| Author | Message | ||
     termin8d Junior Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 50 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.128.114 |
Is Jesus someone who really existed in history? Was He crucified? Did He resurrect ? I'd like to hear your perspectives. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 241 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.8 |
Well an incredible amount of evidence is stacked against the Jesus of the N.T. being an actual person in history. National Geographic's Rivals* of Jesus program outlines much of it in more detail than can be gone into here. Looking at what 'proceeded' the N.T. Jesus in history it is difficult not to be absolutely floored by the uncanny parallels and similarities between Amen-Ra, Horus, Mythra, and hosts of other 'pagan Christs' and the Jesus of the N.T. The evidence shows that the Jesus story is a amalgamation of preexisting mystery religions and other belief systems. If the legends of Horus and Jesus are virtually identical and Horus' story proceeded Jesus' then Horus is the original and Jesus is a copy. It is only logical. Originals always occur in time before a copy. For just some of the evidence for this see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm The conclusion that one is forced to reach is that the story of Jesus was just the continuation of a very old theme. Another riff on a familiar tune for the world at that time. I find this terribly disturbing. I believed them when they told me Jesus was real. Now I am fairly sure that the people who were telling me Jesus was real and 'the only one' to claim such things about himself didn't know any better themselves. They believed what they were told without a knowledge of history just like I did. I guess the question is what are we going to do with this information? Are we going to turn a blind eye to it or discuss it in the light of day with all honesty and humility? The worst thing a 'duped' individual can do is to turn around and dupe another for whatever reason. Knowing the truth, that Jesus is not unique, we should honest about it. *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCaxrfl-XM4 | ||
| egk Junior Member Username: egk Post Number: 32 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 75.42.218.71 |
TO, Please do some investigating. There are some parallels, particularly with Mithra (SP), but the "evidence" quoted from the Pagan Christ (the source of the info in your first link) is bogus. Do a google on the Pagan Christ or go to amazon.com and read the reviews. You'll find that the book is as reliable as the one telling of the parallels between Buddha and Jesus that was sited somewhere on factnet months ago. EGK | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 204 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
Interesting link TO, I'd like to read some about Horus, and see how much of that is accepted by academia. It should not be hard to find out since the Egyptians left so much information in the form of hieroglyphics. Not enough time to read much these days... That first link did seem a little biased so I'd like to look into it a little more. It would not be surprising if it is mostly true. A lot of the bible seems to be "borrowed". I know that the Song of Solomon is almost plagarized from earlier Sumerian writings, and many aspects of christianity seem to be lifted from the earlier zoarostrian religion. It's too bad they burned the library at Alexandria... | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 243 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.48 |
There are ... some parallels? I've done some investigating and there are many parallels. How many between one and forty-something (Horus) equal some and how many is too many? The parallels between Jesus and Mithras include everything from virgin birth, the date of birth, titles, to the resurrection among others. The evidence and documentation for these things extend well beyond the handful of references I supplied. Anyone wanting to actually know the truth for themselves will look these things up and draw their own conclusions. Just reading the Bible and restricting yourself to information supplied by the church is just as wrong as only looking at one source of information about the pagan christs. Look it up. Decide for yourselves. Don't let other people decide for you by controlling the information you have to base your conclusions on. (Message edited by trainedobserver on July 31, 2007) | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 325 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
It is quite common for people who believe in something to avoid reading things that might cause them to question their longheld beliefs. It is not surprising that most Christians chose not to study the parallels between Jesus and Buddha, especially since Buddha lived long before Jesus did. Also, the Mithras/Jesus parallels are generally avoided by believers for the same reason. I am curious where Termin8d has gone on the other thread. We were having a nice discussion about the nature of Jesus that he started and he just took off. I notice he has been posting elsewhere. I wonder what happened? | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 61 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Sorry, I do want to pursue this line of conversation further. Bluewater, I think it's probably best to move all the discussion into this thread, rather than take the focus away from other threads. It appears we have two lines of discussion going. On the one hand, Bluewater you have said that you do believe that Jesus Christ was a real person in history and that He was crucified. Trained Observer on the other hand believes that Jesus is a completely fictional character, or at least the accounts of Him as recorded in the bible were completely fabricated. I'd like then perhaps Bluewater for you to begin to tell us why you believe that Jesus Christ was in fact a real person in history and that He was indeed crucified. Do you rely upon data from the bible or is your perspective based upon extra-biblical sources. I will present my case in due time, because I have much that I would like to share here with you all, however I would personally like to be able to see whether or not yourself and T.O would come to the same conclusion. Basically it's easier to speak to an audience when you only have to deal with one opposing perspective, but if both yourself and Trained Observer do maintain your positions, then I will address each accordingly. I just scrolled up through the conversations again and noticed that I probably misrepresented you both somewhat in that perhaps your positions are closer to one another than I initially thought. Neither of you believe that the New Testament accounts of Jesus were reliable, although Bluewater does believe that the crucifixion did indeed take place. TO: Do you believe it did also or this was a fabrication? Maybe we can start there... | ||
| egk Junior Member Username: egk Post Number: 33 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 75.42.218.71 |
IHS, It's too bad they burned the library at Alexandria... I recently read up on Mathematics in the Greek and Roman period. In my reading up for it I discovered that it was the Muslim that burnt half the books in Alexandra. The first half were destroyed by accident as the Romans were conquering the city. (I'm not speaking of the books that were in private hands.) TO, There are ... some parallels? I've done some investigating and there are many parallels. How many between one and forty-something (Horus) equal some and how many is too many? First of all what parallels? My understanding is that Horus died (murdered) and was resurrected yearly as part of a fertility myth. What are the others? My (brief) readings into the Egyptian religion never came up with more than this. The parallels between Jesus and Mithras include everything from virgin birth, the date of birth, titles, to the resurrection among others. Date of birth? Come on, TO, did you actually believe as an adult Christian that Jesus was born on the 25th of Decenber? When I took my course on Roman religion, the text (a secular academic one) stated the Mirthas was miraclously born from a rock in a stable. The birth was witnessed by shepherds. I don't remember the details of his death or ressurection. The text, when exploring why Mithrasism was overtaken by Christianity, pointed to two facts. 1. Only men were allowed to join his cult. (There was a cult for women. I forgot who the goddess was.) and 2. Jesus, unlike Mithras, was a historical person from a definite time and place. BW It is quite common for people who believe in something to avoid reading things that might cause them to question their longheld beliefs. It is not surprising that most Christians chose not to study the parallels between Jesus and Buddha, especially since Buddha lived long before Jesus did. Also, the Mithras/Jesus parallels are generally avoided by believers for the same reason. What parallels? One of my cousins is a Buddhist (Tibetean Buddhism) and gave me two books on the subject. After reading them, I could see how if one lives the teachings of Buddha who would be generally happy and content. There is much wisdom in his teaching. What the books said about the life of the Buddha did not parallel the life of Jesus. (I hope you are not refering to that link given months ago that made similar claims to those of Horus and Jesus. The academic world rejected those claims also.) CS Lewis wrote an essay on the parallels between Jesus and fertility god(desse)s. He argues that God allowed these parallels to exist to help perpare the various peoples for Jesus. He also argues that the Gospels are not written as the myths were. Other than the fact that myths were one of Lewis' academic specialities, I cannot remember what in the Gospels were different from the myths, EGK | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 326 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
"I'd like then perhaps Bluewater for you to begin to tell us why you believe that Jesus Christ was in fact a real person in history and that He was indeed crucified." I am just giving Christians the benefit of the doubt to give us one less item of controversy. Whether he actually lived or not would not change the belief by me that he did not raise from the dead. That is the primary issue in my mind. | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 205 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
EGK, I didn't mean to suggest that christians burned the library at Alexandria. I have heard the christian assimilation of pre-existing native traditions called "redeeming". The date of Christmas being a good example. If you can't beat em join em I guess. I believe there was even a papal decree saying as much in the early church in Europe. There is no reason for a non believer to assume that this process has anything to do with preparing people for Jesus. It is simply cultural cross pollination. There seems to have been no need to prepare the native Americans for Jesus, the Europeans simply killed, raped and pillaged and ministered to whoever was left. Now Mexico has a strong Catholic tradition. If that is redemption you can have it. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 327 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
"Jesus parallels his death and resurrection in the bible to a grain of wheat falling into the earth to die, saying that unless the grain falls into the earth and dies, it abides alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit." I understand this and take it to mean that his ideas and beliefs on tolerance and love should grow upon his death. This is not an unusual request for people to make. A father always hopes that his children will carry on his ideals and authors hope that their books strike a nerve and continue on after the authors death. I do not see this parable as meaning a physical fruit. "Nature itself exhibits the qualities of resurrection in such simple everyday occurances as seed (in this case, a grain of wheat) falling into the earth. Seemingly, the plant is dead, but once the outer shell is broken, then life within germinates." Close study would show that although a seed might appear dead on the outside, it is still alive within. The parallels of the germination of a seed and the resurrection of a dead human body, while poetic, are not the same. "Supposing that for a moment you were to grant the possibility of the existence of God, and spiritual entities and the like, would resurrection still be an unreasonable concept to you?" What you are saying, I believe, is that if I allowed myself to forgo all sense of reason and logic and decided that the supernatural and mysticism do exist, would resurrection still be unreasonable? No, it would not seem unreasonable given that change in thinking. "Lastly, and this is the point I would like to develop with you further in dialogue, if Jesus was a real man, who died a real death upon the cross, but did not resurrect, why would his followers be willing to be martyred for a belief if they knew was a lie?" Certainly those that were willing to martyr themselves did not see it as a lie. There are always those who are unsatisfied with the life that they have been given and are looking for something else to give their lives meaning. There are many religious organizations that have leaders that people seem to be willing to abandon the values that they were raised with to follow. It is quite common. Look at Jonestown. Look at those nuts from my town of San Diego that thought that the Hail Bop comet held some special meaning that they committed suicide for. There are many examples of unsatisfied people searching for a way to give their lives more meaning. I know these are extreme examples, but examples just the same. I believe that giving your life meaning is a worthy goal for sure, I just don't believe that idolizing a man is the only way to do it. I don't believe that Jesus meant "Idolize me" when he made his little "The only way is . . . . " speech. I look forward to more discussions with you here on this topic. Thanks for chatting with me. | ||
| trsrinheaven Junior Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 39 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
Bluewater, and others. Heres just one of many a LINK OF HISTORICAL PROOFs OF JESUS AND GOD. http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php I understand why you don't believe in God, miracles, supernatural power, and a spiritual realm that exists. Your hatred and others here of Christianity is spouted all over this site. Your ignorance of Biblical scripture and history is displayed all over this site. Here is just one of many links that show the historical proof of Jesus along with his divine miracles. http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php The facts still remains whether you believe or not makes no difference to the truth. Jesus main purpose was as God to come in the flesh as a man to BRING you into relationship with God. To do this he had to take the punishment due you and to pay the price for your mistakes labeled sin making a way to God by removing the barrier that sin caused between you and God. The barrier once removed removed the curse that came in because of your sin and imperfectness. RELATIONSHIP with God is what you lack. Hardened hearts towards God and even the possibility of God is evident in you all. Over 360 Biblical prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus some over 2,000 years old. If you witnessed a miracle done through the power of commanding it in Jesus' name would you then believe Jesus is who he said he was? Either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or Lord. God did one thing miraculous he gave you a free choice to choose and a conscience to know what is true and right. All creation proves Gods love and magnificent power. There is also a demonic power that blinds people eyes to the truth. I give you a challenge with a GUARANTEE. If you sincerely SEEK GOD and ASK GOD to show himself to you he will. You receive not because you ask not. (Message edited by trsrinheaven on July 31, 2007) | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 62 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Bluewater: Thankyou for your response and for pasting the content over from the other thread. I'll do my best to provide an initial presentation as time allows. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 328 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
