SIRTee15:

Gospel of Mark was written to gentiles who had no doubt Jesus is the messiah. The gentiles believed Jesus is divine and truly resurrected, there was no point reiterating to them what they already believed. Moreover, they were not familiar with the old
testament scriptures and wouldn't grasp the relevance of such messianic references.

How come Gentiles have no doubt Jesus is the Messiah but they still couldn't grasp the relevance of messianic references, how did they arrive that he is a "Messiah", what references did they use before?
And this Gentiles were the one living in Rome or Alexandria abi? 😂

SIRTee15:


Go and ask your father. U this bastard

Gnostic means knowledge, do you think a son of god will be preaching knowledge or beliefs?
In ARAMAIC, Jesus language, gnostic is called Manda 😂
https://mandaepedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Nasoraeans

kimco:

The Chris that I see I do not believe. Is it the Jesus I have not seen before that I should believe? When I have seen or not seen every claim must be subjected to scrutiny and evidenced beyond reasonable doubt.

Understandably. But scrutiny involves the use of sight and knowledge. Thus, if these things truly work in you THEN YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN that every major difference that must be in such a Supernatural Person is in Jesus which no man either before Him or after Him has.

So your reasonable doubt is dispensed which is why you do not have any reasonable or valid question or comment to put down.

Thus, the only thing remaining is your personal guilt and wish fueled biased under Him which is what is making you lie that you do not believe in Him because every reasonable person understands that murderers, thieves and liars can never like Law and policemen and Judges.

kimco:

Also claims are not proof. The Bible is not proof, it's a claim. And the claims it made are not exclusive to it. I know you think the Bible is proof the only Godly book that exists but it's not...it's not even godly.

Off point! Change of Post!

Dtruthspeaker:


Understandably. But scrutiny involves the use of sight and knowledge. Thus, if these things truly work in you THEN YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN that every major difference that must be in such a Supernatural Person is in Jesus which no man either before Him or after Him has.

So your reasonable doubt is dispensed which is why you do not have any reasonable or valid question or comment to put down.

Thus, the only thing remaining is your personal guilt and wish fueled biased under Him which is what is making you lie that you do not believe in Him because every reasonable person understands that murderers, thieves and liars can never like Law and policemen and Judges.



Off point! Change of Post!

I just realized who I am chatting with. I will end it here thank You.

kimco:

I just realized who I am chatting with. I will end it here thank You.

Because you want to sleep peacefully in the bubble of lies and illusions you have created for yourself.

But the bottomline is that there is no reasonable and valid basis for anybody to be an antiGod and antichrist aka atheist.

kkins25:


There are 100+ million women in the country, But your daddy met mum. You don't even understand SSS mathematics, and you're arguing with us here. oh, Aemmyjah! Calm down so we can uplift you from religious ignorance to religious literacy.

It must be the case. How can anyone go through secondary school statistical mathematics and think that low probability equals impossible.

kimco:


I just realized who I am chatting with. I will end it here thank You.

Maynman:

How come Gentiles have no doubt Jesus is the Messiah but they still couldn't grasp the relevance of messianic references, how did they arrive that he is a "Messiah", what references did they use before?
And this Gentiles were the one living in Rome or Alexandria abi? 😂

Christians and comedy

Unfortunately, the breed of Christians here is very different from those about 9 years ago. Unfortunately, I was but a little kid then... It would have been great going back and forth with Muttleylaff, and the likes now...Even though them too get their own koskos... but, at least those ones where very knowledgable of the bible. Good old days. Used to enjoy reading them.. Especially how they were flowing Sarassin up and down..hahah

LordReed:


It must be the case. How can anyone go through secondary school statistical mathematics and think that low probability equals impossible.

