we are going to look at some biblical and apocryphal texts.
"Condescending" may not be a strong enough word to describe your attitude.
I'm sorry you think that I am putting on an air of superior positon or authority. I don't mean to come across that way. But I believe that God has made it obvious that He exists. And the only conclusion I can seem to come to (due to my own experiences of God in my life) is that the people that don't see what He is doing, just aren't looking. That's just trying to understand how people could come to a conclusion of accidental life and no creator. It doesn't mean I feel better than them. It just means, I don't understand it.
Christian faith began with the resurrection of Jesus, whose death was interpreted (in Jewish terms) as atoning and saving and in fulfillment of prophecy. There was no disagreement on this point. All who believed in Jesus and were numbered among his followers concurred on these essential beliefs. There was no other “Christianity” that thought otherwise. The Gospels written in the first century, that is, the New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), narrate the discovery of the empty tomb and appearances of the risen Jesus to His followers. The resurrection of Jesus and its saving power become the central truth of Christian preaching and missionary activity, to which Peter and Paul give emphatic witness. There simply is no evidence of any other Christian movement in the first generation following Easter that preached something else ( Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, By Craig Evans p. 191).
