Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-20-2019 8:11 PM
160 online now:
dwise1, Meddle, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (5 members, 155 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,739 Year: 2,776/19,786 Month: 858/1,918 Week: 145/301 Day: 28/35 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Did Jesus die before he was born?
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 16 of 91 (47144)
07-23-2003 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
07-13-2003 1:34 PM


Paul also seems unaware of almost any of Jesus's famous sayings, nor the three days in the tomb, nor the ascension to heaven, nor the appearances to the apostles and crowds in Jerusalem.

I was under the impression that 1 Corinthians was not under question as a whole nor part, as far as its Pauline authorship. Maybe I'm mistaken. Chapter 15 of that letter, however, mentions the three days, the ascencion, and the appearance to the apostles and crowds.

Well, I guess it doesn't mention the ascension specifically, but since the whole chapter is on the resurrection, and he mentions repeatedly that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, it should be safe to assume that he must have ascended at some point.

Oh, the ascencion is mentioned specifically in Ephesians 4:8-10; I think another pretty well-accepted writing of Paul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 07-13-2003 1:34 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 07-24-2003 10:38 AM truthlover has responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 17 of 91 (47146)
07-23-2003 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Souljah1
07-23-2003 7:58 PM


we can disprove alot of the Bible.. so I am not sure what you are talking about
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Souljah1, posted 07-23-2003 7:58 PM Souljah1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 8:21 PM DC85 has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4628
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 91 (47148)
07-23-2003 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by DC85
07-23-2003 8:16 PM


'Jesus is alive and there aint nothing no body can do about it!'

I absolutely 100% agree which is usually what the evo's do, they usually think by agreeing Jesus isn't alive that will make him go away, but the fact is no one can disprove the bible that is simply tosh!
HE IS ALIVE get over it evo's!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DC85, posted 07-23-2003 8:16 PM DC85 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2003 9:55 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4628
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 91 (47152)
07-23-2003 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Souljah1
07-23-2003 7:58 PM


' but the fact is he revealed himself to atleast 400 people after he rose again and there is historical information that documents this....The Bible'

I totally agree Souljah 1 but they wont agree with us, if a scientist wrote it they would agree with us, but let not the unfaithful deter us! there is nothing they can do to rid Jesus, they can agree with each other all the day long but that dont make them right!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Souljah1, posted 07-23-2003 7:58 PM Souljah1 has not yet responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 20 of 91 (47155)
07-23-2003 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
07-13-2003 1:34 PM


The Christian church grew out of a collection of loosely aligned churches of the Jewish Diaspora of the early 1st century AD, perhaps developing out of the Essene movement. In other words, the churches of Corinth and of the Galatians who received letters from Paul existed long before Paul ever began his ministry.

Is this necessary? The Jewish diaspora produced synagogues, not that much different than our idea of a church. Since Acts describes trips into synagogues, why invent something different?

You are suggesting that Paul formed his own churches or won them over from existing ones. Acts suggested that he formed his own with those won over from existing synagogues, which appeared to be open to speakers. I don't know that your suggestion adds anything here.

On the other hand, my interpretation of the writings of the 2nd century church leads me to believe that teachers taught on their own in house churches or in their own house or place of business even in Paul's churches. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early 2nd century, seems to be trying to put a stop to that sort of private teaching, because the gnostics were using it so effectively.

If Paul were aware of a virgin birth he would have mentioned it in these passages.

Paul also seems unaware of almost any of Jesus's famous sayings, nor the three days in the tomb, nor the ascension to heaven, nor the appearances to the apostles and crowds in Jerusalem.

I mentioned the last part of your quote in my previous post. Luke seems to be credited among the early Christians with having produced his Gospel under Paul's authority. I don't know how much room the Acts or the Galatians version give for Paul to have learned much of the stories of Christ if they were passed around verbally. Instead, Luke gathered them up at some point, stating that is what he was doing, and Paul may have heard few of them prior to Luke's new career as a journalist, if Luke was even still with him at that point.

He was greater than John the Baptist, yet John the Baptist is mentioned contemporaneously and Jesus isn't.

Jesus' time frame has been curious to me for a long time. Irenaeus, a well-respected bishop of the late 2nd century, suggests that Jesus didn't die until he was at least around fifty. Of course, there are the problems with the census, which didn't happen when Luke said it did. Yet, it did happen. (AD 14 or 14 BC?)

