Spirituality
11 Dec 08
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieof course you would call that proof.
och yer bum Zahlanzi, he clearly states that Christianity is nothing but mythology, now to the reasonable person thats a positive assertion of embellishment and fabrication, therefore he requires proof. i for my part have consistently provided proof, and as for the rest of the text it would hardly make sense if the Hebrew scriptures were not there a ...[text shortened]... uttgart, 1986, page 27.
so where is the evidence, he made the assertion, where is the proof!
here is a tip for you, when you want to prove something, and offer somebody else's work as proof, dont offer the conclusion, but do try and put the steps that certain somebody took to reach that conclusion.
you found somebody to support your claim, yay hooray congratz. now what am i supposed to do? bow down in awe because a certain individual i heard nothing about published a paper nobody has heard anything about? how is that different than you claiming the exact same thing and offering no proofs to back up your claim. tell me who that person is and how did he came to that conclusion.
and you are retarded. "That's a span of more than a century where you have no manuscript copies whatsoever. Who can say what changes were made to Jesus' words during that time? It would be like someone trying to write a biography of George Washington if the earliest fragmentary manuscripts they had access to were from 1919."
these are his exact words. where does it say christianity is mythology and nobody can believe it? whether he believes that is irrelevant. take that post and look through it, not the person posting it and not his previous thought. he presented an idea, debate that idea, counter it if you can.
but then again, what do you know about civilized debating? you spam and rant what you like, you bring counter points to something nobody has said and when a topic isn't to your liking, you rant some more and switch the subject.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you a complete chowderhead (in the best sense of the term, of course)? If there is some continuity between the New Testament writings and the Hebrew scriptures, it is precisely because the early Christian writers all had the Hebrew scriptures sitting right in front of them when they cobbled together their new mythology. They took what they had heard about Jesus and concocted a narrative that borrowed liberally from the Hebrew scriptures that were already in their possession. With hindsight working in their favor, they retroactively crafted their story to make it appear that Hebrew scriptures "foretold" the coming of Jesus. But in the process of weaving their elaborate mythology, they lost sight of who Jesus really was.
what difference does it make? duh! it shows quite clearly that there was a continuity of thought, practice, scriptural and doctrinal integrity, right up until the death of the last apostles and beyond, for many of the portions of the greek scriptures (which you are trying to discredit) are directly traceble to the Hebrew scriptures. how did they ge ...[text shortened]... the integrity of scripture based on teaching and practice would contradict your baseless claims.
You would do yourself a great service by abandoning this childish mythology and start following the research being done on the 'historical Jesus.'
15 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs an introduction to the historical Jesus, here are a few paragraphs from Wikipedia to get you going:
what difference does it make? duh! it shows quite clearly that there was a continuity of thought, practice, scriptural and doctrinal integrity, right up until the death of the last apostles and beyond, for many of the portions of the greek scriptures (which you are trying to discredit) are directly traceble to the Hebrew scriptures. how did they ge ...[text shortened]... the integrity of scripture based on teaching and practice would contradict your baseless claims.
The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage who did not die as a substitute for sinners nor rise from the dead, but preached a "social gospel" in startling parables and aphorisms. An iconoclast, Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience: He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as "Kingdom of God" ) as being already present but unseen; he depicts God as a loving father; he fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders.
The seminar treats the gospels as historical artifacts, representing not only Jesus' actual words and deeds but also the inventions and elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity. Unconcerned with canonical boundaries, they asserted that the Gospel of Thomas may have more authentic material than the Gospel of John.
While analyzing the gospels as fallible human creations is a standard historical-critical method, the seminar's premise that Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic world view is controversial. Rather than revealing an apocalyptic eschatology, which instructs his disciples to prepare for the end of the world, the fellows argue that the authentic words of Jesus indicate that he preached a sapiential eschatology, which encourages all God's children to repair the world.
For further research you could take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
I would also strongly recommend Bart Ehrman's book: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Once you've gotten those under your belt, you should begin to see what a complete waste your whole life has been up to this point 😉. But don't worry, robbie, I'll do what I can to set you on the right path.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou don't get it Zahlanzi.
how do you know you followed the steps necessary to save yourself? did god tell you that? did a priest or a pastor tell you that? did the bible tell you that?
how do you know that the bible is true? several books were left out of the bible. catholics gathered and decided some books are to be put in the bible and some not. years after the events happened ...[text shortened]... eople and you would not be saved anymore so what is the point of claiming such a thing now/
For example, take the the question, "how do you know you followed the steps necessary to save yourself?"
