The consensus among historical scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a historical person. I have no trouble believing that. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death? Was he really betrayed by Judas? What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings? To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
The case for the Historical Jesus
Posts
Total:
619
-->
@Tradesecret
--> @ShilaHere you are admitting you are not particularly interested in pursuing a conversation which has gone down so many rabbits holes. But you make no attempt to address your depravity and gender dysphoria.As I said rabbit holes.
Now you want to divert our attention to rabbit holes. Can’t your m8bd stay out of the gutter Reverend?
You also appear very judgemental despite links and evidence that confirm your depravity and gender dysphoria.No judgmental bones in my body.
Is that your proof you are soft on depravity and your gender dysphoria?
Everyone appears to you like they don't have anything better to do. But you are the only one obsessed with your depravity and gender dysphoria.There are always people wanting to jump in and have a discussion, nevertheless, it is you and Stephen who are being the model litigants. Not.
Why are you against the very people who are trying to reign you in Reverend?
Let us help you Reverend so you can continue your mission to help others discover the historical and biblical Jesus,What size is that paper bag again?
It is just big enough to cover your head Reverend. You can take it off during your depraved excursions.
-->
@zedvictor4
-->@ShilaMy apologies.#85
Here is what you are apologizing for.
To Sidewalker you said: More so, those that stand to gain advantage from perpetuating the myth.
You claimed earlier “Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua is/was a character recorded in historical narratives and we know roughly where he was said to have lived, there's no denying that.
Yep, as I stated Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua is/was a character recorded in historical narratives and we know roughly where he was said to have lived, there's no denying that.And that's about all one can say for certain.And yep 1632, that's the point I try to get across. All is made up after the event.
Now you are claiming those that stand to gain advantage from perpetuating the myth.
Should all history and historical narratives be banned in your opinion?
-->
@Castin
The consensus among historical scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a historical person. I have no trouble believing that. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death? Was he really betrayed by Judas? What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings? To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
Let’s try to deal with your doubts.
1. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him.
2. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death?
3. Was he really betrayed by Judas?
4. What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings?
5. To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
Once you accept Jesus indeed existed as a historical person. The specifics of Jesus’s life and teachings are found in the Biblical Jesus. All your questions are answered in the Bible.
“The first question we have to answer is How do we know what we know about Jesus? How is it possible for twenty-first-century people to know with any reasonable certainty what he did and said in the first century? Obviously, none of us was there when Jesus walked the earth. So how do we gain access to him as a historical person?
For many people, the answer to this question is simple: open up your Bible and read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they tell us what Jesus did and said. Indeed, for almost nineteen centuries, most Christians—and virtually everyone else, for that matter—believed that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus and that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written by companions of the apostles Peter and Paul.”
-->
@Castin
The consensus among historical scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a historical person. I have no trouble believing that.
Me neither.
For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death? Was he really betrayed by Judas? What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings? To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
All fair questions that I would be more that interested to have answered by the devout Christians. But I won't be holding my breath, Castin
-->
@Castin
--> @CastinThe consensus among historical scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a historical person. I have no trouble believing that. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death? Was he really betrayed by Judas? What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings? To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
Let’s try to deal with your doubts.
1. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him.
2. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death?
3. Was he really betrayed by Judas?
4. What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings?
5. To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
Once you accept Jesus indeed existed as a historical person. The specifics of Jesus’s life and teachings are found in the Biblical Jesus. All your questions are answered in the Bible.
1. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him.
“The first question we have to answer is How do we know what we know about Jesus? How is it possible for twenty-first-century people to know with any reasonable certainty what he did and said in the first century? Obviously, none of us was there when Jesus walked the earth. So how do we gain access to him as a historical person?
For many people, the answer to this question is simple: open up your Bible and read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they tell us what Jesus did and said. Indeed, for almost nineteen centuries, most Christians—and virtually everyone else, for that matter—believed that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus and that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written by companions of the apostles Peter and Paul.”
2. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death?
To your second question. Jesus did claim he was God.
Yes, both in the Gospel of John (John 8, John 10)and the Synoptic Gospels.
Immediately He made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while He sent the multitude away. And when He had sent them away, He departed to the mountain to pray. Now when evening came, the boat was in the middle of the sea; and He was alone on the land. Then He saw them straining at rowing, for the wind was against them. Now about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea, and would have passed them by. And when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed it was a ghost, and cried out; for they all saw Him and were troubled. But immediately He talked with them and said to them, “Be of good cheer! It is I [Egō eimi]; do not be afraid.” Then He went up into the boat to them, and the wind ceased. And they were greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure, and marveled (Mark 6:45-51).
Jesus said, Egō eimi, which means “I am.” You’ll miss that in most translations, which put it as, “It is I!” (KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, GNT, DRB) or “It’s me!” But Jesus said, “I am.”
As you may know, “I am” is also the name of God:
Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’ Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, “I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt”’” (Exod 3:13-16).
-->
@Castin
The consensus among historical scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a historical person. I have no trouble believing that. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death? Was he really betrayed by Judas? What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings? To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
Let’s try to deal with your doubts.
1. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him.
2. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death?
3. Was he really betrayed by Judas?
4. What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings?
5. To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
Once you accept Jesus indeed existed as a historical person. The specifics of Jesus’s life and teachings are found in the Biblical Jesus. All your questions are answered in the Bible.
1. For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him.
“The first question we have to answer is How do we know what we know about Jesus? How is it possible for twenty-first-century people to know with any reasonable certainty what he did and said in the first century? Obviously, none of us was there when Jesus walked the earth. So how do we gain access to him as a historical person?
For many people, the answer to this question is simple: open up your Bible and read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they tell us what Jesus did and said. Indeed, for almost nineteen centuries, most Christians—and virtually everyone else, for that matter—believed that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus and that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written by companions of the apostles Peter and Paul.”
2. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death?
To your second question. Jesus did claim he was God.
Yes, both in the Gospel of John (John 8, John 10)and the Synoptic Gospels.
Immediately He made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while He sent the multitude away. And when He had sent them away, He departed to the mountain to pray. Now when evening came, the boat was in the middle of the sea; and He was alone on the land. Then He saw them straining at rowing, for the wind was against them. Now about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea, and would have passed them by. And when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed it was a ghost, and cried out; for they all saw Him and were troubled. But immediately He talked with them and said to them, “Be of good cheer! It is I [Egō eimi]; do not be afraid.” Then He went up into the boat to them, and the wind ceased. And they were greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure, and marveled (Mark 6:45-51).
Jesus said, Egō eimi, which means “I am.” You’ll miss that in most translations, which put it as, “It is I!” (KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, GNT, DRB) or “It’s me!” But Jesus said, “I am.”
As you may know, “I am” is also the name of God:
Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’ Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, “I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt”’” (Exod 3:13-16).
3. Was he really betrayed by Judas?
There are some 31 verses in the Bible that speaks about Judas betrayal of Jesus.
Most Relevant Verses
Matthew 26:21
As they were eating, He said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me.”
Mark 14:18
As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me.”
John 13:21
When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.”
John 21:20
Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”
4. What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings?
What Are the Basics of Jesus’ Teaching?
Jesus taught that He was the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, that God requires more than external obedience to rules, that salvation comes to those who believe in Christ. That judgment is coming to the unbelieving and unrepentant.
Perhaps the most fundamental of Christ’s teachings come from Mark 12:30-31(NKJV),
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”
The one He addressed most often was the Kingdom of God.
When speaking about the kingdom of God, Jesus established that:
The kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 13:36 NIV).
Believers participate in bringing the kingdom to earth. “This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:9-10 NIV).
The kingdom of God, which is eternal, is more important than that which is temporal. “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33 KJV).
The kingdom of God is constructed in a person’s heart and mind. “God’s kingdom does not come simply by obeying principles or waiting for signs. The kingdom is not discovered in one place or another, for God’s kingdom realm is already expanding within some of you” (Luke 17:20-21TPT).
While Christ has come, we wait for His return and the promise of God’s kingdom to be fully realized. This is the tenuous relationship of the “already but not yet” which is examined in the following article.
The kingdom of God, which is eternal, is more important than that which is temporal. “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33 KJV).
The kingdom of God is constructed in a person’s heart and mind. “God’s kingdom does not come simply by obeying principles or waiting for signs. The kingdom is not discovered in one place or another, for God’s kingdom realm is already expanding within some of you” (Luke 17:20-21TPT).
While Christ has come, we wait for His return and the promise of God’s kingdom to be fully realized. This is the tenuous relationship of the “already but not yet” which is examined in the following article.
A Red letter Bible actually highlights in Red the actual words spoken by Jesus.
5. To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.
Jesus predicted His death at least three times in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and the book of John offers even more predictions.
-->
@Shila
Once you accept Jesus indeed existed as a historical person. The specifics of Jesus’s life and teachings are found in the Biblical Jesus. All your questions are answered in the Bible.“The first question we have to answer is How do we know what we know about Jesus? How is it possible for twenty-first-century people to know with any reasonable certainty what he did and said in the first century? Obviously, none of us was there when Jesus walked the earth. So how do we gain access to him as a historical person?For many people, the answer to this question is simple: open up your Bible and read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they tell us what Jesus did and said. Indeed, for almost nineteen centuries, most Christians—and virtually everyone else, for that matter—believed that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus and that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written by companions of the apostles Peter and Paul.”
Sounds like Bart Ehrman. At least, it reminds me of something else I read from him:
- "Most people who are not conversant with biblical scholarship probably think that knowing about the historical Jesus is a relatively simple matter. We have four Gospels in the New Testament. To know what Jesus said and did, we should read the Gospels. So what's the problem?" -- Jesus Interrupted, p. 143
Ehrman goes on to explain what, in fact, the problem is:
- "The problem is in part that the Gospels are full of discrepancies and were written decades after Jesus' ministry and death by authors who had not themselves witnessed any of the events of Jesus' life.
- ... They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language and lived in a different country from him. The accounts they produced are not disinterested; they are narratives produced by Christians who actually believed in Jesus, and therefore were not immune from slanting the stories in light of their biases. They are not completely free of collaboration, since Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. And rather than being fully consistent with one another, they are widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was.
