Jesus and Simon : Answer this question!?
968854
Jesus was not only "divine" but was ans is Deity Incarnate.\n\nMany have claimed that they are Christ, or that they are "god".\n\nJesus died (delivered for our offences) and was raised the third day (for our justification) and He, though dead, now is Alive forevermore.\n\nAfter His Resurrection, "he showed himself alive by many infallible proofs".\n\nWhile He as on earth, as the Bible records, "and many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, the which are not written in this book, but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God ... and that by believing you may have Life in His name."
553433
No......why would you think that? Jesus didnt come until Matthew.
887039
Simon and Andrew are, according to Matthew, the first two apostles to be appointed, and Matthew identifies them as fishermen. Mark does not identify Simon as also being called Peter until a long time after Simon is introduced in the narrative, but Matthew immediately makes the connection as soon as he is first mentioned. This has the effect of changing the later passage where Jesus names Simon as Peter from one where Jesus bestows the name onto Simon into one where Jesus merely starts using a long held nickname.\n\nMatthew describes Jesus meeting James and John, also fishermen and brothers, very shortly after recruiting Simon and Andrew.\n\nThe synoptics go on to describe that much later, after Jesus had later begun his ministry, Jesus noticed, while teaching, a tax collector in his booth. The tax collector, Levi according to some Gospels, Matthew according to others, is asked by Jesus to become one of his disciples. \n\nPhilip's previous occupation seems to be unknown.\n\nBartholomew's previous occupation seems to be unknown.\n\nThomas's previous occupation seems to be unknown.\n\nJames "the less" or "the just" (a different James) was the brother of Matthew, but his previous occupation seems to be unknown.\n\nSimon's ("the zealot") previous occupation seems to be unknown.\n\nJudas Iscariot's previous occupation seems to be unknown.\n\nJude is also called Thaddeus, and was the brother of James "the less", and his previous occupation seems to be unknown.
1177672
He....   darn it.  I thought I had the recipe sitting here but I seem to have lost it.\n\nGeez, what kind of question is that any way?\n\nLet's assume for a minute that you are asking about a just a mundane operation like walking from one town to another.  The inclusion of the word "exactly" in a question about a 2000 year old event makes one wonder what your epistemelogical standard is.   \n\nThe quick and the dirty of the situation is, I don't know.  I think it probably did happen though. I'm not a fundementalist, so therefore it's not necessary for the New Testament accounts, in this case the Gospel of John, to be completly inerrant for me to sign on.  They just have to be generally historically accurate, like any other set of historical documents from the time.\n\nSome people's a priori commitment to pure materialism aside, the story seems to be authentic to me.  It has specific details that a good old propaganda story probably wouldn't contain.  Such as Jesus's disagreement with his mother and his consequent quip at her.  And then he actuallly does what she suggested.  Propaganda created from whole cloth would probably contain less contraversy in it.  \n\nThe Gospel of John is actually the New Testament book that we have the earliest documentary evidence of.  Part of it was found in the Nag Hammadi (sp?) library in Egypt and has been dated to about 130 a.d.   That's pretty darn close to the events described compared to most ancient historical documents that are considered authoritative.
526927
Dan Brown (puh) suggests that Jesus was completely human born of a father & mother and was married to the Magdalene and they had kids. WOW! How incredibly difficult to believe this fantastic story! Gnostics been saying this since the son of man was teaching them (and making love to MM).\n\ngo jesus & mary & uncle judas
375207
"There is actually quite a bit of written history from that time period that proves he did exist. But thanks for playing anyways."\n\nHAHAHAHAHAHA.... prove it. Show me one single piece of paper and I will believe you. The fact of the matter is, there was NO record of a historical jesus. In fact, St. Paul (who recorded the very first story of "Jesus") didnt mention anything about a virgin birth, miracles, or even this plane of exsistance. It was set in the same relm as Zeus, Hera, and other fictional characters. There are no writings from ANYONE who supposedly followed "jesus". If you know of any first hand evidence, I will gladly look at it and convert my faith if its true. So heres your big chance, all you good christians out there... In fact, Im gonna make it a new topic.
667158
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!\n\nYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!\n\nWhat a great new idea!  Christ spoke to abandon organization and temples!  He pretended to be the messiah to steer people away from the status quo.  He sacrificed himself to show them they were fooled!!!  And cried out that God had forsaken him!!!!  So they would KNOW!  The apostles simply capitalized on his fame, after the heat died off.  Turned him into an icon of what he tried to destroy...the Bible.
