torsdag 1 augusti 2019

Arnolds records as powerlifter and bodybuilder and even strongman holding 560 pound rock stone Brian Shawn runned with 495 pound stone.. Updated 2019-12-02 around time 00:58


hi all arnold were extremely strong almost or more then 140 kg on biceps as truth said See https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs96NhLnGeeK5zMpEprbHVrH0hjbCGupA_QKZpAml9GNANMxmxMANN22hU49uYEpurjqeHgUMiQOq92weEeFx3JOht_UsQpLaU66XgQEvg36ppClDLgszCvZnkhfeSWzWyKMjfPnAArpRe/s640/e6e9f2eec30dabfbb994c3073f5510d1.jpg on biceps alone almost as strong as worlds strongest man magnus samelsson in some excersises. arnold were much stronger in his prime then tinty john breznk john breznk even beat lars rorbakken in arm wrestling pretty easy arnodl is way stronger then tiny guy john breznk in arnold prime. arnold still is in good shape for beeing around 70 years old. get the facts right people arnold were a powerlifter before he began bodybuildning at a serious level arnold started bodybuildning in young age but took bodybuildning serious more in older age. Exact years of Arnold power liftning records is shown in comments and link in previous comment. get the fact right all almost knows that arnold were a powerlifter and bodybuilder.



hi worth to say again "Arnold won several strongman and powerlifting competitions before ever stepping on a bodybuilding stage. He won a prestigious stone lifting contest by hoisting a 560-pound rock in Munich, West Germany, while he was Mr. Universe." https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/lift-heavy-to-build-muscle-like-arnold-schwarzenegger.html more deep study about this read all and stop be morons and bullies vs truths that speaks the very truth stop be ignorants idiots and jackasses about arnolds powerlifting records and his prime and his sick strenght as powerlifter strongman and bodybuilder in same strenght as worlds strongest man magnus samelsson in some tasks as biceps and bench, but magnus stronger in other stuff. https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/lift-heavy-to-build-muscle-like-arnold-schwarzenegger.html and http://www.castironstrength.com/arnolds-powerlifting-history/




@cry now laugh later aka (the first the last) you changed nick it seams haha funny mountain is not trained at arm wrestling if trained at arm wrestling as same as john and devon he would beat john and devon with ease same with arnold if trained at armwrestling togheter with all his streanght. arnold very impressive in his prime arnold held 560 pound rock and won that stone lifting contest and brian shaw runned with 495 pound rock as talked about at youtube here watch?v=XcTBke6kwKI . arnold were extremely strong in his prime just as denis beaten devon larrat 6 zero a prime arnold trained in arm wrestle would crush both devon and john . also magnus samelsson prime woould crush devon and john as magnus were trained in armwrestling and broke nathan jones arm. john in his prime and still is best human arm wrestler holding it on top for like over 25 years none ever have done that ever before of humanity but do not kidd yourself a prime arnold that also must be trained at arm wrestling would crush both john and devon with ease as denis crush john and devon with ease, both john and devon is to small and weak to go up against bigger guys that also is trained in arm wrestling denis proved this fact by beating devon 6-0 and john even admitted he has no chance towards denis today even in his prime, denis is way to strong and also trained in arm wrestling the result would be the very same with arnold if he in his prime strived to also be world best arm wrestler. to say that mass is not important muscle mass thats a lie also true not always is bigger muscles stronger but arnold were a strongman trained powerlifter even before his bodybuildning career and those if trained in arm wrestling will crush guys who is smaller as devon and john technique cannot only win and denis proved that crushing devon 6-0 without an effort on denis part with ease arnold would done the same vs both devon and john if trained in arm wrestling. much respect still forever to john armwrestler at top for over 25 years top human armwrestler and much respect to devon larrat but do not kidd yourself that technique beat trained stronger and bigger guys who is trained in armwrestling, denis proved this fact by totally crushing devon 6-0 end of discussion.




