is the Resurrection old hat?

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator:Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
Post Reply
User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:
is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by Metacrock » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:01 pm

All those atheists on flaot your boat, Val and Visual effect and "Rambo" just pooed pooed my attempt to argue about it. they were so certain it's stupid and no arugment can help it.

But they are so blind they ignore the fact that my arguments are based upn new info other Christians don't have. they could, it's just Helmutt Koester from Ancient Christian Gospels the argument about Textual criticism proves that the story of the empty tomb circulated just 18 years after the events.

they didn't even bother to critique it. just dismiss it out of hand as though there's just no point. so what's the deal? are they just blind, or have we beat them too many times?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
unred typo
Posts:125
Joined:Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:03 pm
Location:Undisclosed location in the eastern USA

Re: is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by unred typo » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:09 am

Are these ancient Christian gospels online yet? I would like to read them. Have you read the book of Jasher, btw? That’s one I believe should be in our Bibles, as a second witness to go with the book of Genesis. I find Christians very resistant to new found anything that isn't in the Bible but I don't know why Atheists would be so recalcitrant. ;)
The truth will stand with you but man-made doctrines will melt away like cowards in the battle.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by Metacrock » Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:12 pm

unred typo wrote:Are these ancient Christian gospels online yet? I would like to read them. Have you read the book of Jasher, btw? That’s one I believe should be in our Bibles, as a second witness to go with the book of Genesis. I find Christians very resistant to new found anything that isn't in the Bible but I don't know why Atheists would be so recalcitrant. ;)

See for most of chruch history Christianity had a discipline and was governed by bishops who claimed to have the authority form the apostles. it didn't become believe your own thing/do your own thing until 'Americans began rebellion against religious establishment.

the official line of the Church, what makes one a Christian was always that we have a canon of scripture and only things in the canon can bee understood as scripture.

there was a book of Jasher mentioned in the OT but the one floating around is not authentic. the real book we no idea what it says. It is lost to us.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by ZAROVE » Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Well, I cxoncure on Jashur. The Original Jashur is lost, the one we have is fromh Middle Ages. Actulaly their are three books of Jahsur I know of, and at leats one is not a hoax-text, but was just written by a man whose name happened pt be Jashur. ( rhough also not ancient.) All three are form the middle ages.


As for the Arguments, the basic assumption frm Historians is that the Ressurection is among the earliest elements of the Christian Narrative, so shoudl predate the Gospels, asusmign the current datign of them is accurate. This being the 40 year gap, which itsself has not been proven. A Tendancy for earlier datign is urrent but, I digress...


it is odd, though, since VisFic also buys intot he Christ Myth, or at leats see's it as Tenable, and as we all know the CHrist Myth says the whole Narrative was stolen off earlier Pagan gods. Hows can he reconcile the idea that the Ressurection was a later add-on with the idea that the Christ sotry was fully copied?

Of coruse he has nto fully endorsed the Christ Myth theory, but just a thought I had had.


As to them, ignroe them, they aren't worth the effort.

User avatar
unred typo
Posts:125
Joined:Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:03 pm
Location:Undisclosed location in the eastern USA

Re: is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by unred typo » Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:59 am

I believe there is more than one floating around. This is the one I believe is authentic:

http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html

Have you actually read it? It's really quite cool. 8-)
The truth will stand with you but man-made doctrines will melt away like cowards in the battle.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by Metacrock » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:38 am

unred typo wrote:I believe there is more than one floating around. This is the one I believe is authentic:

http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html

Have you actually read it? It's really quite cool. 8-)

that's the one published in Salt Lake in the 1890s. it has to be a Mormon deal.
John P Pratt

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds ... asher.html

The Book of Jasher has been popular among members of the L.D.S. Church as a supplement to their study of the Old Testament ever since its publication was announced in the Times and Seasons in June, 1840.[1] Because the Church is now commencing study of the Old Testament again this month, it seems appropriate to reconsider just how authentic that book really is.

I don't mean to make you feel attacked, or if you are a moron I don't' mean to make you feel on the spot. Its' not a crime to be moron. I just thought you should know.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
unred typo
Posts:125
Joined:Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:03 pm
Location:Undisclosed location in the eastern USA

Re: is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by unred typo » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:41 am

that's the one published in Salt Lake in the 1890s. it has to be a Mormon deal.

John P Pratt

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds ... asher.html

The Book of Jasher has been popular among members of the L.D.S. Church as a supplement to their study of the Old Testament ever since its publication was announced in the Times and Seasons in June, 1840.[1] Because the Church is now commencing study of the Old Testament again this month, it seems appropriate to reconsider just how authentic that book really is.



I don't mean to make you feel attacked, or if you are a moron I don't' mean to make you feel on the spot. Its' not a crime to be moron. I just thought you should know.
I don’t care if it was popular among Mormons or morons. I may be a moron, but I am not nor have ever been a Mormon. I read Jasher, it made sense, and it adds credibility to the book of Genesis. It has been around since before the Mormons were and the fact that they published it doesn’t worry me any more than if I learned that they had published the KJ Bible or Webster‘s Dictionary. They weren’t the first or the last to publish it. I looked up the site you quoted from and this is what I found:

Other Books of Jasher. There are at least three books published in modern times which have been called "The Book of Jasher", which are entirely different books. One is a Hebrew treatise on ethics, for which no one makes the claim of being a lost book of scripture.[8] Another is an easily detected fraud, published in 1751, which claims to have been translated into English by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus.[9] It is still in print, so if you obtain a copy of the Book of Jasher, make sure it is not that one. It is sometimes called Pseudo-Jasher to distinguish it from the third Book of Jasher, which is a legitimate Hebrew document and the subject of this article.

The Hebrew Source. When Titus destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70, an officer named Sidrus discovered a hidden library complete with a scholar hiding there. The officer had mercy on the man and took him and the books to his residence at what is now Seville, Spain, but was then called Hispalis, capital of the Roman province Hispalensis. The manuscript was donated to the Jewish college at Cordova, Spain, and after printing was invented, the Jewish scholars had the book printed in Hebrew in Venice in 1625.
It was first translated into English by a Jewish scholar named Mr. Samuel of Liverpool, England. He was in the process of translation when the above mentioned fraudulent work was republished in England in 1829. Before he saw it, he published a letter stating that he was also translating the same book, unaware that it was a complete hoax. By 1833 booklets were published to expose the fraudulent claims of Pseudo-Jasher, making England a difficult locale for him to publish the legitimate version. Apparently news of this fraud reached L.D.S. Church leaders because in 1835 the First Presidency issued a letter stating that the Book of Jasher was not yet available, nor would it be "at present."
Because of the hostile British climate, Samuel sold his translation to Mordecai M. Noah, a New York publisher, and it was published there in 1840, away from the scandal. It was the first English translation of the Book of Jasher ever published.
But is this Book of Jasher the one mentioned in the Bible? The preface to the book includes testimonies of several Hebrew scholars affirming that the translation is excellent and very faithful to the original Hebrew. They are careful, however, to say nothing about the authenticity of the Hebrew source. The translator, on the other hand, maintains that it is indeed the book quoted in the Bible, and even makes that claim on the title page.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds ... asher.html


I don’t feel attacked, and I’m not attacking you either. I guess you just read as far as the reference to LDS and decided it wasn’t worth your time. I really enjoyed reading Jasher, and I felt I had really stumbled onto a piece of ancient history that had been sadly lost, or possibly tucked away for these very days we’re living in. As you can read above, the phony jasher was confused with the authentic jasher that was being translated about the same time in a different place. Mr.Samuel in England heard of the other jasher and thought it was the same authentic one that he was translating, apparently saying so in print before reading the other manuscript, (which was the phony one.) By this time, the phony had been exposed and since the authentic one had erroneously been claimed to be the same one, the reputation of the original became tainted by the false one. Now it appears to be tainted by the LDS publishing. Guilt by association. Oh well. If you don't want to read it, all I can say is, I believe it's your loss. it's a great book. Lots more interesting than Genesis. :mrgreen:
The truth will stand with you but man-made doctrines will melt away like cowards in the battle.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by Metacrock » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:42 pm

that differs markadly from the account I saw. I thought the website I saw (mormon) said Jo Smith translated it from some kind of gold tablets, like the BOM?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: is the Resurrection old hat?

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:41 am

I beleive you are reering tot he Boo of Abraham, which was said to have been translaed by Divine power by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the mddle of the 19th century from a Papurus Scroll optained by a traveling curiosity dealer, who sold him two scrolls and a Mummy, and a few artifacts.

The BooK of abraham can be viewed onlien ad LDS. ORG.

Post Reply