Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 517 (430792)
10-27-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Brian
10-27-2007 1:56 PM


and the same thing can be seen today
Well, surely you agree that we only have Paul’s word that this conversion happened, we only have his word that he hated Christianity, and most of all, we only have his word that he had persecuted Christians. It is this final point that I have a real problem with because it just doesn’t sit right with what we know from external evidence.
You position might seem unreasonable if we did not see exactly the same thing happening today, particularly in the "Born Again" cults. From Pulpit (or in most Born Again cults the Stage) to Pew, we see folk bewailing their manifold sins and inequities and how they have been "Washed in the Blood of Jesus and came out White as the Lamb".
The reality we see today is that those making such claims, particularly the pastors and televangelists, are far less "sinners" than simply irrelevant nobodies who wanted to be noticed. In addition, the changes seem to be far less obvious than many claim. As in the case of Paul, even if the story is true he simply went from being the nutjob fanatic for one club to being the nutjob fanatic for the opposing team.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Brian, posted 10-27-2007 1:56 PM Brian has not replied

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


Message 62 of 517 (430878)
10-28-2007 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Brian
10-27-2007 1:56 PM


When I decided to leave Christianity, it was a very difficult decision, I obviously began to look at the Bible from a very different angle, and I do have a few problems with Paul’s conversion experience (apart from the usual objections of conflicting accounts).
Think about this, if you wanted to popularise something what better way is there than to tell people that you once hated this product but now you realise how wrong you were? People would obviously find it more convincing that an opponent of something is now an avid supporter of it now.
So according to your own suspicion we also can surmise that you are sensationalizing your leaving of Christianity in the same manner? So you are trying to popularise your rejection of the gospel by portraying yourself to us a strong former adherent?
Seems to me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Tyopically they concoct fabrications that Paul was not really a Pharisee or various other sundry lies to dull the impact of the man's personal testimony.
So perhaps your "leaving of Christianity" and soul searching upon the "difficult" decision are also sundry lies to sensationalize your dramatic "conversion" to skepticism?
Well, surely you agree that we only have Paul’s word that this conversion happened, we only have his word that he hated Christianity,
I don't know if I agree with that.
Secondly, I don't think that his former opposition to the gospel is the one and only thing which makes his teachings convincing.
Though I did mention that he was a former opposer, the New Testament really doesn't continue to harp on the one aspect of his life in every letter that he wrote.
He certainly didn't base his credentials as an apostle of Christ solely on that alone if at all. In how many of his salutations does he mention it? Not very many to my recollection.
We see him mention it to the Jews in the book of Acts. I don't think he even mentions it but slightly at all in his most basic outline of the Christian gospel - the book of Romans.
and most of all, we only have his word that he had persecuted Christians. It is this final point that I have a real problem with because it just doesn’t sit right with what we know from external evidence.
What evidence would that be?
The idea that Paul could swoop into Damascus, on the orders of the Sanhedrin, to persecute Christians there really doesn’t sound plausible at all. What power did the Sanhedrin have in Syria?
The account as I read it, suggests that he went above and beyond the call of duty to protect Judaism. He went and asked permission to do something. In other words he initiated the idea himself. He invented a move of opposition out of his zeal.
Your skepticism about the matter appears to me to be so much super conspiracy theory of the type generated out of the Jesus Seminar kind of skepto hype.
Then we have to recognise that the very same group that was supposed to be persecuting Christians allowed Paul to preach in their synagogues.
You mean like in Jerusalem where they thought he was in there with some Greeks? And they went in to dragged the men out and slammed the temple door after them? Pretty warm reception that was. Huh?
Finally, under Pax Romana, it is difficult to imagine the Romans allowing this persecution to go ahead when they themselves allowed the nations under their Empire to follow their own faith. Thus, to me, I feel it is more believable that Paul never persecuted Christians, but that the story is a piece of propaganda invented to persuade people that Christianity must be true because one of its most fervent opponents is now persuaded that it is true.
Okay. Please stop feeding us this line about you soul searching and deciding to leave Christianity.
Who do you think you are, a Saul of Tarsus wannabe?
Cut with the sensationalism already. We're suspicious. Doesn't sit right. Too many problems. Something else is far more likely to have happened. etc. etc. etc.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Brian, posted 10-27-2007 1:56 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Phat, posted 10-31-2007 7:55 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 85 by Brian, posted 11-03-2007 4:36 PM jaywill has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 63 of 517 (430944)
10-28-2007 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by pbee
09-21-2007 6:07 PM


The fulfillment of Bible prophecies showed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Furthermore, while it remains true that others performed miracles in that day, Jesus was the only one who effectively died for mankind.
no it doesn't. I just attempts to prove the bible is true by using the bible to prove itself. Where is the proof that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by pbee, posted 09-21-2007 6:07 PM pbee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jaywill, posted 10-31-2007 5:27 AM bluescat48 has not replied

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


Message 64 of 517 (431448)
10-31-2007 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluescat48
10-28-2007 2:07 PM


In many instances we want to use the Bible to verify the Bible. Why not?
This is a collection of writings spaning some 1,600 years of subject matter as a grand library. Its contributors run the gamut of all kinds of people.
(No that doesn't mean that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can ADD anything he fancies should also be included).
It is not insignificant to some of us that when the Magi came hundreds of miles to locate the "born king" as evidenced by the star, that the scholars in Jerusalem knew where they should look. That was in Bethlehem.
Do you have the inside story on this that he was really born somewhere else? I can imagine.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluescat48, posted 10-28-2007 2:07 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2007 7:35 AM jaywill has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 65 of 517 (431454)
10-31-2007 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by jaywill
10-31-2007 5:27 AM


Why is it significant that the beliefs of fictional scholars agree with those of the author that created them ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jaywill, posted 10-31-2007 5:27 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2007 7:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 66 of 517 (431457)
10-31-2007 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by jaywill
10-28-2007 1:52 AM


Something else is likely to have happened...
It has been my observation that many of the people whom you and I talk with on this board who have announced their former fundamentalist, evangelical, or theistic adherence to Christianity have not necessarily left the belief altogether.
Brian initially surprised me when I found out that he was essentially an atheist who taught Theology. (Blasphemer! ) I have since found him to be a delightful chap with a sense of humor although, like you, I am mystified as to his motivation and passion for "telling the true story of Christ".
Taz was repulsed by the behavior of the fundamentalists around him and soon did a 180 degree turnaround, supporting the people he once persecuted...(The gays are his favorite defense)
Nator saw the light of logic and empiricism and was convinced of the bankrupt apologetics of the church. Again, I think that much of her initial decision was because of the hypocritical attitude of the church which refused to critically examine its own beliefs and behavior. She probably found a delightful group of intellectually minded people who were much nicer! (I think she married one of them! )
Jar grew up initially in an environment of Jewish friends and neighbors. He was taught critical thinking skills very early in life and was encouraged to question his beliefs and never to accept anything that was said without examining the validity of the belief for yourself. (Also, the Anglicans and Episcopalians in general are more apt to embrace a progressive thinking mans Christianity.)
When taken as a group, our EvC former believers are far less militant than the militants at sites such as Internet Infidels . Even our very own Crashfrog, although a proud atheist and advocate of naturalism, seems to enjoy talking with Christian Literalists even as he attempts to ridicule their belief system.
Many of the folks at Internet Infidels will trash you and then leave you bleeding on the side of the road with no attempt to get to know you. (Many Christian Fundamentalists do the same thing to atheists....no dialogue ever ensues between extremists of both groups)
After observing these behaviors, I concluded that Jesus was and is very much alive and well at EvC. He may not get the respect that you or I think He deserves, but I am a much stronger believer because of the disagreements rather than because of the agreements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2007 1:52 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2007 9:50 PM Phat has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 517 (431548)
10-31-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Phat
10-31-2007 7:55 AM


Re: Something else is likely to have happened...
When taken as a group, our EvC former believers are far less militant than the militants at sites such as Internet Infidels . Even our very own Crashfrog, although a proud atheist and advocate of naturalism, seems to enjoy talking with Christian Literalists even as he attempts to ridicule their belief system.
I'm not sure why you think posting on an internet board is behavior that constitutes "militantism", particularly compared to the acts of militant believers:
kill you, on the internets with their words!" No, that's the real-world consequences of militant religion, above.
So, let's stop and think a little bit before the next time we think it's a good idea to append "militant" before "atheist" to describe someone who's just making arguments on the internet, ok?
It has been my observation that many of the people whom you and I talk with on this board who have announced their former fundamentalist, evangelical, or theistic adherence to Christianity have not necessarily left the belief altogether.
I don't go to church. I don't talk about religion with the people in my real life, my neighbors and stuff. When my friends talk about their religious beliefs I nod and say "I'm glad it works for you." When my parents tell me how great it is to pray away my problems I change the subject.
I don't, as a rule, ever find myself thinking about God or Jesus or any of the religious beliefs I left behind, except to frame an argument on this website. I'm just not all that interested in it.
So it's not clear to me, Charis, how I could have left the belief any more than I already have. I mean, I can't have those memories erased, I'll always be familiar with Christian thought an arguments simply as a result of being so heavily exposed to them, but believe me when I say that there's no little sliver of belief hanging on inside of me. And, obviously, in America to grapple with religion is to grapple with the majority religion, in all odds, and that's Christianity.
He may not get the respect that you or I think He deserves, but I am a much stronger believer because of the disagreements rather than because of the agreements.
Around my house we call that "not getting the point." Good arguments against something are supposed to lessen your confidence in it, not strengthen it. But, of course, that's the result of Christian brainwashing - anything that proves Christianity strengthens he Christian's belief, anything that refutes Christianity strengthens the Christian's belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Phat, posted 10-31-2007 7:55 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 68 of 517 (431620)
11-01-2007 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by PaulK
10-31-2007 7:35 AM


Why is it significant that the beliefs of fictional scholars agree with those of the author that created them ?
Why is it significant that the unsupported assertion be declared by the wishful thinking of some skeptic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2007 7:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2007 3:25 PM jaywill has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 517 (431695)
11-01-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by jaywill
11-01-2007 7:55 AM


quote:
Why is it significant that the unsupported assertion be declared by the wishful thinking of some skeptic?
Not exactly grammatical Or sensible. Skeptics don't rely on wishful thinking.
In fact there are excellent reasons to think that Nativity account in Matthew is largely fiction.
The events we are interested in - the star, the wise men, the Massacre of the Innocents, the flight to Egypt are not corroborated anywhere else. Not even elsewhere in the Bible. Indeed the authors of Luke and Matthew seem to be completely unaware of each other's Nativity story. They do not fit easily together and the historical markers place the account in Luke - which include Jesus' birth about ten years AFTER the events in Matthew.
That is enough to raise suspicion. But there is more the events in Matthew are the sort of inventions we would expect to see. The Massacre of the Innocents is a common theme of legend (and such a story seems to have been added to the biography of Augustus, too - to name an example form the same period). Equally some of Matthew seems to be designed to support the use - or abuse - of scripture. The obvious reason why Egypt - rather than Syria - is the refuge of Joseph and Mary, for instance. And Matthew is the gospel most likely to contain such additions.
All that considered it seems that the onus is on the believer to show that the events are real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2007 7:55 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2007 6:12 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 70 of 517 (431723)
11-01-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
11-01-2007 3:25 PM


Not exactly grammatical Or sensible. Skeptics don't rely on wishful thinking.
Yes they do. There are things which they want to believe and don't want to believe.
In fact there are excellent reasons to think that Nativity account in Matthew is largely fiction.
You're changing the subject now.
What the poster said was that the scholars I mentioned were "fictional." In other words that there were in Jerusalem schooled and trained men of letters who were diligent students of the Hebrew Bible and other sacred writings, were "fictional" people and didn't really exist.
I don't think Josephus the historian would agree with that. I don't think many people familiar with Jewish religion would agree that Pharisees and Saducees and scribes of the Hebrew Bible were "fictional".
The events we are interested in - the star, the wise men, the Massacre of the Innocents, the flight to Egypt are not corroborated anywhere else.
This Forum is on What Does the Bible Really Mean?
You might take up your arguments about the historicity of the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus in another section more dedicated to that matter.
I don't think there is corroborating evidence that Socrates ever lived except for the testimony of Plato. So I wonder if you apply the same amount of rigorous insistence of other corroborating evidence to other key figures in history.
Absence of the corroborating evidence (if that is really the case) would not in and of itself prove that the events told did not take place.
elsewhere in the Bible. Indeed the authors of Luke and Matthew seem to be completely unaware of each other's Nativity story. They do not fit easily together and the historical markers place the account in Luke - which include Jesus' birth about ten years AFTER the events in Matthew.
Like I said, I frequent this section of the Forum because it deals with what the Bible really means.
But the individual nature of the accounts by Luke and Matthew could also be an indication that collaboration and conspiracy did not take place.
An astute judge will always try to detect that two or more witnesses are not cooperating to put forth a seemingly harmonious account which they have contrived together.
So some students in Matthew's and Luke's individualized telling of the accounts, not contradictions, but rather evidence that no conspiracy to collaborate a fictional account occured.
That is enough to raise suspicion.
Suspicions that you perhaps had before you even considered comparison.
You may have had suspicions at the proclaiming of the birth of the Son of God period, to begin with. Then it could be a matter of suspicions in search of rationals.
here is more the events in Matthew are the sort of inventions we would expect to see. The Massacre of the Innocents is a common theme of legend (and such a story seems to have been added to the biography of Augustus, too - to name an example form the same period). Equally some of Matthew seems to be designed to support the use - or abuse - of scripture. The obvious reason why Egypt - rather than Syria - is the refuge of Joseph and Mary, for instance. And Matthew is the gospel most likely to contain such additions.
All that considered it seems that the onus is on the believer to show that the events are real.
I am often amused at the arrogance of the attitude of skeptics who feel that they alone would have been worthy to pass on accurate information about something important.
It seems that every one else is incompetent to be trusted to relay the history of a significant event.
Because this account was written a long time ago are we to assume that of course people were not capable or honest to record events accurately?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2007 3:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2007 6:35 PM jaywill has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 71 of 517 (431726)
11-01-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jaywill
11-01-2007 6:12 PM


quote:
Yes they do. There are things which they want to believe and don't want to believe.
No, because that would be contradictory.
quote:
ou're changing the subject now.
What the poster said was that the "scholars" were fictional. In other words that there were in Jerusalem schooled and trained men of letters who were diligent students of the Hebrew Bible and other sacred writings, were "fictional" people and didn't really exist.
No, I'm not. I referred to the specific scholars who are supposed to have said that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem - in the Gospel of Matthew. I certainly did not assert that there were no scholars in Jerusalem at the time Jesus was born !
quote:
This Forum is on What Does the Bible Really Mean.
In that case your original point should be equally valid even if the scholars were fictional - since what the Bible says is independent of whether it is fact or fiction.
quote:
I don't think there is corroborating evidence that Socrates ever lived except for the testimony of Plato. So I wonder if you apply the same amount of rigorous insistence of other corroborating evidence to other key figures in history.
And you are wrong since other contemporaries (such as the playwright Aristophanes) also mention Socrates. But even if you were wrong we could justifiably be more skeptical of stories of events that supposedly happened in his life than in the idea that there Socrates lived. (Augustus certainly did exist, yet I reject the story about the omens surrounding his birth and the idea that the Senate aonsidered ordering the deaths of all born in that year)..
quote:
Absence of the corroborating evidence (if that is really the case) would not in and of itself prove that the events told did not take place.
Even so, when the story is not even mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, when we might expect the star or the Massacre or even the "wise men" to have been mentioned in non-Biblical sources it is a significant point against taking the story as fact. Even if there were no other reasons to question it - and in this case we do have those reasons.
quote:
But the individual nature of the accounts by Luke and Matthew could also be an indication that collaboration and conspiracy did not take place.
Nobody alleges such conspiracy and collaboration.
quote:
Suspicions that you perhaps had before you even considered comparison.
You may have had suspicions as the telling of the birth of the Son of God period, to begin with. Then it could be a matter of suspicions in search of rationals.
And you would be wrong. As if I would need an ulteriror motive for telling the truth anyway !
quote:
It seems that every one else is incompetent to be trusted to relay the history of a significant event.
Because this account was written a long time ago are we to assume that of course people were not capable or honest to record events accurately?
You will note that nowhere did I make any reference to the age of the account or suggest that had anything to do with the accuracy. If modern Christians show such a cavalier disregard for the truth as you do, then why should we expect ancient Christians to be any better ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2007 6:12 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2007 10:16 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 72 of 517 (431766)
11-01-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
11-01-2007 6:35 PM


Even so, when the story is not even mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, when we might expect the star or the Massacre or even the "wise men" to have been mentioned in non-Biblical sources it is a significant point against taking the story as fact. Even if there were no other reasons to question it - and in this case we do have those reasons.
When the story is not mentioned elsewhere? What rule do you derive that any story in the Bible must be repeated in more than one place? Whose rule is that?
I do believe that astronomical records of ancient times do include the mentioning of this star. But I am not current on that as I heard it in a planeterium discussion years ago.
Though the exact event is spoken of in Matthew alone events the wrathful jealousy of a king over any threat to his domain is not surprising.
Balaam was a Gentile prophet in the book of Numbers. Some students believe that Balaam's prophecy furnished the backround for the Messiah being recognized by the star. A star arising out of Jacob.
You're free to question it all you want. And I am free to question you and your skepticism, its motives and agenda.
I am free to question why I should trust you over Matthew.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2007 6:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2007 2:51 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 73 of 517 (431769)
11-01-2007 10:23 PM


And you would be wrong. As if I would need an ulteriror motive for telling the truth anyway !
Sounds noble. But don't mistake yourself for the person you'd like to be.

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 74 of 517 (431789)
11-02-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Nighttrain
10-12-2007 10:19 PM


Re: Divine or no?
Nighttrain writes:
Kindly point out any references to where the disciples are portrayed as other than incompetent. Hardly any literary talents among them. Any evidence the Jews of that period understood the OT as allegorical in sections?
This is from the preface to the historical book "The Antiquities of the Jews" written by the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
Josephus writes:
4. But because almost all our constitution depends on the wisdom of Moses, our legislator, I cannot avoid saying somewhat concerning him beforehand, though I shall do it briefly; I mean, because otherwise those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass, that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy. The reader is therefore to know, that Moses deemed it exceeding necessary, that he who would conduct his own life well, and give laws to others, in the first place should consider the Divine nature; and, upon the contemplation of God's operations, should thereby imitate the best of all patterns, so far as it is possible for human nature to do, and to endeavor to follow after it: neither could the legislator himself have a right mind without such a contemplation; nor would any thing he should write tend to the promotion of virtue in his readers; I mean, unless they be taught first of all, that God is the Father and Lord of all things, and sees all things, and that thence he bestows a happy life upon those that follow him; but plunges such as do not walk in the paths of virtue into inevitable miseries. Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things: for as to other legislators, they followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human vices unto the gods, and afforded wicked men the most plausible excuses for their crimes; but as for our legislator, when he had once demonstrated that God was possessed of perfect virtue, he supposed that men also ought to strive after the participation of it; and on those who did not so think, and so believe, he inflicted the severest punishments. I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it (6) after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Nighttrain, posted 10-12-2007 10:19 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 75 of 517 (431794)
11-02-2007 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
09-21-2007 6:21 AM


Jon writes:
What historical aspect of the Jesus situation could explain why he was deified into one with God? With so many prophets in the day, what about Jesus and his followers brought about the following cult? There's been a lot of people since then who have been highly-regarded; why didn't they get a super-mega religion named after them?
For this post, I'd just like to say that I want to focus on the historical aspects behind this matter, and not the supernatural ones”so no posts saying 'Jesus really was God, that's why'. We must assume that there is a reasonable, realistic, real-world and non-supernatural-invoking answer to this question.
I'll try Jon. If we could we could reasonably demonstrate that the disciples were convinced with the Jesus died on the cross and then reappeared with a resurrected body that it would go part way towards their thinking that He was part of the God-Head.
The Romans were very good at killing people. Jesus did die on the cross. He died at the hands of the Romans as did many other would be messiahs did both before and after Jesus. A Messiah who dies at the hands of the Romans is just another failed Messiah, even the ones who had significant followings such as Judas the Gallilean in 6 AD and Simeon Ben Kosiba in 135 AD. When Jesus went to be crucified the disciples came to the conclusion so early on that nearly all of them didn't even show up for the crucifixion. They simply went back to their fishing etc. Peter was so unconvinced that he couldn't even own up to knowing Him after swearing total allegiance.
Then all that changed. Suddenly these guys were prepared to truly devote their lives to serving Him. Why would these fair weather followers all of a sudden become so zealous in telling the world about Jesus the Christ? In my view the logical answer is to take them at their word when they claimed that the resurrection of Jesus was historical.
If we look at Paul we see a man who had power, influence and presumably wealth as a leading Pharisee and yet he gave it all up to go telling Jesus' story to not even his fellow Jews but to gentiles. Not a great career move to he followed that vocation to his death.
I believe this to be true, but even assuming that I'm right it doesn't necessarily follow that the idea of Jesus' deity is true but it certainly indicates that He wasn't just another guy.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 09-21-2007 6:21 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Brian, posted 11-02-2007 12:51 PM GDR 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