The Resurrection of Jesus - did it really happen?

That is what these Jewish scholars are trying to share with you. You know, the ones you say you don't have to investigate their take on this to "know" they're wrong.

 

The "I will be what I will be" is the same answer given to Jacob when he wrestles with God and asks God his name. Gods response " none of your business"

Same response is given to Moses "none of your business"

The belief of the Egyptian, and Moses was raised Egyptian, was that if you knew the name of a God you had some power over it.

The Sumerians had the same beliefs, Jacob and Abraham.

 

http://www.niv-cbt.org/translators/
Go find me a Jew.

Why do you think they translated Matthew 13:32 to say that the mustard seed was the smallest of all your seeds?

32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”

To avoid a horticultural untruth. This was finally removed again in the 2011 revision. So why again is every Jewish Hebrew scholar wrong about Hebrew?

 

Don't have time to respond right now. Only to say when you come up with something concrete let me know. A Secondary Source such as Tacitus only proves he heard it from someone else, who heard it from somebody else. Sorry using Tacitus to verify a Jesus fails.

 

Why did you choose the NIV when I was talking about the NRSV and the ASV?

 

Cause I misremembered what you said

Go find me a Jew!

http://www.nrsv.net/about/faqs/

Why do they still use Jesus when it is known by all scholars that this was not his name and has no meaning?

Because people are used to it.

Oh and btw something...
14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”[a] He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

a. Exodus 3:14 Or I am what I am or I will be what I will be
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus 3&version=NRSV#fen-NRSV-1594a

 

I do not claim that the Tacitus quote verifies the historicity of Jesus. The Tacitus quote could refer to a number of self proclaimed messiah's that were around at that time.

What I am suggesting is there is good evidence to suggest that there was a messianic figure that was the impetus for early Christianity.

Tacitus is part of that evidence.

 

You also misremembered that I had already told you they cited "I will be what I will be".

http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/reader.html

This site will give you some background on the NRSV and its committee.

 

Well, this I can half way associate with, true.

 

You made a vague reference that they did not disagree with what I am saying, but that the way it sits is not a contradiction. You then continued to suggest that I was suggesting they got it wrong. I told you what the actual translation was... and ALL of this, has been your defense of how it is stated in the English versions of the bible IS the most accurate translation... and it is not... which is why it is noted there, and every Hebrew translation of the Hebrew text is different than the English Bible translation.

Why does it matter? Why did God put so much emphasis on names? How about not one tittle or jot? How about because it carries a slightly different meaning and it is the Holy name of God?

Why doesn't it matter?

 

I would take that up with God, for whether you translate it "I am what I am" or "I will be what I will be", He is declaring His name to be less important than His commands.

 

One of which not to take His name in vain.

I have nothing to take up with God. Perhaps you do.

 

Perhaps.
Take care.

 

maybe one of the best kept secrets is that Jesus had a twin

 

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/serapis.html

The above sire talks abour "serapis".

As for the rest I'm not sure of the arguement you're making. Although I'm not sure that "the christ" was a common name.

 

Seriously! JP Holding! Get real will ya. Christ is not a name it's title. As far as my remark about it being common that was my mistake. The name jesus was suppose to have went there, sorry. As far as Serapis goes he was a 3rd century creation BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt. I do not put much stock in the correlation between Serapis and jesus, as Serapis comes along two hundred years later.

 

Is there a problem with JP Holding? I don't usually question sources when they're brought up, because usually the info can be validated without denigrating the author. I can hold personal convictions on a author, or proponent of a viewpoint, but I don't let that cloud the judgment of the conclusion of that sources viewpoint.

And yeah the name Jesus was a very common name.

 

I guess if your not from the Mythicist's camp you would not understand....

 

gotcha

 

Oh I do.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Not really. Should I?
It would simply derail the thread.
I know you don't care about such things, but others do.
Start a thread.
We can all ignore it.

 

I just thought the comment to be one which raises my curiosity. No! You are under no obligation to say anything further in that regard. Like I said,,, just curious.

 

Unfortunately, that's what happens when you develop a reputation for disagreeable interaction with people. When you build your reputation on dissembling language for no other reason than your personal entertainment, on being a force for obfuscation and a commitment to derailing conversations, for being one that simply wants to fling accusations at people ad nauseum, then you will miss out on what could potentially be interesting give and takes on a wide variety of topics. But people don't trust you to have any interest in that. You hold yourself to such a low standard that many would rather ignore your invitations for discussion, being fairly certain it is just an invitation, in reality, to have one's words, not enlightened, but abused.
I have never observed you to be curious on PF, so I can't take your seemingly benign invitation on its face. Your reputation, unfortunately, precedes you.

 

Christianity was founded on Jesus' Resurrection, and to reaffirm His Resurrection to a disbelieving people, God gives us His Light every Easter in what is known as: 'The miracle of the Holy Fire'.

During the Orthodox Service, the Patriarch of Jerusalem enters the tomb and prays. Within a short time the area lights up and he takes the flame and passes it out to the people. Then it is flown to Moscow, Athens, and other Orthodox cities. From testimonies I have heard, it seems the candles light up even before the Patriarch comes out of the Sepulcher and if you notice in some of the videos, there are flashes of light everywhere. One woman said the Sepulcher had lighted up so much, that one would think the walls were crystal rather than stone.

Thanks to our modern technology, we can now view the miracle first hand. There are loads of videos. All you need to do is google Holy Fire Jerusalem and the year. As you will notice the flame has different properties, and doesn't burn for the first twenty minutes or so:

[video=youtube;RaI2hXyg-fM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaI2hXyg-fM[/video]