Jesus is a human being but not the one true God

[OzSpen]

But that is NOT what He died for, to give us.........

pia,

How do you know Jesus died? The Bible tells us so in a reliable document.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

that is what you believe, but there are other Christians who would dispute this, not that it is a doctrine anyway. You cannot even demonstrate that Nazareth existed as a town in the first century, which it appears that it did not. It was inhabited before then, and after then, but is specifically absent in the first century. Go look.

But that is not a doctrine anyway, so first we would have to clear that up i guess

Oh my goodness!

Ozspen will answer for himself since he's very qualified to.

However, if YOU don't believe what the APOSTLES and Others (such as LukeJ) wrote in the gospels, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING ABOUT CHRIST???

WHY do you have faith in a person about whom nothing true has been said???

So Nazareth existed BEFORE Jesus and AFTER Jesus, but not DURING Jesus.

Verrrrrry strange, indeed!!!

 

[OzSpen]

ha, give us an unchangeable doctrine then, a for instance

bb,

Here are some unchangeable doctrines:

• The sovereignty of God
• The omnipresence of God
• The omnipotence of God
• The foreknowledge of God
• The salvation of God
• The hypostatic union (i.e. Jesus was the God-man)
• The Trinity
• Jesus' atonement
• etc.

Bible Study Tools explains 'doctrine':

In Scripture, then, doctrine refers to the entire body of essential theological truths that define and describe that message ( 1 Tim 1:10 ; 4:16 ; 6:3 ; Titus 1:9 ). The message includes historical facts, such as those regarding the events of the life of Jesus Christ ( 1 Cor 11:23 ). But it is deeper than biographical facts alone. As J. Gresham Machen pointed out years ago, Jesus' death is an integral historical fact but it is not doctrine. Jesus' death for sins ( 1 Cor 15:3 ) is doctrine. Doctrine, then, is scriptural teaching on theological truths.Doctrine is indispensable to Christianity. Christianity does not exist without it. The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the value and importance of sound doctrine, sound instruction ( 1 Tim 6:3 ), and a pattern of sound teaching ( 2 Tim 1:13-14 ) [source].​

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

so you say, yes

Well bb
Tell, what DO you believe about Jesus?

 

[GodsGrace]

that is what you believe, but there are other Christians who would dispute this, not that it is a doctrine anyway. You cannot even demonstrate that Nazareth existed as a town in the first century, which it appears that it did not. It was inhabited before then, and after then, but is specifically absent in the first century. Go look.

But that is not a doctrine anyway, so first we would have to clear that up i guess

How do you dispute Christianity and call yourself a Christian?

You can dispute the above stated by you,
but then you are NOT a Christian.

Christian means a very specific belief system.

We could, maybe, make up a different religion for you.

 

[bbyrd009]

However, if YOU don't believe what the APOSTLES and Others (such as LukeJ) wrote in the gospels, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING ABOUT CHRIST?

i didn't mean that i don't believe any of those, but obviously many people who consider themselves Christian have valid reasons to dispute some point or other up there, right. Yet you have essentially made a Law that i must follow in order to call myself a Christian.

 

[bbyrd009]

WHY do you have faith in a person about whom nothing true has been said?

i did not say that, either, though. I have faith in Christ, and Christ is Spirit, not a person

 

[bbyrd009]

So Nazareth existed BEFORE Jesus and AFTER Jesus, but not DURING Jesus.

Verrrrrry strange, indeed!!!

i can't explain that myself, floored me when i learned that lol--of course i was not there, have to rely on historical accounts, but sure is strange, ya. I understand the reason for this, i think--to obscure the person "Jesus" to make a point, but def weird from a logical pov, which imo is a central concern to the authors.

 

[GodsGrace]

i didn't mean that i don't believe any of those, but obviously many people who consider themselves Christian have valid reasons to dispute some point or other up there, right. Yet you have essentially made a Law that i must follow in order to call myself a Christian.

One could CONSIDER himself Christian but not BE Christian.

It's not ME making up any rules and regulations. That's just the way it is.

If you want to belong to the local swin club, you have to adhere by THEIR rules, not yours. Or you get kicked out.

Christianity is NOT a democracy. It's a totalitarian system!!
You obey the leader, who is Jesus and His apostles, or you don't get to be a memeber of the club.

That's just the way it is.

And you didn't answer what YOUR beliefs are.

 

[GodsGrace]

i can't explain that myself, floored me when i learned that lol--of course i was not there, have to rely on historical accounts, but sure is strange, ya. I understand the reason for this, i think--to obscure the person "Jesus" to make a point, but def weird from a logical pov, which imo is a central concern to the authors.

Hey bb
Why not start believing those who are telling you THE TRUTH??

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

i did not say that, either, though. I have faith in Christ, and Christ is Spirit, not a person

2 Corinthians 5:7;
"For we live by faith, not by sight."

We don't need to see Jesus in the flesh, or question anything in the Bible about him.
If we are truly saved, we walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[GodsGrace]

i can't explain that myself, floored me when i learned that lol--of course i was not there, have to rely on historical accounts, but sure is strange, ya. I understand the reason for this, i think--to obscure the person "Jesus" to make a point, but def weird from a logical pov, which imo is a central concern to the authors.

