Spirituality
11 Dec 08
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen we found out that George Washington didn't really chop down the cherry tree, do you think that hindered our understanding of him, or did it help?
If all Christianity is, is a subject to study it is no different than any
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
Speaking of Washington and the topic of myth building, we can see a number of myths that grew up around him. Such as the aforementioned cherry tree, his throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac, and his wooden false teeth. All were false, but they were useful stories in conveying something about the character of Washington. I think that many of the biblical myths served a similar purpose. They were instructive stories about the character of Jesus that were not meant to be taken literally. The 1st century writers used the supernatural language of the time to convey certain ideas. Christians subsequently paid more attention to the form of the story while missing out on the substance.
Here's a little (but totally serious 😉 ) video which dramatizes the myth-building process that grew up around Washington. I think a similar thing occurred with Jesus.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettnaturally you have not read it otherwise you would not make such pathetic baseless claims, that sir is the epitome of arrogance and prejudice, commenting on something that you have not even read. if you are prepared to do this with a commentary then who knows what extent you may go to in order to try to establish your other baseless claims concerning the bible, which you quite obviously haven't read either.
Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889)
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.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDid you read the book by Bart Ehrman I recommended?
naturally you have not read it otherwise you would not make such pathetic baseless claims, that sir is the epitome of arrogance and prejudice, commenting on something that you have not even read. if you are prepared to do this with a commentary then who knows what extent you may go to in order to try to establish your other baseless claims concerning the bible, which you quite obviously haven't read either.
How about this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
Read that then get back to me.
15 Dec 08
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingettperhaps these facts may bring some sobriety to your mind.
1. 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.
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 ttributes and rediscover the real man behind the myth.
Assuming he even existed at all.
1. Christ messiahship and its subsequent claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E. (Compare Matthew 21:9 Acts 4:27 5:27, 28) If the claim was false, any of Jesus opponents and he had many could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking his lineage in the genealogies in the public archives. But history has no record of anyone challenging Jesus descent from King David. Evidently, the claim like yours was unassailable. No doubt Matthew and Luke copied the salient names for their accounts directly from the public records.
2. sources outside the Bible confirm the general acceptance of Jesus lineage. For instance, the Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making a scurrilous attack on Mary, the mother of Jesus, for 'playing the harlot with carpenters ' but the same passage concedes that ' she was the descendant of princes and rulers.'
An earlier example is the second century historian Hegesippus. He related that when the Roman Caesar Domitian wanted to exterminate any descendants of David, some enemies of the early Christians denounced the grandsons of Jude, Jesus half brother, 'as being of the family of David.' If Jude was a known descendant of David, was not Jesus as well? Undeniably! read Galatians 1:19 and Jude 1.
3. Christianity is essentially a textual based religion, your claims of an oral tradition that was manipulated and embellished are quite contrary to established practise, as illustrated in the teachings of Christ, the apostles and first century Christianity and as recorded in scripture. i hope i will not need to remind you of the verses and references. this simple fact invalidates any of your scant and incredulous claims of manipulation and embellishment.
4. concerning the eye witness accounts, i will need to enlighten you to the apostle Luke's method of ascertaining what transpired, as quite clearly you are ignorant of what actually is contained in scripture. He states 'I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you.' that this methodology included the interviewing of eyewitnesses cannot readily be denied as his detailed, meticulous presentation fully bears out this claim, neither can you dismiss it, for the same account states 'Those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us.' (Luke 1:2) The apostle Paul, speaking of those who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, said, 'most of them remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep in death.'
in connection with this Professor F. F. Bruce makes a keen observation and i quote, 'it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened....The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'we are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'as you yourselves also know' (Acts 2:22).
5, that none of the gospels was written by anyone who actually met Christ is quite simply an astounding baseless assertion and is reminiscent of other bizarre claims made by 'biblical critics', for example, Ludwig Noack in Germany concluded that the Gospel of John was written in 60 C.E. by the beloved disciple who, according to Noack, was Judas! baseless and erroneous assertion the Frenchman Joseph Ernest Renan suggested that the resurrection of Lazarus was likely a fraud arranged by Lazarus himself to support Jesus claim of being a miracle worker, baseless and erroneous assertion, while the German theologian Gustav Volkmar insisted that the historical Jesus could not possibly have come forward with messianic claims, baseless and erroneous assertion,
Bruno Bauer, on the other hand, decided that Jesus never existed at all! 'he maintained that the real creative forces in early Christianity were Philo, Seneca, and the Gnostics. In the end he declared that there never had been a historical Jesus....that the genesis of the Christian religion was late in the second century and was from a Judaism in which Stoicism had become dominant, baseless and erroneous assertion
6. as for your comments on scriptural integrity i need not make any further comment than has already been given, its simply nonsense. for example Kurt and Barbara Aland, scholars of the Greek text of the Bible, list almost 5,000 manuscripts that have survived from antiquity down to today, some from as early as the second century, thus the general testimony of this mass of evidence is that the text is essentially sound. additionally, there are many ancient translations that help to prove that the text is accurate.
7. however the most damming evidence against the insistence that myths developed is found when we examine the chronology, why? for it takes time for myths and legends to develop. So the question is oh chowder-dude, when were these books written?
Michael Grant, a historian, says that the historical writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures were begun ' thirty or forty years after Jesus death. Biblical archaeologist William Foxwell Albright cited C. C. Torrey as concluding ' that all the Gospels were written before 70 A.D. and that there is nothing in them which could not have been written within twenty years of the Crucifixion.' Albrights own opinion was that their writing was completed 'not later than about 80 A.D.' others come up with slightly different estimates, but most agree that the writing of the 'new testament' was completed by the end of the first century.
5 What does this mean oh chowder-dude? Albright concludes, ' all we can say is that a period of between twenty and fifty years is too slight to permit of any appreciable corruption of the essential content and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus.'
Professor Gary Habermas adds: 'the gospels are quite close to the period of time which they record, while ancient histories often describe events which took place centuries earlier. Yet, modern historians are able to successfully derive the events even from these ancient periods of time.'
In other words oh king of the dunderheads, the historical parts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are worthy of at least as much credence as secular histories, the sooner you accept this the better! certainly, in the few decades between the events of early Christianity and their being recorded in writing, there was no time for myths and legends to develop and be universally accepted.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingetti never had the arrogance nor prejudice to comment on it, prior to actually reading it, did I?
Did you read the book by Bart Ehrman I recommended?
How about this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
Read that then get back to me.
15 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou must be joking if you believe any substantial part of this rubbish.
perhaps these facts may bring some sobriety to your mind.
1. Christ messiahship and its subsequent claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E. (Compare Matthew 21:9 Acts 4:27 5:27, 28) If the claim was false, any of Jesus opponents and he had many could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking hi or myths and legends to develop and be universally accepted.[/b]
For example, the idea that there was some public record of the millions of Jews detailed genealogies in Palestine in the first century is absolute nonsense. History records virtually nothing about Jesus, so that there is no record that his descent from King David, first asserted in two Gospels written at least 50 years after his death, was "challenged" proves absolutely nothing. We do know the vast majority of Jews rejected his followers' claim that he was the Messiah.
That's for starters. The rest of the post is similar BS.
I suspect most of this post is an unattributed cut and paste.
15 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderno it was taken from my own personal research, if you do not believe me i suggest you read the Jewish historian Josephus, for he states concerning the genealogical practice of the Jews and his own lineage that such records were available before 70 C.E. These records were apparently destroyed with the city of Jerusalem, making all subsequent claims to Messiahship unprovable.
You must be joking if you believe any substantial part of this rubbish.
For example, the idea that there was some public record of the millions of Jews detailed genealogies in Palestine in the first century is absolute nonsense. History records virtually nothing about Jesus, so that there is no record that his descent from King David, f is similar BS.
I suspect most of this post is an unattributed cut and paste.
you really should do your research before making your pathetic baseless assertions, and until you do may i suggest that you shut your mouth, for your arrogance betrays a real lack of anything remotely resembling understanding concerning the text and you have made yourself to appear more foolish than i could possibly have hoped for, what a muppet.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCite to exactly where Josephus says that there existed public records detailing the genealogy of every Jew in the Middle East using your vast "personal research". You are a rather pathetic liar.
no it was taken from my own personal research, if you do not believe me i suggest you read the Jewish historian Josephus, for he states concerning the genealogical practice of the Jews and his own lineage that such records were available before 70 C.E. These records were apparently destroyed with the city of Jerusalem, making all subsequent claims to ...[text shortened]... u have made yourself to appear more foolish than i could possibly have hoped for, what a muppet.
16 Dec 08
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderread this you pathetic excuse for anything remotely resembling truth, and the next time you claim anything, think twice before opening your slanderous mouth,
Cite to exactly where Josephus says that there existed public records detailing the genealogy of every Jew in the Middle East using your vast "personal research". You are a rather pathetic liar.
The historian Josephus, member of a priestly family, said that he obtained his own genealogy from public records (1). He said also that catalogs of priestly marriages were kept in Jerusalem and other principal cities (2). If the ancestry of priestly families was so fully documented, perhaps genealogical tables existed for other Jewish families as well. Without such tables, the Jews would have had nothing to sustain their keen, even fanatical, interest in genealogies (1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9). Because of its importance to the nation, the nonpriestly family most likely to possess records of descent was the family of David. The Gospel writers surely would not have falsely represented Jesus as David's descendant if opponents of the church had ready access to records proving otherwise.
Even the Babylonian Talmud acknowledges that Jesus belonged to the family of David. The Talmud, an ancient source preserving the oral traditions of the Pharisees, is unfriendly to Christianity. Yet on the authority of Ulla, a rabbi from the late third century, the Talmud says that the Sanhedrin took pains to give Jesus a fair trial because He was "near to the kingship" (3, 4).
The standard Jewish edition offers a looser translation: "connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential]" (5). But this translation and its bracketed interpretation are outrageously inaccurate and biased, as well as being impossible both historically and contextually. The Talmud elsewhere is wholly sympathetic to the Sanhedrin. Here, it is hardly suggesting that the Sanhedrin was pliable to undue political pressure. Moreover, the Sanhedrin in Jesus' day was not under any king but Caesar. The immediately superior authority was Pilate, a Roman governor. The only king in the area was Herod of Galilee, who was no friend of Jesus (Luke 13:31-32). When Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, Herod mocked Him and returned Him to Pilate for execution (Luke 23:7-12).
Just before citing Ulla, the Talmud says that for forty days a herald went out and cried: "'Any one who can say anything in his [Jesus'] favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover" (6). If Jesus had powerful allies in the government, why was it so difficult to find anyone to testify on His behalf? It is evident that Jesus was near to the kingship not in the sense of having friends in high places, but in the sense of having a legitimate claim to the throne.
# Josephus Life 1.
# Josephus Against Apion 1.7.
# Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.
# F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1974; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 56.
source, http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/lineage/fulfill.html
i trust that i will not need to do any further research on your behalf!
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRC: If the ancestry of priestly families was so fully documented, perhaps genealogical tables existed for other Jewish families as well.
read this you pathetic excuse for anything remotely resembling truth, and the next time you claim anything, think twice before opening your slanderous mouth,
The historian Josephus, member of a priestly family, said that he obtained his own genealogy from public records (1). He said also that catalogs of priestly marriages were kept in Jerusalem lfill.html
i trust that i will not need to do any further research on your behalf!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some "proof" of your claim that there were public records documenting the genealogy of every Jew! You really are an idiot.
Josephus himself, using the priestly records, only traced his lineage as far as his great grandfather http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm#EndNote_Auto.2b
yet somehow Matthew and Luke were able to trace Jesus' lineage back to Adam!🙄
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno it was taken from my own personal research, if you do not believe me
no it was taken from my own personal research, if you do not believe me i suggest you read the Jewish historian Josephus, for he states concerning the genealogical practice of the Jews and his own lineage that such records were available before 70 C.E. These records were apparently destroyed with the city of Jerusalem, making all subsequent claims to ...[text shortened]... u have made yourself to appear more foolish than i could possibly have hoped for, what a muppet.
Well, I sure as hell don't believe you here, particularly since much of your post is word for word from The Bible: God's Word or Man's? from the Watchtower Society (1989). This is at least the second time I have pointed out your lifting habits. And this time you are lying about it. You're shameless.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd Matthew and Luke's lineages do not even agree with one another. This might seem to be a problem to most people, but biblical literalists can be real contortionists when it comes to the number of hoops they're willing to jump through to defend some point of doctrine.
RC: If the ancestry of priestly families was so fully documented, [b]perhaps genealogical tables existed for other Jewish families as well.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some "proof" of your claim that there were public records documenting the genealogy of every Jew! You really are an idiot.
Josephu ...[text shortened]... b
yet somehow Matthew and Luke were able to trace Jesus' lineage back to Adam!🙄[/b]
16 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJellothat i took quite a considerable time to source and post these statements you cannot deny. as i have already stated to you and others these are not my own ideas and were posted to merely illustrate the points that i have made, that's called research, and they were drawn from many different sources. if you can deny this then do so, if not then i demand that you retract your statement and issue a full public apology.
[b]no it was taken from my own personal research, if you do not believe me
Well, I sure as hell don't believe you here, particularly since much of your post is word for word from The Bible: God's Word or Man's? from the Watchtower Society (1989). This is at least the second time I have pointed out your lifting habits. And this time you are lying about it. You're shameless.[/b]
this is the second time that i have had to remind you that these are not my own ideas, nor have i ever claimed that they were, i merely sourced and posted them to illustrate my points, therefore your assertion that i am in some way deceptive is simply a non entity and another pathetic baseless assertion.
so perhaps rather than attacking my character if you could provide some evidence contrary to the actual content of the post, you would do better.
16 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderif you dispute the references then that is up to you, they were good enough for my purposes, and like lemon yellow it took me a considerable amount of time and effort for me to source and post these statements from a variety of sources, that's what i call research, so if you don't mind i also demand of you a full public apology for having slandered my reputation and calling me a liar. i have never claimed that i was the author nor that i originated these ideas, quite contrary, i have always insisted that i merely put them together to form a collage of thought that best illustrates the points that i am making.
RC: If the ancestry of priestly families was so fully documented, [b]perhaps genealogical tables existed for other Jewish families as well.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some "proof" of your claim that there were public records documenting the genealogy of every Jew! You really are an idiot.
Josephu ...[text shortened]... b
yet somehow Matthew and Luke were able to trace Jesus' lineage back to Adam!🙄[/b]
something along the lines of , i am sorry robbie carrobie for insisting that you are a liar, quite clearly you had a variety of sources that took you a considerable amount of time and effort to source and post. myself, rigweett and lemon yellow are sorry for having insisted that you were the originator of theses ideas for you never claimed as such, that we do not agree with you is neither here nor there for we ourselves have in no way disputed the claims that you made but merely attacked your character, please do not hold this to our account as many of our other statements are also baseless assertions but we need to grasp at something, regards no 1 muppethead'.