Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 5:57 AM
194 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 191 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,739 Year: 18,562/29,783 Month: 507/2,043 Week: 59/386 Day: 9/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6869
70
7172
...
77Next
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 1036 of 1152 (844216)
11-26-2018 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by GDR
11-26-2018 7:33 PM


Timeless Father, Human Son
Percy writes:

So in your view Jesus was just someone with a strong political intuition? Hardly seems like someone worth worshipping or building a religion around. What happened to all the other mumbo jumbo about miracles and resurrection and rising to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God and being part of the trinity and having existed since the beginning of time?

GDR writes:

I didn't deny any of that, but in addition He was a prophet who preached a message of the nature of God and how it was and is to affect our lives. I would add that John chap 1 explains the part of Jesus existing from the beginning of time. John tells us that the "Word" or Logos of God existed from before time. He then goes on to say that the "Word" became flesh obviously referring to Jesus. Jesus had a time and place of birth, but then perfectly embodied God's nature, the Word or wisdom of God. Put another way Jesus had The Father's spiritual DNA.

I was going to build off of this idea in my new topic if anyone promotes it. God is timeless and is past, present, and future. Jesus was and is Gods character and is timeless in His nature yet bound by time as a human while on earth. Percy if you get a chance can you promote my new topic?


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
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 7:33 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1037 of 1152 (844226)
11-26-2018 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1021 by GDR
11-26-2018 3:33 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:

Percy writes:

I didn't mean that they were all that late. When I said "by the time the gospels were written" maybe I should have said, "by the time all the gospels had been written." The last one would have been written some time between 100 and 150 AD.

That's an open question but it isn't germane anyway as they aren't original material but compilations of earlier material primarily the eye witnesses.

They *do* include earlier material, but not of eyewitnesses since no one could witness something that could never possibly have happened.

Percy writes:

I think that even in the very early days of Christianity when Paul was establishing the first churches that most of the converts were gentiles. The message of Paul was very different from the message of Jesus as expressed in the gospels. Paul brought a message for all mankind, not just Jews.

Frankly I have no idea of how many of the first Christians were Jewish or gentile but all of the early Christian leaders were Jewish.

By early Christian leaders you mean the apostles? They are Jewish but fictional. Or do you mean the leaders of the churches founded by Paul? There's no evidence they were Jewish.

Paul was essentially the first theologian who used the first written and oral accounts to crystallize Jesus' life and message.

Nothing from Paul's epistles appears in the gospels. Nothing from the gospels appears in Paul's epistles. They reflect different religious traditions.

Percy writes:

Then what you believe is coming from within yourself and has no objective reality.

Yes, but it is my subjective reality. I believe it is that still small voice in all of us. I understand that still small voice to be the voice of the God in the Holy Spirit that speaks to us, but as a Christian I acknowledge that it isn't me but God, hopefully but far from fully, working through me.

You're welcome to your subjective reality.

Percy writes:

You're repeating the exact same arguments you made before and ignoring the rebuttal. The rebuttal is unchanged and still unaddressed, I'll repeat it. Obviously the message resonated with potential converts, evangelists would have increased their emphasis on what worked, being a leader in a religious movement does have rewards, and you're objecting to things that are true of many new religions. We observe them today all the time, like embracing persecution, encouraging an "us versus them" mentality, giving up worldly things, etc.

Once again, religions are based on human understandings . They are our attempt at understanding the nature of God and how, if at all, that should affect how we live and what we do. If we look at the rise of the very early Jesus followers they werent starting a new religion but were looking at reforming Judaism in a society that was hostile to their message and that separated them from friends, neighbours, culture and even threatened their lives.

That's the story of the gospels, not the story of Paul's epistles.

Lets look at your points one at a time. Embracing persecution. If someone is going to embrace persecution for their faith it has to be something that they very firmly believe in.

Of course. Many non-Christians have gone to their deaths for their religious beliefs. Firmly believing something doesn't make one right. Having evidence is what makes one likely right, or at least more likely than the person with no evidence.

For the first Christians it was all about the belief that God had resurrected Jesus. This was an event in their lifetimes and for which many would have been eyewitnesses.

There's no evidence that there's ever been a resurrection, let alone eyewitnesses to it.

Even Paul would have dealt with those who were eyewitnesses and would have to have read or heard a very convincing argument to cause him to make such a radical change in his life and beliefs. He went from a person with a comfortable lifestyle, prestige and influence and completely embraced one that meant he depended on the largess of others and spent considerable time in prison.

Acts is fiction. Paul didn't have to deal with eyewitnesses because there weren't any.

Encouraging an "us versus them" mentality. It wasnt like that at all. It was a message that was for everyone of every nation and was, (and still is), a message that is intended to bring nations together in peace. Certainly, there have been Christians who have badly abused the basic message for their own purposes but that doesnt negate Jesus message of love your neighbour AND your enemy.

