WHAT’S IN A NAME?

[Kirby D. P.]

Hi Kirby,
Just a thought, in 2000yrs would you Kirby be remembered NO
So ask yourself why is Jesus remembered (big subject)
The Moslems believe in Jesus, His name is in their book
twenty five times

To keep it simple Jesus stopped and started time
You must admit Kirby He must and was some mighty man
The Son of God in fact.
So every time you check the time think Jesus.
If you deny time, you deny Jesus.
With Love, Wnl

First of all, if you think my day-to-day blunders and epic failures won't be remembered many thousands of years into the future, you obviously have not seen me in action.

Secondly, not to compare them in any substantive way, but we have a fairly elaborate biography of Hercules. THAT Jesus is remembered doesn't convince me. But, as I keep saying, neither am I convinced he didn't exist.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

That would be the same kind of thinking as saying "Based on the available evidence that a "gun" killed someone I still subscribe to the theory it was the "bullet" that killed."

No. It's just a simple rejection of an ad populum falacy. Probably 100% of Aztecs believed in the supernatural benefits of human sacrifice. I don't.

 

[Curtis]

No. It's just a simple rejection of an ad populum falacy. Probably 100% of Aztecs believed in the supernatural benefits of human sacrifice. I don't.

Studies have shown that typhus, smallpox, and measles as possible causes of the massive Aztec demise. It seems their "belief" in the supernatural benefit of human sacrifices did not benefit that at all!

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Studies have shown that typhus, smallpox, and measles as possible causes of the massive Aztec demise. It seems their "belief" in the supernatural benefit of human sacrifices did not benefit that at all!

Precisely my point.

 

[Curtis]

Precisely my point.

Human sacrifices mean nothing unless it is the "lamb of God" (Jesus Christ) who "benefits" all who call upon his name! (Romans 10:13)

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Human sacrifices mean nothing unless it is the "lamb of God" (Jesus Christ) who "benefits" all who call upon his name! (Romans 10:13)

I say this rather often, and I get a real mixed bag of interesting responses:

If I had been at Calvary, I would have considered it my moral duty to do whatever I could to prevent the crucifixion of an innocent victim. The impression I have of Jesus's ministry is that, as a general rule, he would agree. Would you?

 

[Hekuran]

Yes. One way or another, something indeed significant occurred at the inception of Christianity. I have no reason to believe Jesus did NOT walk the earth. I have simply come to the opinion my reasons FOR considering it as factual not as compelling as I once thought. The accounts of his ministry and, hence, his teachings are genuine. But there is no logical necessity that the real accounts are accounts of something that really happened. The virtues of sermon on the mount are manifest. To me, the way their sermonizer spelled his name, or whether there was an actual "mount" involved is not terribly important.

Yes, I'm not over-worried about many of the historical details. The gospel writers were putting together a portrait of Jesus, explaining who he is and his significance. If Matthew, for reasons of brevity, theology and narrative, stitched togther a selection of Jesus teachings and presented them as a single Sermon on the Mount, I've no objection.

But there are elements that are either true or not true, and make a fundamental difference. In essence Christianity is good news, not good advice. Jesus' own teaching centres around himself - he's the king reigning over the Kingdom of God. If that's true, it's a fact that changes everything.

If the fundamentals of Jesus life death and resurrection, then it's just some more good moral ideas and wisdom.

 

[Acts2:38]

I am well acquainted with Josephus, but also analysis that refute its credibility. I doubt you would not find such analysis at all convincing. But, if you would like me to present it, I can.

Tacitus isn’t describing Christ. He is describing Christians. He himself may have been convinced in the reality of a historical Jesus. But, forgive me (honestly), I consider that only as compelling as your own conviction. Which is certainly more than “not at all,” but it’s not nearly so definitive as, say, the presence of Napoleon in Napoleon’s tomb.

I would correct you in Tacitus's statement. He did indeed mention Jesus, though not his name "Jesus" specifically, he did say...

"The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate..."

Which we all know from what the bible says, that Pontius Pilate had Jesus executed by demand of the Jews. I believe this directly states such. Tacitus would also have been around during the time the apostles were going around, which those apostles and other disciples had first hand witness account of Jesus's existence. Tacitus was accounting the time

You could pick and choose what you will. Your choice. People always do. For example, there are people out there that quite seriously believe the holocaust never happened. Crazy I know.

Josephus was quite spot on in the accounts of the Jewish-Roman war among other things. And he was around during most all the apostles ministry. While also being able to account for the miraculous things the apostles have done according to the bible accounts. I would highly doubt he lied about Jesus existence even if some of his other material is lacking. Especially in light with people like Tacitus, who quite clearly was talking about Jesus, mentioning the existence of Jesus ["Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by procurator Pontius Pilate"].