But you think so most. Is placebo effect likely God, you say it's impossible.

kkins25:


Christians and comedy

Unfortunately, the breed of Christians here is very different from those about 9 years ago. Unfortunately, I was but a little kid then... It would have been great going back and forth with Muttleylaff, and the likes now...Even though them too get their own koskos... but, at least those ones where very knowledgable of the bible. Good old days. Used to enjoy reading them.. Especially how they were flowing Sarassin up and down..hahah

You are yet to answer one single question thrown at u. Just one
U came here with your bogus greeco-roman/European source for Christianity but u can't defend it.
All u do is waffling and throwing empty words all over the place. Words u can't defend.
I wonder who is the comedian.

I repeat my question in case u pretend not to see it
Tell me what the second temple Jews regard as Logos.
Waiting for your answer.

How do Gentiles see Jesus as the Messiah? Do they believe he's the anointed one who will establish the kingdom of God here on earth by defeating Israel enemies.
If they believe he's the Messiah prophesied in the old testament, then why are they not following the mosaic laws.
Why is there contention btw the Jewish Christians and gentiles regarding FF the law of Moses.
How did Paul present messianic claim of Jesus to the gentiles? What was he anointed for and what is the Kingdom of God he established.

I will advise u pick a bible and read the book of acts and Romans then come back to debate me.

SIRTeee15:

You are yet to answer one single question thrown at u. Just one
U came here with your bogus Greco-roman/European source for Christianity, but u can't defend it.
All u do is waffling and throwing empty words all over the place. Words u can't defend.
I wonder who is the comedian.

No, no, no! There's a stark difference between Europe's significant influence on today's Christianity and being the source of Christianity itself. You see, Christianity was no doubt formed by Jewish Christians. However, the doctrines and philosophy of Christianity differ greatly between the early Jews and would be later Gentiles.

Even during the times of the disciples, this difference was beautifully portrayed in the book of Galatians(https://www.bibleref.com/Galatians/2/Galatians-2-12.html), where there was a little squabble between Apst. Paul and Peter. You'll also find discrepancies like

There's no work without faith , versus all faith without works is useless.

The Jewish Christians do not also hold the notion that Jesus was anything remotely close to a deity—even those who did saw Jesus as lesser than Adonai. The Gentiles were the ones who equated Jesus Christ with God and formed the Holy Trinity. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the man who coined the word "Trinity." Take note of the parts I have bolded for you. Hopefully, you see how the influence of one can sway the minds of many. Also, he is of African origin but was raised under the Romanian empire. Therefore, he thinks like a roman. This is very important.

Tertullian is often considered an early proponent of the Nicene doctrine, approaching the subject from the standpoint of the Logos doctrine, though he did not state the later doctrine of the immanent Trinity. In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught patripassianism in Rome, he used the words "trinity," "economy" (used in reference to the three persons), "persons," and "substance," maintaining the distinction of the Son from the Father as the unoriginate God, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv).

As you can see from the last statement, he first distinguished the persons of the Godhead. This was not derived from biblical scripture but the incorporation of Romanian philosophy into Christianity. The Roman scholars were very philosophical and were at their prime during this era. So, it's no surprise they were trying to make sense of chrisitian mysticsm.

Tertullian predated the Nicene creed, of course. In fact, his writings influenced the doctrines of the church fathers who argued against the heresy of Arius. Again, not that the Roman-influenced church fathers were also trying to make sense of Christian mysticism. All these doctrines weren't held by the likes of Peter, James, and early disciples of Christ—even Apst. Paul didn't equate Jesus with God. Note, the books of Hebrews weren't written by Apst. Paul. That's where the Gentile-like philosophy slipped into Judeo-Christianity.

I repeat my question in case u pretend not to see it
Tell me what the second temple Jews regard as Logos.
Waiting for your answer.

I'm not sure. I had to look this up. I suspect you mean logos in the sense used in John 1:1?

Logos is translated from Dabar, which meant "'word', 'talk' or 'thing'" in Hebrew.

There's no Jewish concept of Logos in the sense that we use it today. At least, non in the bible bar John 1;1. Probably hellenistic jews?