robert it is as truth said arnold were a power lifter here is arnolds records: "Notes 1963 Olympic lifting competition. In an interview with Peter McGough (M&F, July 1997, p. 60), Arnold told of competing in a competition at a beer hall in Graz in early 1963. This was apparently Arnold's first contest. He lifted 165 lbs overhead, beating his previous best of 150 lbs. It is not clear whether this was a jerk or a press. 1964 Styrian Junior weightlifting championships. Albert Busek's article on Arnold (Kraftsport revue Nr. 30, Jan 1967) states that Arnold was the Steirischer Jugendmeister in the autumn of 1964. The winning weight is given as 280 kg (616 lbs). However, the English version of Busek's article (H&S 30th March 1967) claims a total of 705 lbs. Neither article is clear about which lifts were included. 1965 Austrian Olympic lifting championships. Arnold states in "Education of a Bodybuilder" that before he was 18 he had won the heavyweight division of the Austrian Olympic lifting championships. Busek also wrote (Kraftsport revue Nr. 30; H&S 30th March 1967) that by the summer of 1965, Arnold "occupied an undisputed first place in the list of Austrian weightlifters." The impression given in Education of a Bodybuilder was that this was Arnold's last Olympic lifting competition. The H&S article reported best lifts of, Press 264 lbs, Snatch 243 lbs and Clean&jerk 298 lbs. There was no suggestion that these were the lifts from the 1965 Austrian contest. 1966 International powerlifting championships. Results of the Internationale Meisterschaft Kraftdreikampf appeared in Kraftsport revue (Nr. 30, p. 36-37). Arnold won, Michelik Stanko was 2nd and Leo Pelekies 3rd. Arnold’s lifts were Deadlift 250 kg, Bench 165 kg and Squat 170 kg. The original contest report gave the total as 585kg, Busek’s H&S article reported 1290 lbs. 1967 German powerlifting championships. Results appeared in Kraftsport revue Nr. 34 (p. 34-35). Arnold came 2nd to Georg Schipper, Klaus Schumann was 3rd. Arnold’s lifts were, Bench 170 kg (374 lbs), Squat 200 kg (440 lbs), Deadlift 280 kg (616 lbs). A photo of Arnold deadlifting at this event was published in FLEX (May 2005) but incorrectly dated as 1966. 1968 German powerlifting championships. A brief summary of the results was given in Kraftsport revue (Nr. 45, p. 38). These indicated that Arnold deadlifted 310 kg for a total of 725 kg. Full results were promised for issue nr. 46, which I don’t have. However, Thomas Klose has previously told us that the full results were later reprinted as, Squat 215 kg, Bench 200 kg and Deadlift 310 kg. The impression given in "Education of a Bodybuilder" was that this was Arnold's last powerlifting competition."




@Candiy Love Very incorrect Arnold if trained and had a goal to be the best arm wrestler could be that. I am an arm wrestler and strongman and bodybuilder clean on food hate drugs. So I choose to reply. If Arnolds goals were to be the best arm wrestling he would snapp bagents arm off. Power lifters and strongman and bodybuilders can beat professional arm wrestlers if they too are trained in arm wrestling and it techniques anyone claiming otherwise is straight out not telling the truth. I have personally beaten big muscles guys in 160 kg muscles that are in Dennis size, aswell beaten trained arm wrestlers pro. Arnold could been very successful at arm wrestling if he wanted too but personally many injuries happends to almost all at the top in arm wrestling Devon has many injuries and other people as John so for many its not worth to compete at the top level as you need to break your body over and over to reach that top think Devon talked about that here youtube watch?v=orTrZFg4lzU take care.

@the first the last all info scroll down in link and you find it : truthcampions.blogspot.com/ Arnold were a powerlifter before he started bodybuildning your liar all facts is shown. Its you who knows nothing about arnold disrespecting him and all his records as a powerlifter as well how strong he were in bench and biceps."
the first the last Arnold is stronger then those people you menationed see truthcampions . blogspot . com See all info on that page Arnold were a extremely strong if not strongest power lifter ever in his younger age before he started with Bodybuildning. His record is almost 140 kg in Biceps on curl alone.... (or more..) Write it above exacly as shown but closer and you see the info in browser. Stop disrespect arnold he were stronger then all of those tiny guys in his prime... Most people do not know how strong arnold actually were. arnold is still strong but now he is old almost 70 years of age but I bet arnold will win even today when people are in same age as arnold 70 years etc. Arnold were almost as strong as world strongest man Magnus Samelsson in biceps and same in benchpress etc. Arnold is considered one of the strongest powerlifter and human bodybuilder like ever.

about arnolds power lifter records here http://web.archive.org/web/20140605104708/https://sites.google.com/site/miniarchive/arnold-schwarzenegger-powerlifting scroll down on page.