You were the one who brought up persecution when you quoted Mark 13, specifically verse 9: "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death,..."

Giving up worldly things. The Christian idea of giving up worldly things isnt specific to Christianity of course. The point is that we should give up worldly things either for the point that they arent good for us or that it is for the benefit of others. It goes back to the point that we should love ourselves, (meaning that we dont do things that are harmful to the our lives that are a gift from God), and that we do give up our worldly things, such as our time and finances, for the benefit of our neighbours, including our neighbours of all nations.

You were the one who brought up giving up worldly things when you spoke about all the material sacrifices that Paul and the early Christians had to make.

In reading the Gospels it is obvious that the writers believed them to be essentially truthful.

I believe what I'm writing to be essentially truthful. Does that mean you should accept what I say? Of course not. Then why are you asking me to accept what the gospels say just because the anonymous authors (who probably also believed snakes could talk) believed them to be essentially truthful?

They are compiled as factual and from earlier accounts.

Even you don't believe them factual. You keep referring to your subjective beliefs, then resume arguing that the gospels are factual.

The earlier accounts would almost certainly have been given by eye witnesses or by their contemporaries. (I realize that there is no factual evidence that this I true but it is consistent with what is written.)

The gospels are without evidence and are not consistent with one another, and theologically they differ from Paul. Perhaps the gospels and epistles represent the differing theologies of Peter and Paul.

The accounts do not write about the disciples in a positive way but show them to be self focused. There was a belief amongst many Jews that there would be a general resurrection, of presumably Jewish people, at the end of time, but there is no account anywhere of anyone anticipating this happening to anyone in the middle of time.

Why do you think the introduction of a new idea is an indication that it must be factually true?

Percy writes:

But as Tangle keeps reminding you, the evidence isn't in your book. You're just telling yourself that there must have been evidence because otherwise Paul's conversion would make no sense. But look around you at new religions that form today. Where is their evidence? They have none, right? So why do you believe people in the Bible must have had evidence that is nowhere described in the Bible?

Actually, Luke talks about it.

quote:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

You're arguing that because Luke was full of self praise that it must be true? Seriously?

But your response doesn't address the point: the evidence isn't in your book. You're just assuming things that aren't there.

Percy writes:

This is just something you believe, not something you have any evidence for. He (Paul) sure didn't go to Peter.

We have accounts of Paul having several disagreements with Peter. Peter argued for circumcision for example as he believed that gentiles should follow Jewish practices whereas Paul was very firmly against it. Obviously Paul did interact with Peter at various times.

Yes, precisely, that's what I've been saying all along, that Paul and Peter did not agree, so Paul wouldn't seek out Peter for his ideas.

Percy writes:

Paul's epistles predate the gospels, and the differences indicate a period of mythmaking.

Possibly, we really dont know.

Of course we know. Just for one example from the gospels there's walking on water. Of course there was a period of mythmaking.

There is disagreement on the whole issue.

Of course there's disagreement, a great deal of it because Christians can't even agree among themselves, and you've admitted to picking and choosing what to believe and what not.

It isnt a big issue for me but I actually think your statement is wrong. If the Gospels were compiled after 70AD or even after the start of the war in 66AD they would have recorded it. They were however compiled in a way that appears to have the Temple still standing and there is no mention of any revolution taking place. As Jesus had forecast the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple it would be only logical that they would make a note of the events thereby confirming that Jesus predictions had come to pass. This being the case there is a strong likelihood that the Gospels were compiled prior to some of the epistles, but certainly not prior to the information that existed either in written or oral form that was used to compile the Gospels.

Many Bible scholars believe the Pauline epistles to be the oldest books of the New Testament. Mark wrote later when the sacking of Jerusalem was a recent memory. The other gospel authors wrote at further distance in both time and space when Christianity was much less Jewish and the Temple no longer important.

GDR writes:

Well we agree then that it didn't help them materially and can you explain how they would think that it would help them spiritually if they didn't actually believe it to be true. Considering the cost of what they were doing they would have to be pretty convinced that they had it right.

Percy writes:

You're just repeating your original failed argument. The answer hasn't changed. Many new religions make material sacrifices for spiritual gain. We observe it in real time today. How are Christian origins any different?

You didnt answer the question. If the first Christians including the disciples were not convinced of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, then why would they believe that there was anything to be gained by carrying on a mission based on Jesus resurrection?

If you look at all you quoted you asked a couple different questions. About the question that has as its premise that I think the first Christians didn't consider the resurrection authentic, I never said anything like this, so I ignored the question. I don't know what I said that led you to think this.