- How can sources like this be used to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus? It's not easy, but there are ways."
-->
@Stephen
The consensus among historical scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a historical person. I have no trouble believing that.Me neither.For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death? Was he really betrayed by Judas? What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings? To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.All fair questions that I would be more that interested to have answered by the devout Christians. But I won't be holding my breath, Castin
I imagine devout Christians will just point to the Bible's answers to these questions.
-->
@Castin
--> @ShilaOnce you accept Jesus indeed existed as a historical person. The specifics of Jesus’s life and teachings are found in the Biblical Jesus. All your questions are answered in the Bible.“The first question we have to answer is How do we know what we know about Jesus? How is it possible for twenty-first-century people to know with any reasonable certainty what he did and said in the first century? Obviously, none of us was there when Jesus walked the earth. So how do we gain access to him as a historical person?For many people, the answer to this question is simple: open up your Bible and read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they tell us what Jesus did and said. Indeed, for almost nineteen centuries, most Christians—and virtually everyone else, for that matter—believed that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus and that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written by companions of the apostles Peter and Paul.”Sounds like Bart Ehrman. At least, it reminds me of something else I read from him:"Most people who are not conversant with biblical scholarship probably think that knowing about the historical Jesus is a relatively simple matter. We have four Gospels in the New Testament. To know what Jesus said and did, we should read the Gospels. So what's the problem?" -- Jesus Interrupted, p. 143
Ehrman goes on to explain what, in fact, the problem is:"The problem is in part that the Gospels are full of discrepancies and were written decades after Jesus' ministry and death by authors who had not themselves witnessed any of the events of Jesus' life.
... They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language and lived in a different country from him. The accounts they produced are not disinterested; they are narratives produced by Christians who actually believed in Jesus, and therefore were not immune from slanting the stories in light of their biases. They are not completely free of collaboration, since Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. And rather than being fully consistent with one another, they are widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was.
How can sources like this be used to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus? It's not easy, but there are ways."
Bart Ehrman actually claims the four Gospels are the last links in a long chain of writings by anonymous storytellers who were not themselves eyewitnesses to Jesus and who may never have even met an eyewitness.
This, in a nutshell, is the theory of the anonymous Gospels.
But No Anonymous Copies Exist
The first and perhaps biggest problem for the theory of the anonymous Gospels is this: no anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist. As far as we know, they never have.
Instead, as New Testament scholar Simon Gathercole has demonstrated, the ancient manuscripts are unanimous in attributing these books to the apostles and their companions.
From a listing of the original reek manuscripts in the possession of the Vatican Library what is clear are the authorships of the Gospels.
First, there is a striking absence of any anonymous Gospel manuscripts. That is because they don’t exist. Not even one. The reason this is so significant is that one of the most basic rules in the study of New Testament manuscripts (a practice known as textual criticism) is that you go back to the earliest and best Greek copies to see what they actually say. Not what you wish they said, but what they actually say. When it comes to the titles of the Gospels, not only the earliest and best manuscripts, but all of the ancient manuscripts—without exception, in every language—attribute the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.14
Second——The only significant difference is that in some later copies, the word “Gospel” is missing, probably because the title was abbreviated.In fact, it is precisely the familiar names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that are found in every single manuscript we possess! According to the basic rules of textual criticism, then, if anything is original in the titles, it is the names of the authors.They are at least as original as any other part of the Gospels for which we have unanimous manuscript evidence.
Third—and this is important—notice also that the titles are present in the most ancient copies of each Gospel we possess, including the earliest fragments, known as papyri (from the papyrus leaves of which they were made). For example, the earliest Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew contains the title “The Gospel according to Matthew” (Greek euangelion kata Matthaion) (Papyrus 4). Likewise, the oldest Greek copy of the beginning of the Gospel of Mark starts with the title “The Gospel according to Mark” (Greek euangelion kata Markon). This famous manuscript—which is known as Codex Sinaiticus because it was discovered on Mount Sinai—is widely regarded as one of the most reliable ancient copies of the New Testament ever found. Along similar lines, the oldest known copy of the Gospel of Luke begins with the words “The Gospel according to Luke” (Greek euangelion kata Loukan) (Papyrus 75). Finally, the earliest manuscript of the Gospel of John that exists is only a tiny fragment of the Gospel. Fortunately, however, the first page is preserved, and it reads: “The Gospel according to John” (Greek euangelion kata Iōannēn) (Papyrus 66).
In short, the earliest and best copies of the four Gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is absolutely no manuscript evidence—and thus no actual historical evidence—to support the claim that “originally” the Gospels had no titles. In light of this complete lack of anonymous copies, New Testament scholar Martin Hengel writes: Let those who deny the great age and therefore the basic originality of the Gospel superscriptions in order to preserve their “good” critical conscience give a better explanation of the completely unanimous and relatively early attestation of these titles, their origin and the names of the authors associated with them. Such an explanation has yet to be given, and it never will be.
