CADRE Comments

I will answer your comment next Monday. I decreed to just make it the main blog piece.

ancient synagogue in Hamat Gader 1st century Christians, Modern day Jews,and everyone really seems to assume the  Jews of Jesus day understood Messiah as any ordinary man who God called to liberate  His people. This is what most Christians think the Jews expected. The Jew's expectations about Messiah were more diverse,however,  employing a few quasi divine attributes.  This post ( and it's related discussion ) will deal with two of those attributes, it will not stray from that field:   The notion of divine Messiah, and that Messiah was premundane,or that he existed before the world. They did understand Messiah to be born of woman, as a man, and to live  a normal life as a man. But at least some of them also understood that before that the Messiah existed  in haven with God. They had two versions of this idea. Some thought he was an actual entity. Some thought it was  the idea of Messiah, That does open interstice questions about Plantonism i...

Pixie said: "The early Christians believed Jesus was adopted as God's son, not born that way (though Paul believed that happened at the resurrection). His childhood was relatively normal, born to two Jewish parents, the oldest of four brothers and some sisters too." [1] There is no historical basis for that belief.There is no document that says  this.  Adiptionism arises in the second century there is no recognized bastion of that view in the first century. [2] The only basis anyone has is gained by interpreting passages in Mark and written by Paul to seem to take an adoptionist view. [3] Of course they have to ignore the testimony of the church in all it's many facets. It is not hard to imagine that before the creeds and the controversies that shaped Trinitarian doctrine the average Christian probably did understand something like an adotionist view. That does not mean that the Gospel of Mark  or Paul taught this view. There is no passage in Mar...

"The Apostle Paul throughout his undisputed epistles, which also date earlier than the gospels, frequently refers to the crucifixion. Paul’s first hand testimony is given further credibility since he had met with Christ’s brother James and Christ’s disciple Peter of whom he discovered held to the same beliefs concerning the major events in Christ’s final week. The crucifixion is also found within the book of Acts. Acts is the historian’s most comprehensive account on the historical movements of the early church subsequent to Christ’s death and resurrection appearances. According to Acts, “When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in the tomb” and “When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in the tomb.” The 1st century historian Josephus Flavius provides the most important extra-biblical attestation to Christ’s crucifixion which is accepted as an authentic re...

    Peter Kirby is a talented armature,Fine researcher (a skeptic) and well known to the apologetic community for many years, He makes a straw man argument saying this is the best he can do to argue for belief the tearing it down. U pick up where he leaves off and make it into an honest argument. I am not going to deal with any of the Pagan historians who document Jesus existence, such as Tacitus. Tacitus is defensible but it's not really the best evidence. Going by the best I've done Kirby's attempt at making the case on Josephus, Here I will deal with his  straw man on the Talmud . [1]  Then on NT and Church "fathers." Remember Kirby is doing a straw man argument, making the alleged "best case" for Jesus historicity so he can tear it down and say "I made the case and it doesn't stand up to my fierce onslaught." That's what I expect from a coward who is so threatened by better scholars that he chases them off his m...