About it not improving their "quality of life" and not helping them materially and having a "cost", I already answered this argument. Many new religions make material sacrifices for spiritual gain. We observe it in real time today. How are Christian origins any different?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 3:33 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14545
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1038 of 1152 (844230)
11-27-2018 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1030 by GDR
11-26-2018 5:26 PM


Re: Jesus' resurrection
quote:

Hyroglyphx already answered that for you in post 995.

Hyroglyphx gave a list of sources, two of which give brief mentions adding nothing to the Gospels, one of which is late, includes likely fictions, and in others may be speaking of someone else entirely.
The other two dont say ANYTHING about the historical Jesus.

So no, in message 994 Hyroglyphx did not answer my point (a list of sources does not tell you their contents!) and his list had very serious problems. You should have read the actual post 995 - my response.

quote:

What quotes do we have of anything that Caesar said?

Nice attempt to divert but irrelevant. Words attributed to Jesus by unreliable sources decades after the fact hardly compare with Caesars own account of the Gallic Wars. Let alone the rest.

quote:

That is my point. The passages were about the end of the age, (the age being the period of Roman occupation), and not the end of the world. It was an anti-revolutionary message.

The fact that the Roman occupation continued would be sufficient to disprove it then. However, Your point is wrong in other ways - it doesnt say that the Jews shouldnt revolt. It pretty much says that they will, and that although they suffer God will intervene and they will win. God didnt intervene, they lost.

quote:

I'm sorry but that just doesn't hold water and I've already explained why several times in this thread.

By using arguments I refuted earlier. Sorry the idea that humans must react in exactly the same way if a situation is even vaguely similar is nonsense. The fact that you continue to rely on it only shows that you have no good arguments, only lame excuses.

Until you can cope with your own ridiculous bias you are in no position to present yourself as a seeker of the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1030 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 5:26 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6344
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1039 of 1152 (844242)
11-27-2018 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1034 by GDR
11-26-2018 7:01 PM


Re: Matthew
GDR writes:

It is a universal message,

I suppose you're right in a way, in that apparently it can be interpreted anyway anybody wants. That's as universal as it's possible to get.

It helps of course that the belivers can delude themselves and so turn black into white like you just did by saying that when it says that the Son of Man is coming to earth From heaven it actually means that he's going from earth back to his Father IN heaven. And this is because of a prophecy centuries before. That is genuinely worrying.

it is originally written in the language and understanding of a 1st century Jew.

This reminds me of something Hitchens used to say - something like 'there's nothing written in the bible that couldn't have been written by a man in that time'. What he's saying is that the bible was an opportunity to give the world a message that eveyone would undertand no matter what era they were born in. It would contain things that only people of different times could understand. It doesn't do any of that, it's specific to its time.

I am simply working at sorting out what I believe to be true as are all of us who think about this stuff.

Yes, you're making stuff up and others are making different stuff up. What kind of message is that apart from a rubbish one?

It seems to me that were are in a lot of ways we are experiencing a reformation of Christianity that largely takes us back to the Christianity of Paul and the early church.

The result of the questioning of the bible - that has only been allowed to happen by the intitutions of religion in the last couple of hundred years - has been a massive decline in its power and membership. It's been exposed to the light and it hasn't benefitted from it.

I suppose that it's very relevant to this discussion. How are your beliefs relevant?

What you or I believe is irrelevant to whether what is written in the bible is true. All I've been doing is cutting and pasting the text and trying to get you to accept it's plain meaning. In return you tell us what you believe in means according to your interpretation based on somebody else's interpretaion of what a 1st century Jew might believe about a previous dodgy prophesy in a different book.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 7:01 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1040 of 1152 (844248)
11-27-2018 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1022 by GDR
11-26-2018 3:45 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:

There are 66 books in the library we call the Bible. There are no doubt hundreds of writers actually involved and the books were written centuries apart. Each writer had his own motivation and source of knowledge. The writers who wrote about the atrocities were in all likelihood responsible to their leaders who could hold the power of death over them. Also, they would want to support the actions of their nation.

And how do you decide which writers wrote what their leaders wanted or what was consistent with their patriotic feelings instead of what was true?

God told us to do it is easy to say but can be used to justify anything, good or evil, you want it to.

Yes, of course. In fact, everyone saying anything about the nature or actions of God is making it up.

The accounts or resurrection and miracles are confirmed by several authors, and numerous other sources in the Bible,...

There are no accounts confirming anything like resurrections or miracles.

...and they are not at all consistent with what the Jews believed about what a messiah was supposed to be or do.

Why do you think introducing a new idea invalidates it?

I have written in several posts in this thread about why the Gospel accounts would not be something that they would fabricate.

Others have written many more posts about why it *is* something that could be fabricated. My view is that a messiah that the Romans tried to kill but couldn't resonated with enough people of that time to begin a new religious movement.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1022 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 3:45 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1041 of 1152 (844250)
11-27-2018 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1026 by Phat
11-26-2018 4:32 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
Phat writes:

Percy writes:

I believe Jesus never existed because of the lack of any evidence that he ever existed.

By this do you mean objective replicable evidence or do you mean personal subjective experience? (which would tentatively qualify as evidence---at least of an unknown event)

Personal subjective experience? All experience is subjective. If I'm the only one experiencing something then of what use is that? It is only when our personal subjective experiences are replicated and validated by the same personal subjective experiences of others that we come to believe we might have learned something true about the real world. We all live in this real world where those things about it that are true for any given individual are true for everyone else, too.

Percy writes:

I believe the origin stories of Christianity are false because all religions are false.

Sounds as if you have reached a conclusion.

Of course I've reached a conclusion, but it's an unavoidable one. All religions can't be true. At most only one can be true. Most likely none are true. Then you've got GDR making personal subjective decisions about what parts of the Bible are true and which are not, which I'm fine with, but then he can't argue that there's any objective basis for his beliefs, which he readily concedes (this doesn't explain why he argues so passionately for the truth of some parts of the Bible - if can make his own personal subjective decisions about what parts of the Bible are true, why aren't others granted the same privilege?).

Do you think that this conclusion would interfere with your possible subjective experience?

Our subjective perceptions can only receive some measure of validation when they coincide with the subjective perceptions of others - I'm just referring to replication again. You're standing at a pedestrian crossing at a New York City intersection. The sign says "Don't Walk" or has some equivalent symbol, and no one is crossing the street as the traffic flows by. Then the traffic stops, the sign changes to "Walk" or some equivalent symbol, and everyone begins crossing the street. Shared experience, strong evidence of everyone seeing the same thing, that the light did actually change from "Don't Walk" to "Walk", is an example of how we move from subjectivity toward objectivity.

Religious experiences are an entirely different beast. You can feel that God speaks to you within your mind, but that isn't something that other people can also experience, for the same reasons that other people can't experience your feelings of happiness or sadness. All religious experiences are subjective, individual, personal, non-replicable, non-verifiable. All you can do, for example, is share how it felt to accept Jesus into your heart with other people, and they can confirm that they felt similarly when it happened to them, but there's no method that can verify in any objective way that you actually had the same experience or felt the same way.

In other words, would you dismiss an event simply because you foreknew that all such events were impossible based on current understanding?

I'll accept that for which there is evidence. In addition we all carry a history of experience and knowledge of the experiences of others within our mind. We all know a woman can't survive being cut in half, and so we know that the woman was not really cut in half. If you hear an amazing new preacher speak, when you see the apparition of Jesus floating before you upon the stage will you listen to the knowledge and experience you already possess, or will you chuck it all and empty your wallet into the donation basket they pass around.

In other words, get real and stop hoping for miracles that are never going to happen.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1026 by Phat, posted 11-26-2018 4:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15737
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1042 of 1152 (844254)
11-27-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1022 by GDR
11-26-2018 3:45 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:

There are 66 books in the library we call the Bible. There are no doubt hundreds of writers actually involved and the books were written centuries apart. Each writer had his own motivation and source of knowledge. The writers who wrote about the atrocities were in all likelihood responsible to their leaders who could hold the power of death over them. Also, they would want to support the actions of their nation. God told us to do it is easy to say but can be used to justify anything, good or evil, you want it to.
The accounts or resurrection and miracles are confirmed by several authors, and numerous other sources in the Bible, and they are not at all consistent with what the Jews believed about what a messiah was supposed to be or do. I have written in several posts in this thread about why the Gospel accounts would not be something that they would fabricate.


You're just confirming what I said: You cherry-pick the parts you like and hand-wave the parts you don't like. It's just ridiculous to pretend that nobody "would" fabricate the stories in the New Testament.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1022 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 3:45 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by GDR, posted 11-27-2018 11:20 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15737
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1043 of 1152 (844256)
11-27-2018 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1024 by Phat
11-26-2018 4:24 PM


Re: Is Cherries The Goal?
Phat writes:

What if we were being seduced by an evil entity who blinded us to the truth?


What if there was a conspiracy to make us think we were being seduced by an evil spirit? What if there was a conspiracy to make us think there was a conspiracy?

The problem with conspiracy theories is that you can't tell where the conspiracy ends.

Phat writes:

If some invisible force were to knock you over, are you going to simply sit on the ground awaiting evidence or are you going to react as if you are facing a threat?


I haven't said anything about "waiting for evidence". What I would do is get up, dust myself off and continue with what I was doing. What I would NOT do is conclude, without evidence, that an evil spirit had knocked me over. I would accept the only evidence I had, that gravity was still in effect and maybe that the coefficient of friction between my shoes and the ice was insufficient. I would not consider either gravity or friction a "threat".

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1024 by Phat, posted 11-26-2018 4:24 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15737
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1044 of 1152 (844257)
11-27-2018 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1025 by Phat
11-26-2018 4:26 PM


Re: Is Cherries The Goal?
Phat writes:

OK, but not everyone has had it. Everyone does not share in the experience until they have had it. Even then, the only people that have had it are a subgroup. It is never everybody.


What's your point? I'm saying that the experiences that you attribute to "God" are not unique to you. Other people who have similar experiences do not attribute them to your God. So your experiences are not evidence.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1025 by Phat, posted 11-26-2018 4:26 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1045 of 1152 (844301)
11-27-2018 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1027 by GDR
11-26-2018 4:45 PM


Re: Jesus' resurrection
GDR writes:

Percy writes:

Jesus wasn't a real person.

I find it hard to believe that you believe that. We have more written about the life of Jesus than we do any other historical figure from around that time and for even many years later.

You're using the argumentum ad populum fallacy? Really?

Percy writes:

Whoever wrote Mark is putting words in his mouth at a time when the destruction of the Temple lay in the past.

Then why wouldn't Mark say that, see , Jesus was right, it happened?

Is stepping outside the story to offer commentary ever something Mark actually does? Anyway, obviously Mark is writing for a community already very familiar with the destruction of the Temple. Mark was writing near enough in time for it to still be a recent event, and near enough to Jerusalem for it to be relevant.

Percy writes:

Mark wasn't writing in Jerusalem and wouldn't know how complete the destruction.

C'mon Percy. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and by that time the war had been going on for 4 years. Mark doesn't mention the war, and no matter where he was in the area he would be aware of what had happened to Jerusalem and the Temple in very short order.

Of course, but evidently what he heard was that none of the Temple was left standing, which is untrue. Why would that matter to you - you're not an inerrantist.

Percy writes:

It's pretty obviously a reference to what Jews actually did ("head for the hills") after the destruction of Jerusalem.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense, however, even saying you're right then it is obvious that Mark was not writing about end times but about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

I assumed we were talking about where Mark writes about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I haven't mentioned the end times once in this thread, except just now to deny ever mentioning it.

Percy writes:

Yours is just one interpretation of a confusion of information gathered from conflicting sources, but more importantly, this is not a counter to, "How handy to have a martyr, especially one who defeated death, rose to heaven to sit by God." Whatever your goals, whether worldly or heavenly, if your leader is dead then claiming he defeated death and was carried bodily up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God is just making the best of a bad situation.

I'm really sorry to be rude, but that again is ridiculous.

You're not being rude, and it isn't ridiculous.

Why on earth would any of them want to carry on a movement that is based on the leader being crucified which very clearly says that he is just another failed messianic figure?

Let me ask you a question first: Why are you shifting the focus from the resurrection to the crucifixion? It sure isn't the crucifixion that Christians think amazing.

It would require the collaboration of a huge number of people. There is no benefit either earthly or spiritually for them to do that.

Actually all it requires is a single person telling a story that other people believe.

Percy writes:

But even more importantly, these events never happened. All the different interpreters of these Jesus stories are just arguing over fiction.

That is your unevidenced opinion based on your theological beliefs.

That you have no evidence is neither opinion nor theology - it's a fact. Unevidenced assertions require no rebuttal beyond noting the lack of evidence.

GDR writes:

Nobody after the Maccabees were put to death did anyone suggest that Judas Maccabees was resurrected even though he talked about resurrection. Everyone assumed that it would be resurrection at the end of time. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Gioria was resurrected in 70 AD. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Kokhba was resurrected in 135 AD. All of these guys led revolts that had varying degrees of military success and were put to death by the Romans. They were simply regarded as failed messiahs and then people looked for another messiah to lead them. (The idea pretty much dies out after 135 AD however.)

Percy writes:

Why do you think this helps your case?

I think that it is pretty clear.

This oughta be good.

There were numerous messianic movements within a hundred years or so around the time of Jesus. In each case they were ended by the Romans executing the messianic figures and in most cases whatever followers they could get hold of. Many of these such as the Maccabees, Simon bar Giora and Simon bar Khokhba...

All known to be historically real.

...all had a fair amount of military success. The Maccabees reigned for 100 years. When they were executed by the Romans and nobody suggested that they were still alive in some fashion, let alone that they had been resurrected.

Of course. So?

When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him...

After Jesus was crucified the apostles considered Jesus a failed messiah? This isn't an important point for me, but now I'm curious. You already know I think the gospels are fiction, but I *have* read them, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. If you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels, where do they say this? Thanks.

...and went into hiding not wanting to suffer the same fate.

This doesn't sound familiar either. Can you help me out again?

Then, all that changed and it would take something very dramatic.

Let's assume what you just said is true about what the gospels say, that after Jesus' crucifixion the apostles were depressed and in hiding, but then he was resurrected and the apostles became reenergized. This is the classic twist used in fiction stories since the beginning of time - just when things seem most hopeless something comes to the rescue. This exact plot must appear on TV dozens of time every day. The hero is dead. All is lost. Everyone's sad. But wait, his eyes flicker, he's alive! All is saved. Everyone erupts in joyous celebration!

How can you not see that your Jesus story is just another variant on an overdone plot?

Percy writes:

Paul is the founder of Christianity. He had his beliefs, but there's nothing to indicate they formed from evidence, nothing to indicate he observed anything recounted in the gospels, nothing to indicate he was close to any of the apostles, and Acts tells us that Paul and Peter disagreed.

Paul is not the founder of Christianity. Christianity was founded firstly as a Jewish reform movement eventually becoming a separate religion. Luke records this in Acts 11.

quote:
26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Of course Paul's the founder of Christianity. Peter is the founder of an earlier tradition that Paul co-opted. Paul has a different theology than the Gospels and Peter.

Also of course, as you have agreed Paul interacted with Peter and so it is obvious that he would have interacted with all of the remaining disciples.

Gee, funny, the other apostles receive no mention. Probably because they were invented to give Jesus 12 apostles to correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.

Paul is essentially the first theologian of the new movement...

Peter preceded Paul. Or I guess you could say Paul superseded Peter. But either way, are you calling Paul the first theologian because you think Peter inadequate to the task?

...and was the primary leader responsible for spreading the belief to the gentiles.

Hey, something we agree on.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1027 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 4:45 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1046 of 1152 (844304)
11-27-2018 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by GDR
11-26-2018 7:33 PM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:

Percy writes:

So are you, while fooling yourself that what you believe is some 1st century understanding.

I've already explained to Tangle why that isn't the case, which isn't to say that I do it perfectly.

Yes, I saw your reply to Tangle, and the answer was unsatisfactory, so I commented, too. You *are* just fooling yourself about the most obvious things, like which direction Jesus is going.

Percy writes:

If Christianity is based upon a real person, there is no evidence it was a 1st century person. Jesus could have been a BC person.

What has that got to do with anything. Zero. AD/BC represents somewhat inaccurately the birth of Jesus.

You must have thought I was referring to the ambiguity of a few years about when, traditionally, they believe Jesus was born. What I actually meant was that Jesus, if he was real, might have lived his entire life in the first century BC. Maybe the character of Jesus is based upon someone even earlier, maybe the Teacher of Righteousness of the second century BC mentioned in some Dead Sea Scrolls.

Percy writes:

Unless by "1st century understanding" you mean a gullible understanding, whoever wrote Mark could only know about the destruction of the Temple after it happened, not before.

Well yeah, indicating that the Gospel was written prior to the war.

Again, Mark could only know about the destruction of the Temple after it happened, not before. Since Mark knew about the destruction of the Temple, he wrote afterward.

Percy writes:

So you believe that Jesus warned his followers (who by 70 AD would have been Christians, not Jews) that the Jewish Temple (which by then would have nothing to do with Christians) would be destroyed because someone (Jews? Christians?) were trying to defeat evil with more evil? What a mess of interpretive nonsense.

He was talking to Jews and it was a Jewish message. Jesus was never about starting a new religion but was about reforming the Jewish religion. Ultimately it didn't work out that way.

You're ignoring the confusions and contradictions. Why would Jesus prophesize to Jews about the Temple when it wouldn't come to pass until the followers of Jesus were Christians who no longer cared about the Temple?

GDR writes:

Jesus continually talked about not going down the road of violent revolution but about defeating evil with the weapon of love. It is about turning hearts away from evil.

Percy writes:

Finally, something we agree about.

Hooray. This actually gets right to the core of Christianity so it is great that it is something we agree on.

Hallelujah!

Percy writes:

Huh? How is that any different from believing it's all just made up? If you truly believed that we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Christianity is a religion based essentially on the belief of the Biblical narrative that God progressively revealed Himself to the Jews, and then fully revealed His nature, (Word or Logos) in the man Jesus. God then resurrected Him thereby establishing a Jesus Christ led Kingdom and establishing the basis for a renewed creation.

But I was replying to you saying, "All religion is man made." If you acknowledge that, why are we even having this discussion? If Christianity is man-made, why are you so insistent that Jesus couldn't possibly be fictional?