Those are just a couple of people attesting to the existence of Jesus. You still have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (Jesus's cousin), James (Jesus brother), Peter, Paul, so on and so forth.

In Jewish law culture, you need at least two witnesses to testify with you. Jesus more than enough, even from secular writers, his family members, to prove he existed.

To look at it one other way, do you agree that these people existed?

Saul-Paul
John "the baptist"
Peter
James
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John [writer of book of John]

If you do, do you believe they also lied about Jesus's existence? Why would Christians and those who hated Christians all agree that Jesus existed? Three groups of people all account for Jesus's existence, Jews, Romans, and Christians. It would be hard to say they all are mistaken seeing as that even though they disagree with each other, that they all agree he existed.

 

[Curtis]

I say this rather often, and I get a real mixed bag of interesting responses:

If I had been at Calvary, I would have considered it my moral duty to do whatever I could to prevent the crucifixion of an innocent victim. The impression I have of Jesus's ministry is that, as a general rule, he would agree. Would you?

Jesus always knew his fate, because that was his Fathers will!

Jesus said.....

Mat 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
Mat 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

None of Jesus's Apostles wanted him to die., in fact, they fought to stop it!!


Joh 18:2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
Joh 18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.


Joh 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
Joh 18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

The way in which Jesus would destroy the works of the Devil would be through "death"!!

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The physical mind in man nor any wicked spirits in the unseen realm could never figure out spiritual things and in how Jesus would fulfill his Father's will because it does not make any sense!

1Co 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Yes, I'm not over-worried about many of the historical details. The gospel writers were putting together a portrait of Jesus, explaining who he is and his significance. If Matthew, for reasons of brevity, theology and narrative, stitched togther a selection of Jesus teachings and presented them as a single Sermon on the Mount, I've no objection.

But there are elements that are either true or not true, and make a fundamental difference. In essence Christianity is good news, not good advice. Jesus' own teaching centres around himself - he's the king reigning over the Kingdom of God. If that's true, it's a fact that changes everything.

If the fundamentals of Jesus life death and resurrection, then it's just some more good moral ideas and wisdom.

Agreed.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

I would correct you in Tacitus's statement. He did indeed mention Jesus, though not his name "Jesus" specifically, he did say...

"The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate..."

Which we all know from what the bible says, that Pontius Pilate had Jesus executed by demand of the Jews. I believe this directly states such. Tacitus would also have been around during the time the apostles were going around, which those apostles and other disciples had first hand witness account of Jesus's existence. Tacitus was accounting the time

You could pick and choose what you will. Your choice. People always do. For example, there are people out there that quite seriously believe the holocaust never happened. Crazy I know.

Josephus was quite spot on in the accounts of the Jewish-Roman war among other things. And he was around during most all the apostles ministry. While also being able to account for the miraculous things the apostles have done according to the bible accounts. I would highly doubt he lied about Jesus existence even if some of his other material is lacking. Especially in light with people like Tacitus, who quite clearly was talking about Jesus, mentioning the existence of Jesus ["Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by procurator Pontius Pilate"].

Those are just a couple of people attesting to the existence of Jesus. You still have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (Jesus's cousin), James (Jesus brother), Peter, Paul, so on and so forth.

In Jewish law culture, you need at least two witnesses to testify with you. Jesus more than enough, even from secular writers, his family members, to prove he existed.

To look at it one other way, do you agree that these people existed?

Saul-Paul
John "the baptist"
Peter
James
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John [writer of book of John]

If you do, do you believe they also lied about Jesus's existence? Why would Christians and those who hated Christians all agree that Jesus existed? Three groups of people all account for Jesus's existence, Jews, Romans, and Christians. It would be hard to say they all are mistaken seeing as that even though they disagree with each other, that they all agree he existed.

Sorry. Yes. I shouldn’t have framed Tacitus as not mentioning Jesus at all. I simply meant to indicate he is not a reliable fact witness to Christ’s actual existence. He comes by his awareness of Jesus second hand.

You pose an excellent question that has never occurred to me before. Thinking it over, I’d have to say I think the likelihood of these people actually existing is (in descending order, and when I say “existing,” I mean in common parlance. Certainly real people set down the Gospels. As you might guess, I don’t demand that Mark was actually penned by any man named Mark, etc.):

1. Paul (I have a high degree of confidence he was real as is represented in the Bible, AND that he believed wholeheartedly in the creed he preached)
2. Jesus
3. John the Baptist
4. The rest.