Arnold were in his prime way bigger and stronger in biceps and bench and stone lifting then Lars Rorbakken and most bodybuilders and strongmen in pure muscles and power for more info on this and seeing Arnold in prime see this link and scroll down in it: truthcampions.blogspot.com/ Quotes from youtube comment thread with the facts regarding Arnold he were so much more then a powerlifter bodybuilder and strongman and he is so much more as actor filmstar governor in past and so many other things. No wonder people look up to still alive Arnold in his 70s years of age. People will always look up to Arnold for his archivements in life like forever. What Arnold archived in life is in the wordly views very amazing aswell his will force or drive to accomplish his goals in life etc. Eddie Hall and many other people around world understands this and look up to Arnold and his archivements in life. Most people with common sence understand the huge accomplishments Arnold did in life. Without Arnold Bodybuildning would not be as big as it developed today aswell many other things Arnold influenced in life, they are too many things to meantioned. Arnold impacted the World like no other human in modern times ever done in Wordly ways. Arnold is one of the most strongest human bodybuilder ever in his prime and also very strong human powerlifter and very very strong human strongman lifting rocks stones 560 pounds is huge much as Arnold did winning that stone lifting strongman contest. Thanks.
Upplagd av kl. Inga kommentarer:

tisdag 1 maj 2018

English Facts:

The facts answers below :

English translated below scroll down after the Swedish links you see info translated to English:

Svenska personer läs svaren i länkarna nedan 1 till 8 på svenska via apologetikpasvenska bloggen.

English translated below scroll down after the Swedish links you see info translated to English:

The Answer on Swedish, sources:

Part 1:
http://apologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se/2010/11/hemliga-skrifter-om-jesus-kyrkans.html

Part 2:
http://apologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se/2010/12/de-falska-evangelierna-vilka-ar-de.html

Part 3:
http://apologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se/2010/12/de-falska-evangelierna-kan-kyrkan-ha.html

Part 4:
http://apologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se/2010/12/de-falska-evangelierna-hur-bestamdes.html

Part 5:
http://apologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se/2010/11/vad-menas-med-helig-skrift.html

Part 6:
http://apologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se/2010/09/bibelns-trovardighet-graven-var-tom.html

Part 7:
http://apologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se/2010/09/bibelns-trovardighet-larjungarna.html

Part 8:
http://apologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se/2010/10/bibelns-trovardighet-sammanfattning.html


English all 1 to 8 parts translated below:

Part 1:


"Secret Scriptures about Jesus - The Church's Greatest Challenge?

Documentary in SVT: "Jesus Secret Life" 
On Tuesday, I saw Jesus' secret life on SVT play (left on Tuesday, 30th of November). The documentary was about the writings that mean to reveal things about Jesus that the Bible did not include! These are called the gnostic gospels *. It's interesting to see how something so oserious can be broadcast on TV. There were so many shortcomings in mind! Fortunately, the researchers pointed out at times that these writings actually lack the backing of historical facts . 

The scriptures tell that: Jesus utilized people with their "superpowers" as children. At birth, he went to Mary and diademed. Jesus was transformed and replaced with Simon from the Cyrus at the crucifixion. Jesus had a love with Mary Magdalene. Jesus traveled to the Himalayas and studied Hinduism.
Media distorts the historical image of Jesus 
In recent years, the church's image of Jesus has suddenly been criticized . The Libra started somewhere through the Da Vinci Code .   Often, you want to make the church a kind of conspiracy , an evil organization as oppressed and hidden truth for common people. The strange thing is that people do not seem to understand that the church was never a great organization until about 300 years after it was formed. The idea that the church was originally a "major power plant in society" is simply historically incorrect . 

What do the researchers say? 
Many Christian apologists have met critics and demonstrated how their arguments simply do not hold. The reason many listen to the theories today can be explained by the fact that the knowledge of the Church's history is very small nowadays. This is nothing new! These are old questions that the church dealt with long ago. In comparison to the Bible's texts, these writings are inferior to all points: they were written long after , there are only a handful ofcopies, they are in poor condition and the way they are written is legendary . Read more about legendary education in this post ! 

Contradictory documentary ... 
Otherwise, the documentary felt a little messy. They tried to point out that this could be a great disclosure , while researchers said this. An argument that is also raised is that the gnostic gospels were written down early , when the memory of Jesus was still fresh. What one did notwant to point out is that the texts of the Church came even earlier than all the gnostic gospels.It means, therefore, that the argument only reinforces the Bible further   credibility. 

