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


Message 76 of 517 (431798)
11-02-2007 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by jaywill
11-01-2007 10:16 PM


quote:
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?
Apparently it is yours because I didn't say any such thing. Do you really think this continuing use of misrepresentation on your part really helps your case ?
To start with it is not just the Bible, but all other sources covering the period that fail to provide corroboration. And important events in Jesus life might expect to be mentioned in more than one book of the Bible - the more so if they "fulfil" scripture. Yet not even the other Gospels show that their authors has any awareness of this story. Surely given this it must be a distinct possiblity that the story was simply invented by the author of Matthew. An anonymous man, likely writing more than 70 years after the event who gives no sources as even an ancient historian might.
quote:
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.
THere are astrological events that MIGHT have been taken as indicating the birth of someone important but that is all that I have heard of. THe star resting above the place Jesus lay, though ? Nothing there.
quote:
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.
When it goes as far as mass murder of children - among his own people! - it is far more likely legend. Similar stories abound. Actual events of this sort seem rarer. (I can't think of one)
quote:
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.
And that would be another case of the author of Matthew deriving his story from scripture - taken out of context.
quote:
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.
Yes, you are permitted to use dishonest tactics. That you should use this freedom reflects badly on you, however. And on your religion - "by their fruit you shall know them".
And of course the real question here is why should WE trust Matthew - as is required for the point under dispute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2007 10:16 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 11-02-2007 5:51 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 11-03-2007 4:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 77 of 517 (431851)
11-02-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by GDR
11-02-2007 2:28 AM


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.
Your evidence for this is what?
They simply went back to their fishing etc.
Evidence?
Peter was so unconvinced that he couldn't even own up to knowing Him after swearing total allegiance.
Evidence?
Then all that changed. Suddenly these guys were prepared to truly devote their lives to serving Him.
Evidence?
Why would these fair weather followers all of a sudden become so zealous in telling the world about Jesus the Christ?
Evidence?
In my view the logical answer is to take them at their word when they claimed that the resurrection of Jesus was historical.
So you think it is logical that a man died and came back to life three days later?
You think a 3 hour eclipse of the sun is logical?
You think the dead jumping out their graves and walking the streets is logical?
If we look at Paul we see a man who had power, influence and presumably wealth as a leading Pharisee
Evidence?
and yet he gave it all up to go telling Jesus' story to not even his fellow Jews but to gentiles.
Evidence?
Not a great career move to he followed that vocation to his death.
Evidence?
I believe this to be true,
Why?
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.
What does it indicate then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by GDR, posted 11-02-2007 2:28 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 78 of 517 (431880)
11-02-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
11-02-2007 2:51 AM


PaulK,
You wrote:
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.
"[T]hose reasons to question it," include the lack of the mentioning of the story in other places in the Bible.
Should I or should I not understand you to be saying that the singular mentioning of the star in Matthew is one of "those reasons" to doubt the story?
So you think your contradicting yourself in such a short time helps your case ?
So, I ask again - What rule dictates that the story is necessarily not credible because Matthew alone mentions it? See if you can be consistent this time.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
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 76 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2007 2:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2007 6:46 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 79 of 517 (431888)
11-02-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
11-02-2007 5:51 PM


quote:
"[T]hose reasons to question it," include the lack of the mentioning of the story in other places in the Bible.
Obviously it is not - if you actually read what I wrote. Which seems to be something you have trouble doing.
Which renders the rest of your post redundant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 11-02-2007 5:51 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jaywill, posted 11-03-2007 4:09 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 80 of 517 (431958)
11-03-2007 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
11-02-2007 6:46 PM


Even if there were no other reasons to question it - and in this case we do have those reasons.
So you're saying that "those reasons" do NOT include the singular mentioning of the star in Matthew?
I think a Yes or No should do it.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2007 6:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2007 5:00 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 81 of 517 (431961)
11-03-2007 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
11-02-2007 2:51 AM