Here's the problem:

IF Luke tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazaret and you don't believe him...

Why believe anything else he says???

 

[OzSpen]

that is what you believe, but there are other Christians who would dispute this, not that it is a doctrine anyway. You cannot even demonstrate that Nazareth existed as a town in the first century, which it appears that it did not. It was inhabited before then, and after then, but is specifically absent in the first century. Go look.

But that is not a doctrine anyway, so first we would have to clear that up i guess

Let's talk about the existence of Nazareth in Galilee in the first century at the time of Jesus:

James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: "Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century CE. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea."[41] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ as "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to "a maximum of about 480."[42] In 2009, Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[43][44]
(Nazareth, Roman Empire Period, Wikipedia).​

You doubt the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus. Contemporary archaeologists disagree with you.

National Geographic reported this of Nazareth:

The ancient village of Nazareth: In 2009, the Israeli Antiquities Authority announced that archaeologists working in the ancient village of Nazareth, where the New Testament says that Jesus lived, had uncovered the first actual remains of a house that dated back to that period. The ruins are located next to the Basilica of the Annunciation, Yardenna Alexandre, who supervised the excavation for the IAA, told Archaeology magazine: “This [house] may have been a place that Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with.” The house was small--just two rooms, plus a courtyard plus a courtyard with a cistern hewn from rock to collect rainwater. Other ruins since found in Nazareth have been similarly small private dwellings, without any adornments such as mosaics or frescoes, and archaeologists have yet to find any traces of public buildings or a paved street. But they have found evidence of ancient vineyards, terrace farming, and grape and olive presses as well as stonemasonry-- indications of how the small community’s inhabitants worked to make a living (Archaeological finds from the Jesus' era).​

I think your knowledge of Nazareth needs to be updated.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

i did not say that, either, though. I have faith in Christ, and Christ is Spirit, not a person

Christ was a person.
Do you at least believe that Jesus was a real person and that He was God at Birth?

 

[GodsGrace]

2 Corinthians 5:7;
"For we live by faith, not by sight."

We don't need to see Jesus in the flesh, or question anything in the Bible about him.
If we are truly saved, we walk by faith, not by sight.

Can we believe what the N.T. says about Jesus in the gospels?

I learned that our faith must be based on something real.
That our faith in Jesus is a REASONABLE faith.

Why?

Because we can TRUST what was written about Him in the gospels.

If we can't trust the Apostles, and Others who wrote about Him, WHAT would our faith be based on?

Many have visions that may not be true -- many see saints or angels or Mary.
These may or may not be true.

But we could be sure that the 11 Apostles saw Jesus resurrected.

 

[OzSpen]

2 Corinthians 5:7;
"For we live by faith, not by sight."

We don't need to see Jesus in the flesh, or question anything in the Bible about him.
If we are truly saved, we walk by faith, not by sight.

Rollo,

However, it's faith founded on the facts of Jesus' death, burial & resurrection. 'With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all' (Acts 4:33 NIV).

Oz

 

[amadeus]

I'll be happy to respond where I have the time. I'm writing an apologetics' based curriculum for religious instruction in early high school (grades 7-8) - you'd call it Junior High. I plan to teach this one hour a week in secular high schools.

I am glad to hear that something like that is available somewhere. It is not a solution to the world's troubles by any means but it is probably at least one small step in the right direction.

In addition, I have to turn a 488pp PhD dissertation into about 50 academic articles. That will keep me busy until the Lord takes me home.

I also teach a mid-week (mornings) seniors' Bible study and have lunch at a local Tavern with some of the group. My local church teaches subjects from Kingsley College and I've been invited to join the faculty. I don't have the time. I'm grateful I'm a touch typist.

May God bless you as you work with and for Him.

And I preach occasionally. For an old bloke, I've never been so busy, and I try to get a little recreation - watching TV rugby league and cricket. The Aussie cricketers have just finished a test series in Bangladesh.

I've never been much into sports. I did used to love playing tennis, but I haven't done it for years. I find almost nothing on TV worth my time. Once in a while I will look for something relaxing on it, but often I simply turn the thing back off for even the advertisements are depressing or worse.

I work to support my old pastor [age 92] for since he was widowed about 5 years ago, he needs encouragement. Most Sundays the Lord will give me words to share with our small congregation. Most often it is teaching, but sometimes it really is preaching.

 

[bbyrd009]

Bible Study Tools explains 'doctrine':

notice how this definition might translate more as "slogans" than what Paul meant, which i will call "MO" (modus operandi) for lack of a better phrase. So we differ at the definition of "doctrine." Which i don't mind, don't get me wrong, but we will have trouble agreeing wherever the Book says "doctrine."

 

[GodsGrace]

notice how this definition might translate more as "slogans" than what Paul meant, which i will call "MO" (modus operandi) for lack of a better phrase. So we differ at the definition of "doctrine." Which i don't mind, don't get me wrong, but we will have trouble agreeing wherever the Book says "doctrine."

How do you disagree with a fact?????
Is water wet?
Well,. Umm, errr, personally...I don't think so.
LOL

 

[bbyrd009]

Well bb
Tell, what DO you believe about Jesus?

i believe that God is the head of Christ, and that Jesus had to be raised up like a snake on a pole, dying to self, to draw men to Christ