Who is the “Greatest Man Who Ever Lived”?

[jimboston]

The miracles are fiction.

The non-miraculous parts may be based on some truth, but they could be factionalized in part… just like any history or biography. The bias of the writer, translator, editor etc. all come into play. This bias, and the likely distance from reality, is going to increase the further away we get in time from the event being recorded. This happens in modern history when the authors are generally trying to be factual… it happens more in histories when the writers, compilers, editors, translators, etc. all have an agenda.

The miracles are of tertiary importance. They're the flash, not the substance.

The work was completed on the hill of Calvary. No miracles were performed there, hence no belief in miracles is required to affirm the lesson of the Nazarene.

[jimboston]

I agree with Duk there's no doubt the OT is ahistorical. The story of Moses is essentially plagiarized from Babylonian myth, for instance.

Is it plagiarized or a case of two seperate and conflicting cultures telling the same story?

It seems unlikely any Hebrew, particularly the scribes, would want anything to do with a Babylonian myth.

Could be like deciding Georgian stories about Ioseb Dzhugashvili, sound the same as and therefore, are plagiarized from American myths.

Lots of stories in the Old Testament have corollaries in other ancient religions.

These were oral stories that were shared amongst different tribes or ethnicity groups… of time the ethnic groups changed them and adopted them and they then became the OT.

[2dimes]

It's possible every culture has dragon stories because over time, the ethnic groups shared their myths and adopted them as their own. It's also possible that at some point there were dinosaurs or something and people kept talking about them long after they all died off.

Not sure where the fire breathing part comes from. Any theories?

[Maxleod]

It's possible every culture has dragon stories because over time, the ethnic groups shared their myths and adopted them as their own. It's also possible that at some point there were dinosaurs or something and people kept talking about them long after they all died off.

Not sure where the fire breathing part comes from. Any theories?

Maybe it's the ancient version of shark with laser beams?



And there are electric eels, so maybe some extinct species of lizards could spit some kind of liquid that would inflame when in contact with oxygen?

[2dimes]

Or when someone was burned by some acid a "dragon" spit on them, the easiest way another person could explain it was to say, it breathed fire?

[jimboston]

It's possible every culture has dragon stories because over time, the ethnic groups shared their myths and adopted them as their own. It's also possible that at some point there were dinosaurs or something and people kept talking about them long after they all died off.

Not sure where the fire breathing part comes from. Any theories?

A large crocodile grows a few inches in retelling every couple hundred years.

Kinda like how “that one fish that got away” story gets bigger on each retelling.

The fire-breathing part comes in when Ulf wants to impress the tribe to cement his place as the leader of the group. So he starts by retelling the story of how his great-great-grandfather Eddard slayed the fearsome beast that was killing all the virgins. Over time this fearsome crocodile grows bigger, starts walking on its’ hind legs, can fly, and eventually can breath fire.

That’s a much more interesting story to hear by the campfire than just how some guy finally killed that old lame crocodile that no one else could kill but that had been injured by previous hunters.

I have a friend who loves his stories… and every time he retells them they grow more interesting and more elaborate… and further from the actual truth. In his mind I am sure he thinks his retelling is accurate… but it ain’t. That said he’s a good story-teller and he can capture the attention of a group and make everyone laugh. Years ago when I had only been hanging with him for a few years, sometimes I would try to interject, and “correct” the facts of his story. He’d get annoyed and my interruption would disrupt the flow and ‘ruin’ the story. It’s just my nature… I was kinda a dick like JP4 (I hate to admit this). Anyway. After I did this one particular time a mutual friend in our group pulled me aside and said, “Jumbo.. just let Mark (name changed to protect the innocent, though my nickname was sometimes Jumbo) just tell his stories. You know he likes his stories and they’re not hurting anyone.”. He was right… the modified stories (the actual facts changing) didn’t hurt anyone… they weren’t bad or maligning… so after that I stopped myself from interrupting his flow. We both won… he got to tell his stories and I got to hear a good story and secretly in my mind I got to play the game of seeing how far from reality his facts changed. Even with one one lifetime the facts can easily be disrupted significantly… and eventually, with enough retelling, the true facts disappear and the story “becomes” the truth people remember.

[jusplay4fun]

Or when someone was burned by some acid a "dragon" spit on them, the easiest way another person could explain it was to say, it breathed fire?

This COULD be a valid assumption, but, as far as I know, we will NEVER know the answer to such assumptions about how legends and stories really are started. Sitting around a campfire, in the woods or in a cave can cause the imagination to run wild. With no real Science, any explanation that made sense may have been easily accepted.

For Christians (and Jews, in regards to their scripture, or what Christians call the Old Testament) we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and such scenarios are not valid. Our faith says to believe the scripture, not as History and not as Science, but as MORAL Guidance for life. For me (and most Christians) the Bible is NOT a book of History (as jimb wants) nor a book of Science (as Duk seems to want).