I appreciate that people find the amalgam of the apostles and the many eyewitnesses mentioned in the Gospels as excellent confirmation of Jesus’s historicity. I won’t try to dissuade you of the notion. That being said, please understand when you speak with people like me, we consider the Bible as one single source. And I would still consider it so even if it included individual sworn affidavits purporting to be from every person among the multitudes who heard the Sermon on the Mount. I understand completely if you find that unreasonable, but I wouldn’t be honest with myself or with you were I to say otherwise.

But, back to a modified version of your question, do you suppose you could still be a Christian if none of the Gospels had been included in the canon? And the religion depended much more heavily upon just the writings of Paul? I’ve never pondered this myself, and I’d have to go back and reread Paul with that in mind to know for sure, but I can’t think of why that wouldn’t be a defensible position.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Jesus always knew his fate, because that was his Fathers will!

Jesus said.....

Mat 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
Mat 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

None of Jesus's Apostles wanted him to die., in fact, they fought to stop it!!


Joh 18:2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
Joh 18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.


Joh 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
Joh 18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

The way in which Jesus would destroy the works of the Devil would be through "death"!!

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The physical mind in man nor any wicked spirits in the unseen realm could never figure out spiritual things and in how Jesus would fulfill his Father's will because it does not make any sense!

1Co 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Sorry to press, Curtis. My question is simply, if you had been a bystander the first day of Passover that year and you knew one of the people being tortured and executed was completely innocent, would you have tried to prevent it? I'm not concerned with whether you might have actually been successful thwarting the Crucifixion. If it was preordained from on high, I'm sure it was inevitable, inescapable. That doesn't let me off the hook for having to try and prevent it. I find the very idea of standing by silently and allowing any person to be tortured and murdered morally unacceptable. Or am I misunderstanding the premium Christianity places on Justice and Mercy?

 

[Curtis]

Sorry to press, Curtis. My question is simply, if you had been a bystander the first day of Passover that year and you knew one of the people being tortured and executed was completely innocent, would you have tried to prevent it? I'm not concerned with whether you might have actually been successful thwarting the Crucifixion. If it was preordained from on high, I'm sure it was inevitable, inescapable. That doesn't let me off the hook for having to try and prevent it. I find the very idea of standing by silently and allowing any person to be tortured and murdered morally unacceptable. Or am I misunderstanding the premium Christianity places on Justice and Mercy?

Anyone who says, "I will lay down my life to save another" is only bragging what they would! No one knows what all the circumstances would be that would cause such a bold statement. All of Jesus.s Apostles said the same thing, yet they ran away when the time had come to back up their words.

Mat 26:32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.”
Mat 26:33 Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.”
Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.”
Mat 26:35 Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same.

If there ever came a time for a believer to lay down one's life, and it was the will of God the Lord God would strengthen them to do so. Anything else is just boasting!

 

[Acts2:38]

we consider the Bible as one single source.

Well, I suppose in subject, it is all one complete deal. However, the bible has over 40 authors spanning thousands of years. Even the NT spans decades. I would consider them a collection of sources combined into one.

do you suppose you could still be a Christian if none of the Gospels had been included in the canon? And the religion depended much more heavily upon just the writings of Paul?

Well, if that were the case, the bible would be incomplete. It would be hard to go off just Paul alone I think regardless of his multiple epistles. Which is why God had many witnesses/writers in the bible.

I understand completely if you find that unreasonable, but I wouldn’t be honest with myself or with you were I to say otherwise.

Hey this is no problem. This is why we all ask questions and make decisions based off what we obtain. I suppose I can understand since the Jews saw and heard Jesus in those times, saw the miracles and such, and still didnt believe him. So I can totally see where you are coming from.

My job and "reasonable service" is to provide you and others with as much information as I can and to show by example. The choice is left to those I tell, and there is really no ill will with whatever choice you decide to believe in.

You have been a most absolute pleasure to speak with. At the time, I really have no more information I can provide, though if I can find any more, I would be happy to bring them to your attention so you can way out your findings.

Again, a very refreshing, honest, and intriguing discussion.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Anyone who says, "I will lay down my life to save another" is only bragging what they would! No one knows what all the circumstances would be that would cause such a bold statement. All of Jesus.s Apostles said the same thing, yet they ran away when the time had come to back up their words.

Mat 26:32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.”
Mat 26:33 Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.”
Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.”
Mat 26:35 Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same.

If there ever came a time for a believer to lay down one's life, and it was the will of God the Lord God would strengthen them to do so. Anything else is just boasting!

Yes. I acknowledge interfering in a Roman crucifixion would be an extremely dangerous prospect. And I freely admit I have been guilty of immoral behavior at times. Perhaps this hypothetical situation would betray yet another instantiation of my moral failings. But I still maintain it would be my moral obligation. You seem to be saying you hope God would arm you with the necessary moral courage to act. May I take that as a, “yes,” you agree there was a moral responsibility to stop –– or at least try to stop –– Jesus’s execution?