The documentary ends with the words: " The ancient scriptures are still a challenge to some of Christianity's most basic beliefs." It was really taking in, these texts are not a big challenge. At their height, they can cause irritation , but they are certainly not a real threat. 

Lee Strobel has interviewed researchers in the "Case of Jesus" who worked on these issues throughout their lives. They look at the arguments for and against:


 There is a lot I can write about this. Do not know where to start!
Submit questions via the mail in the right column! ->


 * The word gnostic, or gnosticism , comes from Greek gnosis which means "knowledge". In Greek philosophy, it is better understood as "enlightenment".Gnosticism was different movements during ancient times, mixing Jewish or Christian faith with Greek philosophy. Gnostic teachings were condemned by the church because they opposed Jesus and Scripture. One main thought is that they divide the world into spiritual and human, where things that are human are less worthy in connection with the spiritual. One wanted to seek spiritual experiences and through "secret knowledge", ie gnosis , achieve salvation. This goes straight to the message of Christianity, which rather points out that Jesus, who is 100% divine and human, combines these two. The Gnostics would instead take care of it."

Source:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se%2F2010%2F11%2Fhemliga-skrifter-om-jesus-kyrkans.html&edit-text=


Part 2:

The False Gospels - Who are they?



6   Now you have come to know the Lord Christ Jesus, live in him, 7 with root and reason in him, all the fastest in the faith in which you have been taught, and let your gratitude overflow. 8 Let no one make you prisoners in the empty and deceptive wisdom teachings based on human traditions and cosmic powers and not on Christ. 9 For in him all the divine fullness has been embodied and taken away.
Colossians 2: 6-9
What are the gnostic gospels? ( See also last post! )
The Bible word was written to the early Christian church in Kolossai around 60 AD. They had problems with what they think was an early form of gnosticism *. This was during a time when many false teachings spread about Jesus the Son of God. The Gnostic Gospels are part of these and written down after the scriptures of the Bible, from the 100's . Here are some of the ones most commonly referred to (and about the time they were written):

  • Judas Gospel (130-170 AD)
  • Thomas Gospel (140-180)
  • Peter Gospel (150-200)
  • Gospel of Mary Magdalene (120-180)
  • The Gospel of Truth (140-180)
In southern Egypt in 1945, these books were found outside the village of Nag Hammadi. A collection of 52 different religious and philosophical writings written in the language of the Coptic, Christian Indigenous Peoples. There were also some Gnostic gospels that created debate among Bible researchers.
How much to gospels are these texts really?
Something that causes confusion is that they are just called "gospels", just like the Bible's four testimonies about Jesus. What one has to remember is that it will not be a gospel, just because you call it so. That's basically what the situation looks like here. By calling the "gospel" one would get more impact . The known texts in the church were called so. Yet today people can be misled by this. For the same reason, there are also known names like Peter or Judas , to increase interest and give more weight to their writings. It was not uncommon during ancient times.

 In what way are they not gospels? 
Thus, they are not scriptures in the same sense as those found in the Bible. The gospel of Thomas is for example not a historical statement based on eyewitness sources from the life of Jesus. It is more or less a list of quotes allegedly coming from Jesus. Some of these actually feel from the Bible! So it's not entirely wrong, but most things are unknown and can not be confirmed as the Bible's texts. 
Next post about this: Could the church have missed something?
* Gnosticism - Described this in the last post, but here is a little: A religious movement that mixed Christian faith with Greek philosophy. For example, it is believed that Jesus never died on the cross, we have no need for the forgiveness of sins, God is an evil god and all people have the opportunity to become like Jesus Christ. Jesus, therefore, was not "Christ" with great K, he was simply just a "Christ" who managed to achieve a spiritual status. This was the way to heaven, it was meant that every person himself achieved the right level, just like in World of Warcraft!

Source:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se%2F2010%2F12%2Fde-falska-evangelierna-vilka-ar-de.html


Part 3:

The false gospels - Could the Church have missed something?