"If you witnessed a miracle done through the power of commanding it in Jesus' name would you then believe Jesus is who he said he was?" YES!!! | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 206 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.227.136.208 |
Me too. I assume he would do a quick Q&A after the performance... | ||
| trsrinheaven Junior Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
bl2, ihs I have witnessed much more than one miracle. Yet Jesus said more blessed are they who do not see yet believe. This is where the term "doubting Thomas" comes from: After Jesus raised from the dead and appeared to his disciples Thomas was not with them. John 20:29 "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27Then he said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and look behold my hands; and reach here thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God." "Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 329 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
All that junk is in the bible though, along with eve coming from adam's rib and the rest of that mysticism. I'll let you know when I see Jesus perform a miracle for me. I won't hold my breath. As far as asking "god to show himself to me", I am not that desparate that I would seek help from a mythical figure. I live in the real world. | ||
| searchlight86 New member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 16 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
I agree, don't hold your breath. No one else should bother holding their breath either. The Bible indicates God will not stand accountable, on trial before man. When man questions God's right to do something, God always answers He has the right because He is our Creator (e.g. Job 38-40:2, where God never answers Job's questions why catastrophic events happened, but instead describes in majestic detail His role as Creator, as well as Romans 9:18-24). God always answers the bigger problem of our disrespect of our relationship with Him in such cases, rather than provide us a direct answer to our questions. This is similar to a child impugning the character of their parent by asking them an accusatory question, and the parent responding only "because I'm your Father." In our human condition, we should consider ourselves when such a question is asked, as the impugning may be partially or wholly justified. In God's case, however, this indirect slandering of His character is never justified. Until and unless our heart attitude is right before God, He will not answer deeper questions about His own heart, wisdom, and character as revealed in salvation and damnation, and an infinite amount of phenomena in the form of information or even miracles will not avail (e.g. Luke 16:29-31). If our heart attitude is truly humble and open to Him, however, then those who seek will find Him. Intentionally or not, we may deceive ourselves as well as each other, but He is never deceived in the slightest, knowing all our thoughts and deepest motives. God has paid an unimaginable price to make it simple for us, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves if we reject Him in favor of the proud, self-centered, short-lived, and pitiful illusion of ourselves as 'gods'. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 244 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.61 |
"First of all what parallels? My understanding is that Horus died (murdered) and was resurrected yearly as part of a fertility myth. What are the others? My (brief) readings into the Egyptian religion never came up with more than this. " Well then you must do some more reading. Here is one rather long list. http://www.scribd.com/doc/219713/egyptian-christian-connection "Date of birth? Come on, TO, did you actually believe as an adult Christian that Jesus was born on the 25th of Decenber?" Ad hommen attack. What does my opinion have to do with it? Nothing. I'm talking about Myths and Legends here. "I don't remember the details of his death or ressurection. " That isn't my problem. Look it all up. You obviously have a computer or go to the library. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 330 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
"Until and unless our heart attitude is right before God". Is that code for "ready to believe anything, even things that defy all logic and reason?" No disrespect intended here, but it seems to be a common refrain from Christians that those who ask for god to enter their hearts but recieve nothing are then roundly accused of not "having their hearts in the right place." I see a correlation here. It seems that people are being asked to believe first, then you will recieve proof. That is just backwards from normal thinking. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 245 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.4 |
One thousand years from now I wonder if they'll be having similar discussions about L. Ron Hubbard? Was he an explorer, scientist, and all around genius or was he a two-bit hack that conned millions? In fact ... that discussion is happening today when the evidence for Hubbard's fraud is stinkingly fresh. Imagine what it will be like in a thousand or two thousand years as he is deified and worshiped by millions of OT screw-ups? You must place yourself in a place where you can objectively view your religious leader (jesus) in the same light as other religious leaders in history and in contemporary society. When you do so the incredible 'sameness' is overwhelming. They are all the 'same' thing. | ||
| egk Junior Member Username: egk Post Number: 34 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 75.42.217.123 |
TO, More later, but now just an apology. I did not mean to do an ad hominem attack. I was just surprized to see the date of Christmas which in the long run is not a Christian doctrine used in this way. EGK | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 246 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.6 |
egk, I understand. However, you must understand the entire Christian mythos includes the Bible, tradition, and church doctrine. You can't isolate one of those elements from the others when analyzing "Christianity". It wouldn't be honest. Besides, getting sidetracked on 'one' element like this does nothing to address the problem. There is a 'larger picture' that must be seen and considered beyond any individual beliefs you or I may or may not hold. We must be willing to place our sacred cows on the chopping block if we want to really know the truth. Or ... we can take our sacred cow home and milk the damn thing some more and make some stinky cheese out of it or something . | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 331 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
"All of the scrutiny in the world cannot harm or alter the truth. Truth will always withstand scrutiny." KC | ||
| arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 232 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.206.202 |
i have faith that all that is written in THE BIBLE CONCERNING JESUS IS TRUE nad that is enough for me | ||
| yaakov2 Intermediate Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 262 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.128.134.187 |
Hi bluewater2 "Until and unless our heart attitude is right before God". Is that code for "ready to believe anything, even things that defy all logic and reason?" No disrespect intended here, but it seems to be a common refrain from Christians that those who ask for god to enter their hearts but recieve nothing are then roundly accused of not "having their hearts in the right place." I see a correlation here. I was doing some reading on thought control yesterday. The writer said that cults use the phrase “Have Faith” to mean “Believe what I’m saying”. | ||
| egk Junior Member Username: egk Post Number: 35 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 75.42.217.123 |
TO, I understand. However, you must understand the entire Christian mythos includes the Bible, tradition, and church doctrine. You can't isolate one of those elements from the others when analyzing "Christianity". It wouldn't be honest. Besides, getting sidetracked on 'one' element like this does nothing to address the problem. But one must have the proper prespective on the different elements and weight them correctly. Arguing with the date of Christmas is, in my mind, similar to this line of reasoning. Jesus had a beard - Lincoln had a beard Jesus was murdered on Good Friday - Lincoln was murdered on Good Friday Jesus freed people from slavery to sin - Lincoln freed people from slavery Ergo Lincoln is just the Jesus myth recast in a different time. I have more to say, but duties will keep me away for possibly a week. EGK | ||
| searchlight86 New member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 17 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
BW and yk2, Heb. 11:1 says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", and the word for evidence is Gr. elegchos, meaning a proof. According to the Bible, faith in God is based on substance, evidence, logic and reason, while 'blind faith' is mere naivete. Unlike other belief systems, genuine Christianity is unique in that it encourages its followers to check it out and see if it's true and that the Lord is good (e.g. Psa. 34:8). That said, one must be genuinely open and humble to God's truth to receive more, and if not, then one is blinded to it. This is because God desires to establish a living, loving relationship with His created intelligeneces; it is not merely about our logic, intellect and position. Even for demons who have no question about existence of the one true God, this knowledge does not avail them, as James 2:19 says "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Jesus told those who presumptuously and pridefully demanded miracles to believe that they were hypocrites (Gr. hupokrites, meaning actors or stage players), and "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed" (Matt. 16:4). In their heart, these people had already rejected Christ, and were using skepticism as a cloak for their own self-righteousness. So, whom are we fooling? | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 332 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
I think that people are fooling themselves if they cite the bible as evidence of the existance of god. In your own words, "According to the Bible, faith in God is based on substance, evidence, logic and reason, while 'blind faith' is mere naivete" it is necessary to believe the bible is the word of god before one can say it supports faith by using logic and reason. I see the bible as a book by man, re-written and re-interpreted by man over many years. I see the bible as being sold as the word of god in an effort to make people believe it is so. And of course, the christian version of the Jewish Bible, the OT, is not the same as the Jewish version, which was the original. The original did not demand faith, but promoted works. "Heb. 11:1 says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"," Only in the bible could they attempt to sell the idea that faith is proof. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 65 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Ok, just to get back on board with what I hoped to discuss, I want to deal with the array of theories that have come up in order to explain away the claims to Jesus's death and resurrection. 1. The Legend Theory This theory holds to the claim that the writings contained in the bible are fabrications and legends that developed over time. The theory supposes that Jesus Christ was not even a historical figure, or at least if He was, the accounts of the bible do not reflect the actual person and the life thereof. Some branches of this theory also go so far as to suggest that the biblical account of Jesus was borrowed from pre-existing religions and mythology. The problem with this theory is multifaceted, but I will deal with 3 in particular. 1. The timeframe of events vs the writings appearing in the scriptures. 2. Attestation from multiple witneses, including the opposition. 3. Manuscript volume and comparison. Firstly, with regards to the timing of events. When scholars wish to deal with the historicity of Jesus Christ, they begin with 1 Corinthians chapter 15. This is because it is widely accepted among scholars (Christian and skeptic) to be the earliest writings which outline the basic points of the gospel, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let's take a look first at what 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verses 1-14 say: 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 333 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
"13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." This is the crux of the matter. Putting the cart before the horse has always been the way with this. Make the believers believe in Christ before considering whether or not resurrection is possible so that to consider the impossibility of resurrection makes you doubt what you believe. Backwards thinking. On another note, I am a believer that the man Jesus lived. (Message edited by bluewater2 on August 01, 2007) | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 66 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
We see in these verses that Paul outlines the basic elements of the gospel. This was a reminder to the Corinthians of the basic teachings of the faith that they had already received. Verse 3 shows that this teaching that Paul had given was not His own but what He had already received. The vast majority of scholars agree that this is referring to the teaching that Paul received in Jerusalem from Peter and James, 3 years after His conversion. So how do we find the year of Paul's conversion from here? In the year 37 AD, Damascus was put under the reign of Nabataean king Aretas IV Philopatris from His own captial Petra. 2 Corinthians 11:32 makes mention of this king - 32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me History. Thus, Paul's conversion took place no later than 37 AD. This means that Paul's conversion took place within only a few years of the actual crucifixion itself. Only 3 years after his conversion, Paul confirmed what He had received from God through the disciples James and Peter in Jerusalem. What is the point of all this? It is to illustrate that Paul was not simply someone who was writing decades after the event and had no clue about what took place. His testimony was affirmed by the very eye-witnesses of the crucifixion itself within a very short period of time. The time frame involved here does not allow for a legend to be workable or develop to the height of its success that the gospel did. If Paul wrote an epistle about a mythical figure, it would have been very difficult for him to persuade 1) The disciples. 2) The Jewish community 3) The Gentile community. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 259 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Putting the cart before the horse has always been the way with atheism. Make the people not believe in God before considering whether or not what they see or hear within and without them is God manifesting Himself. It's possible so that to believe in the impossibility of God makes one doubt what one perceives to the contrary. Backwards thinking. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 67 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
