Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 451 of 517 (518683)
08-07-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 441 by Huntard
08-06-2009 5:56 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
Huntard writes:
Peg, you do realize that most of the bible writers lived long before Jesus, don't you. And still, we don't know who wrote the gospels, so you can't even claim their writers were contemporaries of Jesus. What you consider to be true is, of course, completely irrelevant. No matter how compelling you think a testimony is.
i was referring to NT writers! but you knew that
I have no doubts about who wrote the gospels. Im quite confident in that and no amount of modern scholarly speculations will change my mind. The things they come up with are crazy..like Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2009 5:56 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Theodoric, posted 08-07-2009 8:55 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 453 by Rahvin, posted 08-07-2009 11:09 AM Peg has replied
 Message 456 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2009 4:13 PM Peg has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 452 of 517 (518685)
08-07-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Peg
08-07-2009 8:52 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
I have no doubts about who wrote the gospels.
What do you base this on? Any evidence?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Peg, posted 08-07-2009 8:52 AM Peg has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 453 of 517 (518715)
08-07-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Peg
08-07-2009 8:52 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
like Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child LOL
...
That's from a work of fiction, Peg, not the result of textual criticism of historical analysis. Dan Brown's book has nothing to do with reality. You do know the difference between fiction and nonfiction, don't you?
I have no doubts about who wrote the gospels. Im quite confident in that and no amount of modern scholarly speculations will change my mind.
This, of course, is quite telling. You're so convinced that absolutely nothing will change your mind. Such is the power of faith, I suppose - when you don't require evidence to establish a belief in the first place, why be bothered if evidence suggests your belief may be wrong? Perhaps, for you, fiction and nonfiction are not so distinct, and fantasy bleeds together with reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Peg, posted 08-07-2009 8:52 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2009 4:18 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 463 by Peg, posted 08-09-2009 2:31 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 454 of 517 (518740)
08-07-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by Huntard
08-07-2009 7:39 AM


Re: WOAH!
I say it with the same certainty that I say "Zeus as protrayed in the myths about him never existed." Or do you think he did?
Perhaps you could explain to me why there is so much labor and time devoted to debating the realness of Jesus more than debating the realness of Zues. If they are both roughly the same why is there so much more vehemence in denying Jesus ?
Somehow, they don't seem equivalent figures though skeptics are fond of trying to lump them together.
No. It ids a statement of diebelief. Perhaps I should have said: I don't believe Jesus aas portrayed in the bible ever existed." Is that better?
Okay.
Of course, you already believe it. However, from a neutral point of view, there is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus as portryed in the bible ever existed.
I wasn't born believing in the Divinity of Christ Huntard. Nor was I brought up in Sunday School all my life.
I got subdued and persuaded one day in the privacy of my living room. It was the end of a long road of wrestling with the matter of what to do with God. I really had no thought of Jesus. But I spoke His name I suddenly felt like a flushed toilet. Years of crap in my heart and mind came flooding out and Jesus came rushing in.
I haven't been the same since that day.
Like you I did a lot of arguing with people about Jesus. One day in the cafeteria of the Phila College of Art, which was across the street from where I was in school, the Phila. Music Academy, I was debating again with my friend Randy, a Christian.
I don't remember ANYTHING about the points we were arguing. I only remember one small snatch of conversation that went like this:
"Jay, I don't know how many times I have to tell you. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. And the Word was God. Jesus is the living Word of God"
That is all I remember. I didn't agree. I didn't even really understand what he meant. I didn't say "Yes sir." But something must have happened to me without me knowing it. Something like a curtain parted around my mind and something like light shown into my heart.
Months latter whatever it was that he imparted to me rose up in me and claimed my heart. His presence was real. The mountain of speculation on one side of my being shrunk into a little hill. And on the other side of my being a little tiny hill of faith grew into a mountain.
I got subdued Huntard. I never wanted to. I never intended it to happen. Jesus conquered me. When I called on Jesus God became real to me.
Sorry to add my personal experience to this otherwise heady debate. But this was deeper than sentimentality. But because of this experience when I read words in the New Testament like:
"Having been regenerated through the living and abiding word of God" I can now say. "I know what Peter means by that now. I understand that. Having been regenerated, reborn, born anew by the living and abiding word of God - Christ Himself.
I have to discontinue here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2009 7:39 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Theodoric, posted 08-07-2009 3:36 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 458 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2009 5:14 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 455 of 517 (518741)
08-07-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by jaywill
08-07-2009 3:30 PM


Re: WOAH!
I wasn't born believing in the Divinity of Christ Huntard. Nor was I brought up in Sunday School all my life.
I got subdued and persuaded one day in the privacy of my living room. It was the end of a long road of wrestling with the matter of what to do with God. I really had no thought of Jesus. But I spoke His name I suddenly felt like a flushed toilet. Years of crap in my heart and mind came flooding out and Jesus came rushing in.
How does you personal "revelation" have anything to do with the divinity of christ?
Because you had some sort of episode that is proof?
Just more mumbo-jumbo and apologetics. Nothing new.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 3:30 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by jaywill, posted 08-09-2009 5:32 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 456 of 517 (518745)
08-07-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by Peg
08-07-2009 8:52 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
Peg writes:
i was referring to NT writers! but you knew that
Yes I did. However other people people reading might not. Being precise in what you write is important. At least, I think so.
I have no doubts about who wrote the gospels. Im quite confident in that and no amount of modern scholarly speculations will change my mind.
That's called faith. And that's fine. But you can't go claiming a truth based on just faith, Peg.
like Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child LOL
No scholar says that.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Peg, posted 08-07-2009 8:52 AM Peg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 457 of 517 (518747)
08-07-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Rahvin
08-07-2009 11:09 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
Never thought I'd be doing this, but here goes. A little correction, Rahvin:
Rahvin writes:
Peg writes:
like Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child LOL
That's from a work of fiction, Peg, not the result of textual criticism of historical analysis. Dan Brown's book has nothing to do with reality. You do know the difference between fiction and nonfiction, don't you?
Actually, Danny boy isn't the on who came up with that. Read Holy Blood Holy Grail. They're the ones who came up with that. It's still completely fictional, though.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Rahvin, posted 08-07-2009 11:09 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 458 of 517 (518751)
08-07-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by jaywill
08-07-2009 3:30 PM


Re: WOAH!
jaywill writes:
Perhaps you could explain to me why there is so much labor and time devoted to debating the realness of Jesus more than debating the realness of Zues. If they are both roughly the same why is there so much more vehemence in denying Jesus ?
It's not about denying Jesus. It's about the fact that people already realize Zeus is myth, yet somehow don't see that Jesus as portrayed in the bible is too. And because so many still accept that Jesus is as portrayed in the bible, it's of course easy for others who know there's no evidence for that to shoot holes in it.
Somehow, they don't seem equivalent figures though skeptics are fond of trying to lump them together.
They're not. One isn't believed in anymore. One still is, despite the same amount of evidence for both.
I got subdued and persuaded one day in the privacy of my living room. It was the end of a long road of wrestling with the matter of what to do with God. I really had no thought of Jesus. But I spoke His name I suddenly felt like a flushed toilet. Years of crap in my heart and mind came flooding out and Jesus came rushing in.
Now, suppose you had mentioned Zeus there, and knew about him what you knew about god (He loves you and all that stuff, had a son who was a champion for man, and so on...). And suddenly, all the "crap" washed away. You would now be a Zeusian.
I haven't been the same since that day.
I'm sure.
As for your little story. What if all that had taken part in ancient Greece? You'd be a Zeusian now.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 3:30 PM jaywill has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 459 of 517 (518766)
08-07-2009 11:26 PM


Has this debate always been about Jesus 'as potrayed in the Bible' never existed.
Because from the beginning I'm arguing that a person called Jesus existed. Has the opposing side changed during the process and added the last 'as potrayed in the Bible' part along the way, or has it been like this from the beginning and I simply misunderstood ... ???

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Huntard, posted 08-08-2009 4:37 AM slevesque has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 460 of 517 (518776)
08-08-2009 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by slevesque
08-07-2009 11:26 PM


slevesque writes:
Has this debate always been about Jesus 'as potrayed in the Bible' never existed.
No. That's my position. Others might not agree with me though and say A Jesus never existed. Which I find a bit silly to claim.
Because from the beginning I'm arguing that a person called Jesus existed.
There were more persons called Jesus who existed. It wasn't a weird name or anything back then. So when your argument simply is "Someone called Jesus existed once". I don't think anyone would disagree with you.
Has the opposing side changed during the process and added the last 'as potrayed in the Bible' part along the way, or has it been like this from the beginning and I simply misunderstood ... ???
No. That's my position. A Jesus existed, and was probably part of the inspiration for the bible character, but Jesus as portrayed in the bible, never existed.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by slevesque, posted 08-07-2009 11:26 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by slevesque, posted 08-08-2009 5:14 AM Huntard has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 461 of 517 (518779)
08-08-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Huntard
08-08-2009 4:37 AM


Okok, maybe it is Theodoric's position which is different then yours, because initially I was discussing al this with him.
There were more persons called Jesus who existed. It wasn't a weird name or anything back then. So when your argument simply is "Someone called Jesus existed once". I don't think anyone would disagree with you
I did misexpress myself with that 'someone called Jesus' thing. I was meaning it in the sense that the Jesus in the Gospels was a historical person, even though you cannot prove of course that he was as depicted in the Gospels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Huntard, posted 08-08-2009 4:37 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 9:58 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 462 of 517 (518794)
08-08-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by slevesque
08-08-2009 5:14 AM


I have no doubt a Jesus existed. There were probably thousands in Palestine in the time frame of the biblical Jesus. Some of them may have been itinerant preachers too. This in no way means your biblical Jesus existed. By saying Jesus is a myth does not in anyway state that there is no historical basis for any of it.
The Jesus myth is an amalgamation of things. Some loosely based on facts, but a myth nonetheless. None of my arguments have been that no one named Jesus existed, my argument is the Jesus of the bible is a myth.
I was meaning it in the sense that the Jesus in the Gospels was a historical person, even though you cannot prove of course that he was as depicted in the Gospels.
Exactly. And why should I believe in a something no one can give me any proof for.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by slevesque, posted 08-08-2009 5:14 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 463 of 517 (518874)
08-09-2009 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by Rahvin
08-07-2009 11:09 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
Rahvin writes:
That's from a work of fiction, Peg, not the result of textual criticism of historical analysis. Dan Brown's book has nothing to do with reality. You do know the difference between fiction and nonfiction, don't you?
Oh i know its fiction!
however Dan brown based his book on other non fiction writers such as Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln who wrote the 1982 non-fiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail where Jesus and Mary are said to have had a child.
i think the idea came from gnostic writers and posibly books of the apocrypha but i'd have to research that a little more to be sure where the idea came from.
Heres the wiki bloodline page with many references to non fiction books that promote the idea as fact.
Jesus bloodline - Wikipedia
Rahvin writes:
This, of course, is quite telling. You're so convinced that absolutely nothing will change your mind. Such is the power of faith,
of course you are right. For me it is a matter of faith because I was not around when the books were being written. I cannot say i've ever seen any miracles or spoken to any eye witnesses, so Yes, its a matter of faith.
what i do know for sure is that those who did witness these things wrote down their testimonies and provided us with all we need to believe their words. Besides that, there have been many NT prophecies that have been fulfilled in our own time which adds to my faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Rahvin, posted 08-07-2009 11:09 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Huntard, posted 08-09-2009 3:46 AM Peg has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 464 of 517 (518881)
08-09-2009 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Peg
08-09-2009 2:31 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
Peg writes:
what i do know for sure is that those who did witness these things wrote down their testimonies and provided us with all we need to believe their words.
Oh? I thought the gospels were anonymous? How can you be so sure that those are the words written down by the people who knew Jesus, when in fact the youngest of them dates to somewhere around 70 AD?
Besides that, there have been many NT prophecies that have been fulfilled in our own time which adds to my faith.
This might not be the topic to go into too much detail about that, but pray tell, which would those be?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Peg, posted 08-09-2009 2:31 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Peg, posted 08-09-2009 7:18 AM Huntard has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 465 of 517 (518884)
08-09-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Huntard
08-09-2009 3:46 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
Huntard writes:
Oh? I thought the gospels were anonymous? How can you be so sure that those are the words written down by the people who knew Jesus, when in fact the youngest of them dates to somewhere around 70 AD?
the earliest ecclesiastical writers are the ones who made statements about who wrote the gospels. When the christians were making collections of the NT writings, some would write a dialogue of who wrote the various books with a bit of an explanation of the contents of the writing.
for instance, Papias of the 1st-2nd centuries wrote that Matthew wrote his gospel first, and that he wrote it in the hebrew language. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Then there is the Muratorian Fragment of the 2nd century. It the confirms that the book of Acts was written by Luke for a man named Theophilus. These early christians would have been fairly well aquainted with each other and they also were in close contact. If a letter was being delivered, it was done so by hand and the deliverer knew where the letter came from and who it came from. This is why these early christians knew who wrote the gospels.
Prophecies are off topic here so i wont go into them...there was a prophecy thread a few months ago that I started

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Huntard, posted 08-09-2009 3:46 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Huntard, posted 08-09-2009 8:15 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 467 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 10:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024