455033
I don't believe this so called "Gospel of Judas". I don't doubt that it exists, or that it was written when it was supposedly written, but I do believe the writer skewed the text to reflect his/her thoughts and that it is not an accurate account of the facts. Yes, Judas betrayed Jesus and yes it was a part of the grand design that God had planned for the salvation of man. I don't think Judas necessarily betrayed Jesus because Jesus told him to though, I think Judas didn't realize at the time of the betrayal that it would end in the crucifixion of his Lord. That's why Judas tried to get the Pharisees to take back the 30 pieces of silver and why he ultimately committed suicide. This is simply another example of how satan tries to confuse the truth and turn people away from God.
876583
this is the first time i have heard of Jesus carrying 2 books.  i didn't know about the other book.  i'm very curious to know about this nature book so if you ever get the answer to your question please let me know.
1021490
check your bible for the answer
306222
Hello chicagobears... :)\n\nI am in total agreement with you..Jesus told the woman who was caught committing adultery..\n\nHe who is without sin cast the first stone..then Jesus asked the woman where are your accusers..she said she did not see any..then Jesus said then do I condemn thee, go and sin no more.. :)\n\nJudge not lest you be judged.. :)\n\nGreat Question.. :)\n\nIn Jesus Most Precious Name..\nWith Love In Christ..
242230
Lazarus was not a disciple.  He was the brother of Mary and Martha and a friend of Jesus.  Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.\nMost people believe that John was "the disciple that Jesus loved".\nIf you could update your question, would you please reference the passage, and indicate which version of the Bible you are referring to?
286041
Here it is another 15 year old sermon from an unbeliever . . . and for an unbeliever . . . I am more familiar with the scriptures and historical documents than some of these believers.\n\nWHO IS JESUS CHRIST?\n\nSince Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah) walked this earth as a human 2,000 years ago, there has been a controversy over who he really was. The Bible tells us in many places that there is only one true God (Deu. 6:4; Mal. 2:10; Mark 12:32; Rom. 3:30; Jam. 2:19; etc.). So where does Yeshua fit into the Godhead? \n\nMost modern Christians have been taught that Jesus is the second co-equal "person" in a triune Godhead composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, many (if not most) Christians don't really understand the Trinity. Other believers today, perceiving problems with the Trinity doctrine, have adopted a belief in the "Oneness" of God which is similar to the ancient doctrine of Modalism. \n\nBefore we can truly understand who the Messiah is, we need to look at the historical background of first-century Jewish religion and subsequent philosophical/religious doctrines that arose to explain his identity. This is going to examine the beliefs of first-century Jews regarding the Godhead and present the succeeding theories put forth to define who Yeshua is. Then we will discuss by harmonizing the Scriptures with this information to better understand what the Bible really says about the identity of the Messiah. \n\nFirst, let's start by looking at what first-century C.E. Jewish religion believed about the Godhead. There has been a tendency by scholars to define first-century orthodox monotheistic Judaism in rather restrictive terms. Jewish literature or beliefs from that time frame that seem to stray from the accepted norm have been reinterpreted to accommodate Trinitarianism or used to prove that Judaism was derived from the polytheistic religions surrounding Israel. \n\nRegarding how modern scholars tend to view first-century Jewish religion as either totally monotheistic or essentially polytheistic, University of Manitoba Professor Larry W. Hurtado wrote: \n\nI suggest that on both sides of the issue . . . there has been a tendency to proceed deductively from a priori presumptions of what monotheism must mean, instead of building up a view inductively from the evidence of how monotheism actually operated in the thought and practice of ancient Jews. There seems to be an implicit agreement on both sides that more than one transcendent being of any significance complicates or constitutes a weakening of or threat to monotheism. Those who see first-century Jewish religion as monotheistic tend, therefore, to downplay the significance and attributes given by ancient Jews to any transcendent beings other than God. For these scholars often, ancient Jewish monotheism must mean that the descriptions of such beings are largely rhetorical. Though I am convinced regarding some examples, I am not sure that the descriptions are always purely rhetoric . . . \n\nThose on the other side of the issue tend to emphasize the honorific ways in which transcendent beings other than God are described and the prominent positions they occupy in the religious conceptions reflected in ancient Jewish texts, alleging that first-century Jews were not really monotheists after all. It is clear that ancient Jews were not characteristically monists or unitarians, but does this mean that they were not monotheists? That is, on both sides there is a tendency to proceed as if we can know in advance what "monotheism" must mean, which turns out to be a very modern, monistic form of monotheism, and can accordingly evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs as to whether or how closely they meet an a priori standard of "pure" monotheism. ("What Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament) \n\nAs the above quote shows, Profe
