Page 15 of 35 FirstFirst ... 511121314151617181925 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 515
  1. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    I read or heard somewhere that Jesus is actually Saint Michael Archangel in human form.

  2. #212
    Marked for Redemption David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIFTY-TWO (52) View Post
    No, there's a certain historicity to the proclamation of Christ as God, and it didn't start with the early Christians, but with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy hundreds of years after Christ's death.

    Christianity isn't based on the premise that Jesus is God, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The notion that a bunch of men in councils got together and fashioned the plot that would bring the Catholic Church to supreme dominance and bleed into mainstream Christianity is not "emotionally driven". It's fact. It was these men in councils that placed on Jesus those things Jesus, himself, never reached for: deification.
    I think you're operating on a misunderstanding about how the gospels came into being.

    They were circulated as letters among the various churches long before Christians ever dreamed of 'supreme dominance.' The churches were loosely connected (as evidenced by the tension between the Jewish and Gentile churches in Paul's letters). There was no superstructure capable of enacting a vast conspiracy to rewrite the original accounts.

    We don't have the original documents, but we do have more textual verification for the New Testament than any other ancient document of that era because so many copies were being passed around. That's how we know, for instance, that the book of Mark originally ended with 16:8, and 9-19 are additions.

    That addition, incidentally, singles out Mary Magdalene as the first person to see the resurrected Jesus, which undermines any conspiracy theories about attempts to exorcise her from the text. If the Church was engaged in a conspiracy involving Mary Magdalene, they didn't shy away from her significance, they emphasized it.

    Further, the gospels weren't originally intended as evangelical texts, but were aimed at the converted who were interested in Jesus' life and his ministry. They were originally written by Jesus' contemporaries or someone closely linked with them. Christ was being actively worshipped before the gospels were written. Some of Paul's letters predate the gospels, which means Christians were already in the thick of several faith controversies by that point (like legalism vs. spiritual liberty).

    The questing before the Nicene Council wasn't whether Christ was divine, but the exact nature of that divinity. Was he co-equal with God or subbordinate?

    Speaking as a Christian, there's enough foundation for doubt that you don't have to go to the trouble of inventing conspiracies that are demonstrably false.
    "I came to the conclusion that the optimist thought everything good except the pessimist, and the pessimist thought everything bad, except himself." -- G.K. Chesterton

  3. #213
    Marked for Redemption David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 666MasterOfPuppets View Post
    This. Like I said before, the Bible is a book with little historical accuracy. When you compare the customs and lifestyle of the Jews back in those days you will see things in The bible that just don't add up (i.e., Mary being a "virgin" when Jesus was conceived).
    It's cute that your biggest concern with the Virgin birth is whether it fits with Jewish custom at the time.

    In that moment you start to think something's fishy. It's clear that whoever wrote the gospels modified and added things in order to adapt what happened to their views of "sanctity", or "holiness", or whatever you wanna call it. If God is all mercy, he wouldn't send his own son to sacrifice himself to Him in order to "forgive mankind's sins". That doesn't make any sense. Besides, he supposedly came back from the dead, so there's really no sacrifice, is there? The way I think of Jesus is as a wise man that tried to show people a "peaceful" way to live. And a man who lived his life, period. Then there's the whole Mary Magdalene issue. Is it really so hard to believe that he loved a woman and mated with her? Hell, recent findings say that God (the Creator) had a wife. And her mentions were misteriously wiped out from the books.
    As mentioned before, Mary Magdalene features prominently in an addition to the gospel of Mark which singles her out as the first individual to see the resurrected Christ. There is no conspiracy whatsoever to exorcise her from the biblical text.

    As far as God's values go, there's more than one approach to that. I think of Christ's death and resurrection less like 'punishment' and more like a general who won't order his troops into a battle he's not willing to fight himself. Christ leads by example.

    There are misunderstandings about simple words like 'sin' that perpetuate an ugly picture of God. The Greek word Paul used for 'sin' is an archery term for 'missing the mark.'

    Christianity is less 'you guys screwed up big and now you're gonna get it' and more 'you can do better and I'm going to hold you to that.'
    "I came to the conclusion that the optimist thought everything good except the pessimist, and the pessimist thought everything bad, except himself." -- G.K. Chesterton

  4. #214
    All Roads Lead To Hell 666MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Legendary Fortress Of Solitude, The Strangest Place On Earth
    Posts
    5,786

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    It's cute that your biggest concern with the Virgin birth is whether it fits with Jewish custom at the time.
    Concern? You got it all wrong there. It's not that I'm "concerned", but that I'm pointing out a contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    As mentioned before, Mary Magdalene features prominently in an addition to the gospel of Mark which singles her out as the first individual to see the resurrected Christ. There is no conspiracy whatsoever to exorcise her from the biblical text.
    Not what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    As far as God's values go, there's more than one approach to that. I think of Christ's death and resurrection less like 'punishment' and more like a general who won't order his troops into a battle he's not willing to fight himself. Christ leads by example.
    True, if you think that he really died to redeem mankind in the eyes of God. But if you take that component away, then it just doesn't add up.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    There are misunderstandings about simple words like 'sin' that perpetuate an ugly picture of God. The Greek word Paul used for 'sin' is an archery term for 'missing the mark.'

    Christianity is less 'you guys screwed up big and now you're gonna get it' and more 'you can do better and I'm going to hold you to that.'
    The book of Revelations begs to differ, as would The Old Testament.
    ... The Master Of Puppets has spoken.

    Goodbye León (november 16th, 1993 - june 12th, 2009). You were, are and always will be the best friend I ever had. I will always love you and never forget you. And please, please forgive me.

    Thank you for teaching me about love, patience and caring. Rest in Peace, my friend. I hope that wherever it is you are now, you can run and play as much as you want.

  5. #215
    Senior Member Castel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    The book of Revelations begs to differ, as would The Old Testament.
    The whole point of the new testament is to correct and perfect the message of the old one, making it kinda obsolete.

    Moving from "kill everyone who isn't jew !!" to "love your fellow man".

    It's an update, 2.0, forget the old testament.

  6. #216
    Mattress Tester T Hedge Coke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    www.futureearthmagazine.com
    Posts
    10,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castel View Post
    Moving from "kill everyone who isn't jew !!" to "love your fellow man".
    Oh, yes. The grand tradition of world-genocide began by Jacob on a slow day and spread down through the ages, apparently as lazily as possible, since there was no appreciable "kill everyone who isn't jewish" progress.

    Unless you mean that such was, previous to the New Testament era, God's plan, in which case, God is either incompetent, or similarly lazy.

  7. #217
    Marked for Redemption David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 666MasterOfPuppets View Post
    Concern? You got it all wrong there. It's not that I'm "concerned", but that I'm pointing out a contradiction.
    A contradiction that's not a contradiction at all, and one that misses the bigger picture.

    You're dealing with a Virgin Birth which goes against the laws of nature and arguing that it doesn't fit in with Jewish sexual values.

    Which means you're taking it for granted that the account was invented and working backwards from there (assuming it must logically match up with the values of the storyteller).

    True, if you think that he really died to redeem mankind in the eyes of God. But if you take that component away, then it just doesn't add up.
    That's like saying that if you take out the three sisters' prophecies then Macbeth's conclusion doesn't make sense.

    Christianity's central premise is that Christ died to redeem mankind, so of course if you remove that it all falls apart. Christians would be the first to admit that.

    The book of Revelations begs to differ, as would The Old Testament.
    The Book of Revelations is a difficult book to interpret. There's certainly a 'revenge' element to the narrative--"burn, you unbelievers!"--but it's unclear (to me at least) how much of it was and is intended as allegory and where human filters come in. It's not hard to believe that John was bitter about his exile and that factored into the way he communicated his visions.

    If we're talking Hell, it's actually portrayed differently throughout the Bible, as one would expect when we can only grasp at it through allegory.

    Gehenna was the place where unclean bodies were burned, and its stench left a lasting impression on Jewish sensibilities. The popular conception of Hell takes the metaphor literally and paints Hell as a lake of fire and brimstone.

    But Jesus also makes a case that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"--a compelling argument for Universalism (everyone will be saved), and the idea that Hell symbolizes powers working against God and humanity and not God's judgment.

    In similar fashion, Satan is depicted as a legalist and prosecuting attorney (the book of Job), a fallen star (Isaiah), a tempter (Jesus in the desert), and as everything in opposition to God's will (Jesus literally calls Peter Satan at one point).
    Last edited by David Walton; 11-20-2012 at 09:00 AM.
    "I came to the conclusion that the optimist thought everything good except the pessimist, and the pessimist thought everything bad, except himself." -- G.K. Chesterton

  8. #218
    Marked for Redemption David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T Hedge Coke View Post
    Oh, yes. The grand tradition of world-genocide began by Jacob on a slow day and spread down through the ages, apparently as lazily as possible, since there was no appreciable "kill everyone who isn't jewish" progress.

    Unless you mean that such was, previous to the New Testament era, God's plan, in which case, God is either incompetent, or similarly lazy.
    The Old Testament is mixed in regard to genocide.

    Jacob was pissed when his sons wiped out an entire city to avenge their sister's rape (and used the sign of God's covenant with Israel as a weapon, no less).

    The Mosaic law includes several provisions for the humane treatment of aliens (barbaric by today's standards, but progressive at the time).

    There are also disturbing accounts of genocide, like when God requires Saul to wipe out every living Amalekite down to the children.

    I don't take the Bible as inerrant, but rather as divine truth filtered through human authors. So I tend to weigh individual accounts against the tone and temper of the Bible as a whole. Do I think God would order Saul to wipe out an entire race? Hell no.

    So I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns in the slightest. I share them. But I don't believe they invalidate the Jewish or Christian faith, but rather they show God's evolving relationship with mankind.

    If I could accomplish anything here, perhaps you'll see that Christians don't take their faith lightly, or enter into it blindly. We ask the tough questions: Is God there? Is He incompetent, or worse still, a monster?

    So before you act as though you're going to bring the entire Christian religion crashing down around our heads with a snarky comment, you might at least take the time to get the details right.

    Jacob was a liar and a thief but hardly a genocidal maniac. He ran from a fight at every opportunity (except, oddly enough, with God) and died living off the Egyptians.
    Last edited by David Walton; 11-20-2012 at 01:42 PM.
    "I came to the conclusion that the optimist thought everything good except the pessimist, and the pessimist thought everything bad, except himself." -- G.K. Chesterton

  9. #219
    Swordsman Supreme R0NIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dshipp17 View Post
    Your case is nonsense; by this argument, how well documented is Rome and Greek in, say, Native American culture, at the time of the first century? What about Chinese or Japanese culture, at the time of the first century?
    In Native American culture not much. How well is it documented everywhere else though? By many many sources. Even those who weren't Greek or Roman.

    Try to get a clearer grasp of what it’s like trying to gather evidence where the penalty for such activity is death; and clearly, thousands were martyred; be logical, what got lost with the martyred?
    Try to understand that people were getting eaten because of their beliefs thousands of years later and it didn't stop them from carrying written literature. So expecting me to believe that someone (or as you make the case the thousands of people) that actually SAW AND WAS THERE as Jesus work miracles, ressurected himself, and told them, if they believed in him, they would live in eternal bliss after they died were scared to get killed is logical? Cause I'm calling BS on that. Where was this crazy strong faith/belief in PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WITNESSED it. Sure I'm sure some got literature got lost. But if it was me witnessing that stuff personally I'd a been writing up the new Testament Holy Saturday only to realize the next day there was more to write. And I'm sure amongst the thousands there many people would feel like that. But they didn't. Why? HUGE whole in your theory there. It was "written" many many many years after the fact. And there were many different and conflicting versions. Which is why such a thing as "cannon lists" exist.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	testament.jpg 
Views:	44 
Size:	78.7 KB 
ID:	104662


    That's why it's called canonical. Because they CHOSE those texts to be acceptable and true and CHOSE others to not be.

    Christianity spread all over; it didn't stay stuck in the region near Jerusalem; Roman citizens were martyred; and Greek citizens were martyred; at the specified time, the eyewitness accounts in Rome and Grease were simply martyred and the remaining citizens wanted Christianity to die away; the other Jewish sects wanted Christianity to die away; thus, expecting widespread enthusiasm from those groups a few years after Jesus’ resurrection is just your circular logic; as I told another poster, debate with Everett Ferguson, so that he can mangle you; he’d have more thorough detail for you, concerning the outside of the Bible evidence; I know there is some, but Everett Ferguson spent decades gathering it, and I’d be extracting it from memory and a search of a few hours; I’m more on the scientific side, see http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
    Go argue with a Christian Professor who got his degree at a Christian University on the authenticity of the Christian Bible? You're saying MY argument is circular and that's what you come back with?
    I'm actually pissed at myself for clicking that link and thinking it may contain some useful information. So let me get this straight you don't believe we evolved from apes because according to this guy we only share 70-74% of DNA with apes? And somehow that makes believing that two people lived in a magical perfect garden until a talking snake convinced one of them to eat an apple from a great magic god tree. Then they were kicked out of this magic garden and managed to breed and then inbreed until humans covered the earth. This is ok. Despite the fact there is proof that inbreeding causes damage to the species.

    Who do you suppose Jesus is referring to when He using the term Father? I even have the Lord’s Prayer as a reference and that’s the prayer I use nearly every day to gain comfort. A clearer understanding of Christianity should show that Jesus in no way established Himself as the one true God; thus, Christianity is not a separate sect completely devoid of God as named in Judaism or Islam; Jesus is not as separate from them as say Buddha or a Hindu deity.
    What the hell does who Jesus is referring to as fathe have to do with anything. Just because you believe YOUR God to be the same as the Jewish and Islamic God doesn't mean they believe the same as you. I'm more than positive they in fact do NOT believe Jesus and God are the same. And therefore THEY CANNOT BE THE SAME GOD. You're argument that they share characteristics and history is irrelevant because wars have been fought over the difference of the inclusion of Jesus or not. It's like saying Bugs Bunny and Roger Rabbit are the same because they are both cartoon rabbits. Fundamentally they are different. Not to mention Jesus more or less reverses a large portion of how the old testament teachs people to behave.
    I like swords.

  10. #220
    Mattress Tester T Hedge Coke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    www.futureearthmagazine.com
    Posts
    10,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    So before you act as though you're going to bring the entire Christian religion crashing down around our heads with a snarky comment, you might at least take the time to get the details right.
    I didn't act any such way. The suggestion was that the biblical God and/or the pre-Jesus Jewish faith were based in genocide, and that's historically untrue, generally unreasonable, and potentially dangerous as a suggestion.

    It's also not something the majority of christians or religious jews that I know, would likely buy into. But, I'm sorry your faith is apparently both tested by the suggestion and also dependent on such a flimsy and hardly related notion.

    As you pointed out, yourself, there's no historical basis for a tradition of total genocides or genocidal actions, outside of incredibly distant mythic past, when the next tribe or nation over was essentially just the next town.

    You mention the Amalekites, which is a tribe perhaps descended from Esau who become a traditional enemy of our boys, the descendants of ol' Rassles With God. During that battle, which is the tail end of a generations long war they blame the Amalekites for (naturally), five hundred Amalekites including their king are killed. Again, they're not killed for not being Jewish, but for waging war, rapes, assaults and raids for generations. But, Amalekites show up later in the Bible, too, and even hundreds of years ago, you see Hebrew scholars suggest that Amalekites are less an actual tribe/nation/township, as the term is a catchall of "total enemies" of the Jewish people, hence the term's sometime application to Nazis or other organizations/nationalities by some Jewish organizations. Rabbi Hayim Palaggi suggested, near two hundred years ago, that those records were likely hyperbolic by design, in any case, and that ancient perspectives of "the world" were resulting in neighboring towns acting as if they were massive nations greatly separated when they were, essentially, second cousins.

    None of which, including the testament in the Bible or predating texts, gives any evidence for an actual Jacob, Esau, Samuel, or their allies, lineages, et cetera. As Hayim Palaggi suggested, records of those eras were most likely mythic, hyperbolic, and structured by design.
    Last edited by T Hedge Coke; 11-22-2012 at 05:35 AM.

  11. #221
    Senior Member Addams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    Weird topic. The question is to know who's best between Jesus and Superman ?

    Let's see, they both died to save us, they both came back from the dead, they both are compassionate man and they both want to help mankind. They both have mighty and very knowledgeable daddy....

    Superman has the edge though i think cause come on, you can't seriously pretend to understand humans being if you never have been laid.

  12. #222
    Senior Member adkal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dshipp17 View Post
    Very good post; clearly, his posts do appear to be emotionally driven.
    You realise he was responding to two people, don't you?


    Now, at the risk of getting blocked (these things happen ), I apologise for the 'wall of text' in this and my next post...


    Christianity is a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy
    It’s a partial fulfillment. What you need to take into consideration is that were TWO messiahs they were waiting for, one of whom was a ‘warrior messiah’.

    and a more plausible ridicule of Christianity by Jewish critics would be that the crucifixion was an allegory of parts of the Book of Psalms;
    Not parts of Isaiah?

    the early Christians, like the fundamental Jews were completely antithetical to anything pagan related
    Although not an absolute (unless you’re referring to the original disciples and their immediate students), this is quite true, and this was continued by a number of Christian sects, including

    However, there were (and are, to this day) other sects which incorporated pagan beliefs (and idolatry) very quickly and, although this may disturb you and you may reject it, Paul was one of those who encouraged those beliefs to be embraced. He didn’t go all the way, though (he couldn’t) but he sowed the necessary seeds for the next ‘leaders’ to make the transition easier.

    It would also help if you could let us know your understanding of ‘fundamental’ in the context you outlined.

    and the supposed borrowed myth that you appear to be eluding to is from paganism;
    It also contains aspects from Judaism – see ‘Enoch’ for more information.

    (as an aside, please take a moment to consider the words ‘elude’ and ‘allude’ (they’re quite different))

    this is a common recycled assertion that's been rebutted, where proponents such as yourself continue to recycle it, while leaving out the sound, crisp rebuttals.
    In light of your mass generalisations, I find this statement of yours to be quite amusing.

    The Gospel of John clearly establishes my point of Jesus being God, although still separate.
    Considering the fact that the Gospel according to John wasn’t written until almost half a century after Jesus (as) had left this realm, it ‘establishing’ your point falls flat. It’s not contemporaneous to Jesus’ time and, from the sound of things, you’re wilfully ignoring numerous aspects about the text, including:

    - Jesus (as) is basically Greek, whereas in the synoptics he’s recognisable as a Jewish figure
    - He has ‘anti-Jew’ moments
    - His preaching style is different (parables in the synoptics, longer discourses in John)
    - In the synoptics, Jesus (as) keeps his role as Messiah a secret, he doesn’t call himself ‘the resurrection and the life’, ‘the bread of life’ or ‘the light of the world’ – that’s all in John
    - The order of a number of events is different (in John, the Temple incident took place early in his ministry, in the synoptics it took place at the end and the crucifixion happened almost a week later)
    - John clearly puts words in Jesus’ (as) mouth, words which, if he had uttered at the time, he would have been dismissed as a loon.

    And so on.

    Jesus' case is the only one that actually demonstrated a resurrection and it will be the last, until Jesus raises His loyal servants from the grave.
    In Judeo-Christian accounts, or from accounts across the world?

    The Catholic Church did not write the Gospel of John, so, please, do yourself a favor and stop recycling garbage to spew it as if it's something new and hasn't been considered. If you can't tell it's garbage, I'd advise debating with Everett Ferguson; he's the theologian, while I'm more the scientist, see http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
    Speaking of Everett Ferguson, you’ve read his book ‘Backgrounds of Early Christianity’, haven’t you? Where he said:

    ‘The pagan beliefs in demons, astrology, and magic were so resistant that they did not really die but were absorbed into the triumphant Christianity of a later age. Similarly, much of the traditional ritual survived in Christian ceremonies.
    (emphasis mine)

    ‘Later age’ is a very loose description – for many, it would imply ‘centuries later’, but, in light of the numerous sects that arose within a few years, such an implication doesn’t hold up.


    Is it always necessary for a biographer to have had contact with someone they're writing about?
    No, but access and use of contemporaneous and verifiable witnesses and texts, or, at the very least, a verifiable and trustworthy chain of narrators (since it was primarily an oral conveyance of information back then) is necessary.

    Additionally, this was a period of persecution for the Christians, so it's not surprising the the evidence has to take a certain form, etc Septimius Severus;
    And Jews! Why are you ignoring them? They were being persecuted, too.

    additionally, if there were so many available myths and magicians at the uneducated disposal at the time, why single out Jesus? What you're proposing doesn't have firm legs.
    Since this is a comparison of Jesus and Superman, let’s take into consideration the evolution of Superman. Prior to his first published adventure, there had been other ‘enhanced’ beings (Doc Savage, Gladiator, John Carter); they all had a shared ‘base’, from which there were certain divergences. Shift to the present day and, much like how Mithras et al are referred to by those who know with regards to Jesus, so, too, are Doc Savage et al referred to by those who know with regards to Superman.

    Further, just as there were other, very strong, faiths with similar ‘themes’ to Pauline Christianity at the time, there were other characters with similar ‘themes’ as Superman during his time – seeSupermen! The First Wave of Comic Book Heroes 1936-41 for examples.


    Jesus establishes His divinity throughout the Book of John. They made the distinction because Jesus is the Son of God rather than God the Father; The Holy Ghost is different in a sense also.
    Again, this text was composed after Jesus had gone. It also contains reference to events which occurred 40 years after Jesus was gone – they’re not prophetic because the text was written after the fact, after the events had happened.

    There’s also the healing of the blind man – it wasn’t until around 90CE that the Jews excluded the Christians from synagogue worship, so John 9:22 is not referring to the time of Jesus’ ministry.

    Luke and Acts clearly attest to the apostles worshipping in the Temple after the ascension.


    What you say is somewhat true, but only because Satan's role was left ambiguous until the Book of Job was written. Job is not made up or it would not be canonized in the Bible; there are other books, however, for you to choose from that have not been canonized.
    This is a false criterion on your part – the canonization of the Bible, brought about as a result of massive debate and acceptance by scholar-priests etc of the time, relied heavily on the acceptance of texts which supported their shared view (and, often, that ‘shared view’ was only reached through further debate (and pressure)).



    The establishment of Christianity, based the subsequent blood of thousands a few years after Jesus’s resurrection, is the proof that Jesus was God and no profit hungry charlatan.
    No, it’s proof that there were people who believed he was God, it doesn’t prove he was God. The burning and drowning of innocent women because some believed them to be witches did not make those innocent women witches. (You may consider that analogy to be a crass one)

    His resurrection, along with His many miracles, establishes Jesus was God;
    No, it shows he was given certain blessings by the grace of God. Just as Moses (as) had a staff which could turn into a snake and consume the ‘snakes’ the Egyptian magicians was a blessing bestowed on him by God – you would readily agree that the existence of that staff and what it was able to do doesn’t make Moses (as) God.

    Jesus said if you do not believe my words, believe my works, as establishing His divinity.
    He also said that he could ‘of [his] own self do nothing’ but that whatever he does is ‘through the will of [his] Father’. What he was establishing was that God had sent him – now, years previous when there were numerous prophets being sent to the Jews (of which some were killed by them), there used to a school which trained prophets. It pretty much got to the point where you had several prophets active at the same time, and not all of them were readily accepted.

    Here, by his works, those who were witness could attest to him having done such things (feeding, healing), but they could also attest that he didn’t claim to have done these things by his own power (and the texts are quite explicit about this), that these were things God allowed him to do.

    He also said that ‘none is ‘good’ but the Father’, thereby distinguishing himself from Him and making it quite clear that he was not Him.



    (end part 1)

  13. #223
    Senior Member adkal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4,254

    Default

    (part 2)

    Your Superman argument breaks down, because there is only One God, but many Superman like comic book characters; why Superman and not say DC’s Captain Marvel or Marvel’s Gladiator? They both have very similar characteristics as Superman; they just simply need the same story written about them, similar to the referred to Superman story.
    Your (attempted) ‘rebuttal’ breaks down because it ignores the various ‘versions’ of Jesus that have been around since his passing (remember the ‘other Gospel’?). A brief overview of the ‘versions’ which existed back then include:

    The Ebionites (early Nazarenes) – who were very early followers of Jesus (as) and believed that conversion to Judaism was necessary for one to be a Christian. They believed that observance of the law was necessary and ‘faith alone’ could not save.

    The Gnostic Christians – believed Jesus (as) brought salvation not through dying on the cross but by bringing sacred wisdom

    Arianism – believed Christ was a special creation by God for man’s salvation

    Socianism – a version of Arianism which believed that Jesus was an extraordinary man (see modern Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses)

    Adoptionism – versions vary: ‘adopted’ by God at conception or later, such as when he was baptised by John the Baptist


    Ok, either you clearly don't understand God very well or you're being deliberately obtuse; the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God are intended to be one in the same; the only difference is the way the three groups' approach to seeing and interpreting God; Christianity views the introduction of Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, while the other Jewish sects available at the time, broke away from the Jewish sect that accepted Jesus as the Messiah; thus, the two groups divided into Christianity and Judaism.
    That’s an interesting re-write – the implication being that the ‘accepting-sect’ (a minority) was the mainstream one and the others broke away. It’s the other way around, mainstream Judaism rejected the ‘godhood’ later ascribed to Jesus (as). As I said before, the initial years after Christ left this realm found the early adherents being accepted within the Temple and the synagogues; if they had been preaching anything contrary to core accepted teachings then they would have been cast out.

    What you also need to take into consideration are the numerous zealot cells that were in existence, and the bid to free the region from Roman rule. This is an important and very key part of the history of the time and is something which ought to be known. You cannot ignore what was happening at the time as it provides an immense insight into the context of a lot of what the Gospels are referring to, as well as why Saul persecuted the Christians.