The most effective evidence to supply is enemy attestation, that is to say, the unsuspecting admissions by those who would oppose the faith. Roman historian Tacitus, for example writes : "Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44) | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 334 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
Uh oh, Franklin is interjecting. He must feel threatened. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 68 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
If we take this information, we can see clearly that the legend theory is not plausible. The elapsed time period does not allow for it. You have Paul's conversion within a few years of the crucifixion and resurrection itself. Anyone living during that time listening to Paul speak about an unknown person who suffered an unrecorded and unverified crucifixion would laugh at his lunacy. Instead we see Paul preaching the gospel to those who witnessed the crucifixion and were well aware of it. The second problem as pointed out is that the crucifixion of Jesus is affirmed by the Roman historian Tacitus. Were Jesus a mere legend, he would surely have addressed this matter to settle it once and for all. Of course, if Jesus really were a person in history, it would have been ridiculous to do so. An example of this could be if someone were to say "Elvis was a myth", he never really existed. This would be an absurd claim to make since the world has generations of people who knew him, saw him, listened to him, etc. Of course, we have the luxury of pointing to photos and videos but the point is that noone would seriously make such a claim, even were none of this technology available. Hence we see the expected evidence coming from the Roman Historian, telling it like it is. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 69 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Moving along, I would like to now address a very popular theory know as the swoon theory. The swoon theory suggests that Jesus Christ did not in fact die on the cross, but only passed out. As such, the Jesus who appeared to His disciples was not the resurrected Jesus but merely a revived Jesus. Muslim scholar Ahmed Deedat held to this particular theory, and vast numbers of his loyal followers did also, as well as other Muslim scholars. This is an attempt upon their part to reconcile the events with a famous verse from the Qu'ran, which reads: Sura 4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. This theory has been popular and yet it has some serious defects. Firstly, from the Islamic perspective, this very verse which scholars use in their attempt to validate the swoon theory actually contradicts it. Note: The verse says that they killed Him not nor crucified him. If the swoon theory supposes that Jesus was on the cross but didn't die there, only half of the condition is satisfied by the sura (i.e. they killed Him not), but you still have the problem that Jesus Christ was in fact crucified. Thus if you want to be a Muslim you can't believe in the swoon theory. Your own book doesn't allow it. For the non-muslim community out there, if you still hold this theory, you will have even more problems to deal with. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 247 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.32 |
Ergo Lincoln is just the Jesus myth recast in a different time. If you want waste time rather than get to the bottom of things then you play silly games like that if you want. Don't insult us both with that sort of nonsense though. Your straw man argument lacks one important point, Lincoln or Lincoln's followers claiming that he was god. So please, don't waste your time with these sort of arguments. The problem: Why should the supernatural claims of god A be taken anymore seriously than those of god B, C, or D? That is, "Why should the supernatural claims of Jesus be taken anymore seriously than those of Mithras, Dionysus, or Osiris? You could ask the question of more contemporary figures, "Why should the supernatural claims of Jesus be taken anymore seriously than those of L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or Haile Selassie I?" Do you see what I am saying? (Message edited by trainedobserver on August 02, 2007) | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 248 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.32 |
Attempts at using the text of the N.T. to somehow 'prove' its authenticity is the same thing as someone using proof texts from the Quran to prove the Quran or someone using the Book Of Urantia to prove itself. That line of reasoning doesn't work for what should be painfully obvious reasons. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 110 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
The question was: "Was Jesus a living person?" There is probably enough evidence to say yes, probably. The only problem is the lack of writing available outside the NT and within that timeframe. However, there is enough of NT writing to pass the “smell” test. It is not likely that his miracles were of a nature which were obvious to those observing. They were more likely miracles which many would consider natural phenomenon. Otherwise, there would have been considerable writings outside of scripture about this “miracle” worker. And if these miracles were so great, none of his disciples would have questioned it and certainly none would have betrayed him. If one believes he was a real person, then it is not much of a stretch to believe he was crucified. A related question, "Did he die during the crucifixion and if so, was he resurrected? If he died, other than the NT, there is little or no evidence that he returned to life. According to the NT, very few saw him as he was taken down from the cross. From a distance, a beat up person would surly look dead. After all, if it was a true resurrection of God, why was there a need to be hiding and secretive about the miracle? Only a few saw the miracle, and most saw only from a distance. Would it be logical to believe he actually died and came back to life after three days? Or is it more likely that he was severely injured and needed three days to recuperate? Mark 15:43-44 “Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.” Obviously, Pilate was surprised he died so quickly. Crucifixions were meant to be long and torturous. Sometimes the guards, as an act of mercy, would break the legs of the victim to deprive them of any strength whatsoever to maintain the weight of the body. The body would drop, and death by asphyxiation rapidly followed. If the legs were not broken, the crucifixion normally lasted at least two or three days. Jesus’ legs were not broken. My 2 cents, for what its worth. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 249 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.32 |
"Was Jesus a living person?" There were many Jesus' and many Messiahs during that time period. The Jesus of the Bible, if based on a real person is undoubtedly highly editorialized. "Did he die during the crucifixion and if so, was he resurrected? The massive resurrections mentioned in the Bible during the crucifixion along with the other catastrophic events aren't mentioned in any historical document are they? I think there is a clue there. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 111 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
trained Editorialized or not, there is still enough writing to suggest that he was a real person. How do we know some of the Greek philosophers actually lived, such as Aristotle? After all, there isn’t much written about him by those who actually knew him. Yes, I certainly believe Jesus and Aristotle were real people. Although I consider myself Christian, I agree with your implication that many of the miracles may have been embellishments. | ||
| yaakov2 Intermediate Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 265 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.128.134.187 |
termin8d The second problem as pointed out is that the crucifixion of Jesus is affirmed by the Roman historian Tacitus. I’m not seeing that in the quote that you provided. It says:
In their language Christ, meant messiah. During this time period, there were dozens of people claiming to be a messiah. It wasn’t necessarily your god. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 250 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.34 |
In their language Christ, meant messiah. During this time period, there were dozens of people claiming to be a messiah. It wasn’t necessarily your god. I don't think many people either realize that occurred or want to give it the proper consideration it deserves. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 335 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
Termin8d, I don't buy the swoon theory either. Let's get to the next one, that he lived and was crucified and died. Let's tackle the proof of resurection. The only "claim" is in the NT. Period. Do you have some other sources besides that one? Any historical evidence that others have done so? Any scientific evidence that perhaps dead people, truly dead people come back to life and appear in the sky? | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 336 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
It is really only the idea that followers of Jesus believe that he was resurrected that put him in a different catagory than many others. Certainly, many thousands were crucified and, as Yaakov said, during that period there were many wandering around the countryside preaching. I am curious as to your take, Termin8d on the Corinthians verses that seem to place blindly believing before demanding evidence. Doesn't that seem odd? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 251 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.34 |
Jesus isn't the 'only one' that folks make resurrection claims about. In fact it is a familiar pre-christian theme. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 337 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
Certainly you are right about that, TO. That is why I said "many others", not all others. Don't you find it interesting that in that Corinthians verse they are already talking to believers and telling them that to question resurrection is in fact, doubting their beliefs? Forget analysis and fact checking. "Don't notice that the corner stone of your belief is made of sand or you will be questioning your beliefs." | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 112 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
blue, I would have thought that you would have seen the swoon theory as plausible. However, the points probably should be addressed in a logical order. The swoon theory probably should be discussed after there is a conclusion that he lived and was crucified. First question, was Jesus a real person? I believe it will be difficult to prove one way or another. As I said earlier, was Aristotle real? I think so, even with the limited evidence. Was Robin Hood real? I was surprised to learn he wasn’t. What would it take to convince you or anyone that someone in ancient history was a real person? | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 338 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
My belief, that Jesus was not god or the Messiah, does not need him to be a fictitous person in order to discount those claims. I am willing to give up the point that he lived. Certainly his living does not make me doubt my skepticism that he was the messiah or the son of god. So I am willing to give up that point. Certainly there is lots of evidence that people live and have lived. The resurrection is the only element, besides the birth from a virgin, that proof of would support the messianic claim. The biggest flaw in the swoon theory is, "Where did he go?" I say rotting in the ground as worm food, like we all will be one day. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 113 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
blue I certainly understand your belief that Jesus was not God or a god. But maybe I misunderstand the swoon theory. I was under the assumption that the swoon theory was nothing more than the idea that Jesus was not dead when he was removed from the cross. Passed out (swooned), maybe a coma, yes, but not dead. The idea would be that he was taken down from the cross and cared for in the tomb or more likely, snuck out of the tomb and brought back to consciousness under better conditions. After a few days, he was able to walk a little but was weak and except for seeing a few friends, remained in hiding until he either left the area or finally died from his wounds. Again, the first question is, was he a real living person? You give up that point. Second question, was he crucified? I think you will allow for that. Most importantly, third question, did he show up again after the crucifixion? And, if he did, question four, did he die on the cross? Question 3 and 4 is the whole heart of the matter. These are the points which wars will be fought over. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 252 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.38 |
If the crucifixion, earthquake, and the sudden appearance of many resurrected individuals that day did actually occur why isn't it mentioned by historians? You would think it would be. Many people gloss over the part of the crucifixion story that has dead people walking all over the place. That is all Passion of Christ would have needed, ... zombies. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 70 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Bluewater: I appreciate your patience. I know I'm getting through this all very slowly, but would you mind if I press on a bit more with my evidence against the swoon theory? It seems that Ba2 is quite interested to see how this works out... I do apologize for the amount of time this is all taking, I'm squeezing posts in here and there when i've got time. And thanks to all for contributing thus far. I'm sure we can all agree that it is an interesting thread. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 114 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
trained, I have heard it said that the rising of the dead was a metaphor for a spiritual awakening. The gates of heaven were opening, so to speak. I agree, if this literally happened, there would be tons of written works describing it. Wait, wasn’t there a movie about zombies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_zombie_films | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 262 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
That is an accurate description of atheists. ZOMBIES!  THIS POST WAS REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS A BLATANT ATTEMPT AT THREAD-JACKING. FURTHER ATTEMPTS WILL RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF THE POSTER. (Message edited by admin on August 02, 2007) | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 339 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
It seems that the swoon theory is basically saying that he didn't really die, but actually was in a coma, etc. My point is that if that were the case, there would be other stories out there about what happened after he showed up again. Of course there is always the possibility that there were many of these stories and they were surpressed to allow for the contriving of the resurrection idea. Manipulating history would certainly not be a new thing for messianic believers. "Question 3 and 4 is the whole heart of the matter. These are the points which wars will be fought over." You would like to think that one day we will fight wars based on something a bit more substantial than faith. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 115 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
Would there be other stories? If you have a look at the scripture you will see that he was not around very long. At least there isn’t much written. “A rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple, took the body to his own new tomb.” Rich man, so he probably had some access to good medical help and he may have knew of a way to sneak into his own property (tomb). Taking a crucified convicted criminal off a cross and nursing him back to health would have been a criminal offense. Joseph of Arimathaea would himself been crucified for that act. No, it actually wouldn’t matter if he were dead or alive, if Jesus turned up alive after the crucifixion, Joseph would have been accused of preventing the execution. It had to be kept quiet and very few people would have ever heard of it. Just a few family and a few close friends before assending or going somewhere into hiding. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 340 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
Franklin, you are behaving like an ant under the magnifying glass of truth in the sun. Squirming and sizzling. Back on topic. I am content to believe that Jesus was a good person who wandered the country side as many were doing at that time. He was crucified like thousands of others, died a miserable death like thousands of others and is now reclaimed by the dirt. All of the fantastic and mystical accounts of his resurrection are stories written long after his death in an effort to create just another religion. Not unlike the mechanism that launched the Mormon religion. To those that want to use faith to believe in his resurection I say then that the same latitude must be granted the claimings of Joseph Smith and the golden tablets. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 71 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Yaakov: quote: In their language Christ, meant messiah. During this time period, there were dozens of people claiming to be a messiah. It wasn’t necessarily your god. I provide the quote again from Tacitus: "Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44) You say there are dozens of people who could fit this description? Name one other candidate who was the originator of a group called Christians, during the time of Pontius Pilate, which group suffered mass conviction and persecution. Not only do you need to look for an alternative messiah, but also another group than what we know as Christians. Notice in Tacitus' quote He mentions that this group was an immense multitude who suffered Nero's persecution. Please point me to this immense multitude in history. Who was their leader? Does this group still exist today? This same Nero is mentioned by another Roman Historian Suetonius who wrote De Vita Caesarum ("Lives of the Caesars"). During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale.45 Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city. Is it your contention that the group persecuted by Caesar Nero was in fact a different group that what we know as "Christians" ? The vast majority of scholars including skeptics accept Tacitus's quote as evidence for the true existence of Jesus Christ. I wonder why you have trouble with it. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 341 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
I have no trouble with the idea the Jesus lived. I don't know where you see that I do. I do have a problem with the idea that he was the son of god, which, apparently, those you quote who said, Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition believed as well. None of the followers of Jesus were called christians while he was alive. They began to be called christians as they idolized their Jesus after his death. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 263 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
 | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 342 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
Franklin, what specifically, do you not agree with concerning my post? I am very interested on your position concerning what happened to Jesus and what evidence you might have to support your position. Quoting sources besides the bible would be helpful, of course. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 72 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Bluewater:
If you scroll up a bit, you'll notice I was actually addressing the post to Yaakov. You might notice I am attempting to address each different person's point of view. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 343 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
I see, professor. Well, I will sit on the sidelines then until we get to the relevant stuff. Thanks for pointing that out. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 74 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Sorry, I know this is taking some time. Perhaps I can put the swoon theory aside until later. Ba2: If you're still interested about it we can address it once we deal with some of the other stuff. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 75 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Ok, supposing that Jesus did in fact die on the cross, what happened afterwards? Theory1: The disciples stole Jesus's Body from the tomb. There are several problems with this theory. Firstly, the disciples who supposedly stole the body are the ones who are preaching that He resurrected. Not only so, but they are willing to be martyred for their faith. Secondly, how would the disciples get the body in the first place? They would have had to fight off the guards or bribe them. Are the disciples good candidates for either possibility? You have Peter who denied the Lord three times, including to a little girl because of his fear of being caught. Then you have John, the disciple whom the Lord loved, and James the flesh brother of the Jesus, who was actually an unbeliever. Somehow, we are expected to believe that John, Peter and James would be silly enough to preach a false gospel putting their lives on the line, firstly risking their lives by offering bribes or fighting the guards which was against the teaching of Jesus himself. James, the unbeliever is expected to preach a false gospel that would elevate his flesh brother to be the Son of God, and Peter suddenly becomes a hero for a lie. Not only did they have to be able to get past the guards somehow, they had to get Jesus's body past the Jewish opposers and Roman authorities. All of this trouble to steal a body from a tomb in order that they can start to preach a false gospel, and a deliberately false one at that. The theory is very unconvincing at best. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 76 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Theory2: They went to the wrong tomb. This is a less popular theory but still held by a minority. The theory suggests that when the women went to the tomb, as well as the disciples, they were in fact at the wrong tomb, which was empty, and thus had a mistaken assumption that Christ had risen. This theory is all too easy to refute. Firstly, the guards at the right tomb only had to roll the stone away and say "You Christians are really dumb. Here he is right here. You went to the wrong tomb!" Of course, no such incident is recorded in history and you can be quite sure that the disciples, the Jewish authorities, and the Roman guards all knew where Jesus was buried. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 77 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Theory3: The disciples hallucinated. This theory recognizes that the disciples truly believed that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, that He appeared to them and even touched them. Thus it attempts to discredit what the disciples had actually experienced, saying that in fact they hallucinated, and did not see or touch Jesus although they believed they genuinely had. There are supplementary suggestions that go along with this, such as emotional suggestion, which is to say that the disciples wanted the Lord to be resurrected and so were vulnerable to receive suggestive thoughts when encountering something that was not the risen Lord. The problem with this is that you don't have a case of one person receiving this experience, but many, and mass-hallucination does not exist. You can check medical history and you will not find a single case of mass-hallucination ever recorded. Someone may object and say "What about groups of people all claiming to have seen a UFO?" That is not a hallucination. That is an illusion. A hallucination is when someone sees something right in front of him and says "Look, it's a cat" when there's nothing there at all. This can be caused by alcohol, drugs, or perhaps a psychological condition. We see nothing in the behavior of the disciples that would suggest that they were all intoxicated. Not only so, but you would have to account for the appearances to multitudes of other people, including up to 500 as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:6. An illusion is when you see something and it looks like something but it really isn't. For example, at night time you might see a shadow in your room, and you get startled because it looks like a person. You switch the light on and realise it was just the coatstand. The problem with this is that you have multiple appearances to multiple people, and not only so, but you have this person touching them and speaking to them. Some people argue that the disciples did not immediately recognize Jesus and therefore it must have been someone immitating him. For this theory to be true, you have to get around the fact that this same person was able to walk through the walls of the upper room, which is why they were startled and thought it was a ghost. This account is given by the same people who were willing to be martyred for the belief in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, which leads to the final part which is that He publically ascended to the heavens. That would have to be some kind of imposter, with some kind of power, and some kind of motive. The theory does not stand. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 78 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Theory 4 - The Swoon Theory I come back to this theory to make some further points. Initially I presented the evidence against the Islamic position, which is that their own Holy Book contradicts such a theory, because according to the Qu'ran , Jesus was not killed, nor crucified. We then have to consider the situation. Jesus was nailed to the cross. The technique of crucifixion involved nailing the criminal's wrists to a large wooden cross. Were it the palms, the victim's hands would tear, releasing him from that position because of the body weight. The hanging would leave the victim in a suffocating position, whereby they would have to push themselves up to sustain their breathing. Eventually, due to tiredness, they would fall back again until their strength failed, and they would die by asphyxiation. Supposing that we are to give swoon theorists the benefit of the doubt, and allow Jesus to survive the hanging process, you still have to deal with the account of the centurion piercing his side with a spear, out from which flowed blood and water. There is only one part of the body which would match this discription, the "pericardium" which is a sack of water that encloses the heart. Therefore, even if Jesus managed to somehow avoid asphxiation, he would have instantly died from the spear wound. Let us be generous and grant swoon theorists a miraculous death evasion up to this point. You have Jesus placed in a tomb for three days and three nights, sealed air-tight by a boulder outside. Supposedly, this man who has been whipped, beaten, flogged, nailed to a cross, speared through his heart, is going to get up, push the boulder aside, fight the guards, walk back several miles unnoticed to Jerusalem. Go up to the upper room, appear to his disciples and say "Hey guys, told you I'd rise from the dead." And the disciples would respond "Wow, what a glorious, resurrected body you have. I can't wait to have a glorified body like that some day. I'm going to preach to the whole world that you've resurrected. And Jesus, who had been teaching them about truth all this time smiles, knowing that He didn't really resurrect, He was just an iron-man who beat the odds! The theory does not stand. (Message edited by termin8d on August 02, 2007) | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 265 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Excuse me. I was not laughing at your post but the selective enforcement of the moderator using the term "threadjacking" which I coined as a well known atheist tactic as the reason for modifying my post. An anti theist bias is definitely shown by such action. t.o. threw in the term "zombies" to denigrate Christian theology so I threw it back at him which for some reason the moderator did not like. I think whenever someone is demeaning to someone else's beliefs it should addressed right then and there. So to answer your question that is what I was laughing at. Continue. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 79 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
I've put up the popular theories here. I'd like to know which theory people hold to here and why? | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 80 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Bluewater
The verses speak of the time after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension. What evidence would you suppose the Corinthians ought to be shown? What would constitute as evidence in your opinion? Paul's conversion along with the data that I have given already serves as very strong evidence itself. It's like the old claim "I'll believe God if I see Him" or "I'll believe God if He does a miracle for me." To which I'd reply, what would convince you that it is God and not some kind of illusion? People have written books trying to explain away miracle after miracle. A common one is "If I see God restoring an amputated limb I'll believe." The question is, why? (Message edited by termin8d on August 02, 2007) | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 344 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