So, no, the Jews didn't know anything called Logos. Logos is entirely an element of Greek philosophy. See below:

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus appears to be the first to have used logos to refer to a rational divine intelligence, which today is sometimes referred to in scientific discourse as the "mind of God."

The Greek translator, filled with Roman bias, used that bias to translate the Book of John into something it was not meant to be. If you mean logos in the sense that God's ideas come to life, then sure. That's what the writer of John intended.

How do Gentiles see Jesus as the Messiah? Do they believe he's the anointed one who will establish the kingdom of God here on earth by defeating Israel's enemies?

How would I now? Didn't the gentiles also see Zeus, thor, and so on as gods? The same way.

If they believe he's the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, then why are they not following the mosaic laws.

Anyone can believe anything, Sirtee. It's you who denies the European influence of christianity that should answer this question.

Why is there contention btw the Jewish Christians and gentiles regarding FF the law of Moses.

Same response as above. Anyway, let me help you small. They have different schools of thought. Incase, you want to mumble up that nonsense about Christ tarnishing the old law, I hope you know that was just Paul's way of getting the Gentiles to join Christianity. The likes of Peter, James, JOhn, etc, never did away with the old testament. Why? The new testament hadn't even being written bruv?

How did Paul present messianic claim of Jesus to the gentiles? What was he anointed for and what is the Kingdom of God he established.

I wasn't there to know exactly what Paul preached. However, here's a clue for you: Paul was educated in the ways of the Romans. After all, he was half a Roman citizen, was he not? I don't know what kingdom of God you're talking about. Where is it on the map?

I will advise u pick a bible and read the book of acts and Romans then come back to debate me.

I am not incentivized to read the bible anymore. It serves no purpose in my life right now other than for arguments. But, I can easily get summaries from Youtube or scholarly dissertations from the likes of Dan Mclean on Tiktok, who's a award-winning bible scholar for the work he's done on tiktok.

kkins25:


No, no, no! There's a stark difference between Europe's significant influence on today's Christianity and being the source of Christianity itself. You see, Christianity was no doubt formed by Jewish Christians. However, the doctrines and philosophy of Christianity differ greatly between the early Jews and would be later Gentiles.

Ok let's thrash this first.
Now let's check what early Jewish Christians believe about their faith. We will look at both internal and external evidence.
There's a book called Didache which is an Eucharist/catechism used by early Jewish Christians during worship.
Scholars agree this book was written btw 50-70 AD. It was even considered as a canon but didn't eventually make it.
Now how does this book tell us to baptise? In whose name should we baptise?
What did the book say about the son of God.

Now what did Peter, John and James write in their letters. Did it confirm Paul's writings, did Peter agree with Paul.

Evidence Peter believed Jesus is God

2 peter1.1

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Did Peter agree with Paul

2 Peter 3

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.


Did John agree with the gentiles regarding divinity of Christ.

1 John 4
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,


https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

kkins25:


The Jewish Christians do not also hold the notion that Jesus was anything remotely close to a deity—even those who did saw Jesus as lesser than Adonai. The Gentiles were the ones who equated Jesus Christ with God and formed the Holy Trinity. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the man who coined the word "Trinity." Take note of the parts I have bolded for you. Hopefully, you see how the influence of one can sway the minds of many. Also, he is of African origin but was raised under the Romanian empire. Therefore, he thinks like a roman. This is very important.

Tertullian is often considered an early proponent of the Nicene doctrine, approaching the subject from the standpoint of the Logos doctrine, though he did not state the later doctrine of the immanent Trinity. In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught patripassianism in Rome, he used the words "trinity," "economy" (used in reference to the three persons), "persons," and "substance," maintaining the distinction of the Son from the Father as the unoriginate God, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv).



As you can see from the last statement, he first distinguished the persons of the Godhead. This was not derived from biblical scripture but the incorporation of Romanian philosophy into Christianity. The Roman scholars were very philosophical and were at their prime during this era. So, it's no surprise they were trying to make sense of chrisitian mysticsm.

Tertullian predated the Nicene creed, of course. In fact, his writings influenced the doctrines of the church fathers who argued against the heresy of Arius. Again, not that the Roman-influenced church fathers were also trying to make sense of Christian mysticism. All these doctrines weren't held by the likes of Peter, James, and early disciples of Christ—even Apst. Paul didn't equate Jesus with God. Note, the books of Hebrews weren't written by Apst. Paul. That's where the Gentile-like philosophy slipped into Judeo-Christianity.

I really don't know where to start correcting u. Did u just say Paul didn't say Jesus is God? Are u kidding?

So explain this verses from Paul.

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

Col 2.9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

However there's one particular Pauline passage I want us to discuss.

Philipians 2.5-11
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Philippians 2:5-11 is considered by scholars a pre-Pauline hymn. This mean the passage wasn't Paul's original idea but borrowed the creed from an existing concept.
Philippians was written around A.D. 60. Since the hymn pre-dates the writing of Philippians, we could speculate that the hymn was composed in the 50s or perhaps even in the 40s.
This means the deity belief of Jesus was a concept known and accepted amongst early Christians and the beliefs upon which the hymn are based would date even in the 30s AD.
Considering the fact that Paul took for granted his audience’s belief in Jesus’ Deity among the philipians , it is proves that these early Christians believed Jesus to be divine from the beginning IE as early as 30s/40s AD, Christians were already saying Jesus is God

Regarding Tertullian and trinity. Are u saying no church father believed Jesus is God prior to Tertullian.
Is that what u saying. because I can bring writings from father Ignatius, Clement of Rome and Polycarp who all wrote Jesus is God. This were 1st century AD church fathers.

kkins25:



I'm not sure. I had to look this up. I suspect you mean logos in the sense used in John 1:1?

Logos is translated from Dabar, which meant "'word', 'talk' or 'thing'" in Hebrew.

There's no Jewish concept of Logos in the sense that we use it today. At least, non in the bible bar John 1;1. Probably hellenistic jews?

So, no, the Jews didn't know anything called Logos. Logos is entirely an element of Greek philosophy. See below:



The Greek translator, filled with Roman bias, used that bias to translate the Book of John into something it was not meant to be. If you mean logos in the sense that God's ideas come to life, then sure. That's what the writer of John intended.

I'm not here to discuss John 1.1 but what 2nd temple Judaism understand by the word logos in their language- Hebrew or Aramaic, not greek or Latin.

Since u already cast aspersion at Hellenised Jews, we will leave philo out of it.

Now let's talk about the Aramaic bible called Targum, the same Aramaic bible used by Jesus in the 1st century AD.
Now in the aramaic bible, whenever God appears in person like when God appeared to Abraham or Moses, the term memra (Aramaic for "word" ) is often used instead of 'the LORD', especially when referring to a manifestation of God that could be construed as anthropomorphic.
E.g instead of saying 'The LORD appeared to Abraham', it will read 'memra (the word) appeared to Abraham'.
THAT IS LOGOS.
This showed the Jews believed in the manifestation of the 'WORD' appearing as a person and being God.

This aramaic bible use of the word memra stem from the understanding of the Jews belief in what is the word of God. They understand it to be an active force proceeding from God with a life of it's own.

In the Targum, the Word or Memra is doing, being, and acting as God and yet we see that he is also with God, a distinct essence apart from Him.

And the Memra (Word) of the LORD said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light by His Memra (Word). A (Genesis 1:1–3; Targum Neofiti)

In fact, the Memra is the one who rested after all his work:

“On the seventh day, the Memra of the LORD completed his work which he had created, and there was Sabbath.” (Genesis 2:3; Targum Neofit

This is the Christian understanding of TRINITY-
manifestation of God in more than one person. This evidence and belief is shared by old testament scriptures and 2nd temple Judaism. All this before anyone was ever called Christian.

And this is the same JEWISH belief John wrote about in his gospel by letting us know memra became flesh and dwelt among us.
That is the origin of the concept my friend, a deeply rooted Jewish belief from the old testament.
It wasn't any extrapolation from the greek or Roman ideology.

kkins25:


Same response as above. Anyway, let me help you small. They have different schools of thought. Incase, you want to mumble up that nonsense about Christ tarnishing the old law, I hope you know that was just Paul's way of getting the Gentiles to join Christianity. The likes of Peter, James, JOhn, etc, never did away with the old testament. Why? The new testament hadn't even being written bruv?

I think we should all agree u waffling here. Possibly because of your poor knowledge of the scriptures.
Only Muslims argue Paul was the one who told Christians not to follow the law which we all know is rubbish.

Jesus told his disciples to ignore the law of Sabbath.
Jesus told his disciples they need not follow the ceremonial dietary requirements.
He told his followers a man is only allowed to marry wife and must not divorce her except for adultery.
Jesus condemned those who wanted to stone an adulterous woman as commanded in the law of Moses.
He told his followers that the over 600 mosaic law has been summarised into 2 simple laws and that's all that matters.

Even the disciples of Jesus including Peter and James agreed gentiles should not be burdened with circumcision because it's no longer valid.
Read about the first council of jerusalem and the letter of James to the gentiles acts of apostles 15 for insight.

What do U mean by Paul was the one who told Christians to break the law? My friend, get your facts right and don't waffle pls.

What u should be asking is why did the Jewish Christians ignore Jesus instruction by trying to obey irrelevant mosiac laws which have been completed in Jesus?
The law of Moses is completed and made perfect in Jesus. We are to follow Jesus and not the law of Moses.

kkins25:

I am not incentivized to read the bible anymore. It serves no purpose in my life right now other than for arguments. But, I can easily get summaries from Youtube or scholarly dissertations from the likes of Dan Mclean on Tiktok, who's a award-winning bible scholar for the work he's done on tiktok.

It's evidenced by my interaction with u that u don't understand Christianity. U left Christianity because u dont understand it not because u think it's false.
This is common among so called intelligent or educated minds who started asking questions about the bible but not diligent enough to research properly or were swayed by the beer parlour anti Christian gossips and gist they watch on YouTube.
Seriously, it's the same theme amongst your likes 'I left christianity because I don't understand trinity or because of some videos I watched on YouTube'
How can u base a life changing decision on a tiktoker?


There's a reason no liberal bible scholar worth his credential will open his mouth and say Jesus is not real even when there's no extant evidence of his existence outside the bible. They dare not- it will end in humiliation.

Bart Erhman wrote a book called misquoting Jesus where he claimed the extant manuscripts of the gospel we have are full of errors.
Yet the following year, he admitted in an academic journal that none of the gospel extant manuscripts contradict
each other and all validates the core message of gospel. Infact he wrote 99% of the errors are scribal errors regarding spelling mistakes and are essentially inconsequential and there's no reason to doubt what's written in the four gospel books because it conform with extants manuscripts in existence.

You see Bart Erhman can get away writing gists in best seller books for his gullible fans and for money. But he dare not write nonsense in academic works otherwise his reputation will be ruined.

Take it from me, Christianity is real. It's the only reason I believe there's a God. No other religion validates the presence of God like Christianity. None.

I hope we discuss more here and I will open your eyes to the truth of christianity based on facts and historical research. The evidence is real.

That's why nobody that understands Christianity leaves Jesus Christ for some false religion or atheism..none. It makes no sense.

Image123:


But you think so most. Is placebo effect likely God, you say it's impossible.

Oh oooh!

Typical Atheists double standard.

What is good for the gander the goose miust be stopped from having it.