    Islam came along about three hundred years later and cast a new wrinkle into things, but, essentially, like the other Jewish sects, they appear to not want to accept Jesus as the Messiah;
    Considering the fact that one of his titles is ‘Al Masih’ (The Messiah), I don’t how you came to the conclusion you posted. Yes, he’s not the ‘saviour’ that mainstream Christianity ascribes to him, but he IS ‘the Messiah’. An anointed of God.


    but, similar, there are the Mormons as a similar, newer group;
    Um…no offence, but you really need to work on your sentence structure…

    personally, I'm not Jewish, because I've evaluated the available evidence
    So…your mother is/was Jewish?

    and had (and have) certain personal experiences that tells me to accept Jesus, so, it becomes a major problem for me when I have to deny Jesus' status; before I came to be at this mortal realm through the birth process, I'd already had a certain relationship with God the Father, so, coupled with my memory, certain experiences simply reminded me of who/what I really was previously;
    Ah, your personal ‘before Abraham was, I am’ moment, hmm? (I remember you bringing this up a while ago.)

    …Christianity has not been a religion that is a state religion that requires everyone to confirm to it or be persecuted or executed as an alternative, if ever you could make a serious case of it really ever having been such a religion, yet it continues to spread in a viral manner.
    Oh dear…

    Um…are you distinguishing ‘Christianity’ from ‘Roman Catholicism’ in this regard?

    Anyway, Pauline Christianity was a secondary sect, especially in the Mediterranean area, outside Rome. It gained ground and prominence after the conversion of Constantine, which gave it the distinct advantage of being ‘a state religion’…and of Roman swords…


    Additionally, those other "gods" had to be invented after a great act by God. And you misinterpret how the foundation of the Jewish faith formed; it formed not necessarily from someone looking for another "god", but from someone looking for the truth; God was impressed and formed a special covenant with Jews in specific, as a result, and everyone else became to be referred to as gentiles.
    Ah, yes, the great-Jewish-retcon…


    And look at your first example,: I and countless others have believed? Are you saying none of us considered the evidence? Are you saying none of us are/were trained scientist?
    Perhaps the ‘evidence’ is merely showing what you want it to show, because you already have a preconceived notion of what you want it to tell you…and it does?

    If countless examples of use believe, what, than, constitute evidence of this sort? That's as clear evidence as you can get. The miracles and resurrection were based on eye witness proof; that's why they were documented and created the strong belief;
    And therein lies the problem – there is no document proof. Nothing from even one actual eye-witness. There is reference to ‘500 saints’ being raised from their graves and walking the streets and people speaking to them, but this is only within the Gospel itself, not in any contemporaneous text. No historian, whether Roman, Jewish whatever, recorded any such incident occurring. Similarly with the earthquakes – although attempts have recently been made to show that it did happen…

    the problem is that most of the eyewitnesses faced martyrdom for holding firm to what they witnessed a few short years later, so it diminished some of the impact. During that time, the eyewitness, or observer, was the most common type of evidence; and there were laterally hundreds, if not, thousands, of eyewitnesses, increasing the credibility.
    Ah, but the problem here is that it ignores the fact that Jews were also being tortured and martyred at the time. That some of them (Saul) tried to shift things over to the Christians doesn’t negate that. The Romans, generally, saw no difference between them because, back then, there was no difference between them, other than one acknowledging Christ as the spiritual reformer whereas the others were content with how they were ‘spiritually’ and wanted the ‘warrior messiah’ to lead them out of the oppression of the Roman state.




    Your case is nonsense; by this argument, how well documented is Rome and Greek in, say, Native American culture, at the time of the first century?
    Huh? Why would another, disparate and (at the time) unknown culture have any documentation on another? If there’s never been any contact between the two then there won’t be any documentation or reference.

    Of Greece and Rome themselves, though, there exists, to this day, thousands upon thousands of documents, detailed documents of the ‘old world’. We know how transactions were carried out, how marriages were conducted, how markets were organised, how aqueducts were constructed, etc.

    What about Chinese or Japanese culture, at the time of the first century?
    Same as above. Of themselves we have a wealth of information.

    In both situations, we also have documentation and reference from non-Greeks, non-Romans, non-Chinese, non-Japanese about the Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Japanese because their respective paths crossed.