There is another popular theory: "The manufactured religion theory" This theory is based on the idea that a man named Jesus lived and walked around preaching a modified version of the Jewish Bible, the original. It is this heretic behavior that got him crucified along with the other criminals of the day and after his death he was removed to an unknown location where he was put into the earth according to Jewish tradition with no casket or a wooden one that could be reclaimed by the earth. Historical investigation shows us that the books of the apostles were written long ofter his death allowing for much confusion and removing by time the ability to find many detractors. Basically, the witnesses have all died. The story of the tomb, the resurrection, the claims of those who "saw" him are all events that were manufactured, poorly remembered, wishfull thinking motivated events designed to elevate the human figure known as Jesus. If one really reads the Jewish version of the Jewish Bible, not the Christian version which is called the old testament, it is easy to se that not only was the life and death of Jesus "re-worked" after his death to support the need for a Messiah in the new Christian religion, but so was the Jewish Bible reworked and tweeked in an effort to do the same and create the Christian old testament. As to the why would someone want to create another religion? Ask the Mormons and Joseph Smith who found the golden tablets. His claims have as much merit as the claims of those who saw the resurrected Jesus. They both demand faith to believe. There are no facts to support any of the supernatural events in either religion except words in an antique and multi-edited book. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 345 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.152.158.174 |
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. If you read this the question of the truth of the resurrection is obviously being directed at those who already believe. Not asking them to find evidence for it's truth but telling them if they do not believe then their faith has no meaning. Quite a quandry to put someone in. This is a demand for blind faith, pure and simple. | ||
| searchlight86 New member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 18 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
You talk a lot about the OT, which contains multiple accounts of resurrection from physical death. So do you believe or reject all Old Testament accounts of the following? If so or if not, which ones and why? Gerar, south of Gaza: Abraham prays, and God heals Abimelech king of Gerar and his entire household, so that they may bear children again (Gen. 20:1-18). Sinai Peninsula: In response to Moses’ prayer, God commands Moses to fashion a pole with a brass serpent atop, and every one who is bit by deadly poisonous serpents is healed when they look upon it (Num. 21:4-9). Zarephath, in Sidon: God raises a widow’s son from the dead through Elijah, who prayed and physically stretched himself upon the child three times (I Kings 17:17-24). Shunem, in Issachar: God rasies a woman’s son from the dead through Elisha, who prayed and physically stretched himself upon the child two times (II Kings 4:8-37). Samaria: God completely heals a top military official of Syria named Naaman from leprosy, having him dip seven times in the river Jordan (II Kings 5:1-19). Israel: Moabite invaders are burying a man but see opposing forces coming, so cast the body into the sepulchre of Elisha, and God raises the person from the dead upon contact with Elisha’s bones (II Kings 13:20-21). Jerusalem: Hezekiah the king prays to be healed from a deadly sickness, and God tells him via the prophet Isaiah he will do so as well as add fifteen years to his life. God does as He says, and confirms his promise to Hezekiah by bringing the official sundial’s shadow backwards ten degrees (II Kings 20:1-11). Mediterranean Sea: God directly raises the prophet Jonah from the dead in response to his dying prayer (Jon. 1:9-2:7). | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 81 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Bluewater2:
Interesting theory Bluewater, but there are some serious problems with it. First of all, let's not beat around the bush. The reason Jesus was was crucified was not for modiying the Jewish bible, it was a charge of blasphemy. Secondly, the disciples still claimed to have seen and touched the resurrected Christ. Where did this come from? They were willing to die for this faith. What would lead them to martyr themselves for something they knew not to be true? Your theory does not explain this. Thirdly, Paul's word to the Corinthians actually indicates that he preached what he had already received. (i.e. from Peter, James, and John)
To write deliberate innaccuracies and distortions is one thing, to be willing to die for those lies is another, and to have groups of people willing to die for them is yet another. As mentioned before, you have Peter the coward, John the disciple whom the Lord loved, James the unbeliever and Paul the persecuting Pharisee. Now all of these guys are going to be part of a mass conspiracy that turns Peter into a self-sacrificing hero (and a foolish one at that), John into a betrayer of the truth, James the flesh brother willing suddenly to elevate Jesus as the Son of God, and Paul an evangelist extraordinaire? Were the facts so distorted as you say, it would have been a joke for the disciples to go out and preach the gospel in Jerusalem itself where the events took place. Not only were their lives in danger, but they were dealing with people who were fellow witnesses. Supposedly, according to your theory, Paul wrote a fictitious book, Matthew wrote a fictitious book, as did Mark, Luke, and John. It still begs the obvious question, "Why die for a lie?". We are also expected to believe that the single most important piece of evidence, Jesus's corpse, that would silence the Christian movement, was buried secretely in an unknown location. Why? What would the Jews have to hide? Why would they hide the very evidence that would destroy Christianity, which they had worked so hard already to destroy through the persecutions? Are we really to believe that not a single Jew could remember where the Body was found? Where are the historical documents that back up the claim? Too many holes in this theory. 1. Unsupported by history. 2. Mass amnesia of the Jewish persecutors 3. Wilful martyrdom for false belief in resurrection. 4. Willing to throw away the most important evidence to destroy Christianity. 5. Amnesia of all the disciples because they can't accurately record the most important event in history. | ||
| yaakov2 Intermediate Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 267 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.128.134.187 |
Well, I will sit on the sidelines then until we get to the relevant stuff. No, no, no Bluewater. That was my fault. This is a discussion between you and termin8d. I will butt out. I will only post here within the context of existence. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 254 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.52 |
Actually all of the above doesn't give any consideration to the The Whole Story is a Fiction Theory which is the strongest contender by far. I think that is what bw2 is getting at and the others are avoiding. You might as well be using The Lord of the Rings to argue for the existence of Frodo. What is so hard to see about that? | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 346 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
"The reason Jesus was was crucified was not for modiying the Jewish bible, it was a charge of blasphemy." Yes, I was being overly simplistic, but the fact remains that he was not crucified because he was thought to be the christ. "Secondly, the disciples still claimed to have seen and touched the resurrected Christ. Where did this come from? They were willing to die for this faith. What would lead them to martyr themselves for something they knew not to be true? Your theory does not explain this." Religious fanatics make stupid decisions all the time. Just look at the Hale Bopp nuts that killed themselve. I have gone over this before but you apparently conveniently overlooked it. "Thirdly, Paul's word to the Corinthians actually indicates that he preached what he had already received. (i.e. from Peter, James, and John)" This point makes no sense in the context of what I pointed out. "Supposedly, according to your theory, Paul wrote a fictitious book, Matthew wrote a fictitious book, as did Mark, Luke, and John. It still begs the obvious question, "Why die for a lie?"." Did these 3 die as martyrs? "We are also expected to believe that the single most important piece of evidence, Jesus's corpse, that would silence the Christian movement, was buried secretely in an unknown location. Why? What would the Jews have to hide? Why would they hide the very evidence that would destroy Christianity, which they had worked so hard already to destroy through the persecutions?" His corpse was not that important at that time. His was a small movement and the word christian was not even used at the time of his death. 1. Unsupported by history. So is most of what is written in the bible that you base your christian beliefs on. 2. Mass amnesia of the Jewish persecutors Who were the Jewish persecuters? 3. Wilful martyrdom for false belief in resurrection. As stated before by me this is not a unique quality for religious fanatics. 4. Willing to throw away the most important evidence to destroy Christianity At the time of his death he was not an important figure but to a small group of individuals. It was many years later that he was elevated to the status where his corpse mattered. 5. Amnesia of all the disciples because they can't accurately record the most important event in history. If they were there at all. Only the bible says they were. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 347 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
Searchlight says, "You talk a lot about the OT, which contains multiple accounts of resurrection from physical death. So do you believe or reject all Old Testament accounts of the following? If so or if not, which ones and why?" I believe that any use of the term resurrection in the Jewish Bible is simply metaphoric. As stated many times before, I do not believe in god or supernatural or mystical events. Why don't the bibles in christian home call Part I the Jewish Tanakh? It did come first. Why the need to rename it? | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 116 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
termin8d You throw so much out there I wouldn’t know where to begin. A point or two at a time would make more sense. You don’t really discuss how all the Apostles went out and were persecuted because of their preaching. However, I think just about all your premises are very faulty. Your first comment “Theory1: The disciples stole Jesus's Body from the tomb.” I think you were actually suggesting that because of the guards, it would be impossible to sneak a body out. You must understand that this execution was just like thousands of others. Nothing special and no written official documentation that it was even done. So when the guards were assigned to watch the tomb, they didn’t think much of it. They probably wondered what they were guarding against. The guards are supposed to be up all night. Pretty difficult to keep from falling asleep or maybe they were distracted. After all, what were they guarding – nothing. Did the guards have any inkling that something might happen? No, of course not. Think this isn’t likely, then obviously you never were on a night detail during peace time in the military. Additionally, the guards may not have shown up until late in the evening and this was private property where the owner was a follower of Jesus. There is no detail about the property or design of the tomb. We can only guess. So what we have is a private property which the owner likely knows very well. He may have known how to get in and out of the tomb area without being seen. The owner was definitely a follower of Jesus. Why is so impossible to think a body could not be stolen? Imagine that this same story was told about someone else. Just some other unknown person with no special identification. A man is placed in a tomb and in the morning, the body is gone. What is the logical conclusion? As far as your comment about the writings of the Apostles, why did only 2 of the 12 Apostles have their writings included as gospels? We know there were writings by the others. Why were they excluded? Apparently, the church that assembled the writings didn’t like what the other 10 Apostles had to say. We now know that some of them thought the resurrection was metaphorical – these were eye witnesses! Instead, the church used gospels of 2 people who never met or saw Jesus and also decided to include the writings of Paul, who never actually heard Jesus teach either. By the way, the gospels of James and Peter are not included in the bible. James’ gospel had strong Mithric overtones, such as the birth of Jesus in a cave. That view was common belief into the Renaissance period. Peter’s gospel suggested that Jesus was not a real living person. He was a spirit in human form, but Peter does describe the crucifixion. He also said it was dark when Jesus was placed in the tomb and tents were pitched for the guards. What does this suggest? Nevertheless, the Christian church in Rome pretty much decided what would be allowed in the scripture, and most of the gospels were eliminated.. The theory that the body was stolen is as scientifically as solid as any other, and maybe more logical. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 255 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.52 |
Zombies are the re-animated dead in fiction and Voodoo. I don't make these sorts of things up, they were around before I got here. Also, if you read all the crucifixion stories you'll see where there was an earthquake, the veil was torn, and people came out of their graves and tombs. I don't feel like I need to quote chapter and verse, it isn't anything that can be argued as not being there. People who get up out of their graves and walk around are called 'zombies' in common parlance. Jesus was for all effects and purposes a 'zombie'. He rose up after having died, displayed gaping mortal wounds, and walked about. I would think that if a person is offended by this that they would take offense with those who sold them a 'zombie' story as 'The Greatest Story Ever Told" and not to the folks who point this out to them. Isn't it amazing how the 'spiritual' people get so frothing at the mouth insane when they feel they are being 'insulted' by this or that? Shades of Mohammad cartoons. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 269 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
See you currently got the game rigged here. You can be so insulting to the faith of others and to those who have that faith. But when I call you on it then apply the same terminology to you atheism, zombies, the living dead which is accurate, then your like minded moderator steps out and edits my post. And now your comparison of Christians to Muslims murderers??????? Did I threaten your life???? No I did not. What the hell is an atheist doing moderating a cult awareness forum??????? Is this like the Church of Scientology taking over Cult Awareness Network????? Factnet has always been atheism agendaized and is therefore no earthly good so far as a cult awareness forum. Any real cult awareness that goes on here is in spite of the moderators. The factnet moderators here give us 2 approved choices. Atheism or scientology with a small "S". Anyone else that does not buy into those approved choices be damned and better not speak against the factnet authorized religions. So go ahead trained orangutan. Speak your hateful lies against Christianity. Call us INSANE! Your friend the moderator is watching to make sure no one comes against you. Factnet is rigged! | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 348 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
Hey Franklin. Any chance that you might actually contribute to the discussion rather than acting all paranoid and insecure? Sure, zombies is a bit dramatic, but accurate if you really think about it. It is no different than calling resurrection and the idea of the birth from a virgin mysticism and the supernatural. You may not like it but it is what it is. I think you should stop being so paranoid. If factnet really had an atheist agenda you would see a lot more moderating going on stifling religious speech rather than just moderating your posts which rarely have anything to do with an ongoing conversation. I am saddened by your obvious insecurity and lack of self worth. Is there anything I can do to help you get healthier? | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 349 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
Also, if I were the moderator here, I would love to see you mount a solid defense of your belief system against TO or anyone else here. Try some logic and reason. Why don't you give that novel approach a try? Spirited and intelligent discussion is what makes the world go round. | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 211 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 67.171.42.163 |
You gotta love Franklin, you really can't impress him with facts. Something like 90% of the threads on Factnet are religious scripture discussions. Somehow he convinces himself that there's an atheist conspriracy going on. If there is an atheist conspiracy, I propose that Franklin is in charge of it. He's trying to make christians look like asswholes. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 350 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
I don't see Franklin as a good example of christians in general. He is definately a loose canon. He is kind of the mascot here in a way. | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 213 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 67.171.42.163 |
Yeah, I love him. I think he should have his own call in radio show - I would listen every day. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 273 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
I am just laughing my axx off reading your comments. Poor threatened insecure little atheists. Always on the attack of everyone else's beliefs. You guys are constantly threadjacking every religious discussion here with your insulting bigoted, intolerant comments. Where is the unbiased moderator at these numerous times? Duh?!? They are posting on factnet as an atheist. That's where. Someone within your earshot says JESUS and you atheists feel threatened, have to run crying to your shrink with your insecurities, want to get a law passed to forbid anyone from saying the word JESUS in public. What sick puppies you all are. I do not even want to begin to think what an atheist's idea of a perfect Christian would be. Someone with horns, hooves, tail and pitchfork? It would definitely would be someone who rejects the existence of God, the divinity of Christ and the infallibility of the Bible. Your idea of the perfect Christian is actually an .... tada ..., atheist.... just like you. My understanding of what took place when Christ was being crucified was that God wanted all who lived before to know the Messiah. Graves were opened and their SPIRITS, not their bodies, came out and witnessed Christ on the cross. All those who were able to witnessed these previously sleeping spirits, not physical bodies which had become dust in ages past, knowing Christ. So the "zombie" comment was just plain stupid and intentionally derogatory but expected from a factnet resident atheist. If you are here for an intelligent discussion then discuss intelligently. Stop spinning everything you read to your marxian orwellian doublespeak rhetoric. Thank you!  | ||
| searchlight86 New member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 19 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
Searchlight says, "You talk a lot about the OT, which contains multiple accounts of resurrection from physical death. So do you believe or reject all Old Testament accounts of the following? If so or if not, which ones and why?" Bluewater response: "I believe that any use of the term resurrection in the Jewish Bible is simply metaphoric. As stated many times before, I do not believe in god or supernatural or mystical events." OK, so I understand you do not believe in god or supernatural or mystical events. So what from the OT do you believe, if anything? If anything, how do you decide what is true and what isn't? I am curious since you have referenced the OT many times, seemingly as a reliable source document. My position, as you probably remember from previous discussions, is each word of the OT (as well as NT) is precisely reliable in the original languages, and the primary evidence for this is historical accuracy as well as detailed fulfilled prophecy. Therefore I infer it is also reliable when it comes to other miraculous accounts. And as you know, personal experience with God after establishing a living relationship with Christ, more of that mystical stuff you don't believe in, and that I have openly shared with you before on other threads. Another mystical quote you will reject but is pertinent, and akin to a couple of my posts above: "Human knowledge must be understood to be loved, but divine knowledge must be loved to be understood" Pascal. More information simply isn't going to help if one isn't open in advance to go wherever it leads, including turning from a self-centered to a God-centered life. I'm not sure what everyone's objectives are here, and it's our own free choice of course (knock yourself out  ), but it's sad to see people waste their precious time barking up a dead horse. If one isn't open to fundamental change, it isn't going to happen even if infinite and perfect information were communicated in the most loving and humble manner. Even in the presence of Christ himself, working miracles, "he marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark 6:6a). "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Luke 14:35b). | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 85 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Sorry everyone, I'm writing a more detailed paper. This time to address in particular the "Manufactured Religion Theory" (Bluewater2 - did you come up with that name?) This is taking quite a long time because I need to get things organised into an easy to read flow. I'll post things up when I'm done. BA2: I'm quite suprised at your post but if you truly do believe the Stolen Body Theory holds water, I will address that in more detail also. I admit I rushed through things the first time and hope to present something more comprehensive. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 351 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
I admire you dedication to this topic, Termin8d. Keep up the good work. And yes, I guess I did come up with that name, although it did not take much effort. You see, I think every religion is manufactured by man as all that is written is written by man. He is the only animal on this planet that I know of that can actually pick up a pen and write ideas on paper. Thanks. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 352 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.130.156.151 |
Search says: "OK, so I understand you do not believe in god or supernatural or mystical events. So what from the OT do you believe, if anything?" I don't very often mention the old testament unless I am mentioning how is is a reworked Jewish Bible. What I believe about the Jewish Bible are the universal rules to live by, the basic stuff. It is just the earliest book to write these things down. I also don't think they ever had to be. There really is nothing in that book that cannot be found in multitudes of books from all over the world. It is the parables that are used to convey these ideas that are unique. Just like Aesops Fables. My position, as you probably remember from previous discussions, is each word of the OT (as well as NT) is precisely reliable in the original languages, and the primary evidence for this is historical accuracy as well as detailed fulfilled prophecy. Only because the bible is so open to "multiple and liberal interpretation." It is enough for me to know that the Jewish Bible is the book of the Jews and they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. I cannot imagine anyone knowing better. Another mystical quote you will reject but is pertinent, and akin to a couple of my posts above: "Human knowledge must be understood to be loved, but divine knowledge must be loved to be understood" To me, that is just a rewording of putting the cart before the horse. Basically, "Believe it and it will be so." I'm not sure what everyone's objectives are here, and it's our own free choice of course (knock yourself out ), but it's sad to see people waste their precious time barking up a dead horse. My objective is simply to do what I can to let people who might be observing these conversations see that religion, whatever flavor of religion is chosen, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhism, what have you, are simply philosphies. Man made, human philosphies. Systems of belief that some people need to get by with and that the idea of selling one as "the truth" is down right dishonest. If one isn't open to fundamental change, it isn't going to happen even if infinite and perfect information were communicated in the most loving and humble manner. Certainly, those who are living lives that need change can find help from a variety of sources. And no one can receive good advice until they are ready. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 117 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
termin8d You totally misunderstand me. Not surprising though, you try to address too many things at once. This is a good tactic if you don’t care to address certain points. I never said I believed in the stolen body theory, but I am suggesting that it is as good an argument as any. What you have tried to do is dismiss it with little or no thought. Just because a guard was posted it can’t be stolen!!! – Naive thinking. You started this thread with three questions: Is Jesus someone who really existed in history? There are arguments on both sides of this, but it really isn’t the important question. Even most atheists will give up on this question; it doesn’t matter to them if he existed or not. Furthermore, it would be impossible to prove he didn’t exist. Even if we unearthed a two thousand year old document describing a conspiracy plan, the fundamentalist Christians would dismiss it as the work of Satan. So, even then, the argument gets nowhere. Was He crucified? Again, most atheists don’t care to argue this point. Billions of unknowns existed and thousands of them were crucified. Did He resurrect? This is the crux of the matter. If he died, under what circumstances did anyone claim to see him as alive afterwards? To complicate things, how many saw him as absolutely dead before being placed in the tomb? Could he have been alive when he was taken down? We only have the writings of two apostles claiming resurrection. What did the others say and why did the church decide to throw out the gospels of the other 10 apostles? There was no magic involved when the NT was assembled and there was no universal agreement as to what writings should be dismissed. You can only find truth when you are willing to look at all possibilities. The truth shall set you free. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 256 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.54 |
"My understanding of what took place when Christ was being crucified was that God wanted all who lived before to know the Messiah. Graves were opened and their SPIRITS, not their bodies, came out and witnessed Christ on the cross. All those who were able to witnessed these previously sleeping spirits, not physical bodies which had become dust in ages past, knowing Christ. " Interesting. One, you are ignorant of the scriptures and two, you are too lazy to look it up. Do you suppose that is how everyone else is as well? Matthew 27 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. Clearly the Bible story says that bodies of dead people rose from their graves and walked around and a lot of people saw it. It is also just as clear that you don't know your "axx"(sic) from a hole in the ground. Do you even for one second think that people don't see through your act? | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 118 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
trained Matt 27:52-53 "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." I don’t think anyone really believes these passages literally? Well, maybe a few oddballs. Obviously, if it were true, there would be tons of written material from that timeframe, not just a few sentences. Almost every Christian will take this to be a metaphorical point, if they care to consider it at all. For the most part, this thread has remained on a high note, that is, not too much insulting. It would be novel if we could keep it that way. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 257 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.2 |
Certainly, most evangelicals will tell you that they believe it literally. In my Christian experience, the majority took it literally. I am from a Southern Baptist and Pentecostal tradition. If someone isn't going to take that part literally then why take any of the rest of it literally? I take none of it literally. However, I don't see how someone can say they take verse X literally but not verses Y and Z. It doesn't make any sense. You can't make a case for the literal resurrection of Christ and throw out the surrounding circumstances and claims surrounding them. And the claims are that numerous individuals up and rose bodily from the dead and were witnessed by many. Why didn't that make the history books if it really happened? | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 119 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
It didn't make the history books because it simply didn't happen. What else makes sense? I somewhat agree with you in that virtually nothing is meant to be literal. I don't agree with you that most Christians take it literally, especially that verse concerning the walking dead. Most of my life was spent within the mainline Christian churches. I only got involved with the fundamentalist groups in the last few years. On the surface, they are very pleasant people but underneath are very scary. Fortunately, they are in the minority (well organized and well connected), but their increasing influence on politics is disturbing. At the moment, their political movement is in decline, but I am afraid that if HC gets the nomination, it will revitalize their base. Book banning will return as will the inclusion of junk science into the curriculum. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 302 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
I always took that verse to mean their spirit bodies. If that upsets you so much that I do not fit into your cookie cutter mold then tough darts. Not everyone was raised in a pentecostal Christian church. I am one of that was not. Funny how you want to thump the bible at me yet you consider the bible to be trash. There is no threat from the so called over rated religious right. They founded this country, gave us all of our freedoms and have always been in charge. The threat to this nation is what t.o. and b.w. represent. The irreligious left. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 258 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.2 |
Well there you go. If you can pick and choose what you are going to believe in the Bible I don't see how you can be so dogmatic and emphatic about the bits you do take seriously. Or should I say, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? I'm not aware of any main line denomination that teaches that those who arose that day did so in 'spirit bodies'. Just which one does? Anyone know? Funny how you want to thump the bible at me yet you consider the bible to be trash. I guess the point escaped you as usual. The point was that you don't know the Bible and you are not in the theological main stream of Christianity as you claim. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 303 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
I don't pick and choose what I believe. If you knew anything about Christianity you would know it is the Holy Spirit that guides each individual to a better understanding. Not another human or some denominational doctrine. But you do not know this because you are not a Christian but just an anti Christian atheist. I would never expect an atheist to take any Christian seriously. You hate all of us as demonstrated by your denigrating posts toward us. No I do not know the bible the way the atheists know the bible. I do not want to know the bible the way atheists know the bible. I only want to know God's word as it is was written. Inspired by God and my understanding guided by the Holy Spirit. And you are not in the mainstream of atheism because the atheists I know in real life are not as hateful as you. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 120 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
Reading the lines before and after might shed some light. If we delete verses 52 and 53, the biblical text flows smoothly, as the earthquake recorded in verse 51 is referred to by those in verse 54. Without 52 and 53, it makes sense. If this were a real occurrence, it would have been the story of the millennium. Many letters and books would have been written. Instead, we have nothing but those two lines. There isn’t even another line referring to it in the rest of the bible. This is a perfect example of added text. Anyone who can’t see that is blinding themselves to the obvious. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 304 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Anyone who can not find God in their heart is blinding themselves to the obvious. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 121 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
And for the record, I can’t ever remember discussing Matt 27:52-53 until I arrived in a fundamental church. Franklin, it is this insistence on interpretation which causes me to truly question my faith. Neither trainedobserver nor bluewater or any atheist has ever really had that affect on me. They may ask tough questions, so what? One should not try to defend their faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 186 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.157.134 |
hello franklin, i would assume from your tireless defense of christianity that something profound happened to you when you became a christian. something that was very emotional and life changing. i am here to tell you that that experience is not unique to christianity. i have experienced that life changing experience that one cna have when they give up their life. i have always been an honest seeker of the truth. that is what lead me to christianity in the first place. in my continued search for the truth i have found that the exclusivity that is claimed by any religious organization or group is simply misguided. it takes courage and integrity franklin to be willing to change. the funny thing is, i lost nothing walking away from christianity. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 259 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.2 |
One should not try to defend their faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous. This is some advice you would think you shouldn't have to give an adult. There isn’t even another line referring to it in the rest of the bible. I'm thinking there is a reference in one of the N.T. letters to the event but it escapes me and my search engines. I could be mistaken. I'm trying to recall the original study I was doing when I learned that but a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 305 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
What is the attitude and motive behind their questions? Are they willing to learn from one of us out of respect? Attitude and motive of the questioner is everything when considering a response to a question. Why should factnet, a cult awareness forum, become an anti Christian Spanish Inquisition led by Tomas de Torquemada (t.o.) the Inquisitor General? Does he have any sincere and respectful desire to learn about my faith, Christianity? The answer is an obvious no. Believe me ba, you've been hanging around these factnet resident atheist characters way too long and their effect on you is already apparent. You follow them around everywhere they go. You champion their cause repeatedly yet I don't remember the last time you championed the cause of Christ. You parrot their rhetoric incessantly. There you go with the "r" word. Who's "reason"? An atheist's? So we have to give up our believe in God, the divinity of Christ, the word of God to be able to meet the standards of an atheist's definition of "reason". You should have no fear of being brainwashed by the legalist church your wife attends. You are being brainwashed by the atheists here on factnet daily. Christianity is not being threatened here though it is constantly being attacked. It is atheism that is threatened worldwide and what we witness here from t.o., b.w. and i.h.s. is the death rattle of their false religion down for the final count. Why should you ever be questioning your faith because of someone else's insistence on interpretation? Don't you have a mind of your own? You know damn well as I do that church you attend is not representative of Christianity. If you despise that church that much get the hell out. Stop going. Stay at home and read the bible for yourself if that is the only peace you can find. Associate with like minded Christians. But so far as t.o. and b.w. goes, the reason they ask their questions is because they want to convert us all to godlessness. It validates and justifies their inadequacies in their own religion. Of all the fervent proselytizers on this forum they stand out way above the rest. They won't rest in their inquisition until they have caused someone to turn from God. And looks like you are their greatest hope for conversion. Think about it. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 307 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
foak: I made my change. I changed from godlessness to the faith of my fathers. Then I had my born again experience. It was real. I understand your background of the twelve tribes. They reject Christianity because twelve tribes is a cult, a horrible child abusing, mind controlling racist cult. You left Christianity for that and have not returned. I'm sure Christianity lost nothing when you left. I made the difficult decision. Showed inner courage, integrity and humility and accepted Christ as my Saviour. Something you and the others posting now are afraid to do. So what if being a Christian is not the latest fave trendy way in your circles? Who gives a crap? I had the courage to step away from the world and it's lies and turned to God for my answers to life's problems and haven't look back since. Reading yours and the sorrowful atheists' posts is just a reminder to me how pitiful I was back then. How lost, unhappy and confused I was. Do you have the courage and integrity to humble yourself before the Son of God? I doubt it. The twelve tribes cult robbed that from you. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 187 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.157.134 |
it is too late franklin. the worst has already happened. views of people here on factnet change all of the time. those that are honest change. those with an agenda do not. they also tend not to stick around. you are an enigma to me. you have neither changed nor left. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 122 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
franklin This thread was going pretty smoothly without much mudslinging until just recently. I simply brought up a few tough points and was hoping termin8d would address them. He appeared to be interested but as usual, a question regarding some scripture gets tough and sure enough, it either gets ignored or mud slinging starts. I never said I believed in the swoon theory, but I see the logic to it. I wouldn’t dismiss it simply because someone tells me to. A belief is simply a belief and maybe nothing else really needs to be said. But, don’t try to tell me someone is wrong simply because they disagree with you or some specific dogma you believe in. Questioning a belief is not a bad thing. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 188 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.157.134 |
i am not afraid of your attacks franklin. my integrity speaks for itself. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 308 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
foak: I will always be an enigma to you. I have never lived in a cult. My mind is too free to be understood by you. I was honest with myself and I have made my change. To Christianity. Why are you so afraid? Jesus doesn't bite! Jesus will set you free. ba: I was invited here by email by the originator of this thread. Because you do not consider atheists slandering Christianity as insults and mudslinging does not make them not so. Your perspective is from their angle. What's the matter? I can not question the atheist religion? Am I too threatening to their shakey core beliefs? Questioning a belief is a good thing. I question my beliefs all the time. But there is a difference between questioning someone's beliefs and totally ridiculing and denigrating the person that has that belief. Open your eyes, put your own anti Christian agenda aside and maybe you will see what I mean. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 189 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.157.134 |
sorry folks, i should know better than to engage franklin in a conversation. maybe we can get this thing back on track. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 309 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
foak: Why do you assume I am attacking you? You just called me a coward with no integrity and dishonest. Did you not? Yes you did. Now you turn the table around and I am attacking you? I speak of me and you speak of me. How onesided is this discussion? You've already implied in your ungentlemanly way that anyone who is a Christian is a coward, liar and lowlife. And you know how to conduct a civil discussion? I think not! | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 215 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.197.149.229 |
" you would know it is the Holy Spirit that guides each individual to a better understanding." Oh, if only this were true. Then we would have no need for the church, the bible, carnivorous televangelists, etc. The lack of guidance by the holy spirit is so evident as to be painful. If the holy spirit is acting on people, he/it is only doing on a scattered random basis. This debate should make that obvious. You have two well versed former christians, TO and Fatherof right here not being acted upon by the holy spirit. Apparently, they were so not acted upon, they stopped being christians. I did this too, although at a much younger age - admittedly, I don't share their knowledge of the bible. It seems if there was a holy spirit acting upon each individual, I would have never stopped believing. And Franklin, Your opinions would carry a lot more weight if you stayed on topic instead of attacking people's manners. Fatherofaking seems to be one of the most respectful posters on factnet. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 353 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 12.145.132.20 |
IHS, I agree with your assessment of FOAK and I also have gained alot of respect for BA2 over the years. Unfortunately, Franklin is stuck in a loop from which he cannot escape. Wouldn't it be handy if there really was a holy spirit guiding people around so that you didn't have to think for yourself and risk making mistakes? Franklin, could you please share with us your born again experience? I would love to know about it. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 88 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 130.123.225.69 |
Dear Ba: Sorry for my assuming that you believed the stolen body theory. I have no intention to ignore your posts, nor Trained Observer's , nor Bluewater2's. I do appreciate the time that you have already waited. Basically I am investing my time into producing more comprehensive responses rather than a little post here and there. Sorry if I've annoyed anyone for the delay. | ||
| searchlight86 New member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
ihs, regarding the Holy Spirit and 'salvation', this is one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but can be complex to discern in depth. In any case, it is a living relationship, it's not just man's decision or God's decision, but both, just as in any good relationship. Sounds like you are saying if there really was a Holy Spirit, no one would ever stop 'believing', but 'believing' has a quality and depth attached to it that accompanies 'permanent' salvation (which all true salvation is). Christ indicated many times that multitudes who called themselves by His name and even did miracles in His name were never known by Him. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 313 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
It has to do with OPENING YOUR HEART TO GOD humbly which allows the Holy Spirit to dwell within your soul. That has not been done by neither and you for as you have all stated you have no need for Christ or his father. Clean up your manners. Be men, not vicious little school girls, stop the backhanded insults and then maybe a civil discussion could proceed. Put down the atheist response book with the automated replies for everything a Christian says. Have a real discussion here with out the canned Madlyn O'Hare propaganda spiels. Have respect. Tolerance. But knowing the Torquemada Trio and their entourage that's probably too much to ask for. What is the attitude and motive behind their questions? Are they willing to learn from one of us out of respect? Attitude and motive of the questioner is everything when considering a response to a question. When I see a change in attitude from you for the better, an attitude of respect and tolerance then maybe I might share personal experiences. But until then like I said before I do not converse with rocks. term8d: I suspect ba is one who has watched all of the "Mysteries of the Bible" episodes on tv and has accepted that drivel as gospel. | ||
| termin8d Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 90 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Franklin: I like to give people here the benefit of the doubt. I do consider them to be expressing their honest opinion regarding the matters which have been raised. I haven't yet presented the case as fully or comprehensively as I have intended but in the meantime, perhaps you can add some points to the discussion regarding the historicity issue. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 314 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