I see the Old Testament (OT) as the recordings of a group of nomadic people, lessons passed down through oral history, that was at some point written down. But, as a Christian, I see the Bible as MORE, as the inspired word of God. Jesus often refers to scripture, the OT, as lesson, guidance, and as prophesies that point to Him as the Messiah, the Anointed One, the Christ.

As far as jimb's and saxi's allegation (about Moses), I doubt it. I offer the following evidence:

A source for the Moses story?
Some assume that the biblical story of Moses’ birth was based on the Sargon Birth Legend, but this is unlikely. Although ancient Sumerian accounts of Sargon the Great date back to his lifetime, the legendary account of his birth is known from only four fragmentary tablets—three from the Neo-Assyrian period (934–605 bc) and one from the Neo-Babylonian period (626–539 bc). During the Neo-Assyrian period an Assyrian king took the name Sargon II and likely commanded the legends to be written about his namesake (722–705 bc). By doing so, he would have linked himself to the ancient hero and glorified himself as a “revived Sargon” figure. This would suggest that the birth legend was composed for propaganda purposes well after the biblical story of Moses.
(...)
and more, same source:

Moses stands out against the stories of the ancient cultures because he isn’t promoted like their chosen figures, but saved and demoted to poverty so that he can lead others to salvation. He is the new archetype of the chosen hero—one who is promoted only for the benefit of others. Over and against the stories of worldly kingdoms, Moses’ story articulates God’s remarkable work for His kingdom. His values are different from ours, and as is often the case in retrospect, we can be grateful for that.

https://www.logos.com/grow/story-moses- ... nt-legend/

[saxitoxin]

Jesus never affirms the validity of the Old Testament. He quotes the OT, he chastises Jews for acting hypocritically to the commandments set out in the Talmud and Tanakh, etc. But there's no point when Jesus comes right out and says the OT is the inspired word of God.

Nowadays, a judge in a U.S. Tax Court might quote the Tax Code and chastise people for violating it, but it's a huge leap to assume the judge therefore believes the Tax Code was ordained by God rather than enacted by Congress in the absence of him saying so.

Jesus may have been a Bodhisattva who spoke in terms people could understand but whose existence does not depend on the plagiarisms of the mythmakers of the Second Temple. In the Lotus Sutra, we learn that a Bodhisattva uses "expedient means" to address the people of an era:

• Employing ten thousand, a million expedient means,
  they accord with what is appropriate in preaching the Law.
  Those who are not versed in this matter
  cannot fully comprehend this.
  But you and the others already know
  how the Buddhas, the teachers of the world,
  accord with what is appropriate in employing expedient means.

[jusplay4fun]

Jesus never affirms the validity of the Old Testament. He quotes the OT, he chastises Jews for acting hypocritically to the commandments set out in the Talmud and Tanakh, etc. But there's no point when Jesus comes right out and says the OT is the inspired word of God.

Nowadays, a judge in a U.S. Tax Court might quote the Tax Code and chastise people for violating it, but it's a huge leap to assume the judge therefore believes the Tax Code was ordained by God rather than enacted by Congress in the absence of him saying so.

Jesus may have been a Bodhisattva who spoke in terms people could understand but whose existence does not depend on the plagiarisms of the mythmakers of the Second Temple. In the Lotus Sutra, we learn that a Bodhisattva uses "expedient means" to address the people of an era:

• Employing ten thousand, a million expedient means,
  they accord with what is appropriate in preaching the Law.
  Those who are not versed in this matter
  cannot fully comprehend this.
  But you and the others already know
  how the Buddhas, the teachers of the world,
  accord with what is appropriate in employing expedient means.

I disagree with saxi on this point about how Jesus viewed the Old Testament. Here are just A FEW sources that supports my point of view:

Jesus and the Old Testament
In examining the four gospels, we have a great amount of information to work with concerning Jesus’ view of the Old Testament. His view can be simply stated in two words: total trust. Jesus accepted the Old Testament Scriptures as being divinely authoritative; He never cast doubt on any of the accounts recorded in it. Jesus assumed the people were actual people and that the events literally occurred. We never find Him giving the slightest hint of anything but the complete acceptance of the Old Testament as the Word of God. This can be seen as follows:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... tament.cfm
There are MANY citations here supporting my statement and clearly at odds with what saxi stated. You can read these for yourself, if you desire.

Here is MORE:

We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God’s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’ (Matthew 22:31); ‘Yea; and have you never read, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou has prepared praise for thyself”?’ (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and ‘Have you not read what David did?’ (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and he trusted it totally.

Throughout the Gospels, we find Jesus confirming many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29, 32) the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), and the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31–51).

