resurrection and theological significance

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby Michael Hill on Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:23 am

K R Wordgazer. You are right. It was something else I was thinking about:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_secret.html

.
Michael Hill
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby KR Wordgazer on Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:28 pm

Metacrock, I'm not sure that second link is the one you meant to post.
Wag more.
Bark less.
User avatar
KR Wordgazer
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby Michael Hill on Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:29 pm

Lots of christian forgeries and similar claims like Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, and so on. Google any of them. Or do you want me to copy and paste piles of info?

You can claim the passion narrative but unless you can produce evidence, like the Q document, it remains mythical. Ehrman tells us there were lots of fake gospels and books in the first three centuries of christianity before the bible was put together and it was a death sentence to own them. It's like me claiming that there is a document from 38 AD saying Jesus was a mad man and had no followers. Without evidence it is an empty claim.

"That is just an unfounded propaganda assumption." You do like your phrases. Why did the later John not use the early life of Jesus stories? We know the Herod story was lies because Jewish Josephus who documented Herod's many crimes did not mention the death of all those Jewish babies. There is also the point that Bethlehem was a short ride away from where Herod was and he could have checked himself without using those fake kings.

While there was a census, it was idiocy to claim that people had to return to their place of birth, which would have caused a year of havoc in the ancient world. A misreading of Micah 5:2 is said to be responsible for the Bethlehem claim, trying to make Jesus look like he was in the OT. He was not as internet searches on such claims will prove.

Eye witness stories are all the same (try writing down something that happened between you and your family without making it personal) but there are no eye witness accounts in the gospels. In a time where most led short lives, most would have been dead when the gospels were written and if any alive heard of them, they could be dismissed as liars. They are just stories followers are writing down, as hearsay evidence. Many were even openly made up, and known to be frauds. Some now like 2Peter are accepted now as frauds.

Did Jesus die on the cross? He had no worse than the two criminals with him (humiliation, scourging upto 40 strokes, etc). They were active enough to taunt him. Josephus tells of seeing a man he knew who was still alive after 3 days on a cross and petitioned to have him taken down. The man was and recovered but we are expected to believe that the healthy Jesus died in just several hours? Nonsense. An IDEA of mine is that they fed him mandrake root. Medicines were diluted with cheap wine, aka vinegar. Jesus had his vinegar and "died". Mandrake root can ease pain or put someone in a coma and the soldiers were not doctors and thought him dead without checking (the spear nonsense is a lie from "John", 90 years later. Then he was taken away, a hundredweight of the healing herb aloes used on him and he recovered sufficiently to walk 3 days later but still had those holes in his wrists and feet.

All his preaching and miracles and Jesus had just 12 followers and one of them betrayed him for gold.

I said a messiah had to be through the male line, not that he had to be male. Jesus did not admit Joseph was his father (he was in Luke 2) so the two ridiculous conflicting genealogies made up of Jewish royalty did not matter if Joseph was not his dad. They could say Jesus came from President Obama but that would not make it true.

You quote 3 lying apologists with crackpot qualifications. What evidence do they have? Is Jerusalem a christian capital now? Why are there still Jews if so many converted to christianity? Sure Jerusalem had lots of "foreigners" living in it, being a Roman garrison town, but they belonged to many different religions.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... kooks.html

Ehrman does give links which can be checked. You can deny them all you want but they are still there

All across Europe churches are empty, and they are starting to empty out in America. Sure people claim to believe in Jay-suss, but they don't go to church, don't pray, don't read the bible, don't behave as they are supposed to, etc. They are drifting out of christianity as it dies. They might believe in god as they believe in various superstitions but they don't believe in the church any more, with cases like Boston, the televangelists, various popes and their crazy ideas, local bad christians, etc.

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pa ... erica.html

I still think the Q source is nonsense. There is no evidence it existed. It was made up to explain Matthew and Luke. If an atheist lies (and it is not a mistake), then like religious people they can be proved wrong. Sure I made a mistake on Jesus but how can anyone think he did not want to keep his resurrection a secret by not appearing to people like the Jewish elders and Pilate who believed him dead? One would think he was not there, like the REAL end of Mark (16:8) indicates and that his disciples lied that he had risen.

All we have is hearsay accounts of Jesus written by unknown people decades afterwards. Even were he an ordinary man who lived an ordinary life and died an ordinary death, they would not be trustworthy. But an impossible man? As Carl Sagan used to say: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and there is no evidence for this impossible superman.
Michael Hill
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby Michael Hill on Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:31 pm

Ehrman makes a nice living out of Jesus so would not want him proven fake. When such people say they believe in Jesus, they mean an ordinary man and not a son of god. They do not believe in your Jesus. However, they have no proof of what they claim, so like you are using faith based views.
Michael Hill
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby Metacrock on Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:22 pm

Michael Hill wrote:Ehrman makes a nice living out of Jesus so would not want him proven fake. When such people say they believe in Jesus, they mean an ordinary man and not a son of god. They do not believe in your Jesus. However, they have no proof of what they claim, so like you are using faith based views.


so you lose the points you used Ehrman for, also Carrier makes a living off of denying Jesus existed. So does Doherty.