I would like to do so also. I joined this discussion late not knowing where it was taking place. When I did the zombie remark set me off. I will add some comments later today on what you have presented here which I find your posts very informative, authoritative and well presented. Thanks. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 260 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.4 |
franklin, What supporting scripture leads you to believe that the text is referring to 'spirit bodies'? Can you make a case for this by chance? By 'spirit bodies' I guess you mean instead of zombies they were ghosts. How can this be seen as an improvement? Does anyone know of teachers, writers, commentaries, or published works that interprets Matt 27:52-53 other than people rising from bodily from the dead and being seen by other people? I am interested in seeing what they base their views on. One interestingly convoluted and reaching explanation is the cinematic flash forward of the "Temporal-Spatial Collapse in the Gospel of Matthew" by Kenneth L. Waters, Sr. from the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 122, No. 3 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231(200323)122%3A3%3C489%3AM2AAAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U You will have to copy and paste the URL into your browser it won't link properly. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 317 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
My my Mr. Bible Thumper is up early today commanding everyone to believe the Bible his way. But uh oh that's right you don't believe in the Bible. You don't believe in God. That's strange. And yet you insist I must believe in the Bible the way you believe in it. Am I missing something here? I believe that scripture is interpreted the way I believe it is written. God released "spirit" bodies from the graves. Not fleshy physical bodies. Not zombies as you put it. I do not have a consensus for that. Why would I? I read the Bible as an individual and interpret it as an individual. The Holy Spirit guides my heart as to the true understanding of God's word. Was that the kind of Christian you were when you were supposedly a Christian? A consensus Christian? A poll taking Christian? You didn't know what to believe until you had a solid majority telling you what to believe? That is not being Christian. That is not Christianity. You are a mass of contradictions boy. You claim to have been a Christian and yet you know nothing of the spirit. Never had a born again experience. God never spoke to you. Never had contact with the Holy Spirit. You were a zombie. The living dead. You are all confused not knowing how to respond because I do not fit your cookie cutter profile of an atheist's view of a Christian. You have your Skeptic's Bible that gives you a programmed denigrating response for every scripture in the Bible and yet when someone believes something slightly different than what your Skeptic's Bible gives you a canned response for you go bananas. You ask around factnet for a consensus on what I believe. Like as if I am not allowed to think for myself. You falsely pride yourself as an atheist for supposedly being a free thinker and yet you have no tolerance for someone who is not an atheist to think freely. You have a standing nail gets hammered down attitude. Neither bw or ihs dare to disagree with you on anything fearing the wrath of Torquemada. It's not like I read Genesis 3:16 and interpret it to read it that satan had sex with Adam and Eve. Or Genesis 3:20 reads that Eve is NOT the mother of ALL living. No Christians believe that. No Christians! Mighty strange how you want to hold my toes to the fire on what a Christian is supposed to believe and yet you have a double standard when it comes to ba. ba claims to be a Christian. ba doesn't believe that Christ resurrected. That someone stole the body. You don't need a consensus for that one. No Christian believes that. No Christian. Why do you not hold ba to the the same standards that you try to hold me to? Mighty strange. A mass of contradictions you are boy! Okay, I believe that verse means "spirit" bodies. You say it means physical bodies. Is that what you believe God did. Took dust particles that once were assembled into a human physical body and recreated those bodies so that they would witness the Messiah had come and walk the streets of Jerusalem? Is that what you believe God did? | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 261 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.13 |
I believe that scripture is interpreted the way I believe it is written. Wow. | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 123 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
Matt 27:52-53 never made any sense to me, but as a young child I believed everything I read in scripture. Except for a few key points, we generally were allowed to view things in a metaphorical sense though. Being allowed to read metaphorically gave me the freedom to look objectively at science and reject magical thinking, such as believing in the power of voodoo. Neither my ministers nor my teachers really spent time on that verse, so I really never gave it much though, until I started attending a fundamental church a few years ago. They insist just about everything is to be interpreted literally, such as the 6 days of creation and the numerous other miracles, including these bodies walking around. Now, through study, I became convinced that lines 52-53 were added text. I don’t have the citations handy, but a number of biblical scholars also agree with this point. Read the lines before and after and you can see how cleanly it flows. 50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent. 54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. 55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: If we include 52 and 53, they appear to be out of context and the flow is disjointed. Reading the text without 52 and 53 is a better flow of words. This is an example of corruption in the scripture. Unfortunately, some can’t fathom than some men are willing to change or add to the verses. Why can’t we find any collaboration whatsoever to this occurrence, including anywhere else in the bible? Simple, it never happened. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 262 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.13 |
All I'm doing, just like I've always done franklin, is asking you to explain why you believe what you believe. Meaningless sentences like "I believe that scripture is interpreted the way I believe it is written." are about all your good for. Also, your "The Holy Spirit guides my heart as to the true understanding of God's word. " suggests that you just believe whatever comes to you while your reading it. If that is it then so be it. It is obvious you don't have very many real thought through reasons for the things you say you believe and thats fine too. You shouldn't expect it to be fine for everyone else though. Some of us need real reasons to believe things. People who are in cults or are under the influence of them need more to go on. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 321 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
All I'm doing, just like I've always done trained observer, is asking you to explain why you believe what you believe. But you are always unable to do that. You just quotes atheist cliches at me like as if that is going to convince me what you say is true. Your ignorance of the Holy Spirit and it's purpose as a comforter, a teacher shows you never were a born again believing Christian. Just a zombie. So scratch ex Christian from your resume. If you really want real reasons to go on then do like I've told you to repeatedly. Look within you. All the answers to God's universe are within you. It's called your soul. It is your connection to God. Look within. Look to your soul. Am I speaking to a rock here? | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 216 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
OK, back to the topic. It seems that the information about Jesus was added and or modified/embellished after his death. That would explain the eight missing gospels, and the complete lack of anything actually written by Jesus. To me that seems like the toughest aspect that a believer must deal with. Jesus left the accounting of his life to his fallible human followers when he apparently had every opportunity to write it himself. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 325 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
Christ was not a scribe. He was a Rabbi. A preacher. He knew he only had so much time in the physical realm and he used His time very wisely. Wiser than you and I use ours. Where are the writings of John the Baptist? In the three years of Christ's ministry He has changed the world. And you, thousands like you before and after you will never be able to defeat him and his words. That old worn out atheist argument that Christ didn't write the New Testament himself didn't work 1,000 years ago like it just fell flat when you posted it. God knew that if Christ wrote one document that would be worshipped. Idolatry. No trace of Christ exists except for in our hearts. He only left behind the Holy Spirit. Christ instructed his disciples to go tell the nations of Him and they've done an excellent job. Your grasping at straws ihs. Despite all of your anger and jealousy and denial JESUS LIVES!!! | ||
| ba2 Intermediate Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 124 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 207.118.240.83 |
I think you meant 10 missing gospels. And getting back on topic would be nice. | ||
| trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 263 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.22 |
Back on topic. Did the Jesus portrayed in the Bible exist? It wouldn't seem to be so for several reasons. 1. Probability. a. Unlikely because of the unoriginal nature of the claims. (one messiah coming after and amongst many) Why him and not another? b. Distortions in the story over time. 2. Historical verification weak to non-existent. The Historical significance vs the historical evidence available doesn't balance out. 3. There is no evidence for the supernatural existing today therefore supernatural claims made in the past are unlikely as well. | ||
| jeff_franklin Intermediate Member Username: jeff_franklin Post Number: 330 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 67.9.9.73 |
The topic title is What happened to Jesus? Not did Jesus exist? | ||
| cauleen New member Username: cauleen Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 70.84.208.234 |
Exactly, Franklin. It's time we asked some serious questions. Tell me, what do you think Jesus would do for a Klondike Bar? | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 190 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.157.134 |
i guess if he didn't exist then we know what happened to him. | ||
| searchlight86 New member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 21 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.106.99.85 |
I must say this is not the first time I've suspected this and many other questions are disingenuous, simply to waste people's time with tired arguments long answered, even on FACTnet. I believe the following Bible verse reflects the situation here accurately: "And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept" (Luke 7:31-32). In any case, Christ's human life is not just referred to in the Bible but also by Roman and Babylonian historians (e.g. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny), and after exhaustive research many true experts on legal and historical evidence bent on disproving both Christianity and the resurrection with decades of their lives have reluctantly concluded that His physical resurrection is the best proved fact in ancient history. All other belief systems just ask you to blindly believe their teachings, but this is the only one that challenges you to check it against the hard evidence, and the only one that is supported by it. The reason I first considered Biblical Christianity is because it is the only 'religion' massively supported by evidence that can be objectively verified. It has the only set of 'scriptures' in the world that names real places, real people, has real historical accounts, and makes real scientific claims that all hold water when critically investigated, and it is also the only record that had a significant amount of future prophecy when written (~1/3). All other religions just don't come close to matching up to the overwhelming and flawless physical evidence. The so-called ‘higher criticisms’ of the Bible that are still generally taught in our universities have been completely discredited by the last 50 years of archealogy and are obsolete, so much so that no leading historian today would dare challenge the historicity of the Biblical text and destroy their own reputations, regardless of their theological beliefs. Many of the professors that still teach these outdated and unfounded hypotheses are aware that they are obsolete, but don’t want to change their course material for obvious personal reasons, and some have gone on record as saying it would simply be too much work to change their curriculum. Perhaps you should get back to genuine questions, if there are any. But more importantly, let me make a specific suggestion and challenge for those who don't believe the God of the Bible or Christ is real. In your own words, say a simple, *humble* prayer to God saying you don't know if He's real or not, so ask Him to make Himself real to you as an individual. I trust everyone here is secure enough in themselves that if God isn't real, this prayer won't change anything. Biblical faith has multiple elements, including belief and trust in the true God through Christ, in a humble spirit. Try this with a truly humble and open heart, and see if God provides you with the 'evidence' you need. Either you're open to discovering God or you're not. If you are genuinely open to discovering and following God, should His basic nature be completely good and infinitely loving as the Bible says (and as I have personally experienced), it is vital to do this and not just continue dancing in 'The Matrix'. And if you are fundamentally opposed and would reject God anyway, just admit it and stop fishing for information that won't help you. | ||
| ihavesinned Intermediate Member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 217 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
"No trace of Christ exists except for in our hearts." How convenient. It's the same with Islam's 12th Imam, the Mormon's magic plates or whatever they have, and every other religion. Not a shred of physical evidence. There is more physical evidence for UFOs. And searchlight, Most of us here did believe in god at some point. We have tried to talk to god and heard only crickets. So we gave up on him. There are some profound sentiments expressed in the bible. This does not mean god wrote it. Anyway, one of my favorites is (Matt 7:16 ) "Ye shall know them by their fruits" With fruits like Franklin, who needs vegetables? Christians (or any believers) are no different than anyone else - they have no special powers, no special insight, no proof that their beliefs garner any attention or intervention or action from any god. Their prayers are not answered, they are equally touched by the same fortune and tragedy as everyone else. Standing by for the "you will be rewarded in the afterlife" response. | ||
| bluewater2 Intermediate Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 354 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 12.145.132.20 |
|