Percy writes:

You said this earlier in your message, and it's still crazy. Why would Jesus feel the need to inform his followers (who by then would be Christians living in small communities scattered about the Middle East and caring not a whit about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) of his "forecast" that the Romans would eventually crush the Jewish revolt of 66 AD?

This was fundamental to His message. He spoke at great lengths about his anti-revolutionary message. He was warning what would happen in hopes that they would be able to either reject the idea of military revolution, and then if unable to do that to escape to the hills. He was a Jew and obviously didn't want to see the death of thousands of His people. Also, He wasn't about destroying the Temple but reforming it.

The same objection I described above still applies.

Percy writes:

So in your view Jesus was just someone with a strong political intuition? Hardly seems like someone worth worshipping or building a religion around. What happened to all the other mumbo jumbo about miracles and resurrection and rising to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God and being part of the trinity and having existed since the beginning of time?

I didn't deny any of that, but in addition He was a prophet...

Well there you go picking and choosing your interpretations again. (paraphrasing) "Jesus was a prophet, but when he talked about the destruction of the Temple that was just astute political forecasting." If you get to pick and choose, so does everyone else.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 7:33 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1050 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 11:04 AM Percy has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1047 of 1152 (844308)
11-27-2018 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by ringo
11-27-2018 10:42 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:

There are 66 books in the library we call the Bible. There are no doubt hundreds of writers actually involved and the books were written centuries apart. Each writer had his own motivation and source of knowledge. The writers who wrote about the atrocities were in all likelihood responsible to their leaders who could hold the power of death over them. Also, they would want to support the actions of their nation. God told us to do it is easy to say but can be used to justify anything, good or evil, you want it to.
The accounts or resurrection and miracles are confirmed by several authors, and numerous other sources in the Bible, and they are not at all consistent with what the Jews believed about what a messiah was supposed to be or do. I have written in several posts in this thread about why the Gospel accounts would not be something that they would fabricate.

ringo writes:


You're just confirming what I said: You cherry-pick the parts you like and hand-wave the parts you don't like. It's just ridiculous to pretend that nobody "would" fabricate the stories in the New Testament.

Your POV seems to be that either you have to accept everything literally or reject the whole thing. I disagree. Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations. All the writers of the NT consistently purport Jesus' resurrection. You guys don't accept this but there is no other reasonable reason to explain the rise of Christianity other than a firm belief in the resurrection. They could be wrong about it but it is clear that the believe that the resurrection was an historical event.

With that in mind it is also reasonable to understand the Bible through Jesus' message of love.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by ringo, posted 11-27-2018 10:42 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1048 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 12:24 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 1049 by Percy, posted 11-28-2018 10:42 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 1053 by ringo, posted 11-28-2018 2:27 PM GDR has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14545
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 1048 of 1152 (844312)
11-28-2018 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by GDR
11-27-2018 11:20 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
quote:

All the writers of the NT consistently purport Jesus' resurrection.

Just like all Scientology sources sing the benefits of clearing.

quote:

You guys don't accept this but there is no other reasonable reason to explain the rise of Christianity other than a firm belief in the resurrection.

I dont accept that ? Thats news to me.

quote:

They could be wrong about it but it is clear that the believe that the resurrection was an historical event.

The evidence says that they were very likely wrong.

quote:

With that in mind it is also reasonable to understand the Bible through Jesus' message of love

Your ideas about what is reasonable are so often unreasonable. What the NT writers believed about the Resurrection of Jesus doesnt even mean that they meant to promote the message you ascribe to Jesus. It certainly doesnt mean that the writers of the OT books - who had no such belief - did.

You would do much better to argue from a theological view which assumes the Divinity of Jesus - and assumes the accuracy of the NT accounts - at least when reporting Jesus words. Arguing on a historical and rational basis is utterly ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by GDR, posted 11-27-2018 11:20 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1049 of 1152 (844332)
11-28-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by GDR
11-27-2018 11:20 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
I already replied to your Message 1022 (quoted from at the top of your message), so I'll just ignore that part and reply only to what you say to Ringo:

GDR writes:

ringo writes:


You're just confirming what I said: You cherry-pick the parts you like and hand-wave the parts you don't like. It's just ridiculous to pretend that nobody "would" fabricate the stories in the New Testament.

Your POV seems to be that either you have to accept everything literally or reject the whole thing.

Maybe I haven't been following Ringo's posts closely enough, but I wasn't aware he was pushing that dichotomy.

I disagree.

Me too, though it must be obvious to you that the inerrantist position is by far the stronger because it asserts everything and concedes nothing. The view that all religion is man-made, that the Bible is not literally inerrant, and that it's okay to make your own subjective Biblical interpretations opens up a Pandora's box where every view is equal. If you're free to say that some passage has "this meaning," then someone else is free to say it has "that meaning." If you're free to say that "this much" of the Bible is open to interpretation, then someone else is free to say it's "that much."

Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations. All the writers of the NT consistently purport Jesus' resurrection. You guys don't accept this but there is no other reasonable reason to explain the rise of Christianity other than a firm belief in the resurrection.

I don't think that's true. I think we all see the resurrection story is a significant part of the appeal of Christianity, though even more compelling is the claim that Jesus died for our sins so that we might have eternal salvation in heaven.

They could be wrong about it but it is clear that they believe that the resurrection was an historical event.

How the resurrection myth arose is lost to history. Also lost is whether any NT writers didn't believe what they were saying.

With that in mind it is also reasonable to understand the Bible through Jesus' message of love.

The whole Bible? Or just the NT?

As far as creating converts, I don't think Jesus' message of love is anywhere near as important as salvation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by GDR, posted 11-27-2018 11:20 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1050 of 1152 (844334)
11-28-2018 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by Percy
11-27-2018 8:54 PM


Re: Matthew 24
Hi Percy

I'll send what a partial reply to you posts which is as far as I got last night and then I'll reply to the post you sent this morning when I get time this afternoon. The post you sent this morning is shorter, I do have a life outside of EvC.

Percy writes:

Is stepping outside the story to offer commentary ever something Mark actually does? Anyway, obviously Mark is writing for a community already very familiar with the destruction of the Temple. Mark was writing near enough in time for it to still be a recent event, and near enough to Jerusalem for it to be relevant.

Im sorry Percy but it makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple at the time the Gospel of Mark was compiled.
GDR writes:

C'mon Percy. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and by that time the war had been going on for 4 years. Mark doesn't mention the war, and no matter where he was in the area he would be aware of what had happened to Jerusalem and the Temple in very short order.

Percy writes:

Of course, but evidently what he heard was that none of the Temple was left standing, which is untrue. Why would that matter to you - you're not an inerrantist.

Its a discussion about when Mark was written and has nothing to do with inerrancy. The point is, is that if it had happened prior to Marks Gospel being compiled, Mark would have recorded it, likely wouldnt include saying not one stone on another and would have shown that what Jesus predicted would happen actually had happened.
Percy writes:

I assumed we were talking about where Mark writes about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I haven't mentioned the end times once in this thread, except just now to deny ever mentioning it.

My point was that Mark wasnt writing about end times but about the destruction of the Temple, however I might be confusing this discussion with you and the one Im having with Tangle. All you atheists sound alike to me. 
GDR writes:

Why on earth would any of them want to carry on a movement that is based on the leader being crucified which very clearly says that he is just another failed messianic figure?

Percy writes:

Let me ask you a question first: Why are you shifting the focus from the resurrection to the crucifixion? It sure isn't the crucifixion that Christians think amazing.

The point is that it would be unthinkable to claim that the messiah would be crucified and yet Paul says that he is not ashamed to preach a crucified messiah because although Jesus was crucified God resurrected Him.
Percy writes:

Actually all it requires is a single person telling a story that other people believe.

But it is a lot more than one person.
Percy writes:

That you have no evidence is neither opinion nor theology - it's a fact. Unevidenced assertions require no rebuttal beyond noting the lack of evidence.

But it isnt unevidenced. The Gospel accounts are evidence. The rest of the NT is evidence. There are obviously written with the obvious intent that they are to be believed. You can reject the evidence and say it is insufficient for you, but it is still evidence.

GDR writes:

Nobody after the Maccabees were put to death did anyone suggest that Judas Maccabees was resurrected even though he talked about resurrection. Everyone assumed that it would be resurrection at the end of time. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Gioria was resurrected in 70 AD. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Kokhba was resurrected in 135 AD. All of these guys led revolts that had varying degrees of military success and were put to death by the Romans. They were simply regarded as failed messiahs and then people looked for another messiah to lead them. (The idea pretty much dies out after 135 AD however.)

Percy writes:

Why do you think this helps your case?

Ill spell it out again. There were at least 12 messianic movements in that era. In every case the messianic figures were put to death including the ones mentioned. The belief was that a messiah, (the anointed one of God), would lead them against the hated Romans and defeat them. Many of these messianic figures actually achieved varying degrees of revolutionary success, but when they were executed nobody said that they were resurrected and the movements that they led immediately came to a halt. Jesus led no army, achieved no military success, and was crucified. Jesus had been crucified and it would have been clear that He was another failed messiah. However a couple of days later something changed and the Gospels tell us what it was.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by Percy, posted 11-27-2018 8:54 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1051 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 12:33 PM GDR has responded
 Message 1052 by Percy, posted 11-28-2018 2:09 PM GDR has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
6869
70
7172
...
77Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018