how do we know that what jesus did/taught
- Thread starter shadowman
- Start date
JosephM
Well-Known Member
shadowman said:
We don't. But perhaps there is much inspiration to be gained from much of that which he is reported to have taught in the Bible. It seems to me that valid teachings don't require an authors name.
Love in Christ
JM
moseslmpg
Well-Known Member
Yeah, something about knowing a tree by its fruits, rather than it's roots...or something. I'm not very good with proverbs, but at least it rhymes.
Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to question that anymore than there is a reason to question whether anything really exists. Technically, we don't know that is what Jesus said, but technically there's not much else anyone knows for sure.
Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to question that anymore than there is a reason to question whether anything really exists. Technically, we don't know that is what Jesus said, but technically there's not much else anyone knows for sure.
moseslmpg said:
Interesting. The tree is known by the fruit it bears. The roots support the branches. Two proverbs rolled into one, not quite right but not quite wrong, either and rather unique.
A person is known by their actions. Christ is the roots and trunk of the tree and we are the branches. If a branch does not bear good fruit it is cut off and cast into the fire as kindling. Some branches are natural to the tree while others are grafted on.
By the way, it is well known to botanists that most times, grafted branches tend to bear the largest and healthiest fruit (almost as if the branch is thanking the tree for its continued existence).
As for knowing what Jesus said, well Christians accept the Bible as authoritative on the matter, and try to live accordingly.
I will also point out, that bit by bit, science has been proving the validity of the Bible (right now it is the Old Testament they are finding revelations on). That seems to be driving a lot of naysayers through the roof.
Good points... the tree is known by its fruits. I am also a fan of leaving the weeds that an alledged enemy sows. Seems prudent to put a sign next to the one thought to be a weed... in an effort to sow truth. When everyone sees the difference between the weed and a non-weed, particularly the person who planted it, then it can be rightfully uprooted. I'm NOT calling any soul a weed and I do not think Jesus (pbuh) was either. I've noticed sometimes it is the alledged weed that turns out to be the plant that provided the fruit.
interesting your speaking to converts here?? fun stuff.Quahom1 said:
shadowman said:
So glad you asked. Did you know that they have evidence for example that Joseph actually did act as Prime Minister to Pharoah's Egypt? They even found the blended signats (nine of them), seals showing Pharoah and Joseph (Son of Jacov), that were used to authorize official issues or decrees. I watched it on the History Channel (hell I recorded it) on 21 August 2006.
Then there is the little matter of Jericho. Yep, they found the city foundations for the ramparts and buttressed walls. Guess what they determined? The walls were destroyed by what appears to be damage from some kind of reasonant frequency, that reached critical, but not like an earth quake's frequency. More like...sound?
Oh, and guess what they recorded on top of Mount Sinai? A natural amphetheater with, the remains of a well spring (calcium deposits, water errosion and everything), sitting right at the top, where it was said these things were Biblically. Oh, did I mention the grave sites located as well? Very old, and very Hebrew in tradition.
Now, the Archealogists do not confirm or deny anything, concerning these finds compared to bible stories. But what they do ponder is..."coincedence"?...
JosephM
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:
Greetings Quahom1,
The only problem with this is that there is no universally accepted archeological evidence. For every one trying to prove the validity by archeological means there are numerous archeological reports over the past 70 years that come to the opposite conclusion. Such is this article from the cornell university library.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm
Personally, it doesn't matter to me because my faith is not based on the validity of a book. I do not take a position either way. Some look at the Bible and see it riddled with error and others see it as without error. I have no quarrel with either one. It doesn't change reality either way.
One really doesn't need archeology to prove or disprove the Bible. There is enough controversies without going outside its pages. Here is a good one to illustrate my point.
http://home.fuse.net/mattioli/Bible/Bible%20Inerrant.htm
If after reading it you have no problems that is fine with me. My love for you is not lost in your beliefs. Nevertheless you might find this interesting or amusing at the least.
Love in Christ,
JM
JosephM said:
Joseph. Until recently there was not allowance for it to be made public period, let alone universal acceptance.
I seriously doubt that Egypt will allow the same kind of scrutiny that they allowed this past 18 months. It smacks of Hebrew historical truth, which really ticks off alot of people in this world. Like I said. I recorded everything I was talking about, so no one can say I speculated. And it it is all available on Historychannel.com.
I personally do not care whether people agree or not, either. But, it is my job to point out things. You decide.
JosephM
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:
Thanks Quahom1, I will watch it on the history channel when it replays this weekend. Perhaps, your statement that it smacks with Hebrew truth is still unfounded. Being aired on the history channel doesn't make the findings valid no more than the documentary called Farenheit 911. One can't decide intelligently based on one filmmakers report. If one is interested in the truth of the matter and wants to get a better feel for its content and context, it might be wise to entertain and research remarks from both sides. Here is an extended review of the program.
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=60
I do not say Jacobovici’s (the filmmakers) view is correct or not but only that it is necessary to examine the data and logic from both sides if one wants to 'decide' or reach some kind of informed conclusion. Personally, I refuse to make a decision of that magnitude based on my lack of access to real data. It might be good for you to read the referenced review above to get a feel for the areas of contention and perceptual conclusions expressed in the show unless of course your mind is already made up.
Love in Christ,
JM