THere are astrological events that MIGHT have been taken as indicating the birth of someone important but that is all that I have heard of. THe star resting above the place Jesus lay, though ? Nothing there.
I did not mean that the same significance was placed on the star in terms of signifying the coming of the Son of God. I only said that I heard in a planeterium talk about a possible nova, or bright star being recorded at that time.
It is similar to the mentioning of the day growing dark on the day of Christ's crucifixion. That darkness was recorded. The same significance was not written about it, only that it happened and that it could not have been a solar eclipse.
When it goes as far as mass murder of children - among his own people! - it is far more likely legend. Similar stories abound. Actual events of this sort seem rarer. (I can't think of one)
I'm sure you have read about Stalin. He was paranoid to the nth degree and murdered millions of his own people. Would you count Joseph Stalin's murders as a legend?
And that would be another case of the author of Matthew deriving his story from scripture - taken out of context.
Matthew said nothing about Balaam or the book of Numbers. I only speculated that the Gentile prophet may have furnished the belief that the star of Jacob was significant to some Gentiles about the nation of Israel.
We do not know how or what they read or figured out about the appearing of the star. They seemed to know that in Jerusalem someone should be able to tell them.
And if you didn't realize it, Christ is the center of the divine revelation of the Bible. So when you speak of "context" I would say that the stories of the Old Testament are leading up to and related to Christ who is the spiritual center of the Bible. The book is about Christ.
Yes, you are permitted to use dishonest tactics. That you should use this freedom reflects badly on you, however. And on your religion - "by their fruit you shall know them".
You choose tactics and prove I should trust you over Matthew?
Who are you? Matthew was one of the twelve disciples. Why should I trust that he needs to sit at your feet and get clarification on the record about Jesus?
And of course the real question here is why should WE trust Matthew - as is required for the point under dispute.
Why should we trust you?
At least Matthew was 2,000 years closer to the events then you.
I am very convinced that there is good evidence that he was the author of the book under his name.
Why should we 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 76 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2007 2:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2007 5:17 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 82 of 517 (431963)
11-03-2007 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by jaywill
11-03-2007 4:09 AM


quote:
So you're saying that "those reasons" do NOT include the singular mentioning of the star in Matthew?
I think a Yes or No should do it.
I guess it must be true. Christianity really does destroy the ability to read.
But I will repeat the point to be very clear - at least to those capable of honest reading. The reasons other than a lack of corroborration for unlikely events events that we should expect to be mentioned elsewhere do not include the singular mention of the star in Matthew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jaywill, posted 11-03-2007 4:09 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 83 of 517 (431965)
11-03-2007 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jaywill
11-03-2007 4:26 AM


quote:
I did not mean that the same significance was placed on the star in terms of signifying the coming of the Son of God. I only said that I heard in a planeterium talk about a possible nova, or bright star being recorded at that time.
Which would not miraculously stand over Bethlehem.
quote:
It is similar to the mentioning of the day growing dark on the day of Christ's crucifixion. That darkness was recorded. The same significance was not written about it, only that it happened and that it could not have been a solar eclipse.
So far as we can tell, that is only mentioned in the Bible. No other source recorded it, that we know.
quote:
I'm sure you have read about Stalin. He was paranoid to the nth degree and murdered millions of his own people. Would you count Joseph Stalin's murders as a legend?
Of course not BECAUSE WE HAVE RECORDS. Yet if people referred to an unrecorded massacre by Stalin supposedly intneded to kill a single child then I WOULD count that as a legend. You're trying to compare apples with oranges here.
quote:
Matthew said nothing about Balaam or the book of Numbers. I only speculated that the Gentile prophet may have furnished the belief that the star of Jacob was significant to some Gentiles about the nation of Israel.
Or it could have suggested the idea that there had been a star to early Christians. Let me also add that your speculation is not evidence.
quote:
We do not know how or what they read or figured out about the appearing of the star. They seemed to know that in Jerusalem someone should be able to tell them.
Since we do not know that those events were real, we do NOT know any such thing.
quote:
And if you didn't realize it, Christ is the center of the divine revelation of the Bible. So when you speak of "context" I would say that the stories of the Old Testament are leading up to and related to Christ who is the spiritual center of the Bible. The book is about Christ.
I happen to know that that isn't true. If you actually read the Bible you will only "find" Jesus in the OT by assuming that he's there.
quote:
You choose tactics and prove I should trust you over Matthew?
No - YOU choose tactics.
quote:
Who are you? Matthew was one of the twelve disciples. Why should I trust that he needs to sit at your feet and get clarification on the record about Jesus?
The author of the Gospel of Mathew is anonymous and almost certainly was NOT the disciple Matthew. Nor am I claiming to be an independant souce on Jesus life. Rather I propose an HONEST evaluation of the evidence we have. And that seems to be the problem - you just don't like honesty.
quote:
Why should we trust you?
Because I am honest and because I know what I am talking about. Because you cannot answer my arguments honestly, always seeking to twist and misrepresent. Implicitly admitting that you know that what I say is true.
quote:
I am very convinced that there is good evidence that he was the author of the book under his name.
You may be "very convinced" but it is certainly not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 11-03-2007 4:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jaywill, posted 11-03-2007 10:08 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 84 of 517 (431980)
11-03-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
11-03-2007 5:17 AM


Which would not miraculously stand over Bethlehem.
You don't know that such an unusual phenomenon could not be witnessed. Why would not an unusual event accompany an unusual Person? That was the whole point. Something extraordinary was taking place.
Anyway, I believe they saw something. And the NT doesn't seem to emphasize it as much as the words, deeds, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
So far as we can tell, that is only mentioned in the Bible. No other source recorded it, that we know.
I don't know what "we" you are speaking of. But Hugh Ross has documented this history.
And I expect that some skeptical website somewhere discounts the record as a fabrication concocted by Christians. I've seen the argument. And it looked typical.
Regardless, I find the Evangelists words on the matter authoritative enough.
Of course not BECAUSE WE HAVE RECORDS. Yet if people referred to an unrecorded massacre by Stalin supposedly intneded to kill a single child then I WOULD count that as a legend. You're trying to compare apples with oranges here.
Where is the record from the first century disputing it and maintaining that there was no massacre? If the reign of Herod were fresh in the minds of some older folks around the time of the circulating of Matthew's gospel, and they disputed that no such slaughter occured, where is the contemporaneous denial of it?
And I mean contemporaneous not an argument raised 300 or 400 hundred years latter.
And if you didn't realize it, Christ is the center of the divine revelation of the Bible. So when you speak of "context" I would say that the stories of the Old Testament are leading up to and related to Christ who is the spiritual center of the Bible. The book is about Christ.
I happen to know that that isn't true. If you actually read the Bible you will only "find" Jesus in the OT by assuming that he's there.
I find Him there because of the mercy of God to grant me revelation. I find Him there in Genesis chapter one and on in many many places - some rather obscure perhaps but others rather obvious.
The author of the Gospel of Mathew is anonymous and almost certainly was NOT the disciple Matthew.
True that he is anonymous. But when the list of 12 disciples is mentioned the order is different in Matthew than in the other gospels.
Jesus sent the disciples out in teams of two. Most likely one was considered more senior and the other more junior.
"And the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and JOhn his brother. Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector ...etc. " (Matthew 10:2-3)
Mark and Luke listed Matthew before Thomas (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), but Matthew, listed Matthew after Thomas. Matthew, the writer of this book, listed himself after Thomas, showing his humility. Probably he was considered the senior of the team. But in his own gospel his humility causes him to list his name after his partner Thomas.
Though we are not told that Matthew wrote it I believe this is an indication that "Matthew, the tax collector" wrote Matthew.
Higher criticism may have it that Matthew did not write Matthew.
Of course they would also have it that Isaiah didn't write Isaiah and Jermiah didn't write Jeremiah and Ezekiel didn't write Exekiel and Zechariah didn't write Zechariah and Luke didn't write Luke and Mark and John didn't write the books designated after their names and Paul did not write the letters with his salutations.
It all amounts to a huge conspiracy theory which requires more "faith" to believed occured than to just believe what is written in the Bible.
Nor am I claiming to be an independant souce on Jesus life. Rather I propose an HONEST evaluation of the evidence we have. And that seems to be the problem - you just don't like honesty.
I appreciate honesty. I just am more impressed with the character of Matthew than with yours. And I think that you are not telling me a lot about the writing of the Bible actually. I think you are telling me a lot about the unbelieving strivings of your own soul.
You may be "very convinced" but it is certainly not true.
I don't think so. And if in the end I find out I was I would have absolutely no regrets. Living with faith in the Son of God is the best possible life I could have lived.
I would have changed nothing. There is no better existence I could have had then one of living with faith in the Christ Whom I know and the Bible which led me to Him.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
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 83 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2007 5:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2007 7:18 PM jaywill has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 85 of 517 (432087)
11-03-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jaywill
10-28-2007 1:52 AM


So according to your own suspicion we also can surmise that you are sensationalizing your leaving of Christianity in the same manner?
I hardly ever mention that I used to be a Christian, and whether I left or remained in Christianity has no bearing on whether Christianity is true or not. So I am hardly sensationalising it when I hardly talk about it.
So you are trying to popularise your rejection of the gospel by portraying yourself to us a strong former adherent?
Well since it is an argument that I have never used I have to disagree
So perhaps your "leaving of Christianity" and soul searching upon the "difficult" decision are also sundry lies to sensationalize your dramatic "conversion" to skepticism?
It wasn’t dramatic.
And yes I could be telling lies, but there’s an easy way to check out my story, but that would involve some work on your behalf.
I don't know if I agree with that.
So who else witnessed the Damascus road episode and where can I read this account. It is okay you disagreeing with it but that is not a very convincing argument.
Secondly, I don't think that his former opposition to the gospel is the one and only thing which makes his teachings convincing.
It is a very strong argument thought, and one that cannot be shown to be true.
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.
We don’t really have a lot of Paul’s writings, perhaps 7 texts in the NT probably belonged to him, but there is so much of his life missing we would find it difficult to know what his favourite angle was.
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.
Have a look and find out.
But he does frequently speak about the gospel coming to him in a supernatural manner.
What evidence would that be?
The evidence I posted in the same post you replied to.
The account as I read it, suggests that he went above and beyond the call of duty to protect Judaism.
But this is where you again fail to address the point. Just like the dance you are doing with PaulK, you are avoiding the real issue.
You are saying he went above and beyond the call to protect Judaism, but how plausible is it that his approach is historically accurate?
Why would Paul be allowed to persecute Christians when Rome itself didn’t persecute them? Why would Paul be allowed to persecute Christians when it was Roman Law that everyone in the Empire was free to follow their own faith? Give me some sort of relevant reply here, not some dodge or YOUR opinion. I have asked two very well known Christians, who have both sold MILLIONS of books, and both of their replies have been infantile. So what have you got?
He went and asked permission to do something. In other words he initiated the idea himself.
Indeed, but he had to obtain letters from the High Priest to take to the Synagogues in Damascus, so if he found any Christians he could bind them and take them back to Jerusalem for trial and possibly to be put to death. Again, this is contrary to Pax Romana, so what evidence do you have that Paul would be exempt from this Roman Law?
Also, what power did the Sanhedrin have in Syria?
He invented a move of opposition out of his zeal.
It doesn’t matter what he invented it out of, the whole episode is historically unlikely.
Your skepticism about the matter appears to me to be so much super conspiracy theory
You call asking for evidence scepticism?
You call examining the evidence and drawing valid conclusions scepticism?
What do you call the blind acceptance of a text as accurate despite the huge mountains of contrary evidence?
of the type generated out of the Jesus Seminar kind of skepto hype.
As opposed to Glen Miller’s theology for kids?
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?
I sometimes wonder if you even read the Bible.
Allegedly Paul went to persecute Christians in Damascus, he had letters from the High Priests to the synagogues, we have to assume there was tension between the Jews and Christians otherwise the letters would be pointless. The Jews must have really hated the Christians in Damascus when they even let Paul preach there:
Acts 9:20 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
He whole story of Paul’s conversion is just ludicrous, and not to mention ontradictory.
Okay. Please stop feeding us this line about you soul searching and deciding to leave Christianity.
Don’t worry it isn’t infectious.
Who do you think you are, a Saul of Tarsus wannabe?
Why would I want to be a liar and a crook?
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.
You really should try responding to the points that I and others have made, this dancing around doesn’t reflect well on you.
So, I would appreciate if you could address the points I have made with some real evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2007 1:52 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jaywill, posted 11-03-2007 5:24 PM Brian has replied
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 11-03-2007 6:22 PM Brian has not replied

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


Message 86 of 517 (432089)
11-03-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Brian
11-03-2007 4:36 PM


Don’t worry it isn’t infectious.
Are you sure?
In Paul's day there were fellas like you standing by to contradict the teaching of the New Testament delivered to the apostles. There is nothing new under the sun. The Bible says that their error was quite contagious:
But avoid profane, vain babblings, for they will advance to more ungodliness,
And their word will spread like GANGRENE, of whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have misaimed, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Tim. 16-18)
Paul discribes the contradictory teaching of these First Century Brians and Jars to Paulks to be a wasteing death spreading desease - GANGRENE. Very contagious indeed.
What were they doing. They were contradicting the teaching of the apostles and putting their desired spin on the matter of resurrection.
Just like you are trying to craft your own version of the book of Acts and the account of Paul's calling to the apostleship of Christ, so they were spinning their ideas too.
Essentially, they were teaching people how to disbelieve the gospel of Christ. What are you doing? Teaching people how to disbelieve the New Testament Gospel too.
Paul was not at all polite about those busy tearing down the truth of the Gospel. He also wrote:
"If anyone teaches different things and does not consent to the healthy words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the teaching which is according to godliness, he is blinded with pride, understanding nothing, but is diseased with questionings and contentions of words, out of which come envy, strife, slanders, evil suspicions, perpetual wranglings of men corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth ..." (2 Tim. 6:3-5a)
Every word of Jesus Christ spritually healthy and your way of standing by to slander His apostle as a crook and to teach questionings probably demonstrates that you also very well may be:

1.) Blinded with pride
2.) Understanding nothing
3.) Diseased with questionings and contentions of words
4.) Given to envy, strife, slanders, and evil suspicions
At least you are continually suspicious that the writers of the Bible are out to deceive you.
5.) Corrupted in mind
6.) Given to perpetual wranglings
7.) Deprived of the truth
You're fighting against the Bible's teaching of the Deity of Christ at every step, it seems to me. And yes, such rebellion of unbelief can be infecting and spreading like gangrene.
Perhaps you never read about those who themselves would not enter into the kingdom of God and would neither allow others to enter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
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 85 by Brian, posted 11-03-2007 4:36 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Brian, posted 11-05-2007 5:18 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 87 of 517 (432093)
11-03-2007 6:08 PM


Why would Paul be allowed to persecute Christians when Rome itself didn’t persecute them?
The perceived "threat" to Roman politics was not immediately ascertained.
When the Christians grew in number in Rome the perceived danger materialized. As far as they were concerned the tension of the CHristians and the Jews was just a religious squabble within the Jewish religion. Big deal.
Why would Paul be allowed to persecute Christians when it was Roman Law that everyone in the Empire was free to follow their own faith?
Some of the Ceasars did not appreciate not being thought of as gods themselves. So how can you say that if the Christians regarded Jesus as another God besides the Ceasar they would not be concerned?
Even the suggestion that Pilate might be allowing the proclaimation that there was another King besides Ceasar was held up to Pilate as a threat. He caved into the mob and had Jesus crucified.
I think you have some revisionist history going on suggesting that the Romans couldn't care less about the cult of Jesus. I suggest that as time progressed gradually intolerance of the Christian church grew to the Romans.
Give me some sort of relevant reply here, not some dodge or YOUR opinion. I have asked two very well known Christians, who have both sold MILLIONS of books, and both of their replies have been infantile. So what have you got?
I'm kind of wary of Christians who have sold millions of books.
So your compliant is that Paul hyped his conversion experience? And you say that the Roman Empire was tolerant towards the "Jesus is a King" cult among the Jews?
Very INTERESTING !!
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Brian, posted 11-05-2007 5:41 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 88 of 517 (432094)
11-03-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Brian
11-03-2007 4:36 PM


whole story of Paul’s conversion is just ludicrous, and not to mention [c]ontradictory.
What is the single most contradictory thing about his testimony?
Don't give me the lesser contradictions. Give me the BIGGEST contradiction you have.
I'll reply. What's your most striking case of a contradiction ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Brian, posted 11-03-2007 4:36 PM Brian has not replied

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


Message 89 of 517 (432099)
11-03-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jaywill
11-03-2007 10:08 AM


quote:
You don't know that such an unusual phenomenon could not be witnessed. Why would not an unusual event accompany an unusual Person? That was the whole point. Something extraordinary was taking place.
Perhaps you would like to try answering my actual point. There is no point in attempting to link a miraculous star to astronomical phenomena because - by definition - they will not fit.
quote:
I don't know what "we" you are speaking of. But Hugh Ross has documented this history.
All Hugh Ross can do is speculate. He doesn't know when Jesus was born so he can do no more.
quote:
Where is the record from the first century disputing it and maintaining that there was no massacre?
Why would there be one ? Herod was an unpleasant memory even to the Jews by the time the Gospel of Matthew was even written. Why should those Jews aware of the Gospel choose to disputre that point ? And if they had what makes you think that their views would ahve survived ? Christians were not keen to preserve works critical of their religion. The massacre itself - if it had happene d- would be much more likelly to leave records.
quote:
True that he is anonymous. But when the list of 12 disciples is mentioned the order is different in Matthew than in the other gospels.
Not exactly a strong argument. Fortunately since you beleive that any disputes with the document swoudl ahve survived to reach us, you must have a first century source testifying to the authorship. If that is you are being consistent. But then you aren't, are you ?
quote:
It all amounts to a huge conspiracy theory which requires more "faith" to believed occured than to just believe what is written in the Bible.
That's complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy involved at all. Authors adding to the works of others, writing in the names of others, people attempting to identify the authorship of doucuments - and relying on wishful thinking more than evidence. But no conspiracy.
quote:
I appreciate honesty. I just am more impressed with the character of Matthew than with yours. And I think that you are not telling me a lot about the writing of the Bible actually. I think you are telling me a lot about the unbelieving strivings of your own soul.
Well you're wrong. I don't feel the slightest urge to join your religion. Why would I want to be like you - prejudiced to the point where I cannot even read the views of those who reveal truths I don't like ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jaywill, posted 11-03-2007 10:08 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jaywill, posted 11-04-2007 8:25 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 90 of 517 (432153)
11-04-2007 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
11-03-2007 7:18 PM


Perhaps you would like to try answering my actual point. There is no point in attempting to link a miraculous star to astronomical phenomena because - by definition - they will not fit.
I am no sure what you mean here.
However, in a number of places significant events in the move of God to accomplish His eternal purpose were accompanied by confirming events in the natural world. This is one way of God reminding man that creation is for man and man is for God's eternal purpose.
Of course modern thought is that man is accidently here in a purposeless and random way. But the Bible's view is the creation if for man its center and humanity if for the eternal purpose of God.
At one point the conquest of Canaan under Joshua and his army was accompanied by stones falling from the sky on the enemies. The parting of the Red Sea would be another example. The turning back of the sun dial for Hezekiah would be another example.
The point is that sometimes God accompanied a crucial turning point in His economical move with a miraculous and confirming sign in the natural world.
All Hugh Ross can do is speculate. He doesn't know when Jesus was born so he can do no more.
Speculation can be more or less accurate at times.
Why would there be one ?
There might be one. If ancient people as intelligent as you and as concerned as you with "debunking" the gospel as you apparently are, then maybe they protested to "false propoganda" circulating in the gospel of Matthew.
Your case would be stonger if you could show that contempory sources protested that there was no such massacre as described under Herod related to a Messiah.
Herod was an unpleasant memory even to the Jews by the time the Gospel of Matthew was even written.
That's my point. If the Jews as concerned with you with the "accurate telling of the history of Jesus" (so to speak) wanted to correct misinformation, here was a good opportunity to do so.
Your case would be stronger if you showed that contemporary writings denied this massacre of Herod in relation to a Messiah. It easy to come along 2,000 years latter and with great fanfare say "We know that this never happened."
Did anyone in the first or second century protest that it never happened? Look, maybe you'll find something. It was a question.
Why should those Jews aware of the Gospel choose to disputre that point ?
Because since the advent of the Christian church Judaism has been largely concerned with constantly reinforcing its core tenets that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah.
And if they had what makes you think that their views would ahve survived ? Christians were not keen to preserve works critical of their religion. The massacre itself - if it had happene d- would be much more likelly to leave records.
So its the Christian's fault that such works did not survive?
The Christians buried the evidence of contradicting Matthew's account?
If you don't have evidence that that occured in this case, then its just speculation. They didn't seem to be able to hide or suppress the plethora various other non-canonical writings like the Gospel of Thomas, and Mary, and Peter, and so on which the orthodox find destructive to the biblical faith. Thus such many writing were not declared inspired or canonical.
Thse many writing still survive to the glee of conspiracy spinners.
Well you're wrong. I don't feel the slightest urge to join your religion. Why would I want to be like you - prejudiced to the point where I cannot even read the views of those who reveal truths I don't like ?
I have no religion for you to join. My Christ is a living Person not a religion.
So then you know it to be true that Saul of Tarsus was in fact not a zealous persecutor of the disciples of Jesus? So then you know it to be true that Herod did not kill three year old boys in an attempt to murder Jesus? You know it to be true that these things never happened?
Or are you just demonstrating that you can come up with at least a plausible alternative explanation to hundreds of items recorded in the New Testament as facts?
The writer of the book of Matthew displays a concern that Christians would have the highest morality in the world. The writer of the book of Matthew highights the most difficult teachings of Christ in terms of the morality and behavior.
If the author of Matthew was so focused on this impossibly high level of morality taught by Jesus, ie. loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek, not even looking at a woman to lust after her, not being murderous even in the anger of the heart, not being a hypocrit, etc. etc., then how is it that he found it so easy to tell us a lie about the birth of Jesus?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2007 7:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2007 10:16 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024