The list of examples goes on, and the evidence is clear: Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God’s Word, and his attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust. Many people want to accept Jesus, yet they reject a large portion of the Old Testament. Either Jesus knew what he was talking about, or he didn’t. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct.

https://www.bethinking.org/bible/q-how- ... -testament

Far from being impractical or irrelevant, says Walter C. Kaiser Jr., renowned Old Testament scholar and prolific author, the Old Testament is a repository of God’s grace and holiness, telling His grand story of redemption for sinners through justifying faith. Jesus Himself, Kaiser notes, chose the vast expanse of the Old Testament to ground His disciples in the Gospel message.

“I always begin with Luke 24,” Kaiser told Decision. “The risen Jesus meets the two guys on the Emmaus Road and He scolds them as they are grappling with what had just occurred that Sunday morning. He says, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken,’ and beginning with Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, He began to explain all things concerning Himself.’ He thought those two men could, should and ought to have known the Old Testament, and therefore they would have been better prepared for the events that were at hand on that Easter Sunday morning.”

To do less for modern believers grappling with the mystery of the Gospel is malpractice, Kaiser says.

“To say that we now have the new covenant, therefore we don’t need the Old Testament, no, no, hold your horses—that’s wrong,” Kaiser added. “The great mountain peaks are the promise in Genesis 3:15, the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15, the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7, and the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and then repeated in Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10.”

Kaiser says the church “floats in the air and has no roots unless it is attached through faith” to Israel’s Messiah and “grafted in” to the Olive Tree of Israel.

https://decisionmagazine.com/the-old-te ... .%E2%80%9D

and one more, among MANY MORE:

1. Jesus Recognized the Entire Old Testament as Authoritative
Jesus’ view of the Old Testament can be seen by the way He used the Old Testament Scripture. He recognized the entire Old Testament as Scripture, He accepted the two main divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, and He quoted from fourteen individual books of the Old Testament.

2. Jesus Recognized the Entire Extent of the Old Testament
The Old Testament, in its entirety, was recognized as authoritative by the Lord Jesus. He called it the Scriptures. We read Him saying the following:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me. (John 5:39 NASB)
To Him, there was a completed Old Testament Scripture. In other words, He recognized every book as inspired by God.

3. Jesus Recognized the Two Divisions of the Old Testament: the Law and the Prophets
We find that Jesus also recognized the two main sections of the Old Testament; the Law and the Prophets. He said:

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)
Jesus also made a reference to a third section of the Old Testament; the Psalms. On the day of His resurrection, He said to His disciples:

Jesus said to them, “While I was still with you, I told you that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms had to happen.” Then he helped them understand the Scriptures. He told them, The Scriptures say that the Messiah must suffer, then three days later he will rise from death. (Luke 24:44-46 CEV)

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... tament.cfm

[saxitoxin]

Jesus never affirms the validity of the Old Testament. He quotes the OT, he chastises Jews for acting hypocritically to the commandments set out in the Talmud and Tanakh, etc. But there's no point when Jesus comes right out and says the OT is the inspired word of God.

Nowadays, a judge in a U.S. Tax Court might quote the Tax Code and chastise people for violating it, but it's a huge leap to assume the judge therefore believes the Tax Code was ordained by God rather than enacted by Congress in the absence of him saying so.

Jesus may have been a Bodhisattva who spoke in terms people could understand but whose existence does not depend on the plagiarisms of the mythmakers of the Second Temple. In the Lotus Sutra, we learn that a Bodhisattva uses "expedient means" to address the people of an era:

• Employing ten thousand, a million expedient means,
  they accord with what is appropriate in preaching the Law.
  Those who are not versed in this matter
  cannot fully comprehend this.
  But you and the others already know
  how the Buddhas, the teachers of the world,
  accord with what is appropriate in employing expedient means.

I disagree with saxi on this point about how Jesus viewed the Old Testament. Here are just A FEW sources that supports my point of view:

Jesus and the Old Testament
In examining the four gospels, we have a great amount of information to work with concerning Jesus’ view of the Old Testament. His view can be simply stated in two words: total trust. Jesus accepted the Old Testament Scriptures as being divinely authoritative; He never cast doubt on any of the accounts recorded in it. Jesus assumed the people were actual people and that the events literally occurred. We never find Him giving the slightest hint of anything but the complete acceptance of the Old Testament as the Word of God. This can be seen as follows:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... tament.cfm
There are MANY citations here supporting my statement and clearly at odds with what saxi stated. You can read these for yourself, if you desire.

Here is MORE:

We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God’s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’ (Matthew 22:31); ‘Yea; and have you never read, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou has prepared praise for thyself”?’ (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and ‘Have you not read what David did?’ (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and he trusted it totally.

Throughout the Gospels, we find Jesus confirming many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29, 32) the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), and the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31–51).

The list of examples goes on, and the evidence is clear: Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God’s Word, and his attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust. Many people want to accept Jesus, yet they reject a large portion of the Old Testament. Either Jesus knew what he was talking about, or he didn’t. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct.

https://www.bethinking.org/bible/q-how- ... -testament

Far from being impractical or irrelevant, says Walter C. Kaiser Jr., renowned Old Testament scholar and prolific author, the Old Testament is a repository of God’s grace and holiness, telling His grand story of redemption for sinners through justifying faith. Jesus Himself, Kaiser notes, chose the vast expanse of the Old Testament to ground His disciples in the Gospel message.

“I always begin with Luke 24,” Kaiser told Decision. “The risen Jesus meets the two guys on the Emmaus Road and He scolds them as they are grappling with what had just occurred that Sunday morning. He says, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken,’ and beginning with Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, He began to explain all things concerning Himself.’ He thought those two men could, should and ought to have known the Old Testament, and therefore they would have been better prepared for the events that were at hand on that Easter Sunday morning.”

To do less for modern believers grappling with the mystery of the Gospel is malpractice, Kaiser says.

“To say that we now have the new covenant, therefore we don’t need the Old Testament, no, no, hold your horses—that’s wrong,” Kaiser added. “The great mountain peaks are the promise in Genesis 3:15, the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15, the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7, and the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and then repeated in Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10.”

Kaiser says the church “floats in the air and has no roots unless it is attached through faith” to Israel’s Messiah and “grafted in” to the Olive Tree of Israel.

https://decisionmagazine.com/the-old-te ... .%E2%80%9D

and one more, among MANY MORE:

1. Jesus Recognized the Entire Old Testament as Authoritative
Jesus’ view of the Old Testament can be seen by the way He used the Old Testament Scripture. He recognized the entire Old Testament as Scripture, He accepted the two main divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, and He quoted from fourteen individual books of the Old Testament.

2. Jesus Recognized the Entire Extent of the Old Testament
The Old Testament, in its entirety, was recognized as authoritative by the Lord Jesus. He called it the Scriptures. We read Him saying the following:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me. (John 5:39 NASB)
To Him, there was a completed Old Testament Scripture. In other words, He recognized every book as inspired by God.

3. Jesus Recognized the Two Divisions of the Old Testament: the Law and the Prophets
We find that Jesus also recognized the two main sections of the Old Testament; the Law and the Prophets. He said:

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)
Jesus also made a reference to a third section of the Old Testament; the Psalms. On the day of His resurrection, He said to His disciples:

Jesus said to them, “While I was still with you, I told you that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms had to happen.” Then he helped them understand the Scriptures. He told them, The Scriptures say that the Messiah must suffer, then three days later he will rise from death. (Luke 24:44-46 CEV)

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... tament.cfm

This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. It merely quotes Christian ministers proclaiming Jesus affirmed the divinity of the OT without providing evidence other than the same shoddy analysis the Church has been galumphing for the last 2,000 years.

But, ultimately, none of the actual words cited by Jesus in the above (versus those of the ministers who seem to prefer yammering about their own interpretations rather than directly quoting Emanuel) debunk what I said: [Jesus] "quotes the OT, he chastises Jews for acting hypocritically to the commandments set out in the Talmud and Tanakh, etc. But there's no point when Jesus comes right out and says the OT is the inspired word of God."

There's a lot they beleive that's nonsensical, but the Valentinian Christians were still more coherent than the modern Church in their view that there are two deities, and the OT describes the actions of an entirely different one from the one Jesus is preaching about. Once this view starts to spread, the Christian threat to Judaism accelerated by a factor of ten as it was no longer merely a sect of the older religion but a force whose adoption would lead to its destruction. At this point you suddenly have an anti-Christian Pharisee, dozens of years after Christ's death - "Saint Paul" - claiming Jesus came to him and told him how the Church should be administratively organized and that Paul should run the whole show.

[jusplay4fun]

Jesus never affirms the validity of the Old Testament. He quotes the OT, he chastises Jews for acting hypocritically to the commandments set out in the Talmud and Tanakh, etc. But there's no point when Jesus comes right out and says the OT is the inspired word of God.

Nowadays, a judge in a U.S. Tax Court might quote the Tax Code and chastise people for violating it, but it's a huge leap to assume the judge therefore believes the Tax Code was ordained by God rather than enacted by Congress in the absence of him saying so.

Jesus may have been a Bodhisattva who spoke in terms people could understand but whose existence does not depend on the plagiarisms of the mythmakers of the Second Temple. In the Lotus Sutra, we learn that a Bodhisattva uses "expedient means" to address the people of an era:

• Employing ten thousand, a million expedient means,
  they accord with what is appropriate in preaching the Law.
  Those who are not versed in this matter
  cannot fully comprehend this.
  But you and the others already know
  how the Buddhas, the teachers of the world,
  accord with what is appropriate in employing expedient means.

I disagree with saxi on this point about how Jesus viewed the Old Testament. Here are just A FEW sources that supports my point of view:

Jesus and the Old Testament
In examining the four gospels, we have a great amount of information to work with concerning Jesus’ view of the Old Testament. His view can be simply stated in two words: total trust. Jesus accepted the Old Testament Scriptures as being divinely authoritative; He never cast doubt on any of the accounts recorded in it. Jesus assumed the people were actual people and that the events literally occurred. We never find Him giving the slightest hint of anything but the complete acceptance of the Old Testament as the Word of God. This can be seen as follows:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... tament.cfm
There are MANY citations here supporting my statement and clearly at odds with what saxi stated. You can read these for yourself, if you desire.

Here is MORE:

We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God’s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’ (Matthew 22:31); ‘Yea; and have you never read, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou has prepared praise for thyself”?’ (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and ‘Have you not read what David did?’ (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and he trusted it totally.

Throughout the Gospels, we find Jesus confirming many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29, 32) the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), and the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31–51).

The list of examples goes on, and the evidence is clear: Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God’s Word, and his attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust. Many people want to accept Jesus, yet they reject a large portion of the Old Testament. Either Jesus knew what he was talking about, or he didn’t. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct.

https://www.bethinking.org/bible/q-how- ... -testament

Far from being impractical or irrelevant, says Walter C. Kaiser Jr., renowned Old Testament scholar and prolific author, the Old Testament is a repository of God’s grace and holiness, telling His grand story of redemption for sinners through justifying faith. Jesus Himself, Kaiser notes, chose the vast expanse of the Old Testament to ground His disciples in the Gospel message.

“I always begin with Luke 24,” Kaiser told Decision. “The risen Jesus meets the two guys on the Emmaus Road and He scolds them as they are grappling with what had just occurred that Sunday morning. He says, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken,’ and beginning with Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, He began to explain all things concerning Himself.’ He thought those two men could, should and ought to have known the Old Testament, and therefore they would have been better prepared for the events that were at hand on that Easter Sunday morning.”

To do less for modern believers grappling with the mystery of the Gospel is malpractice, Kaiser says.

“To say that we now have the new covenant, therefore we don’t need the Old Testament, no, no, hold your horses—that’s wrong,” Kaiser added. “The great mountain peaks are the promise in Genesis 3:15, the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15, the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7, and the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and then repeated in Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10.”

Kaiser says the church “floats in the air and has no roots unless it is attached through faith” to Israel’s Messiah and “grafted in” to the Olive Tree of Israel.

https://decisionmagazine.com/the-old-te ... .%E2%80%9D

and one more, among MANY MORE:

1. Jesus Recognized the Entire Old Testament as Authoritative
Jesus’ view of the Old Testament can be seen by the way He used the Old Testament Scripture. He recognized the entire Old Testament as Scripture, He accepted the two main divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, and He quoted from fourteen individual books of the Old Testament.

2. Jesus Recognized the Entire Extent of the Old Testament
The Old Testament, in its entirety, was recognized as authoritative by the Lord Jesus. He called it the Scriptures. We read Him saying the following:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me. (John 5:39 NASB)
To Him, there was a completed Old Testament Scripture. In other words, He recognized every book as inspired by God.

3. Jesus Recognized the Two Divisions of the Old Testament: the Law and the Prophets
We find that Jesus also recognized the two main sections of the Old Testament; the Law and the Prophets. He said:

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)
Jesus also made a reference to a third section of the Old Testament; the Psalms. On the day of His resurrection, He said to His disciples:

Jesus said to them, “While I was still with you, I told you that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms had to happen.” Then he helped them understand the Scriptures. He told them, The Scriptures say that the Messiah must suffer, then three days later he will rise from death. (Luke 24:44-46 CEV)

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... tament.cfm

This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. It merely quotes Christian ministers proclaiming Jesus affirmed the divinity of the OT without providing evidence other than the same shoddy analysis the Church has been galumphing for the last 2,000 years.

This is totally incorrect by saxi; let me take my quotes above and demonstrate his errors. I did not ONLY quote ministers, but quoted actual Scripture/Old Testament/The Bible above and quoted Jesus himself.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13).


Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me. (John 5:39 NASB)

He says, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken,’ and beginning with Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, He began to explain all things concerning Himself.’ (Luke 24:44-45 CEV)

This to me is a key quote:
Jesus also made a reference to a third section of the Old Testament; the Psalms. On the day of His resurrection, He said to His disciples:

Jesus said to them, “While I was still with you, I told you that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms had to happen.” Then he helped them understand the Scriptures. He told them, The Scriptures say that the Messiah must suffer, then three days later he will rise from death. (Luke 24:44-46 CEV)
He said that all the things written in these three parts of the Old Testament had to occur. In His teachings, He cited passages from each of these divisions. This is another indication that He accepted the Old Testament in its entirety.

And I referenced more, but did not quote it above, so I will do so NOW:

JONAH
Jesus referred to the Book of Jonah. We read of this in Matthew. Jesus said:

For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40 NRSV)
He saw Jonah as an illustration of His own resurrection. In doing so, He acknowledged the authority of Jonah.

ZECHARIAH
Jesus cited a passage in Zechariah that predicted His betrayal. Matthew writes:

Jesus said to his disciples, “During this very night, all of you will reject me, as the Scriptures say, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’” (Matthew 26:31 CEV)
Jesus accepted Zechariah as a prophet.

MALACHI
Finally, Jesus cited the prophet Malachi. This is also found in Matthew’s gospel. He said:

In the Scriptures God says about him, “I am sending my messenger ahead of you to get things ready for you.” (Matthew 11:10 CEV)
From these examples, we can see that Jesus confirmed the existence of two divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, as well as the authority of a number of specific Old Testament books.

from my first source:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... tament.cfm

There is much more, but I will give saxi a chance to read this portion. Apparently saxi failed to accept my invitation to read more from that source.

[jusplay4fun]

Let me address saxi's words in his previous post:

There's a lot they beleive that's nonsensical, but the Valentinian Christians were still more coherent than the modern Church in their view that there are two deities, and the OT describes the actions of an entirely different one from the one Jesus is preaching about. Once this view starts to spread, the Christian threat to Judaism accelerated by a factor of ten as it was no longer merely a sect of the older religion but a force whose adoption would lead to its destruction. At this point you suddenly have an anti-Christian Pharisee, dozens of years after Christ's death - "Saint Paul" - claiming Jesus came to him and told him how the Church should be administratively organized and that Paul should run the whole show.

He says that

Valentinian Christians ....There's a lot they beleive that's nonsensical,

So they are nonsensical. saxi said so himself; you can read his words.

Another name for Valentinian Christians is Gnostics, or one of the major Gnostic Christian movements. The essence of Gnostic idea is that there is "secret knowledge" that leads to salvation and they ONLY had the secrets. NO, the "secrets" are in Scripture for all to read and discern and in FAITH that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Savior. The wanted to keep and control the secret knowledge.

Having read Scripture, I will say that it takes effort to discern key ideas and what the words really mean. There is no "Secret verse" that make it ALL 100% clear. Studying Scripture takes a lifetime, and I know ministers who continuously try to better discern what is intended. Knowledge of Scripture and life's experiences help one better grasp the full meaning.

I do not understand what saxi is trying to say about

the modern Church in their view that there are two deities

Christians believe in a TRIUNE God, NOT in 2 deities. Saxi may be confused about the Gnostic (or Arianism) view; I really do not know. Triune means one God in three persons (NOT two; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

I am very skeptical about what saxi says about Saint Paul. I do not know anything about

how the Church should be administratively organized and that Paul should run the whole show.

I challenge saxi to offer support from the Bible to bolster his points here.

[2dimes]

The wanted to keep and control the secret knowledge.

Try Grammarly, or even a basic spell check. Better yet, at least pay attention to the red lines when you type in CC.

[saxitoxin]

JONAH
Jesus referred to the Book of Jonah. We read of this in Matthew. Jesus said:

For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40 NRSV)
He saw Jonah as an illustration of His own resurrection. In doing so, He acknowledged the authority of Jonah.

He was referencing a popular and well-understood allegory.

If I say "Sam always thinks the sky is falling" that is not me claiming the story of Chicken Little was ordained by God.

Similarly, to claim the statement "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth." is an assertion that the OT is the inspired word of God is nonsensical.

ZECHARIAH
Jesus cited a passage in Zechariah that predicted His betrayal. Matthew writes:

Jesus said to his disciples, “During this very night, all of you will reject me, as the Scriptures say, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’” (Matthew 26:31 CEV)
Jesus accepted Zechariah as a prophet.

see above

MALACHI
Finally, Jesus cited the prophet Malachi. This is also found in Matthew’s gospel. He said:

In the Scriptures God says about him, “I am sending my messenger ahead of you to get things ready for you.” (Matthew 11:10 CEV)

He then immediately says: "But whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John." in which he completely negates the prophecy of the OT. This is one of many times Jesus vetoes the OT.

[saxitoxin]

I do not understand what saxi is trying to say about

the modern Church in their view that there are two deities

Christians believe in a TRIUNE God, NOT in 2 deities. Saxi may be confused about the Gnostic (or Arianism) view; I really do not know. Triune means one God in three persons (NOT two; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

You don't understand because you excerpted 10 words from the middle of a sentence, which changes the meaning of what I said.

As I said, the Valentinians believed two principal deities were active in the creation of reality, the Father and the Demiurge, and that Jesus was sent by the Father to free man from enslavement to the Demiurge and the laws of the Demiurge. Which is why Jesus spends a third of the gospels overruling, amending, and vetoing large sections of the OT.

At no point did I claim the modern Church doesn't believe in a Triune God. It does, even though the Church itself is unable to coherently explain what the Trinity is and only alighted on this idea 300 years after Christ's death through some very heavy literary license.

[saxitoxin]

This is an interesting essay which purports that there are private conversations within the Adventist Church that Paul was a false prophet. I don't doubt that many people have arrived at this conclusion and are too afraid to communicate it as it would reject the Athanasian Creed and would constitute the ultimate blasphemy.

http://www.lyingforgod.com/blog/kerrywy ... rophet.htm

For me, while I believe in the synoptic gospels, there is nothing in Paul's story that is in anyway logical and I think modern Christians are mostly practicing a religion that was hijacked by its enemies early on. Christianity should be stripped back to the most basic and verifiable words of Jesus, and stop relying on the content of dreams had by people who never knew Jesus.

[Dukasaur]

This is an interesting essay which purports that there are private conversations within the Adventist Church that Paul was a false prophet. I don't doubt that many people have arrived at this conclusion and are too afraid to communicate it as it would reject the Athanasian Creed and would constitute the ultimate blasphemy.

http://www.lyingforgod.com/blog/kerrywy ... rophet.htm

For me, while I believe in the synoptic gospels, there is nothing in Paul's story that is in anyway logical and I think modern Christians are mostly practicing a religion that was hijacked by its enemies early on. Christianity should be stripped back to the most basic and verifiable words of Jesus, and stop relying on the content of dreams had by people who never knew Jesus.

I agree with the last sentence, but it conflicts with the previous sentence.

Why would you believe in the gospels? Even the most charitable historians think they were written 70 - 80 years after the death of Jesus, and some will date them double that or more. Extremely unlikely that any of the synoptic gospellers were even secondhand witnesses to the events they write about, and definitely not firsthand.

The second half of John is the one that (maybe, maybe) is based on some firsthand testimony.

[saxitoxin]

This is an interesting essay which purports that there are private conversations within the Adventist Church that Paul was a false prophet. I don't doubt that many people have arrived at this conclusion and are too afraid to communicate it as it would reject the Athanasian Creed and would constitute the ultimate blasphemy.

http://www.lyingforgod.com/blog/kerrywy ... rophet.htm

For me, while I believe in the synoptic gospels, there is nothing in Paul's story that is in anyway logical and I think modern Christians are mostly practicing a religion that was hijacked by its enemies early on. Christianity should be stripped back to the most basic and verifiable words of Jesus, and stop relying on the content of dreams had by people who never knew Jesus.

I agree with the last sentence, but it conflicts with the previous sentence.

Why would you believe in the gospels? Even the most charitable historians think they were written 70 - 80 years after the death of Jesus, and some will date them double that or more. Extremely unlikely that any of the synoptic gospellers were even secondhand witnesses to the events they write about, and definitely not firsthand.

The second half of John is the one that (maybe, maybe) is based on some firsthand testimony.

Because we know (a) from non Christian historians that Jesus was real, (b) linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests strongly that the three synoptic gospels were written by three different people but they are so contextually similar that they probably all descended from the lost "Q Source" which was contemporaneous with Jesus.

[Dukasaur]

This is an interesting essay which purports that there are private conversations within the Adventist Church that Paul was a false prophet. I don't doubt that many people have arrived at this conclusion and are too afraid to communicate it as it would reject the Athanasian Creed and would constitute the ultimate blasphemy.

http://www.lyingforgod.com/blog/kerrywy ... rophet.htm

For me, while I believe in the synoptic gospels, there is nothing in Paul's story that is in anyway logical and I think modern Christians are mostly practicing a religion that was hijacked by its enemies early on. Christianity should be stripped back to the most basic and verifiable words of Jesus, and stop relying on the content of dreams had by people who never knew Jesus.

I agree with the last sentence, but it conflicts with the previous sentence.

Why would you believe in the gospels? Even the most charitable historians think they were written 70 - 80 years after the death of Jesus, and some will date them double that or more. Extremely unlikely that any of the synoptic gospellers were even secondhand witnesses to the events they write about, and definitely not firsthand.

The second half of John is the one that (maybe, maybe) is based on some firsthand testimony.

Because we know (a) from non Christian historians that Jesus was real, (b) linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests strongly that the three synoptic gospels were written by three different people but they are so contextually similar that they probably all descended from the lost "Q Source" which was contemporaneous with Jesus.

We don't know for sure that Jesus was real, although I'll grant you that it is likely. The closest we have to an unbiased source is Josephus, but virtually every scholar agrees that Josephus was heavily edited by Christian scribes in the middle ages, so what he originally said is just conjecture.

The fact that the three synoptic gospels are probably descended from a common source proves nothing. 99% of modern versions of the Arthur legend, for instance, borrow heavily from the Thomas Malory version and share many common elements, but it simply means that they all parrot Malory's embellishments and does not make them true. In fact, they are likely further from the true historical Arthur than if they would be if they didn't follow Malory and did even a modicum of original research.

[saxitoxin]

This is an interesting essay which purports that there are private conversations within the Adventist Church that Paul was a false prophet. I don't doubt that many people have arrived at this conclusion and are too afraid to communicate it as it would reject the Athanasian Creed and would constitute the ultimate blasphemy.

http://www.lyingforgod.com/blog/kerrywy ... rophet.htm

For me, while I believe in the synoptic gospels, there is nothing in Paul's story that is in anyway logical and I think modern Christians are mostly practicing a religion that was hijacked by its enemies early on. Christianity should be stripped back to the most basic and verifiable words of Jesus, and stop relying on the content of dreams had by people who never knew Jesus.

I agree with the last sentence, but it conflicts with the previous sentence.

Why would you believe in the gospels? Even the most charitable historians think they were written 70 - 80 years after the death of Jesus, and some will date them double that or more. Extremely unlikely that any of the synoptic gospellers were even secondhand witnesses to the events they write about, and definitely not firsthand.

The second half of John is the one that (maybe, maybe) is based on some firsthand testimony.

Because we know (a) from non Christian historians that Jesus was real, (b) linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests strongly that the three synoptic gospels were written by three different people but they are so contextually similar that they probably all descended from the lost "Q Source" which was contemporaneous with Jesus.

We don't know for sure that Jesus was real, although I'll grant you that it is likely. The closest we have to an unbiased source is Josephus, but virtually every scholar agrees that Josephus was heavily edited by Christian scribes in the middle ages, so what he originally said is just conjecture.

The fact that the three synoptic gospels are probably descended from a common source proves nothing. 99% of modern versions of the Arthur legend, for instance, borrow heavily from the Thomas Malory version and share many common elements, but it simply means that they all parrot Malory's embellishments and does not make them true. In fact, they are likely further from the true historical Arthur than if they would be if they didn't follow Malory and did even a modicum of original research.

I agree it doesn't meet any standards of courtroom evidence. But it would be hard to suggest it was conjured out of whole cloth as we keep finding evidence for characters and episodes it references. We didn't have any archaeological proof that Pontius Pilate existed until the 1960s, for instance. But we now know with secular certainty he did.

So I know, to my satisfaction:
- Jesus was an itinerant Jewish preacher who lived in first century Judea and whose teachings caused civil unrest,
- His influence was either enough to maintain a functional community of adherents around an oral tradition of his lectures for a few years until it was transcribed into the Q Source and, thereafter, the gospels, or, a religion sprang up around a deceased preacher only decades after his death which would be something with almost no precedent
- The Q Source is either a reasonably accurate approximation of his teachings or the early Christian community was somehow completely exterminated and substituted by a replacement community that accepted it (which is the lesser of the two likelihoods)
- Primitive Christianity has a low opportunity cost; the teachings of the synoptic gospels create no effort or pain for me to follow so, if all this is untrue, I have suffered no injury

[2dimes]

Chat GPT is probably about to make some new and improved religions.
Saxi, thoughts?

[jusplay4fun]

The wanted to keep and control the secret knowledge.

Try Grammarly, or even a basic spell check. Better yet, at least pay attention to the red lines when you type in CC.

There were no Red Lines; spell checker did not pick up my one letter error.

Do you actually have anything of substance or are you going to be a nitpicker?

[jusplay4fun]

For those who choose not to believe, there will not be enough evidence to PROVE Jesus is who He said he was and is.

One must not use intellect ALONE to find God and find Jesus.

[2dimes]

Do you actually have anything of substance or are you going to be a nitpicker?

That's a perfect question about my parody of a large percentage of responses to Jim Boston.

In fact, I cut a statement he made and pasted it there. Kind of weird considering his screen name.

[jimboston]

The wanted to keep and control the secret knowledge.

Try Grammarly, or even a basic spell check. Better yet, at least pay attention to the red lines when you type in CC.

There were no Red Lines; spell checker did not pick up my one letter error.

Do you actually have anything of substance or are you going to be a nitpicker?

LOL

I love how it’s a “one letter error” when he does it…but when he wants to attack someone it’s “carelessness, which demonstrates a lack of clarity of thought”.

LOL