    Try to get a clearer grasp of what it’s like trying to gather evidence where the penalty for such activity is death; and clearly, thousands were martyred; be logical, what got lost with the martyred?
    This assertion is contrary to the established understanding that the Christians at the time were very organised and were able to identify each other. They would readily speak to ‘true Christians’ and would have to, also, readily speak to ‘those of faith who had not yet embraced’ in order to bring them into the fold.

    Christianity spread all over; it didn't stay stuck in the region near Jerusalem; Roman citizens were martyred; and Greek citizens were martyred; at the specified time, the eyewitness accounts in Rome and Grease were simply martyred and the remaining citizens wanted Christianity to die away; the other Jewish sects wanted Christianity to die away;
    Here, you’re merely jumping around citing various aspects of history but outside of the chronology.

    How did Christianity spread? Who were the main people who conveyed the message?

    Which form of Christianity spread? Have you looked at the difference between the Christianity practiced across North Africa compared with what was being practiced in Europe? How did these two clash? What enabled one to overcome the other?

    These are questions which you really should look into in order to get an understanding of how current mainstream Christianity developed – and this is before things such as the Reformation changing things further.




    oops...looks like I need to do a third post...my bad...

  14. #224
    Senior Member adkal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4,254

    Default

    (part 3) (to those who read through the previous posts, thanks )

    thus, expecting widespread enthusiasm from those groups a few years after Jesus’ resurrection is just your circular logic; as I told another poster, debate with Everett Ferguson, so that he can mangle you; he’d have more thorough detail for you, concerning the outside of the Bible evidence; I know there is some, but Everett Ferguson spent decades gathering it, and I’d be extracting it from memory and a search of a few hours; I’m more on the scientific side, see http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
    No offence, but solely citing him as a reference is like solely using this book:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20354669

    as a guide to health and hygiene.

    There is bias and tunnel-vision. Have you read works outside the ‘accepted’ texts? Ehrman, for example?



    Who do you suppose Jesus is referring to when He using the term Father? I even have the Lord’s Prayer as a reference and that’s the prayer I use nearly every day to gain comfort. A clearer understanding of Christianity should show that Jesus in no way established Himself as the one true God;
    Wait, you don’t believe that Jesus is God?

    thus, Christianity is not a separate sect completely devoid of God as named in Judaism or Islam; Jesus is not as separate from them as say Buddha or a Hindu deity.
    Hinduism’s a little convoluted, yes, but, at its core, it maintains ‘one God’. That many of its adherents are unaware of that is, generally, because of upbringing, selective reading of their religious texts and a general lack of awareness.


    Seems like you and others like you are scientifically insane, where, despite thousands of people at the time providing eyewitness evidence, you still implicitly recycle rebutted challenges about whether evidence exist; it's like throwing a marble up in the air 120 times, seeing it come back down 120 times, than claiming there is no evidence showing the marble will come down if thrown up.
    That analogy is a false one. Sorry. In the analogy you provided we see the marble thrown up and come down; with regards to ‘eyewitness evidence’, however, all we see is someone claim that such accounts exist. If you cannot see the difference between the two…well…

    *shrug*




    ...The point of the resurrection is that thousands witnessed him after the event, which was the spark of Christianity; because of His works, we can accept Jesus was God incarnate,
    So now you do believe Jesus was God?

    The thing is, though, that thousands didn’t witness him. His disciples did, and certain others, but not ‘thousands’. Paul, for example, specifically says that ‘the twelve’ were witness (1 Cor), but we know that can’t be true because, at the time, there were only eleven disciples. (I’ll save you the trouble, this isn’t semantics. Matthew, Mark and Luke mention eleven and the mention of ‘one of the twelve’ with regards to Thomas in John merely establishes Thomas as one of the originals.)

    because we also have Old Testament accounts of God not granting miracles to support the words of someone not truly acting in His name; God actually said that He would be the enzyme for peoples' works who are truly acting in His name or that He would refuse to act if they were not acting in His name; thus, if Jesus was essentially blaspheming, He wouldn't have gotten away with just one act, as Jesus would have been untruthful in claiming to be the Son of God; and God Himself is by far the best lie detector.
    Ah, but what if the words being ascribed to him aren’t his words?

    (and...um...when did God call Himself an 'enzyme'? )

  15. #225
    Junior Member KingOfCups's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Jesus is a cool character and everything, and he sure can fight zombies well, even when tied up, but come on if Supes was in The Walking Dead universe, he would have the problem taken care of.

    Wait, we're talking about The Walking Dead right?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •