Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 4:56 AM
314 online now:
frako, PaulK (2 members, 312 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,604 Year: 27,210/21,208 Month: 1,123/1,714 Week: 331/525 Day: 6/67 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found.
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 46 of 58 (798352)
02-01-2017 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
01-13-2017 4:29 PM


So actually you have no evidence?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-13-2017 4:29 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 47 of 58 (800824)
02-28-2017 3:23 PM


More on visions and the rising from the dead issue among scholars.
Here we see that the late Marcus Borg accepts the visions as something that are historical.

quote:

Marcus Borg, Liberal Scholar on Historical Jesus, Dies at 72 - The ...

https://www.nytimes.com/...l-christian-scholar-dies-at-72.ht...
Jan 26, 2015 - Marcus J. Borg, a scholar who popularized a liberal intellectual approach ... Professor Borg became, in essence, a leading evangelist of what is ...
Missing: cnn


quote:

The following "facts" about Jesus would be affirmed by most history scholars, Borg said:
• Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C. He grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class. Jesus' father was a carpenter and he became one, too, meaning that they had likely lost their agricultural land at some point.
• Jesus was raised Jewish and he remained deeply Jewish all of his life. His intention was not to create a new religion. Rather, he saw himself as doing something within Judaism.
• He left Nazareth as an adult, met the prophet John and was baptized by John. During his baptism, Jesus likely experienced some sort of divine vision.
• Shortly afterwards, Jesus began his public preaching with the message that the world could be transformed into a "Kingdom of God."
• He became a noted healer, teacher and prophet. More healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition.
• He was executed by Roman imperial authority.
• His followers experienced him after his death. It is clear that they had visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life. Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be "Lord" or "the Son of God."
http://www.livescience.com/3482-jesus-man.html


Then James Tabor (the fundamentalist turned liberal Christian)who Pat questions the motives of)

https://jamestabor.com/...n-view-of-resurrection-of-the-dead

https://jamestabor.com/...nd-why-it-makes-all-the-difference


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 48 of 58 (802349)
03-15-2017 3:41 PM


Is Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (compelling evidence)
This is from part of Tabor's "There’s Something About Mary . . . Magdalene (Part 2)" article from a year ago (there were 4 parts under the same title, and this was part of his second Jan 10 2016 article). I find it to be interesting to say the least. He has endnotes referencing the academic sources. Understand that this is a fairly recent discovery on Tabor's part. He just never quits and his indefatigable efforts keep on bearing fruit and adding to the total sum of human knowledge. I have trouble deciding what of his online works to paste here. I want to keep the pastes to a minimum. I often wonder if new areas of science have been created in order to test this provocative Tomb theory in a falsifiable fashion.

This is not a scientific angle here (either through older DNA, Patina, etc. or newer issues like chemical composition of narrow Jerusalem soil areas), but the whole database search issue was really enlightening for me to read.

quote:

As many of my readers know the name Mariamene Mara is inscribed on one of the ossuaries or bone boxes in the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb. This ossuary, as well as the one inscribed “Judah son of Jesus,” is elaborately ornamented and the inscriptions are elegant and more formal in appearance than the graffiti like name tags that many ossuaries exhibit. The inscription Mariamene Mara is even more fascinating with regard to the mistaken assertion that the names in the Jesus tomb are exceptionally common. Clearly it is some form of the common name Mary or Mariam/Mariame in Hebrew—but what about its strange ending? And what is the significance of Mara?

Of the six inscriptions from the tomb this is the only one in Greek. In contrast to the ossuaries of Jesus, Maria, and Yoseh, which are plain, this woman was buried in a beautifully decorated ossuary. The venerable expert, Levi Rahmani had first deciphered her inscription in his Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries published in 1994. For most of us Rahmani has become the “Bible” for the study of ossuaries and their inscriptions. His keen eye and uncanny ability to decipher some of the most obscure inscriptions is legendary.

Rahmani read the inscription as Mariamene Mara. No one questioned his judgment for thirteen years—until the publicity about the Talpiot “Jesus tomb” hit the headlines. Suddenly everyone was scrambling, it seemed, to come up with arguments against those that Simcha Jacobovici had put forth for the first time in his 2007 Discovery Channel documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” There he had suggested, based on Rahmani’s reading, which no one had disputed at the time, that Mariamene was a unique form of the name Mary that was used by Jesus’ first followers when referring to Mary Magdalene.

Several scholars have subsequently suggested that Rahmani misread the Greek, and that it should read Mariame kai Mara—Mary and Martha, referring to two individuals, perhaps even two sisters buried together in this one ossuary.[viii] Since Mariame (without the final stem ending “n”) is the most common form of the name Mary in Greek, any argument about uniqueness would thus evaporate. The Mary in the tomb might have been any Mary of the time and she would be impossible to identify further. And her sister Martha would be equally unknown.[ix]

I find this new reading unconvincing and remain impressed with Rahmani’s original transcription. The inscription itself appears to be from a single hand, written in a smooth flowing style, with a decorative flourish around both names—pointing to a single individual who died and was placed in this inscribed ossuary. According to Rahmani, Mariamene is a diminutive or endearing variant of the common name Mariame or Mary.[x] Mariamene—spelled with the letter “n” or nu in Greek, is quite rare—only one other example is found on an ossuary.[xi] There are no other examples from this period—or as I have now discovered, in the entirely of Greek literature down through the late Middle Ages.

A couple of years ago I ran an exhaustive computer search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, a comprehensive digital database of Greek literature from Homer through 1453 CE. To my surprise I only found two ancient works that use Mariamn—with this rare “n” stem ending and both texts specifically referred to Mary Magdalene!

The first text is a quotation from Hippolytus, a third century Christian writer who records that James, the brother of Jesus, passed on secret teachings of Jesus to “Mariamene,” i.e., Mary Magdalene.[xii] There it was, in plain Greek—this unusual spelling of the name Miriame or Mary—precisely like the spelling on the ossuary. How could this be, since the ossuary was from the 1st century and Hippolytus was writing at least 150 hundred years later? According to tradition Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John—who of course knew both Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Perhaps it is this link of oral teaching, through three generations, that somehow had preserved this special name for Mary Magdalene. Its diminutive ending makes it a term of endearment—like calling someone named James “Jimmy,” or an Elizabeth “Betty.”

The second text that had uses the name Mariamene was a rare 4th century CE Greek manuscript of the Acts of Philip, dated to the 3rd or 4th century CE. Throughout the text Mary Magdalene is called Mariamene—again the precise form of the name found on the Talpiot tomb ossuary.

Some critics have argued that one has to jump to the third or fourth century to find a parallel to a 1st century name on an ossuary in order to try and argue it belongs to Mary Magdalene. Quite the opposite is the case. What the ossuary preserves is a rare endearing form of the common name Mariame. What should surprise us is that it shows up, out of the blue, in Hippolytus and the Acts of Philip—two centuries later, when referring to Mary Magdalene. They could not know anything about the ossuary or these inscriptions—so where did they get this tradition of the rare form of the name? That this rare form appears in these later sources strengthens rather than diminishes the argument here. If Mariamene is a late form of the name, only found in these 3rd and 4th century texts, as some have asserted—what is it doing on the Talpiot tomb ossuary?

It strains any credibility to imagine that Rahmani, who was unaware of any association whatsoever between his transcription of this ossuary inscription and identifications with Mary Magdalene in these later texts, would have mistakenly and accidently come up with this exceedingly rare form of the common name Mary. It seems clear to us that Rahmani’s keen eye and years of experience have unwittingly provided us with one of the most important correlations between the names in this tomb and those we might expect, hypothetically, to be included in a Jesus family tomb—a name uniquely appropriate for Mary Magdalene. Does it make any sense to think a misreading of the name in this inscription would end up producing two hits for Mary Magdalene? The force and implications of this evidence is so strong that a few scholars have even suggested that the text in Hippolytus somehow got corrupted. Again, it strains all credulity to maintain that mistakes, misreadings, and scribal areas would just happen to produce a match for an ossuary inscription in a 1st century Jerusalem tomb. What are the chances?

https://jamestabor.com/...ething-about-mary-magdalene-part-2


On another issue, I think this link, below, might supplement the double burial issues (and be relevant for the resurrection). I meant to include it at the end of the last post. The resurrection issues are important to get straight, because many will otherwise think that this type of research somehow is an attack on the Christian faith. Not only is it NOT anything of the sort, but actually Tabor's research (and specifically as it relates to the Tomb) seems to back up "Christianity" as it originally was.

https://jamestabor.com/...-easter-morning-the-mystery-solved

James Tabor has to be the most important scholar in the field of early Christianity IMO.


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2017 5:49 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 03-16-2017 2:30 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


(1)
Message 49 of 58 (802359)
03-15-2017 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by LamarkNewAge
03-15-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Is Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (compelling evidence)
James Tabor has to be the most important scholar in the field of early Christianity IMO.

Amazing though that nothing Tabor asserts has much evidence. He is a crank.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1539

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-15-2017 3:41 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-15-2017 8:06 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 51 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-16-2017 12:38 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 50 of 58 (802373)
03-15-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
03-15-2017 5:49 PM


Re: Is Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (compelling evidence)
The link isn't working. Was the criticism about Talpiot alone or other academic works?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2017 5:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 51 of 58 (802437)
03-16-2017 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
03-15-2017 5:49 PM


Some views of Tabor are.
1) That Paul not only knew of the virgin birth, but invented it (most scholars say he did not know of it)
https://jamestabor.com/did-paul-invent-the-virgin-birth/

2) That parts of the Gospel of Peter (which I incorrectly said earlier had the Christological view of Islam in it, actually I think it was the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter but I'm not sure and that isn't the issue here) date to the 50s CE.

https://jamestabor.com/...ending-of-the-lost-gospel-of-peter

Here is a relevant quote by a (outstanding)conservative evangelical scholar on the issue.

quote:

Jesus and Gospel
Graham Stanton
p.88

Even the Jesus Seminar accepts as authentic only five of the Logia of Thomas which are not found in the canonical four. And, for the complete gospels, are any earlier than the canonical four? Surely J. D. Crossan is exercising a vivid historical imagination when he claims that an early version of the Gospel of Peter was written in the fifties, perhaps in Sepphoris.


Here is Tabor responding to a good question, from a late friend and fellow scholar, on the issue of how Jesus could have only resurrected spiritually yet the Gospels say his body rose.

https://jamestabor.com/...-and-developed-a-newold-hypothesis

another link
https://jamestabor.com/the-first-and-second-burials-of-jesus

3) That The Dead Sea Scroll community believed in a resurrection. (which he was something of a trailblazer on since he published the very text in 1992 that started to turn the tide) (he and Marty Abbeg were attacked for publishing it FIRST in a popular publication then a journal slightly later in 1992)

link escapes me.

4) That Jesus thought himself the Messiah. (he bases his view on new Dead Sea Scroll Discoveries and 2 leading scholars published trailblazing work at the same time a while back)

quote:

In my post on “That Other King of the Jews,” I stressed my own conviction that Jesus of Nazareth thought of himself as much more than a teacher, prophet, or healer, but rather that he understood himself to be nothing less than the “one to come,” the Davidic Messiah or King of Israel. For most Christians such a messianic claim by Jesus is self-evident since it lies at the heart of all of our Gospel accounts, which are, as Mark puts things: “The good news of Jesus Christ the Son of God.”

In contrast, many of my academic colleagues in the field of Christian origins would argue that the identification of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah was one put on Jesus by his followers after his death, as part of their recovery of faith following the unanticipated shock of his crucifixion, not something he claimed himself. According to this understanding the scene in Mark where Jesus is confessed as Christ or Messiah by Peter is projected back into the life of Jesus, implying that he both anticipated his death and understood himself in the role of a “suffering Messiah”:

....
The vast majority of critical historians dealing with Christian Origins have taken the former position, put so succinctly by Rudolf Bultmann over a generation ago: the scene of Peter’s confession is an Easter story projected backward into Jesus’ lifetime (Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I: 26). That Jesus himself ever claimed to be the Messiah is considered unlikely,

https://jamestabor.com/...nd-predict-his-suffering-and-death


5) That Jesus was likely the son of a Panthera (he came at this based on the evidence plus he has done work on the issue like none other)

See Mary link in post 48.

https://jamestabor.com/...ng-the-original-followers-of-jesus

https://jamestabor.com/an-unnamed-father-of-jesus/

https://jamestabor.com/joseph-gone-missing/

https://jamestabor.com/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/

quote:

The “Jesus son of Panthera” Traditions

Archaeology / January 27, 2016

Predictably one of the more controversial topics in my book The Jesus Dynasty is my discussion in chapter 3 titled “An Unnamed Father of Jesus?” in which I treat the “Jesus son of Pantera/Pantira” traditions. The topic has generated more than one sensational headline as well as lots of disdainful treatment, particularly from evangelical Christian readers and reviewers. As my colleague Prof. Ben Witherington dismissively phrased it in his four-part 28 page single-spaced Blog review of my book, “Tabor trots out for us the shop-worn tale of Mary being impregnated by a Roman soldier named Pantera” (Witherington on Tabor’s Jesus Dynasty)


He has scholars like Richard Bauckham agreeing with parts of his theory. See my Mary link in post 48 too see non-hostile see first century Rabbanical sources that are relevant. Hegesippius is also very important.

6) He recently found the evidence too strong to ignore relative to Jesus being married to Mary. He didn't hold that view when he wrote Jesus Dynasty in 2006


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2017 5:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1349
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 52 of 58 (802445)
03-16-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by LamarkNewAge
03-15-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Is Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (compelling evidence)
I have trouble deciding what of his online works to paste here

Then stop it. The thread might be more interesting if you wanted to discuss something instead of spamming us with everything Tabor's ever written.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-15-2017 3:41 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-16-2017 5:57 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 53 of 58 (802473)
03-16-2017 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by caffeine
03-16-2017 2:30 PM


Re: Is Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (compelling evidence)
Well, I didn't mention anything but the Talpiot tomb issue (plus bare links that helped people read his reasons for understanding that the early Jesus community didn't have a bodily ressurection). Then I showed evidence that centered around the identification of the Mary tomb with the female that witnesses the risen Jesus according to the Gospels AND THAT did use a Tabor paste. Tbeodoric and Jar said he was a crank who can't back anything up. So I simply let people become aware of some of his disputed stances and offered mostly bare links in an effort to help people understand Tabor's difficulties in the endlessly complex researches he has undertaken. Alot of the things he works on are standalone issues and people think that shooting down one defeats every other issue he takes on. I need people to understand that Tabor and other scholars get their ideas rejected on a case by case basis, and actually the best of them fail to "seal the deal " with their colleagues more often than not WHEN MAKING PROPOSALS. There is a tentative nature to this whole scholarly enterprise and it can get rough when there is usually no hard science available to come to the rescue. Tabor is trying hard though and he will put his theories to any available scientific test. I wonder if the chemical composition test was a brand new spinoff that has no antecedent in scientific history. Regardless of the novelty, Tabor's theory passed the scientific test and infact the Jesus son of Joseph, Brother of James tomb does indeed come from The Talpiot Tomb.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 03-16-2017 2:30 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 54 of 58 (803717)
04-03-2017 11:01 PM


Origen of Alexandria on the defensive against the pagan Celsus.
I love this evangelical conservative scholar Stanton. I think the issues that the third century scholar and apologist Origen covers ( in his pre 250 BCE defense against the 2nd century pagan critic Celsus ) are relevant today.

quote:

Jesus and Gospel
Graham Stanton
Pages 151 to 152

Celsus' Jew advances vigorously the theory that the followers of Jesus 'saw' their recently crucified leader in a dream or hallucination. Origen's response is not very persuasive: 'Celsus's idea of a vision in the daytime is not convincing when the people were in no way mentally disturbed and were not suffering from delirium or melancholy. Because Celsus foresaw this objection he said that the woman was hysterical : but there is no evidence of this in the scriptural account ' (11.60).

This discussion reminds us of the ultimate futility of trying to seek proof one way or the other. 'Vision' or 'hallucination', how can one decide? Surely the matter can be settled only on the basis of wider considerations, which are theological rather than historical or psychological.

....

Origen knows full well that proof of the historicity of an incident in the gospels is difficult and in some cases impossible (1.42). He knows that he cannot sidestep allegations that the text of the gospels has been tampered with (11.27) and that the resurrection narratives contain discrepancies (v.55-6). He repudiates 'mere irrational faith', and insists that readers of the gospels need an open mind and considerable study. 'If I may say so', he writes, 'readers need to enter into the mind of the writers to find out with what spiritual meaning each event was recorded.' Is this the way faith and reason should be held together in discussion of the resurrection narratives? Is there still a place for discerning 'spiritual meaning' by Origen's own method of allegorical interpretation? If so, what criteria will guard against 'irrational faith'?



    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10026
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 55 of 58 (822985)
11-04-2017 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ringo
01-20-2017 11:05 AM


Re: Conclusion
ringo writes:

Why is it that believers are skeptical about evidence but not about unevidenced beliefs?

I cannot speak for all believers of course but one reason may be that some of us do not trust the motivation of those who go out of their way to gather evidence against the plausibility of Jesus existing, for example. They never get this bent out of shape over other historical and/or mythological characters.

I recently read a good article, Forget Santa Claus, Virginia. Was there a Jesus Christ?
Theodoric mentioned three scholars who, according to this article based on their approach are labeled as The New Atheists. Faith mentioned Bruce Metzger, of whom one of his best students was Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is an agnostic who has an impressive scholarly background and who supports the idea of a Historical Jesus...whereas many of the new atheists deny even that.

quote:
I consider them atheist fundamentalists. They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, there are very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good.— Paul Kurtz

To their credit, the New Atheists oppose religion blending with politics.
The Guardian writes:

What's clear is that this wave of New Atheism is deeply political - and against some of its targets even a devout churchgoer might cheer them on. What they all have in common is a loathing of an increasing religiosity in US politics, which has contributed to a disastrous presidency and undermined scientific understanding. Dennett excoriates the madness of a faith that looks forward to the end of the world and the return of the Messiah. What Dawkins hates is that most Americans still haven't accepted evolution and support the teaching of intelligent design; according to one poll, 50% of the US electorate believe the story of Noah. He argues that "there is nothing to choose between the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian equivalent ... The genie of religious fanaticism is rampant in present-day America."