It makes no sense to think that because Eheman is an atheist so he doesn't have to ever mention the existence of Jesus he's not selling books to Christians. Carrier is selling them to atheists.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby Metacrock on Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:49 pm

Michael Hill wrote:Lots of christian forgeries and similar claims like Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, and so on. Google any of them. Or do you want me to copy and paste piles of info?

You can claim the passion narrative but unless you can produce evidence, like the Q document, it remains mythical. Ehrman tells us there were lots of fake gospels and books in the first three centuries of christianity before the bible was put together and it was a death sentence to own them. It's like me claiming that there is a document from 38 AD saying Jesus was a mad man and had no followers. Without evidence it is an empty claim.


1. passion narrative is exactly like Q. do you really think there3's a physical document called Q? No it is totally theoretical based upon the reading,
2. No it's not like your mad man thing because the readings exist in multiple copies. Really if you are going to make arguments about this stuff you need to learn what your talking about. read the links I put down they explain it clearly.


"That is just an unfounded propaganda assumption." You do like your phrases. Why did the later John not use the early life of Jesus stories? We know the Herod story was lies because Jewish Josephus who documented Herod's many crimes did not mention the death of all those Jewish babies. There is also the point that Bethlehem was a short ride away from where Herod was and he could have checked himself without using those fake kings.


everything you learned avou8t this stuff you got from the atheist echo chamber. you have no knowledge of this topic. The gospels are not written by the guys they are named after. They are not just copying mark. That's why Matt. uses Mark and Q, Mark was a community and Matthew was a community. John was a community. Luke may have been a real guy. Several redactors (editors) wrote down the oral tradition in their communities. The oral tradition came from the witnesses in the communities. Each community had a different set of witnesses, so they had different stories. John didn't necessarily have Luke. Or he didn't have it in the form we do.

you should read Ancient Christian
Gospels by Helmutt Koester.

While there was a census, it was idiocy to claim that people had to return to their place of birth, which would have caused a year of havoc in the ancient world. A misreading of Micah 5:2 is said to be responsible for the Bethlehem claim, trying to make Jesus look like he was in the OT. He was not as internet searches on such claims will prove.


they didn't all have to do it at the same time.


Eye witness stories are all the same (try writing down something that happened between you and your family without making it personal) but there are no eye witness accounts in the gospels. In a time where most led short lives, most would have been dead when the gospels were written and if any alive heard of them, they could be dismissed as liars. They are just stories followers are writing down, as hearsay evidence. Many were even openly made up, and known to be frauds. Some now like 2Peter are accepted now as frauds.


again your opinion is not proof scholars prove you wrong. the whole gospels are eye witness accounts.

\
Did Jesus die on the cross? He had no worse than the two criminals with him (humiliation, scourging upto 40 strokes, etc). They were active enough to taunt him. Josephus tells of seeing a man he knew who was still alive after 3 days on a cross and petitioned to have him taken down. The man was and recovered but we are expected to believe that the healthy Jesus died in just several hours? Nonsense. An IDEA of mine is that they fed him mandrake root. Medicines were diluted with cheap wine, aka vinegar. Jesus had his vinegar and "died". Mandrake root can ease pain or put someone in a coma and the soldiers were not doctors and thought him dead without checking (the spear nonsense is a lie from "John", 90 years later. Then he was taken away, a hundredweight of the healing herb aloes used on him and he recovered sufficiently to walk 3 days later but still had those holes in his wrists and feet.


You assume they only did the stuff we know about. You also assume scourging is no bi9g deal bu8t more than 10 lashes and your are half dead. You also don't comprehend his physical state at that point, malnourished, overworked, stressed out.


All his preaching and miracles and Jesus had just 12 followers and one of them betrayed him for gold.


you are desperate, knit picking. It says he had more than just the 12, those were the inner circle.




I said a messiah had to be through the male line, not that he had to be male. Jesus did not admit Joseph was his father (he was in Luke 2) so the two ridiculous conflicting genealogies made up of Jewish royalty did not matter if Joseph was not his dad. They could say Jesus came from President Obama but that would not make it true.


you have no evidence at all that Jesus did not claim Jo. it was not up to the son. Jo claimed him. We know that for a fact because they didn't stone Mary.


You quote 3 lying apologists with crackpot qualifications.


what do you think you are proving by slandering people you know nothing about? where do you think they went to school? you don't know you don't even know their first names.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby Michael Hill on Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:51 pm

Ehrman I think can be trusted on early christianity and the new testament because he gives proofs of what he says or links that can be checked on.

When he says he believes Jesus existed, that is just an opinion, so worth no more than that of the man in the street.

What do you think of his books?
Michael Hill
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby sgttomas on Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:52 pm

Obviously Jesus was a real person. It's not even possible to question whether or not Jesus was a real person.



.....the Quran clearly states that Jesus was real.

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
User avatar
sgttomas
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby Metacrock on Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:14 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:Metacrock, I'm not sure that second link is the one you meant to post.


It is. you have to scroll down it's half way.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Postby Metacrock on Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:18 pm

Michael Hill wrote:Ehrman I think can be trusted on early christianity and the new testament because he gives proofs of what he says or links that can be checked on.

When he says he believes Jesus existed, that is just an opinion, so worth no more than that of the man in the street.

What do you think of his books?


you are contradicting yourself. you impugned his motives
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

PreviousNext

Return to Adventure of Faith (Religion/Spirituality)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron