behold the man

Originally posted by stellspalfie
as your were talking about listening to "Chronicles of the Black Sword" in the other thread i thought you would be a big moorcock fan?

Why would you think that; I've never read anything by that author and judging by your OP I never will.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why would you think that; I've never read anything by that author and judging by your OP I never will.

are you having a period or something? feeling a bit of hostility coming my way.

'chronicles of the black sword' is based on the books of m.moorcock. moorcock was often seen taking to the stage with hawkwind to recite passages from his books.

despite my how feel about my op, 'behold the man' is a highly respected book, in fact it won the nebula award in 1969.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you having a period or something? feeling a bit of hostility coming my way.

'chronicles of the black sword' is based on the books of m.moorcock. moorcock was often seen taking to the stage with hawkwind to recite passages from his books.

despite my how feel about my op, 'behold the man' is a highly respected book, in fact it won the nebula award in 1969.

Then perhaps you should give it more respect than dragging it into a silly question about time-travelling theists?

Edit: yes hostility is a normal response to ridicule, which your OP is.

Originally posted by divegeester
Then perhaps you should give it more respect than dragging it into a silly question about time-travelling theists?

Edit: yes hostility is a normal response to ridicule, which your OP is.

querying if what a religion has become is more important than the truth behind it isnt a silly question (in my opinion). it would seem to me many things are done by organized religion (the catholic church in particular) to maintain the religion sometimes to the detriment of its teachings. it also asks the question, does it mater who was christ? i think the book asked a lot of interesting questions, some of which i assume were to inspire debate in the reader.......and where better to debate religion than here.

where am i ridiculing in my op?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
querying if what a religion has become is more important than the truth behind it isnt a silly question (in my opinion). it would seem to me many things are done by organized religion (the catholic church in particular) to maintain the religion sometimes to the detriment of its teachings. it also asks the question, does it mater who was christ? i think ...[text shortened]... e reader.......and where better to debate religion than here.

where am i ridiculing in my op?

Why don't you re-read the first few responses to your op from the theists here for receptive context and stop trying to hide your cheap jab behind some retrospective pseudo-intellectual inquiry. Perhaps you have an interesting point to make and it's your tone you need to adjust.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why don't you re-read the first few responses to your op from the theists here for receptive context and stop trying to hide your cheap jab behind some retrospective pseudo-intellectual inquiry. Perhaps you have an interesting point to make and it's your tone you need to adjust.

you can choose not to believe me but no cheap jibe was intended any tone you can hear in my op is one you have imagined. ive re-read it and can not see where you think i am having a 'jibe'. ive mealy asked a question that i felt the book was asking. the book isnt anti religion or pro religion its just asking questions.

i will admit sometimes i do post the odd snipe at religion but its nearly always light hearted. maybe you have pre-judged my intent based upon other things i have said, if that is so then i suppose i have to accept a skeptical response from theists on this forum. although i would point out when christians post things i think are silly, i never respond with hostility unless they are inciting hatred towards others.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you can choose not to believe me but no cheap jibe was intended any tone you can hear in my op is one you have imagined. ive re-read it and can not see where you think i am having a 'jibe'. ive mealy asked a question that i felt the book was asking. the book isnt anti religion or pro religion its just asking questions.

i will admit sometimes i do pos ...[text shortened]... hink are silly, i never respond with hostility unless they are inciting hatred towards others.

I'm a frustrated theist looking for the truth and an atheist to pick an Easter fight with. I apologise for being prickly.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm a frustrated theist looking for the truth and an atheist to pick an Easter fight with. I apologise for being prickly.

crushing chocolate eggs helps ease frustrations around easter time.

no apology needed, i dont mind copping some flack, i was just surprised it was this post. my missus would probably agree with you about the pseudo intellectual bit though. so maybe you weren't all wrong!!

its funny, im not sure why but i had you down as an atheist who liked a balanced argument rather than a theist.