699662
The Scripture in Phillipians quite explicitly refutes the idea that Jesus the Son and Jehovah the Father are the same person.\n(Philippians 2:6) [Jesus] gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God\n\nSimilarly, pretending that Hebrews 1:5 supports trinitarianism requires that one purposely ignore the obvious answers to the obvious rhetorical questions posed there. In fact, Hebrews 1:5 actually contains strong proof that Jesus *IS* (and was) an angel. That verse asks two questions to which any bible student then and now knows the answers. Here is every word of that verse at Hebrews 1:5:\n\n(Hebrews 1:5) For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"? \n\nTHE CLEAR ANSWER TO BOTH QUESTIONS ('Which angel?') IS THAT THE ANGEL IS JESUS!\n\nThis scripture is a strong argument to PROVE that Jesus *IS* an angel, albeit the Archangel. Sincere bible students are interested in the verses which answer the straightforward questions of Hebrews 1:5:\n\nQ: To which one of the angels did God ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"?\nA: To the angel Jesus, the Christ!\n(Psalm 2:2-12) High officials themselves have massed together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one [footnote; "Christ"]... Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father..." And now, O kings, ...Kiss the son\n\nQ: To which of one of the angels did God ever say: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"?\nA: To the angel Jesus, God's chosen King!\n(2 Samuel 7:11-14) Jehovah has told you ...I shall certainly raise up your seed after you ...and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingdom. ...I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite. I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son\n\n\nHere are three connections (in addition to Hebrews 1:5) showing that Jesus Christ is the same person as the archangel Michael:\n\n1. Note that Jesus the Lord calls with an archangel's voice:\n(1 Thessalonians 4:14-16) Jesus died and rose again, so, too... the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice\n\n\n2. Note that BOTH Jesus ("The Word") and Michael are spoken of as leading the angelic armies; can there be two such leaders who do not even mention one another?\n\n(Revelation 19:13-14) the name he is called is The Word of God. Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him\n\n(Revelation 12:7) And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled\n\n\n3. Note that BOTH Jesus and Michael return and stand up at the same time; this is during a time of distress (or tribulation) "such as has never happened before" which seems quite clearly to be a one-time event.\n\n(Daniel 12:1) And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book.\n\n(Matthew 24:3-21) the disciples approached him [Jesus] privately, saying: "Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?" And in answer Jesus said to them: "...All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. ...But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. ...for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.\n\nLearn more:\nhttp://watchtower.org/e/ti/
927638
Interesting point, but I thought the whole "second coming" was promised to the disciples AFTER the resurrection. In that case, no.
475306
While millions were celebrating the memory of the passion and death of the savior the National Geographic Society unveiled the first modern translation of the third-century Coptic translation of the Gospel of Judas on April 6 in Washington. \nThe Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John focus on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and include events supposedly related to the life of Jesus. \nHowever, the Gospel of Judas and the others, the text of which was always been known, in whole or in part, really are texts attempting to bolster the importance of the personalities they are named after, not of Jesus. It is therefore really amazing that it is being given such a level of credence.\nWe are in the age of the media and the media are more interested in novelty and money but least in truth. Consider the media reports regarding the Pope’s Homily on Maundy Thursday. The headlines screamed “POPE BANISHES GOSPEL OF JUDAS, PORTRAYS HIM AS DOUBLE-CROSSER.”\nDid they expect him to adopt the Gospel of Judas forthwith and banish the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in a jiffy!!!\nDoes it really matter the circumstances that surround the death of Jesus? Does it change who He was or what He did for us? \nThere are some people around the world who seem to be constantly seeking to discredit the Church in some form or the other. The challenges before the Church today are no different from those faced by the early Christians after Jesus died.\nFalse/sensationalistic reports spread like wildfire, fuelled by unprincipled journalism.\nHowever, responding to such malicious slander is not productive. But it doesn’t mean that one should never respond. The important thing is how one responds. If your response is of anger and in self-defense then you are only walking into the trap but your response should be gentle, firm, respectful, and in defense of the truth.
1032140
Jesus? Use your brain for just a few seconds.\n\n\nIf Jesus died, he could NOT have been God.\n\nDo Gods die? Do they?\n\nIf Jesus 'died' on Friday and 'undied' on Sunday, what else besides a few hours was sacrificed? \n\nWhat's the BIG deal?\n\nDavid Blaine can do that on TV.\n\nIf you accept the Jesus story, would you also accept this one?\n\nI gave all my money to Charity last Friday.\n\nOn Sunday, all the money was returned to me.\n\nI sacrificed for charity. True or False?