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Well, I suppose in subject, it is all one complete deal. However, the bible has over 40 authors spanning thousands of years. Even the NT spans decades. I would consider them a collection of sources combined into one.



Well, if that were the case, the bible would be incomplete. It would be hard to go off just Paul alone I think regardless of his multiple epistles. Which is why God had many witnesses/writers in the bible.



Hey this is no problem. This is why we all ask questions and make decisions based off what we obtain. I suppose I can understand since the Jews saw and heard Jesus in those times, saw the miracles and such, and still didnt believe him. So I can totally see where you are coming from.

My job and "reasonable service" is to provide you and others with as much information as I can and to show by example. The choice is left to those I tell, and there is really no ill will with whatever choice you decide to believe in.

You have been a most absolute pleasure to speak with. At the time, I really have no more information I can provide, though if I can find any more, I would be happy to bring them to your attention so you can way out your findings.

Again, a very refreshing, honest, and intriguing discussion.

Indeed, it has been a distinct pleasure. Thank you. I would point out that Paul himself was burdened with converting nonbelievers lacking any Bible. I think it's safe to say he did a pretty good job of it, too.

 

[Curtis]

Yes. I acknowledge interfering in a Roman crucifixion would be an extremely dangerous prospect. And I freely admit I have been guilty of immoral behavior at times. Perhaps this hypothetical situation would betray yet another instantiation of my moral failings. But I still maintain it would be my moral obligation. You seem to be saying you hope God would arm you with the necessary moral courage to act. May I take that as a, “yes,” you agree there was a moral responsibility to stop –– or at least try to stop –– Jesus’s execution?

If all of the Apostles of Jesus tried to stop his crucifixion, most likely all of them would have lost their lives. The Apostles were chosen by Jesus so that they would write about everything they saw and heard Jesus do. They were to proclaim the Gospel so if they were dead that would not be good! Most of them eventually were killed for their belief.

Jesus speaking about the end of days tells his followers that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by their enemies to "flee to the mountains" not to resist to the loosing of their lives!

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains, and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

There is a place, and time for everything for God knows all things before they happen. For someone to lay down their life it would not be a waste of purpose if the Lord is leading that person to that end, he will strengthen them for that cause.

I myself can not "swear" that I would do something if not being in that situation first. It would nice to say I would, but not knowing what will be tomorrow or the next and saying I would lay down my life would be just foolish talk.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

If all of the Apostles of Jesus tried to stop his crucifixion, most likely all of them would have lost their lives. The Apostles were chosen by Jesus so that they would write about everything they saw and heard Jesus do. They were to proclaim the Gospel so if they were dead that would not be good! Most of them eventually were killed for their belief.

Jesus speaking about the end of days tells his followers that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by their enemies to "flee to the mountains" not to resist to the loosing of their lives!

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains, and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

There is a place, and time for everything for God knows all things before they happen. For someone to lay down their life it would not be a waste of purpose if the Lord is leading that person to that end, he will strengthen them for that cause.

I myself can not "swear" that I would do something if not being in that situation first. It would nice to say I would, but not knowing what will be tomorrow or the next and saying I would lay down my life would be just foolish talk.

Okay. Fair enough. But, based upon everything you know about the event, and of Christian doctrine, if you were somehow magically transported there, do you suppose you would attempt to stop it?

Alternatively, if we BOTH found ourselves there, I would like to think I’d try to stop it. If I chickened out, I would be wracked with guilt over it. But if I DID try to stop it, would you try to stop ME?

(This is what I meant when I say I get interesting responses to this. If you had simply said, “Yes,” or “No,” I’d have just as simply agreed or disagreed. As it is, I am now QUITE keenly interested in your response indeed.)

 

[Curtis]

Okay. Fair enough. But, based upon everything you know about the event, and of Christian doctrine, if you were somehow magically transported there, do you suppose you would attempt to stop it?

I would have been just like the Apostles NOT wanting Jesus to die, and I probably would have tried to stop him (Jesus), and I probably would have said the same things they did, ".....I will go and die with you....." (Matt 26:25)

It is easy to say, and do the wrong things when you have no "spiritual" understanding of what's happening or the will of God.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

I would have been just like the Apostles NOT wanting Jesus to die, and I probably would have tried to stop him (Jesus), and I probably would have said the same things they did, ".....I will go and die with you....." (Matt 26:25)

It is easy to say, and do the wrong things when you have no "spiritual" understanding of what's happening or the will of God.

So, can we shake hands on it then? If you and I are ever together and we come across someone being murdered or tortured, we’ll do what we can to save them. No matter who it is?