Originally posted by JS357
"Let's put it this way. If I went back in time and found out through time travel that the gospels were fiction, I think it would be important to find WHOEVER had the wisdom and imagination to create such an imaginary character as Jesus of Nazareth . "

Leaving aside the question of whether the character written of corresponds to an existent being, or is imag played a major role? Another major role was played by the folks who defined the canon. IMO.

s

Leaving aside the question of whether the character written of corresponds to an existent being, or is imaginary in whole or in part, don't you think Paul played a major role? Another major role was played by the folks who defined the canon. IMO.

I don't think it is a problem that "Paul played a major role". Jesus said that His faithful believing disciples would do "greater" works. -

"Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes into Me, the works which I do he shall do also; and greater than these he shall do because I go to the Father." (John 14:21)

Now we have to understand what's constitutes "greater ... works" in the mind of Christ. I don't think it means that whereas He walked upon the water, His disciples will walk three feet above the water. The "greater things" have to do with the propogation of His teaching to more people and establishing the churches.

Paul pioneered in the experience of Christ in consecration, service, faith and labor. So I think it is marvelous that Paul played a very significant role.

As for the canon, my view differs from that of the skeptic. I don't think the canon was invented. I think it was discovered. I don't think the canon was an authoritative list of books. I think it was a list of authoritative books.

The canon was a matter of discovery rather than concoction. It should be expected that God having "breathed out" some divine writings, His enemy and the natural religious mind would flood the world also with material to confuse the matter.

And we must not expect that all that additional flooded out material, apochraphal, pseudopighraphal, etc. would be obviously bad stuff. A lot of it was good religious writing. A lot of it was important historical writing about the era. And of course some of it was simply bad and untruthful "jump on the bandwagon" religious hype.

From this plethora of writings, men of God detected out the canonical books. Do not mistake my meaning. Much of that additional writing may have been spiritual in the truest sense. Still they were not up to the canonical test of the inspired word of God.

Originally posted by jaywill
s

Leaving aside the question of whether the character written of corresponds to an existent being, or is imaginary in whole or in part, don't you think Paul played a major role? Another major role was played by the folks who defined the canon. IMO.

I don't think it is a problem that "Paul played a major role". Jesus said that His faithfu ...[text shortened]... e. Still they were not up to the canonical test of the inspired word of God.

Believing that the writing was divinely inspired rather blunts any pretense in an effort to "...find WHOEVER had the wisdom and imagination to create such an imaginary character as Jesus of Nazareth . " I wonder if theists such as yourself have an interest in considering the Bible as literature, setting aside for the moment, that belief, and its implications. It seems difficult and possibly pointless.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
hypothetical question (to be most probably ignored) #6783

i read a book called "behold the man" in which a time traveler goes back to 28ad and finds that christ is profoundly mentally disabled and not capable of being and doing the things described in the bible. having strong religious beliefs the man decides to play the part of christ and make sure ...[text shortened]... question - would you do the same to ensure that christianity or your chosen religion happens?

so how did the man knew about christ in the first place? did he went to a parallel universe's past?

Originally posted by RBHILL
That is not what i said.

Hence the question mark, suggesting I want clarification. I see you do not want to clarify.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so how did the man knew about christ in the first place? did he went to a parallel universe's past?

i think its left up to the reader to decide. i think its like a time paradox and he has always been christ, he hears about jesus in his time because he had gone back and created christ in the past. or that without him going back in time christianity is fake, by becoming christ he has given it some truth. give it a read see what you think.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
hypothetical question (to be most probably ignored) #6783

i read a book called "behold the man" in which a time traveler goes back to 28ad and finds that christ is profoundly mentally disabled and not capable of being and doing the things described in the bible. having strong religious beliefs the man decides to play the part of christ and make sure ...[text shortened]... question - would you do the same to ensure that christianity or your chosen religion happens?

Why would I? If I'm happy with the way my religion turned out, I'm just going to screw it up by taking the place of a key historical actor. For whatever reason, Christianity 'happened' despite Jesus' retardation. It is already 'ensured'.