There are a lot of claims of being an eye-witness in John's Gospel and letters. If there's any truth to those claims, then it was an "apostle" who wrote the Gospel, no matter what his name, because he was an eye-witness and close companion.

{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 07-13-2003 1:34 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 21 of 91 (47171)
07-23-2003 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brian
07-15-2003 10:56 AM


I totally agree, and would add that the circumstances surrounding Jesus' arrest, trial, and execution are historically impossible.

I commented on this in a closed thread (www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=6&t=133&m=30#30 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=6&t=133&m=30#30">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=6&t=133&m=30#30). Would you be interested in addressing my post here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 07-15-2003 10:56 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Brian, posted 07-24-2003 5:41 AM truthlover has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 91 (47195)
07-23-2003 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
07-23-2003 8:21 PM


HE IS ALIVE get over it evo's!

Oh? Where is he?

there is nothing they can do to rid Jesus,

Who wants to get rid of him? I'm sure he was a great guy. But he died a very, very long time ago, and left no writings of any kind, as far as we can tell. So who's to say what he did or did not do or say? None of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses to those events, to my knowledge.

they can agree with each other all the day long but that dont make them right!!!

Actually, it's not so much we agree with each other but that we agree with the evidence.

[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 8:21 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 9:56 PM crashfrog has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4628
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 23 of 91 (47196)
07-23-2003 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
07-23-2003 9:55 PM


He is risen.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2003 9:55 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2003 9:59 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 91 (47198)
07-23-2003 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
07-23-2003 9:56 PM


He is risen.

Right, but risen to where? (Isn't it "he rose", or at least "he has arisen"?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 9:56 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Souljah1, posted 07-24-2003 1:22 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Souljah1
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 91 (47236)
07-24-2003 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
07-23-2003 9:59 PM


Crashfrog I do not understand why you would go to great lengths to argue something you are not sure of. You said in a previous post that none of the writings of the bible were written by eyewitnesses. Well first of all your wrong. Atleast Matthew and John would of been eyewitnesses, not to mention James and Peter two of the other diciples who have writings in the bible. But all this is besides the point. Whether they were eyewitnesses or not you along with the rest of your companions will find a way of trying to disprove that as well. The fact of the matter is Crashfrog, for you to believe in this Jesus we talk about you will need him to pay you a visit, tell you who he is, and then you will probably ask him to prove it some how. You see your mentality as well as many others is "I will believe once I have tangible evidence" And not just any but 100% valid evidence....which to prove to an evolutionists is practically impossible. I mean there are untold books in libraries, even in Encyclopedias which have commentaries of Charles Darwin who professed to the infallibilty of Evolution. You see one of the main professors himself ended up saying it was a lie.....oh but I know you want to hear it from his mouth right? Unfortunately that is impossible as well. You are a sinner crashfrog just like any body else and if God is real and his Word is true, the only way you can be forgiven is through accepting his Son as your personal Savior.....nothing more, nothing less.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2003 9:59 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2003 2:27 AM Souljah1 has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-24-2003 2:29 AM Souljah1 has not yet responded
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2003 4:33 AM Souljah1 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 91 (47239)
07-24-2003 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Souljah1
07-24-2003 1:22 AM


I do not understand why you would go to great lengths to argue something you are not sure of.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. (And I generally don't consider internet forums to be "great lengths" in terms of having arguments.) If you're referring to the existence of god, well, I'm as sure that he doesn't exist as you are that he is. Surer, perhaps, because on my side I have the fact that there's no evidence that god exists.

Atleast Matthew and John would of been eyewitnesses, not to mention James and Peter two of the other diciples who have writings in the bible.

Are you sure about that? I confess immediately, I'm no bible scholar. It was my impression that the earliest that the New Testament could have been written was some 40 years after the events detailed in it. And I wasn't aware that the Peter (as in, Simon Peter?) was the author of any of the books. Which ones was he the author of?

Whether they were eyewitnesses or not you along with the rest of your companions will find a way of trying to disprove that as well.

Well, only if it's not true. We can hardly disprove something that is true, right?

You see your mentality as well as many others is "I will believe once I have tangible evidence"

Yes, that's true. I'm not in the habit of believing things for no reason. It's puzzling to me that you think this is a bad thing.