-->
@Castin
--> @StephenThe consensus among historical scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a historical person. I have no trouble believing that.Me neither.For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death? Was he really betrayed by Judas? What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings? To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.All fair questions that I would be more that interested to have answered by the devout Christians. But I won't be holding my breath, CastinI imagine devout Christians will just point to the Bible's answers to these questions.
It is important to maintain a historical perspective of the historical Jesus and his ascension into modernity.
The Jews were expecting a promised messiah based on Jewish prophesies who would deliver them from the Roman yoke and were initially confused trying to determine if Jesus was indeed that Messiah.
Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Jewish Messiah will be associated with events that had not occurred at the time of Jesus, such as the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace, and the ingathering of Jews to their homeland.
We know the Romans crucified Jesus then went on to destroy the Holy temple and city in 70AD.
So why did the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 embrace Christianity and make it the official religion of the Roman Empire to later become a universal religion.
Simple answer. The Gospels. Once the Gospels were written and the apostles spread the teachings of Jesus to a wider audience. The full story of Jesus was revealed and embraced by the Gentiles.
Jesus was fully in control of his ascension into modernity.
His original mission was simply.
Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
His mission changed after his crucifixion and resurrection.
Matthew 28: 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Should the Jews then feel betrayed by Jesus?
Note the Jews did demand the Romans crucify Jesus.
Luke 23:21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
That did not go unnoticed.
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
-->
@Shila
This probably deserves its own thread called Who Wrote the Gospels? or Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts? But, anyway:
- We don't have any original manuscripts of the Gospels, obviously. The earliest manuscripts we have, the ones dating from before 200 CE, are fragments -- they don't start at the beginning and they don't contain an end, so we can't tell if they had titles. The complete manuscripts we have date from a later period that is not of much use in determining if the Gospels originally had titles. So the fact that all our (complete) manuscripts have titles does not really tell us much.
- Even in these later manuscripts, the way the Gospel titles are phrased changes from manuscript to manuscript -- i.e., "The Gospel According to Saint Mark" vs "The Holy Gospel According to Mark" and so on. More suspicious, where the titles are located changes from manuscript to manuscript -- some titles are at the beginning of the book, some are at the end. This indicates that the titles are scribal ornamentation and were not in the original manuscripts, or else we would expect the titles to always be in the same place and always worded the same way (if they were copied faithfully).
- Note how Justin Martyr, writing in the second century, quotes from the Gospels at length but refers to them collectively and anonymously, indicating he wrote before they had been widely attributed to specific men. This is a key piece of data pointing to the original anonymity of the Gospels. Scholars believe they began to be attributed to their now-traditional authors in the second century (and remember, our complete, titled manuscripts date to after that).
- For me one of the biggest indicators is just that all of the Gospels are written anonymously in the third person, none of them in the first person, as you would expect of men telling firsthand accounts -- and Matthew, who was supposed to be a disciple of Jesus, feels the need to copy vast swaths of his material from Mark, who never met Jesus. Apostles should feel no need to copy from anyone.
I'm a little disappointed that you didn't mention Papias, but I supposed that would bore people even more than our current debate.
-->
@Castin
--> @ShilaThis probably deserves its own thread called Who Wrote the Gospels? or Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts? But, anyway:
- We don't have any original manuscripts of the Gospels, obviously. The earliest manuscripts we have, the ones dating from before 200 CE, are fragments -- they don't start at the beginning and they don't contain an end, so we can't tell if they had titles. The complete manuscripts we have date from a later period that is not of much use in determining if the Gospels originally had titles. So the fact that all our (complete) manuscripts have titles does not really tell us much.
- Even in these later manuscripts, the way the Gospel titles are phrased changes from manuscript to manuscript -- i.e., "The Gospel According to Saint Mark" vs "The Holy Gospel According to Mark" and so on. More suspicious, where the titles are located changes from manuscript to manuscript -- some titles are at the beginning of the book, some are at the end. This indicates that the titles are scribal ornamentation and were not in the original manuscripts, or else we would expect the titles to always be in the same place and always worded the same way (if they were copied faithfully).
- Note how Justin Martyr, writing in the second century, quotes from the Gospels at length but refers to them collectively and anonymously, indicating he wrote before they had been widely attributed to specific men. This is a key piece of data pointing to the original anonymity of the Gospels. Scholars believe they began to be attributed to their now-traditional authors in the second century (and remember, our complete, titled manuscripts date to after that).
- For me one of the biggest indicators is just that all of the Gospels are written anonymously in the third person, none of them in the first person, as you would expect of men telling firsthand accounts -- and Matthew, who was supposed to be a disciple of Jesus, feels the need to copy vast swaths of his material from Mark, who never met Jesus. Apostles should feel no need to copy from anyone.
I'm a little disappointed that you didn't mention Papias, but I supposed that would bore people even more than our current debate.
With both an Old and a New Testament, the Bible is a collection of 66 books ranging from Genesis to Revelation. Since the Bible is an ancient book that has been hand-copied by scribes for many generations, some have questioned the accuracy of the copied manuscripts that are available today. The primarily focus here will be on the accuracy of the transmisson of the New Testament text.
While variants, like stylistic changes and variations in spelling, inevitably did come into the text, the variants do not put any Biblical doctrines "in jeopardy," according to Dr. Bruce Metzeger of Princeton Theological Seminary 1 . In fact, according to Biblical scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix, the New Testament has a 99.5% purity rate in terms of accuracy -- a better accuracy rate than any other well-known book 2 .
When compared to other works of antiquity, the Bible has multitudes of manuscripts. The amount of manuscripts is important since individual manuscripts can be checked with the rest of the manuscripts for variants. Here is a breakdown of the amount of New Testament copies in comparison to other amount of copies of other ancient works:
Over 20,000 New Testament manuscripts exist 3 .
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the Annals of Imperial Rome . There is only one manuscript of his first six books and another manuscript for books eleven to sixteen (the other books are lost) 4 .
Josephus's work, The Jewish War has 9 Greek manuscripts, a Latin translation, and other Russian translations 5 .
The runner-up to the New Testament in terms of manuscript amount is Homer's Iliad . There are less than 650 Greek manuscripts 6 .
Evincing the superiority of the New Testament text over other ancient works in terms of the number of available manuscripts, the comparison above reveals that the existing texts of the New Testament can be verified with multitudes of other copies and therefore can be trusted to be an accurate representation of the original texts.
The duration between the time that the work was first written and the conception time of the earliest existing copy is also important. If the duration is long, errors can propogate into the text. Here is a comparison of the duration times of the New Testament and other ancient works:
Scholars like Biblical archaeologist William Albright estimate the entirety of the New Testament to have been originally composed between 40 and 80 A.D. 7 . While the Codex Sinaiticus , a complete Greek manuscript copy of the New Testament in uncial (capital) letters, was written in A.D. 350, other existing fragments have been dated earlier. For instance, a small fragment of the gospel of John was dated to be from A.D. 100-150. Other fragments of the New Testament in papyrus have also been found and have been dated to be from the second and third centuries A.D. 8 .
Tacitus's Annals of Imperial Rome , which was initially written in A.D. 116, exists in only two manuscripts, one copied in about 850 A.D. and the other in the eleventh century 9 .
The existing copies of Josephus's The Jewish War (originally composed in the first-century A.D.) were written from the fourth century to the twelfth century 10 .
Homer's Iliad , which was initially composed around 800 B.C., has existing copies which were written starting from the second century A.D. 11
In comparison to other ancient manuscripts, the New Testament boasts a very short time interval between the original composition and the the earliest availiable copy's inception. This brevity in time not only reveals the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts but also gives credence to the assertion that the manuscripts availiable today are virtually identical to the original composition. Moreover, the short gap between the period of time that the actual events of the New Testament took place (from John the Baptist to the apostle John in Revelation) and the period of time of the original composition of the New Testament prevents distortions or fables from being inserted into the storyline of the New Testament.
Even an introductory look into the manuscript background of the New Testament gives a convincing picture of the reliablity of the New Testament's transmission over a span of almost two millenia. Not only does the New Testament stand above the crowd of other ancient manuscripts in terms of manuscript amount, but the New Testament also has copies of manuscripts that are very close in time to the original composition. Virtually unchanged (99.5% accuracy rate) over the centuries, the New Testament can be deemed reliable and accurate. The next logical step would be to study the content: the claims that the New Testament makes.
-->
@Shila
You really like to gatling-gun your posts all over the place, man. Have you ever heard the expression "the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing"?
We know the Romans crucified Jesus then went on to destroy the Holy temple and city in 70AD.
Yep.
So why did the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 embrace Christianity and make it the official religion of the Roman Empire to later become a universal religion.
Constantine didn't make it the state religion of Rome. That was Theodosius, about 80 years later. Constantine merely made Christianity a licit religion.
Simple answer. The Gospels. Once the Gospels were written and the apostles spread the teachings of Jesus to a wider audience. The full story of Jesus was revealed and embraced by the Gentiles.Jesus was fully in control of his ascension into modernity.
So you seem to think that a religion's success is proof of its veracity. Or another way to put it, "popularity = truth."
Should the Jews then feel betrayed by Jesus?
I imagine it's hard to feel betrayed by someone you never really believed in.
-->
@Castin
--> @ShilaYou really like to gatling-gun your posts all over the place, man. Have you ever heard the expression "the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing"?We know the Romans crucified Jesus then went on to destroy the Holy temple and city in 70AD.Yep.So why did the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 embrace Christianity and make it the official religion of the Roman Empire to later become a universal religion.Constantine didn't make it the state religion of Rome. That was Theodosius, about 80 years later. Constantine merely made Christianity a licit religion.
Constantine's decision to cease the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was a turning point for early Christianity, sometimes referred to as the Triumph of the Church, the Peace of the Church or the Constantinian shift. In 313, Constantine and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan decriminalizing Christian worship. The emperor became a great patron of the Church and set a precedent for the position of the Christian emperor within the Church and raised the notions of orthodoxy, Christendom, ecumenical councils, and the state church of the Roman Empire declared by edict in 380. He is revered as a saint and isapostolos in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and various Eastern Catholic Churches for his example as a Christian monarch.
In 380 CE, the emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Christianity, specifically Nicene Christianity, the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Simple answer. The Gospels. Once the Gospels were written and the apostles spread the teachings of Jesus to a wider audience. The full story of Jesus was revealed and embraced by the Gentiles.Jesus was fully in control of his ascension into modernity.So you seem to think that a religion's success is proof of its veracity. Or another way to put it, "popularity = truth."
It would be a harder position to defend if Christianity failed. In which case Christianity would have been relegated to just any regional tribal Jewish religion instead Christianity became a universal religion with over 2 billion followers. Proof of Jesus’s ascension into modernity.
Should the Jews then feel betrayed by Jesus?I imagine it's hard to feel betrayed by someone you never really believed in.
Jesus did not think the Jews were ready to accept him and even told his disciples to keep his presence a secret.
Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
The Romans were not ready to accept Jesus either.
It took another 350 plus years before Christianity became the official religion of Rome and then went on to become a universal religion.
-->
@Tradesecret
.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"
YOUR EVER SO WEAK AND WANTING POSTS TO ME IN RELATION TO MY REVEALING POST #189 IN SHOWING YOU TO BE THE CONTINUED BIBLE FOOL:
"Excellent another post devoted to how wonderful I am. Oh I have missed you brother." (#196)
"I am not entirely sure why you tagged me in your congratulaterly letter to Stephen. I suppose there was a reason - but I couldn't find it.
Have a nice day" (#197)
Yes, dear Miss Tradesecret, you are slowly learning that Jesus' true words and I OWN YOUR BIBLE INEPTNESS! Good girl! The membership notices that you do not want to add your insidious opinions to the equally Bible stupid Shila's ungodly thread. Again, you are learning the fact that if you did, I and other members would once again address your complete Bible ignorance! Again, good girl! Therefore, Jesus and I are so proud for you to understand your ever so low standing within this forum! LOL!
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET IN ACCEPTING THAT CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THIS ESTEEMED FORUM OWNS THEM WILL BE ...?
-->
@Tradesecret
@Public-Choice
Public-Choice,
We can all see that you have learned, just like the Bible fool Miss Tradesecret, that you have to remain SILENT as you ran away from the post shown below whereas you were made the fool by me! Good boy!
You are as inept as your biography in "trying" to explain why you are a pseudo-christian which fails miserably.
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT WANTS TO MAKE THEMSELVES THE FOOL LIKE PUBLIC-CHOICE REGARDING THEIR FAITH WILL BE ...?
-->
@Castin
I imagine it's hard to feel betrayed by someone you never really believed in.
agreed
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"YOUR EVER SO WEAK AND WANTING POSTS TO ME IN RELATION TO MY REVEALING POST #189 IN SHOWING YOU TO BE THE CONTINUED BIBLE FOOL:"Excellent another post devoted to how wonderful I am. Oh I have missed you brother." (#196)"I am not entirely sure why you tagged me in your congratulaterly letter to Stephen. I suppose there was a reason - but I couldn't find it.Have a nice day" (#197)
If you were hoping to win the affection of Reverend Tradesecret you appear to have succeeded.
"Excellent another post devoted to how wonderful I am. Oh I have missed you brother." (#196)
There you go. You were missed. Now you two can hug and make up.
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Yes, dear Miss Tradesecret, you are slowly learning that Jesus' true words and I OWN YOUR BIBLE INEPTNESS! Good girl! The membership notices that you do not want to add your insidious opinions to the equally Bible stupid Shila's ungodly thread. Again, you are learning the fact that if you did, I and other members would once again address your complete Bible ignorance! Again, good girl! Therefore, Jesus and I are so proud for you to understand your ever so low standing within this forum! LOL!
Do you have to constantly remind the Reverend you and Jesus are so proud of the Reverend.
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET IN ACCEPTING THAT CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THIS ESTEEMED FORUM OWNS THEM WILL BE ...?
You didn’t complete your thought.
-->
@Castin
Should the Jews then feel betrayed by Jesus?
-->@CastinI imagine it's hard to feel betrayed by someone you never really believed in.
The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers. Two of the disciples, James and John, even asked to sit at Jesus’ right and left in His kingdom when He came into His glory. The people of Jerusalem also thought He would deliver them. They shouted praises to God for the mighty works they had seen Jesus do and called out, “Hosanna, save us,” when He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). They treated Him like a conquering king. Then, when He allowed Himself to be arrested, tried, and crucified on a cursed cross, the people stopped believing that He was the promised prophet. They rejected their Messiah (Matthew 27:22).
The Jews rejected Jesus because they felt betrayed by Jesus.
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
No I just moved onto better things than dealing with someone who is probably trolling.
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @BrotherD.ThomasNo I just moved onto better things than dealing with someone who is probably trolling
A Christian attacking Christians on a religion forum is not trolling. It is very disturbing. He has repeatedly attacked Reverend Tradesecret too. Only someone possessed by Satan would do such things in public.
Now we have evidence Satan exists too.
-->
@Public-Choice
Public-Choice,
YOUR QUOTE TO GET OUT OF THE EMBARRASSING PREDICAMENT YOU WERE IN REGARDING MY POST #60, LOL!: "No I just moved onto better things than dealing with someone who is probably trolling."
Yeah, okay, if that is your child-like excuse to RUN AWAY from supporting your facts relative to the 12 passages defaming the Hell Bound woman, then that is your problem in front of the membership! Remember, this is a discussion forum, and NOT a runaway from discussion forum like you are now known to be at your embarrassing expense!
Next time, get your biblical passages in line, whereas you used the wrong passage regarding Shila being Bible stupid in mentioning she was not in church, duh!
What did we expect from a pseudo-christian like you, other than what you have shown us in that you too are Bible inept.
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "PUBLIC-CHOICE" THAT WANTS TO STEP IN THE PROVERBIAL POO AND THEN RUN AWAY FROM DOING SO, WILL BE ...?
.
-->
@Shila
.
Shila, the continued Bible lunatic,
YOUR INEPT RESPONSE IN YOUR POST #232 TOWARDS ME: "A Christian attacking Christians on a religion forum is not trolling. It is very disturbing. He has repeatedly attacked Reverend Tradesecret too."
HELLO? I am told by none other than the inspired words of Jesus that I am to correct Bible fools like you!!! "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (1 Timothy 4:3-4)
It is a full time job within this forum in correcting your Bible stupidity, and the equally dumbfounded of the Bible, Tradesecrets Bible ineptness as well! If you have a problem with this godly notion, then I suggest you leave this Religion Forum to save yourself further embarrassment, understood Bible ding-bat?!
As it has been easily shown in your total mortification, I have forgotten more about the JUDEO-Christian Bible than you will ever learn! LOL!
.
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
How do you explain Deborah, Esther, and Phoebe being in positions of leadership in addition to the prophetesses Anna, Isaiah's wife, and Philip's four daughters if women are to keep silent in the church?
Deborah was a judge over Israel for goodness sake. That was a political office instituted by God, and I suppose you think Phoebe being in charge of welfare as a leader in her church was also somehow sinful?
I don't respond to trolls because they are trolls. You obviously got your theological degree from Misogyny Ministries, Inc. and not the Bible. Jus sayin.
-->
@Public-Choice
How do you explain Deborah, Esther, and Phoebe being in positions of leadership in addition to the prophetesses Anna, Isaiah's wife, and Philip's four daughters if women are to keep silent in the church?Deborah was a judge over Israel for goodness sake. That was a political office instituted by God
And how is one to square that with what Timothy or Corinthians has to say about women and the church?
-->
@Stephen
It's simple. The Greek word has been repeatedly mistranslated by organizations with a history of American reformed or puritan theology.
For starters, in 1 Timothy, Paul is not stating women cannot have positions in church leadership or be prophetesses or hold public office. He is saying a woman cannot serve as a pastor or administrator over other men.
The Greek word for teach in 1 Timothy 2:12 means in that context to hold a didactic discourse. And the word for authority means in the executive sense. But rather they should remain quiet, e.g. they shouldn't be holding discussions or being in control of the service.
This doesn't mean women can't teach in the classical sense or prophesy. Paul recognized a female elder in his writings. You can't tell me he was against women prophesying or women being in any sort of leadership capacity at all if he commends Phoebe and Acts speaks highly of Philip's 4 daughters. If Paul had a problem with prophetesses as a position he would have made it clear.
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Shila, the continued Bible lunatic,YOUR INEPT RESPONSE IN YOUR POST #232 TOWARDS ME: "A Christian attacking Christians on a religion forum is not trolling. It is very disturbing. He has repeatedly attacked Reverend Tradesecret too."HELLO? I am told by none other than the inspired words of Jesus that I am to correct Bible fools like you!!! "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (1 Timothy 4:3-4)
You have barely finished high school and make about 20,000$ annually. You are not qualified to be a teacher. Besides the only quotes you have repeatedly reference is Timothy. You have limited scriptural knowledge.
It is a full time job within this forum in correcting your Bible stupidity, and the equally dumbfounded of the Bible, Tradesecrets Bible ineptness as well! If you have a problem with this godly notion, then I suggest you leave this Religion Forum to save yourself further embarrassment, understood Bible ding-bat?!As it has been easily shown in your total mortification, I have forgotten more about the JUDEO-Christian Bible than you will ever learn! LOL!
Finally we have you confession you have forgotten more about the JUDEO-Christian Bible than you will ever learn! That is a sign you are approaching senility.
-->
@Stephen
-->@Public-ChoiceHow do you explain Deborah, Esther, and Phoebe being in positions of leadership in addition to the prophetesses Anna, Isaiah's wife, and Philip's four daughters if women are to keep silent in the church?Deborah was a judge over Israel for goodness sake. That was a political office instituted by GodStephen: And how is one to square that with what Timothy or Corinthians has to say about women and the church?
Timothy and Corinthians were written by Paul.
Paul's physical state at the time of his conversion is discussed and related to theseecstatic experiences. It is postulated that both were manifestations of temporal lobe epilepsy. (Luke 1:21-23, 62-65) and concussion (Acts 20:9-12).
Therefore It is more important to know;
How Jesus Viewed and Valued Women
Jesus's Countercultural View of Women
The place of women in the first-century Roman world and in Judaism has been well-documented and set forth in several recent books.1 Most frequently, women were regarded as second-class citizens.