14 We shall no longer be children and let us be driven by all the teachers, not to be playballs for the people who want to spread misunderstandings with their fraudulent convictions. 15 No, let us in love hold on to the truth and grow in all respects so that we unite with him who is the head, Christ.
Ephesians 4: 14-15
What does historical science say?
The Bible word reminiscent of the Christian conviction that God revealed the truth once and for all. If Jesus really lived here on earth, we must be able to find clues . Christian apologists such as Gary Habermas focuses much on highlighting the historical evidence of Jesus. Those who write that the church is giving the wrong picture today does not seem to be really aware that the Gnostic scriptures are not a "new" challenge for the Church. This spring, I asked my teacher who explained that these are theories that serious researchers left a long time ago .The scriptures simply do not stand because we have few historical science reasons to believe in them:

  • They are written later than all scriptures of the Bible
  • They contradict the grounds of Christian faith (obviously that you spiced the texts with other teachings)
  • The information about Jesus does not come from people who lived with him
  • The literary style differs from the Bible's texts. All possible theological interpretations and legendary descriptions are inline between the lines. Therefore, they do not represent an actual description of what has happened.
    Through various church meetings, the Christian Church gathered from all over the Mediterranean. Here you discussed what writings really were credible. The important thing was never if there were more books, if any, even more books would have to go!
    Is this a threat to the church's image of Jesus?
    The Gnostic scriptures have never really been any " challengers" of the Christian faith as if they could come up with something new. Some want today to make it happen, but Christian apologists point out that it is obvious how these texts were influenced by, for example, Greek philosophy, which led to villol teachings. Jesus prophesies   Tom about this, that in the future false prophets and false teachings come as "forgives many".

    The church was mean and did not let everyone decide who Jesus was!
    There is a perception that the Church chose the one Jesus liked , and then silenced all other theories. In Sweden, some try to make the church a bad conspiracy here, " everyone was not allowed to play " about. What one must understand though is that this is not a game . For believing people, this is not a bullshit . Perhaps it is because you do not really understandthis, as in Sweden it is so easy to ridicule religion? You simply do not see that it's serious. It does not work to argue with emotions in this, we must look at historical facts . More about how this happened in future posts !

    Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ...
    Although critical , it is clear that the gospel of the Bible was written down in the first century(years 0-99). But there is also reason to believe that all gospels (possibly with the exception of John) were written down before 70 AD. What does this tell us? It shows that the earliesteyewitness sources of Jesus are those in the Bible. The closer events we get, the safer the information becomes, right? The fake texts do not even come close to this.

    Next post on this topic: How did the Bible's texts be decided? 

     Source:
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se%2F2010%2F12%2Fde-falska-evangelierna-kan-kyrkan-ha.html


    Part 4:

    The False Gospels - How did the Bible's texts be determined?
    When my letter has been read by you, make sure that it is also read in the church of Laodicea and that you can read the letter that comes from them.
    Colossians 4:16
    Before the Bible was determined, did you know which writings should be included? 
    There are several "lists" from the 100s and 200s where the holy writings of the New Testament are listed. The church founder of Irenaeus was the first to write down (around 180 AD ) that Matthew , Mark , Luke and John were the most reliable gospels. He was a disciple of Polycarpos, who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John . He is historically very close to the eyewitnesses. It would May be as close as between me and my grandfather, who is still at life. 
    The map shows the early Christian church's spread around the Mediterranean. Later, when the Bible was to be officially established, church leaders gathered from this area! Do not know what year the map is about, but probably the 100's or 200's.
    What is the earliest list for NT's books? 
    The earliest account is found in something called the Muratory fragment . Kopian we have access to today   is from the 700s, but historians trace its origins to around 180 AD .Researchers assume this because the text refers to a period close to when Pius I was a bishop in Rome (which was in the years 142-157). The Muratorian fragment mentions most of NT's books as holy writings. (1) Here too, the debate is taken against some false texts. This shows, therefore, that there was early awareness within the church about what texts were from God. 

     Who decided? 
    The whole Christian church decided which scriptures would be included. Around 90 AD(perhaps earlier), the gospels began to circulate in the church, at 150 AD. Consensus (≈ summary) on most books was available and around 180 years, in principle, all books were acknowledged (2) . Later in the 300s and 400s, church meetings were held (so-called conciliers ) officially identifying the writings. The church members had gathered from large parts of the Mediterranean, here a variety of cultures and peoples gathered. Multicultural to say the least!Those who want to argue that the Bible was conspiratorically assembled by a closed group, to control people, has a difficult task in proving this. The process lasts for centuries! 

    Which books could be included? How did you decide? 
    There were basically three main criteria for a holy scripture: 
    1. Written by an Apostle - All books must be written by an apostle (one of the 12 disciples) or a close assistant to this one who wrote down his thoughts (eg the gospel of Mark where Mark was a fellow worker to Peter).
    2. Spread in the larger congregations - Any scriptures could not come in, just those that were already known in the Christian congregations! By all means .
    3. Apostolic Doctrine - Thus, the message that the apostles taught. Scriptures where it was obvious that the message was influenced by other teachings, eg. of gnosticism, was completely sealed away.
    Here we quickly see how the gnostic gospels never had a chance. They had no history of being in the church from the beginning, they broke up by hand and their message was clearly blended with. The Bible word at the top has a link to point two. The scriptures to which the church had access were sent in the various congregations. The colossal letter was, for example, not only to those who lived in Kolossai , Paul wrote with the idea that the letters should reach the whole church. This applies to us today. 
    Thus, we can see that the Bible's accession process was not done in a handful. Many people from different times and cultures have been involved in church meetings and hot debates. Personally, I can not understand how there may be so much misconceptions about this ...

     (1) - Muratorian Fragmenetet: There are mentioned four gospels, but only Luke and John by name. The books not mentioned at all are the Hebrews, the letter of Jude, the first and second epistles, and the first and second epistles. Since we do not have the full text, it may be that information about these has disappeared. Do not really know what you're saying about it. 
    (2) - We can know this by studying lists and books submitted by the church fathers, for example, of Irenaeus. There you wrote about the texts that have roots with the apostles. You have also cited these writings. It is said that if all old copies we have from NT would disappear, we could still rebuild the entire NT as soon as 15-20 verses, from the books of the church fathers!

    Source:
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se%2F2010%2F12%2Fde-falska-evangelierna-hur-bestamdes.html


    Part 5:

    What is meant by "Holy Writings"?



    How can we really know what God said? 
    When speaking of holy scriptures , they mean texts inspired by God, the church's belief is that people have been sought by the Spirit of God when they write. The mission of the Church has been to map and recognize what really is from God. Which books are in accordance with the criteria ? The church does not mean that it itself decides what is holy writing though. With God's help , you have been able to gather what God has revealed through people. 
    The idea is not that the scripture came through any supernatural revelation. Jesus' mission was to unite the divine and the human. God also meets us in the human. The devil (= the devil) is the one who wants to divorce and create suspicion of humanity, as if it were less worthy in connection with divine revelations. Christianity, however, argues that this can happen in what is entirely human.
    Is not this a bit arbitrary actually? 
    Some say that it will be arbitrary to claim what God wrote and did not write. If this really is true, then there is nothing more important, and who could make such a claim? The question is relevant but at the same time reveals how little knowledge is available about this. The Bible did not come in handy, this has been discussed for centuries. Ever since the 100's, debates have taken place, sometimes only until the 18th century, in different Christian directions, before it was definitely possible to determine which books would be eliminated . Nevertheless, most of the time was clear about 400 AD. 

     You read correctly: "counting off"! 
    One important point to remember is that it was never about counting more books in the Bible.The question has always been if you should not rule out even more books! Some today want to seem like the church has been a kind of conspiracy where one chose to conceal the "truth" by counting out some books. Personally, I want to say that we can safely throw these conspiratory theories into the trash with the same. 

     Usually before ... 
    These theories were common during the first half of the 20th century but have long been contradicted . Nowadays they pop up again a little here and there. Surprisingly, people think this is something new! As if the church did not know? This shows, unfortunately, how the Church has failed to convey its message in a credible way . Fortunately, this is changing as apologetics become more relevant. 
    What then do we know about the birth of the Bible?
    When could one determine what was "holy scripture"? How did it happen?
    Coming forward!


    The credibility of the Bible: The tomb was empty!

    Historical writings
    What we need to understand is that historians review the scriptures of the Bible from a historical perspective . It does not mean that Jesus' below must be true, but that we do not have to doubt the rest of the text. The Bible is generally correct in references to then kings and places, so we can know what years the texts were written. In Markusevangeli's early source material , it is said that Jesus was buried and that the grave was empty. This is also confirmed by the creed of Paul's letter (1 Corinthians 15: 3-8) that I wrote about. The early church's belief was that it had happened to really ! Markus is the oldest gospel, which means that his sources must be even older (from year 37 according to some researchers). The principle is that the earlier an event is written down, the more credible it is. In the Bible's case there were also living eyewitnesses who could confirm or disprove the teachings that spread.All of these conditions (and many more!) Make the Bible a reliable script , historically.

    A Bible scholar studies the ancient copy of Isaiah's book from the Dead Sea Scrolls . To be able to
    dating the year of writing a book is one of the historians' many tasks!
    Women Discovered The Tomb - Unmistakably!
    The gospels describe that a group of women discovered the grave. This is a clear example of the meaning of understanding the Bible's culture, the time it was written! It is crucial for interpretation. In ancient Palestine, the position of women was very low. Their testimony was considered so worthless that it was not even counted in a trial. Therefore, it is remarkable that the Bible's writers justify women as first witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus.

    Ground. 16: 1, 3-4 - " 1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary from Magdalene, Mary, Jacob's mother, and Salome bought molten oils to go and lubricate him." 3 "Who shall roll the stone from the grave opening to us ? " 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone was rolled out, it was very big."
    This clearly shows how the Bible writers are careful to tell the truth unmasked . Even if it is "otactic" to name the women as witnesses, you still do it. A legendary post-construction would of course not refer to the women but had let someone more reputable, perhaps Peter or John, discover the grave. Never mentioning the women if you would turn the story to the benefit of Christians. Thus, this seems to be a historical depiction rather than a legend. This shows a certain objectivity in the way Christians write, that is, they do not write to their own advantage.

    The simplicity of the Bible disproves prejudices of legends ...
    Something that further increases the credibility of the gospels is that they are so easily written.Everything is briefly explained, which excludes legend suspicions. Looking at the false gospelswritten after the four of the Bible, they are completely different in style. One tells about how a talking cross follows Jesus out of the grave! In addition, Jesus is so tall that he reaches all the way up to heaven . Nevertheless, no one in Jerusalem saw this giant-Jesus who was outside the city. We lack historical sources that can confirm this, and much more as these "gospels" claim. Therefore, today, and the church in the past, we can easily count these out.

    The empty grave is confirmed by the Jews!
    In Matt. 28: 11-15, tells how the Jewish leaders mutate the guards to silence and spread the rumor that the disciples stole the body while they were sleeping. A Roman soldier who fell asleep on his post was punished with death (also in Sweden during wartime) which easily shows how wrong this reputation is. The rumor proves instead that the Jews themselves meant that Jesus' body was gone. This gives a strong certificate, if you want to critically review, that the grave was actually empty. Everyone knew the place of the grave and you could easily go there and look after yourself. Christianity had never been able to spread such a way if Jesus' dead body could be revealed. The question is therefore not whether the grave was empty, rather, "What happened to the body and how did the Christians react?"

    source:
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetikpasvenska.blogspot.se%2F2010%2F09%2Fbibelns-trovardighet-graven-var-tom.html

    Part 7:

    The Belief's Belief: The teachings preached the resurrection
    The Jewish view of the Messiah and the Resurrection
    The teachings really believed that Jesus had resurrected from the dead, even though they were contrary to everything they had previously believed. The Jewish expectation of the messiah was never that this would die and resurrect like Jesus. The view of the Jews was always about a common resurrection at the end of time, and the messiah would create a peace-loving here on earth . Therefore, the disciples were completely destroyed when Jesus died, they were out of sorrow and divorced. This is the starting point for our assessment! How was it possible that the disciples could make such a change of mind ?

    Jesus explains the resurrection in the Law of the Witnesses :
    "If the wheat grain does not fall into the soil and die, it remains a lonely grain, but if it dies, it will bring rich fruit."
    Have God created the world, there are connection points to the truth everywhere, also in nature!

    How far are you willing to go for a lie?
    Some believe that the Christians lied. The question is whether it is reasonable to assume that position. A close friend whom they lasted for three years had suddenly died, who overcome such a trauma in three days? Apart from the fact that it is highly unbelievable that the disciples stole Jesus' body, there was also nothing to do with this lie.
    Do you understand anything for a lie?

    Mainly there are two intentions with a lie:
    • Release penalty
    • Any kind of profit

    The disciples achieved nothing of this. Instead, they suffered punishment and lost everything . They risk persecution, torture, imprisonment and death penalty. They called for a poor lifestyle and did not earn any money either. Nevertheless, Christianity grew and many came to believe, just because people saw how the faith of Christians was worth more than life itself . This is most current in Muslim countries and Asia today!

    Teachers' Total Transformation - What is most likely?
    Thus , we can see that Jesus' disciples totally changed
    his view of the Messiah. They left what they had learned since the upbringing. Despite much suffering, they still chose to believe. How can we explain this historically ? Just a few days earlier, their world view had been broken completely. Suddenly they are happy in the world with the message of Jesus, this is very unlikely! In connection with this, the Christian church grows explosively . On Pentecost, 3,000 people will be saved at one and the same time.

    Natural science about the resurrection
    Atheists are right when they say that the resurrection is unnatural . However, the resurrection of Jesus has nothing to do with what is natural or not. This is not the case of someone who randomly arises through an unusual biological process, but about the Son of God . It is the question of a miracle , where the historical evidence indicates that it can actually be the most likely explanation. Otherwise there is no other theory that fully explains all question marks.

    There is more!
    This article series really has not received anything! Even if these posts may be some of the longest, they are very short-lived. There is more to say about all these facts! In the future I will write small special posts and maybe go a little deeper in on some points. Now, at least we have gone through the basics! One help would have been if you readers tell you what you're wondering, maybe something you do not really understand or who you do not agree.

    Tomorrow I will also add a small summary ending
    on this article series about the Bible's credibility .

    Source:


    Part 8:

    The Belief's Belief: Summary

    Well-founded arguments!
    Gary Habermas, philosopher, theologian and historian
    What I have written about is nothing I have come to the conclusion but is the result of research. The four points are highlighted in the debate because they are recognized by the vast majority of researchers. Of course there are those who disagree! There is always and should not come as a surprise. The so-called Jesus seminar means, for example, that we can hardly know anything about Jesus. These, however, represent a very small proportion of researchers, even non-believing researchers agree on their research methods. Two famous people who argue for what I wrote about are William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas .

    The vast majority of the research community acknowledges this as historical facts:
    1. Jesus of Nazareth was buried by Joseph of Arimatea.
    2. On Sunday after the Crucifixion, a group of Jesus' female disciples found that the grave was empty.
    3. On several occasions, under different circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced Jesus showing himself to the dead.
    4. The first disciples believed that Jesus had arisen from the dead. This even if it was contrary to everything they thought previously and that led to severe persecution.
    William Lane Craig Philosopher and Theologian
    These facts about Jesus fulfill five requirements for historical credibility:
    1. Several Independent Sources: Jesus' death and resurrection are confirmed by several independent sources.
    2. Early source material: The sources were written down early. What proposed years to date, NT was written earlier than other antique literature in comparison.
    3. Eyewitnesses: The sources are based on eyewitness sources, not old legends that have been inherited for hundreds of years.
    4. Fienders Testimony: Opponents of the Christians confirm various facts (eg the empty grave).
    5. Neat testimony: "Bad" details are not hidden. For example. in the case of women as prime witnesses to the empty grave of Jesus. Another example is that Peter (who later became the chief leader of the Church) denied Jesus three times. Think about the situation here! Later, he and the whole church are reminded, every year at the Passover celebration of Peter's betrayal of Jesus, perhaps the worst thing he could do. It's like acknowledging its fat failure year after year, when did you see a big leader doing it lately?
      William Lane Craig writes that these historical facts are so strong that critics face an almost impossible situation here! This became very clear during a debate he had with a professor at the University of California . The professor had written his doctoral dissertation on "Jesus Resurrection." He knew the arguments that the Christians gave and had no other way of claiming that Jesus must have had a completely unknown , identical twin brother . This would have been separated from Jesus as a child. The twin brother, however, came backwhen Jesus was executed and stole his body from the grave. Later, the disciples misunderstood and believed that the twin brother was Jesus who had come up!

      I think it's enough just to explain this theory to see how unlikely it is. This example clearly shows how far critics have to go to get around the Bible's convincing evidence. It is not me who say this, but researchers who have worked on these issues and who have devoted themselves to historical and archaeological research, perhaps in their entire lives. Today, it is popular with books that criticize Christianity and the Church's view of Jesus. On closer examination, however, we see that they rarely hold (eg Jonas Gardell 's book About Jesus ).Just because someone is writing a book does not mean it's true. It is the ones who devoted to years of research, which overlook the arguments for and against , who really have authority on these issues.

      As I said earlier, you do not want to believe, you will never be convinced ...


      Tip:
      Stefan Gustavsson - Has Jesus Arrived? - From Youth OAS in Borås this summer

      Upplagd av kl. Inga kommentarer:
      Prenumerera på: Inlägg (Atom)