This debate is far from over, but I fear that the Christians have few intellectual weapons on their side. Ehrman, an agnostic, actually makes the most sense in my mind.
Ehrman writes:

Believers and skeptics can argue with each other, and among themselves, about exactly who Jesus was and what he meant, Ehrman said in an interview. But arguing that Jesus did not exist “is such a ridiculous proposition.”

Ehrman said beyond the non-Christian references to Jesus from the era, scholars can plausibly trace elements in the Gospels to shortly after the time Jesus was killed. That fact, and the historical details in the Gospels have convinced “virtually every scholar … in the Western world” that Jesus existed.
He also noted that while the Apostle Paul never met Jesus in the flesh — a point the Jesus deniers often make — in his many New Testament writings Paul mentions that he does know Jesus’ brother, James. “If Jesus didn’t exist, you’d think his brother would know about it!” Ehrman said with a laugh.
But to Ehrman, the most convincing argument that Jesus was a real person is that it would have made no sense to invent a crucified messiah because that is the opposite of what everyone was expecting at the time. In other words, it wasn’t a good sales pitch.

Besides, if Jesus was the product of a conspiracy, one would think that the conspirators would have gotten their stories straight and not have left lots of conflicting details.

Some of these arguments mirror our arguments here at EvC. Their thesis generally includes a number of arguments:

  • The Gospels were written decades after Jesus supposedly lived.

  • They are unreliable because they were written by promoters of the Christian myth.

  • The Gospel accounts are suspiciously incomplete, with few details of Jesus’ life.

  • Many elements of the Gospels conflict or contradict each other.

  • There are no contemporary references to Jesus from non-Christian sources.

  • The death and resurrection of Jesus mirrors other pagan myths of the time.

    It is ironic that an agnostic can defend the Christian position better than believing Christians can!


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 32 by ringo, posted 01-20-2017 11:05 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 56 by ringo, posted 11-05-2017 2:08 PM Phat has responded

      
  • ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13864
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.6


    Message 56 of 58 (823049)
    11-05-2017 2:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
    11-04-2017 12:45 PM


    Re: Conclusion
    Phat writes:

    I cannot speak for all believers of course but one reason may be that some of us do not trust the motivation of those who go out of their way to gather evidence against the plausibility of Jesus existing, for example. They never get this bent out of shape over other historical and/or mythological characters.


    You're projecting. YOU wouldn't get bent out of shape if somebody suggested that George Washington mistreated his slaves, would you? You'd want to know the truth, wouldn't you? So why do YOU get bent out of shape if people want to know the truth about Jesus?

    Phat writes:

    It is ironic that an agnostic can defend the Christian position better than believing Christians can!


    What's ironic is that "believing Christians" are the ones who want to throw the message away if the messenger doesn't measure up to their expectations.

    Suppose your postman was cheating on his wife. Would you tear up the cheque he brings?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Phat, posted 11-04-2017 12:45 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by Phat, posted 11-05-2017 3:02 PM ringo has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 10026
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 57 of 58 (823057)
    11-05-2017 3:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
    11-05-2017 2:08 PM


    Metaphors Galore
    ringo writes:

    Suppose your postman was cheating on his wife. Would you tear up the cheque he brings?

    Let's get our metaphors straight. A postman is a messenger who delivers messages originating from others. Jesus is more than just the messenger. In my belief, of course. Metaphorically speaking, I would be the postman's wife whom he was cheating on, in which case I dunno what I would do!

    Of course, if we base the Bride of Christ metaphor on only the church we then circle back into our sheep and goats judgment. Imagine how the Bride(goats) would feel if her husband was cheating on her with *gasp* atheists and Wiccans!


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by ringo, posted 11-05-2017 2:08 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 58 by ringo, posted 11-06-2017 10:40 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13864
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.6


    Message 58 of 58 (823114)
    11-06-2017 10:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
    11-05-2017 3:02 PM


    Re: Metaphors Galore
    Phat writes:

    Metaphorically speaking, I would be the postman's wife whom he was cheating on, in which case I dunno what I would do!


    The question remains: What would you do with the cheque?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by Phat, posted 11-05-2017 3:02 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Prev123
    4
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017