Jesus’s regard for women was much different from that of his contemporaries. Evans terms Jesus’s approach to women as “revolutionary” for his era.2 But was his treatment of women out of character with Old Testament revelation, or with later New Testament practice? Other chapters in this volume will show that it was not.
Disciples Come in Two Sexes, Male and Female
For Christ, women have an intrinsic value equal to that of men. Jesus said, “. . . at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’” (Matt. 19:4; cf. Gen. 1:27). Women are created in the image of God just as men are. Like men, they have self-awareness, personal freedom, a measure of self-determination, and personal responsibility for their actions.
Scanzoni and Hardesty point out that “Jesus came to earth not primarily as a male but as a person. He treated women not primarily as females but as human beings.”3 Jesus recognized women as fellow human beings. Disciples come in two sexes, male and female. Females are seen by Jesus as genuine persons, not simply as the objects of male desire.4 Hurley believes “the foundation-stone of Jesus’s attitude toward women was his vision of them as persons to whom and for whom he had come. He did not perceive them primarily in terms of their sex, age, or marital status; he seems to have considered them in terms of their relation (or lack of one) to God.”5
Three Clear Examples
Examples of this even-handed treatment of women by Jesus are found in the four Gospels.
First, Jesus regularly addressed women directly while in public. This was unusual for a man to do (John 4:27). The disciples were amazed to see Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar (John 4:7-26). He also spoke freely with the woman taken in adultery (John 8:10–11).6 Luke, who gives ample attention to women in his Gospel, notes that Jesus spoke publicly with the widow of Nain (Luke 7:12–13), the woman with the bleeding disorder (Luke 8:48; cf. Matt. 9:22; Mark 5:34), and a woman who called to him from a crowd (Luke 11:27–28). Similarly, Jesus addressed a woman bent over for eighteen years (Luke 13:12) and a group of women on the route to the cross (Luke 23:27-31).
A second aspect of Jesus’s regard for the full intrinsic value of women is seen in how he spoke to the women he addressed. He spoke in a thoughtful, caring manner. Each synoptic writer records Jesus addressing the woman with the bleeding disorder tenderly as “daughter” (references above) and referring to the bent woman as a “daughter of Abraham” (Luke 13:16). Bloesch infers that “Jesus called the Jewish women ‘daughters of Abraham’ (Luke 13:16), thereby according them a spiritual status equal to that of men.”7
Third, Jesus did not gloss over sin in the lives of the women he met. He held women personally responsible for their own sin as seen in his dealings with the woman at the well (John 4:16–18), the woman taken in adultery (John 8:10–11), and the sinful woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:44–50). Their sin was not condoned, but confronted. Each had the personal freedom and a measure of self-determination to deal with the issues of sin, repentance, and forgiveness.
Jesus's Valuation of Women Today
Even though clear role distinction is seen in Christ’s choice of the apostles and in the exclusive type of work they were given to perform, no barriers need exist between a believer and the Lord Jesus Christ, regardless of gender. Jesus demonstrated only the highest regard for women, in both his life and teaching. He recognized the intrinsic equality of men and women, and continually showed the worth and dignity of women as persons. Jesus valued their fellowship, prayers, service, financial support, testimony and witness. He honored women, taught women, and ministered to women in thoughtful ways.
As a result, women responded warmly to Jesus’s ministry. Have things changed too drastically today for us to see this same Jesus? Not at all. Modern women can find the same rich fulfillment in serving Christ as did the Marys and Marthas of Judea, or the Joannas and Susannas of Galilee.
-->
@Stephen
@Public-Choice
Public-Choice, the continued Bible fool,
YOUR QUOTE IN SAYING THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF!!!!: "How do you explain Deborah, Esther, and Phoebe being in positions of leadership in addition to the prophetesses Anna, Isaiah's wife, and Philip's four daughters if women are to keep silent in the church?"
Are you going on record within this forum in stating that Jesus' JUDEO-Christian Bible is contradicting itself with your statement above? How dare you state that Jesus' inspired words are contradicting to , BLASPHEME!!!
"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
Listen up you dumbfounded Bible fool, what Jesus' inspired words SAID ONCE, He did not perceive them to say something that is contradicting to what He said in the first place, understood?! You will pay upon Judgment Day for sure because you are guilty of the following passage: "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." (Romans 16:17-18)
YOUR CONTINUED STUPIDITY FOR ALL TO SEE QUOTE: "I don't respond to trolls because they are trolls. You obviously got your theological degree from Misogyny Ministries, Inc. and not the Bible. Jus sayin."
HELLO? Uh, barring the alleged troll analogy, but you just did respond to my posts again and again, so you obviously went to the Bible school of "I can't respond to Brother D. Thomas's superior Bible knowledge over my kindergarten biblical knowledge of same, and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, therefore I will use the old worn out "troll runaway response" as an EXCUSE to RUN! ROFLOL!
WOW, NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "PUBLIC-EXPENSE" THAT OUTRIGHT SAYS THE BIBLE UNGODLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF, WILL BE ...?
.