How does one save one's self?
15 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettthat they took what they new about Christ and cobbled together a narrative? are you insane? completely prejudiced or what? or just a super chowder dude.
Are you a complete chowderhead (in the best sense of the term, of course)? If there is some continuity between the New Testament writings and the Hebrew scriptures, it is precisely because the early Christian writers all had the Hebrew scriptures sitting right in front of them when they cobbled together their new mythology. They took what they had heard abo is childish mythology and start following the research being done on the 'historical Jesus.'
1. the gospels begin with the lineage of the Christ. why because it was important to establish that he was a son of David, both through his mothers and his fathers lineage. did the gospel writers make this up? clearly not for the records were carefully recorded and kept safe, anyone could have checked the validity of these claims right up until the year seventy when all records were destroyed by the Romans.
2. that the gospels as well as the teachings of Christ themselves contain many references to the Hebrew scriptures which can be readily checked and validated, therefore we must discount this portion of scripture as having been fabricated.
3. that when an oral source has been included these were taken from eye witness accounts and carefully recorded as is the case with the gospel of Luke.
4 that the text which we posses today has remained almost unaltered for almost 2000 years, yet you claim that that within the period of Christs death and to the production of the first available manuscripts this was not the case. it is nothing more than conjecture.
5, that there is more evidence for scriptural integrity than any other ancient writing. why are you atheists not winging on about the character of Caesar or the writings of Tacitus or Pliny the younger, from which there is scant evidence when compared to scripture.
no i would do myself a favour by abandoning fruitless discussions with those who have no more evidence for their absurd claims other than what we do not posses.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere someone has to explain something for me:
1. the gospels begin with the lineage of the Christ. why because it was important to establish that he was a son of David, both through his mothers and his fathers lineage. did the gospel writers make this up? clearly not for the records were carefully recorded and kept safe, anyone could have checked the validity of these claims right up until the year seventy when all records were destroyed by the Romans.
First question:
David was not Marys forefather, right? Joseph was, right?
But Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, the holy spirit was, right?
So Jesus doesn't stem from David, right?
Second question:
There are two different genealogies from David to Jesus. One must be false. Right?
15 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettno, i can see no evidence here other than pure and utter conjecture and postulation, I'm sorry but you have only actually confirmed the fact that atheists are like little worms, in that when you turn over the stone and expose them to the light of truth, they don't like it and would rather squirm away back into the comfort and darkness of postulation, speculation and conjecture. they are always learning yet can never really come to an accurate knowledge of truth, truly pitiful.[/
As an introduction to the historical Jesus, here are a few paragraphs from Wikipedia to get you going:
[i]The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage who did not die as a substitute for sinners nor rise from the dead, but preached a "social gospel" in startling parables and aphorisms. An icono nt 😉. But don't worry, robbie, I'll do what I can to set you on the right path.
15 Dec 08
You should read "misquoting jesus", can't remember who its by, but its interesting, he catalogs all the known alterations edits etc that he can dig up and interprets why the changes are likely to have been made in the context of fashion, politics, society, war etc. They guy is still very much a christian but he has some vaild points. Particularly with the new testament.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by Mexicoyou should read 'the life and times of the messiah', written by Alfred Edersheim, who being an expert of Jewish antiquities, in a very brilliant way upholds the integrity of the gospel accounts and the historical personage of Christ that has come down to us through scripture.
You should read "misquoting jesus", can't remember who its by, but its interesting, he catalogs all the known alterations edits etc that he can dig up and interprets why the changes are likely to have been made in the context of fashion, politics, society, war etc. They guy is still very much a christian but he has some vaild points. Particularly with the new testament.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasJesus lineage is the first evidence the Christian Greek Scriptures give in support of his Messiahship. The Bible foretold that the Messiah would come from the family line of King David. (Psalm 132 verses 11, 12 and Isaiah 11 verses 1 and 10)
Here someone has to explain something for me:
First question:
David was not Marys forefather, right? Joseph was, right?
But Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, the holy spirit was, right?
So Jesus doesn't stem from David, right?
Second question:
There are two different genealogies from David to Jesus. One must be false. Right?
Matthews Gospel begins ' The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham', Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph. (Matthew 1 verses 1 to 16)
Lukes Gospel traces Jesus lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam. (Luke 3:23 to 38)
Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense.
15 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzisorry a simple ' we don't have any proof would have sufficed', rather than your incessant rantings and non entity of anything of substance. and yes you can worship me if you like, i am but a man though, and you would be committing an act of idolatry, but that would be up to you. and i am certainly not going to take any tips from you on how to conduct a debate, discredit the source if you will, the point is valid and sufficed to illustrate the point.
of course you would call that proof.
here is a tip for you, when you want to prove something, and offer somebody else's work as proof, dont offer the conclusion, but do try and put the steps that certain somebody took to reach that conclusion.
you found somebody to support your claim, yay hooray congratz. now what am i supposed to do? bow down in awe has said and when a topic isn't to your liking, you rant some more and switch the subject.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJoseph wasn't Jesus biological father, so the genetic lineage breaks there. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. There is something fishy here. Please explain.
Jesus lineage is the first evidence the Christian Greek Scriptures give in support of his Messiahship. The Bible foretold that the Messiah would come from the family line of King David. (Psalm 132 verses 11, 12 and Isaiah 11 verses 1 and 10)
Matthews Gospel begins ' The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham', Matthew b ...[text shortened]... document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense.
If we count the people in the lineage and compare Mathew's with Luke's we get different result. One of the two genealogies must be wrong. Please explain.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1. The christian writers wanted to portray Jesus as being from David's lineage, so they pretty much just made it up to suit themselves. It isn't true.
that they took what they new about Christ and cobbled together a narrative? are you insane? completely prejudiced or what? or just a super chowder dude.
1. the gospels begin with the lineage of the Christ. why because it was important to establish that he was a son of David, both through his mothers and his fathers lineage. did the gospel wri ...[text shortened]... ith those who have no more evidence for their absurd claims other than what we do not posses.I'
2. I'm sure Jesus could quote Hebrew scripture with the best of them. After all, he was Jewish. I fail to see how any of this validates your christian mythology.
3. Eyewitness accounts? You wish. I repeat: none of the gospels was written by anyone who had met Jesus.
4. The orthodox texts have remained fairly unaltered since they were written down. Prior to that wholesale changes were made and complete mythologies were made up from whole cloth. Plus there were whole other versions out there which may have had primacy over your version.
5. There are more examples of scriptural writing than any other ancient writing. But it does not translate into evidence for scriptural integrity. Quite the contrary, a unbiased examination of the texts (both orthodox and non-orthodox) would prove the exact opposite.
If you would dare to venture outside your pro-orthodox comfort zone and read some more of the wide variety of research that's being done in the field of biblical study, then you would see that your cherished assumptions are no longer quite as solid as they once seemed. There is less and less support for your mythology among serious scholars with each passing year. The whole mythological edifice is crumbling around the literalists as they vainly try to shore up its rotting foundation. The Davidic lineage. The virgin birth. The miracles. The resurrection. Even the atonement of sin through Jesus' death. They are all myths that can no longer be supported by a thinking adult in the 21st century. You need to cast off these farcical super hero attributes and rediscover the real man behind the myth.
Assuming he even existed at all.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettIf all Christianity is, is a subject to study it is no different than any
Christianity is an interesting subject for study, just like Greek, or Norse, mythology are interesting subjects. But it is precisely the centuries of built up mythology that hide the real Jesus from the Christians themselves and which has turned him into a lifeless caricature. It is like an ancient object that has had layer after layer of paint applied to i ...[text shortened]... it looked like originally. You need to strip away that old paint to restore the original finish.
other belief. If Jesus is a live and well, and your are focused upon
anything other than God Himself you will have missed the forest for
the trees if you do not find God in Christ.
Kelly
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAlfred Edersheim (1825-1889)
you should read 'the life and times of the messiah', written by Alfred Edersheim, who being an expert of Jewish antiquities, in a very brilliant way upholds the integrity of the gospel accounts and the historical personage of Christ that has come down to us through scripture.
Do you know how much research has been done in the field of biblical studies since the 1880s? A huge amount of information has come to light since then. Things like the Nag Hammadi library, discovered in 1945, for example. That you would bring up a book first published more than a hundred years ago as the lynch pin of your defense speaks volumes. Dated, shopworn, and obsolete. It is a sad, sad spectacle.