And not just any but 100% valid evidence

Also true. If I can explain your evidence without recourse to gods, then it's not really evidence for the existence of any gods. That's basically Occam's Razor.

which to prove to an evolutionists is practically impossible.

Nope. It wouldn't be any harder to prove to me god exists than it would be to prove to me that you exist.

You see one of the main professors himself ended up saying it was a lie

I don't doubt it. As it turns out, many theologians - even priests - say at one point or another "God doesn't exist." Are we to take them at face value, as well? If your own authority figures don't always believe in god, surely the whole thing is bunk?

No? Then why would you apply the same standard to evolution? Kind of a double standard, no?

You are a sinner crashfrog just like any body else

Actually, nope. I'm not a sinner.

if God is real and his Word is true, the only way you can be forgiven is through accepting his Son as your personal Savior

Good thing I haven't done anything I need forgiving from. Whew! Is my mind ever at ease!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Souljah1, posted 07-24-2003 1:22 AM Souljah1 has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 91 (47240)
07-24-2003 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Souljah1
07-24-2003 1:22 AM


quote:
I mean there are untold books in libraries, even in Encyclopedias which have commentaries of Charles Darwin who professed to the infallibilty of Evolution. You see one of the main professors himself ended up saying it was a lie

Um... I think you mean "fallibility." If something is infallible, it means it is incapable of error.

Regardless, what does Charles Darwin have to do with biblical historical analysis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Souljah1, posted 07-24-2003 1:22 AM Souljah1 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14717
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 28 of 91 (47257)
07-24-2003 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Souljah1
07-24-2003 1:22 AM


Souljah1, I think you need to read some better books.

Here are some facts for you. Charles Darwin never denied the truth of evolution.

THe authorship of much of the bible - evne the New Testament is very uncertain. The anonymous author of "Matthew" appears to have taken much of his material from Mark (the alternative, that Mark copied from Matthew is less likely). There is no evidence that the author of Matthew was an eye-witness, and the use of material from Mark makes it very unlikely.
The authorship of John is also uncertain and we cannot say whether the author was or was not an eyewitness


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Souljah1, posted 07-24-2003 1:22 AM Souljah1 has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 29 of 91 (47264)
07-24-2003 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by truthlover
07-23-2003 9:04 PM


Hi TL,

I just saw your post, I am a bit busy right now, but I will post a response on sunday or monday. Hope this isnt too much of an inconvenience for you but I have something that needs doing urgently!

Brian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by truthlover, posted 07-23-2003 9:04 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by truthlover, posted 07-24-2003 12:24 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18261
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 30 of 91 (47275)
07-24-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by truthlover
07-23-2003 8:14 PM


Hi, TL!

truthlover writes:

I was under the impression that 1 Corinthians was not under question as a whole nor part, as far as its Pauline authorship. Maybe I'm mistaken. Chapter 15 of that letter, however, mentions the three days,...and the appearance to the apostles and crowds.

Here's the passage you mention:

1 Cor 15:3-8 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

While there is no strong evidence one way or the other, this is likely a Christian insertion. One piece of evidence for this is that Bishop Irenaeus, despite his familiarity with 1 Corinthians, never mentions the passage in his defense against charges by the Marcion church that the resurrected Jesus had never been observed by any but Paul. The only explanation is that this passage was not present in the copy of 1 Corinthians available to the bishop.

Oh, the ascension is mentioned specifically in Ephesians 4:8-10; I think another pretty well-accepted writing of Paul.

This passage simply assumes an ascension, and if you read on through the rest of the passage Paul's meaning becomes increasingly tangled as he says ascension also means descension and more.

By ascension I was referring to the witnessed ascension described in Luke. Paul seems completely unaware of it.

While it can be argued that Paul's purpose in writing his letters was not to relate the story of Jesus nor even to communicate specific information about Jesus's ministry, it is too amazing to believe that he could have so thoroughly avoided mention of any of Jesus's sayings or acts had he been aware of them. The only explanation is that he was unaware of most of what is described in the gospels, because what appears there is a later construction.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by truthlover, posted 07-23-2003 8:14 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by truthlover, posted 07-24-2003 12:51 PM Percy has responded

    
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019