Where did Christ go?

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I understand what jaywill says, he thinks you must be bothered by something
that Jesus is reported to have said in the gospels. Do you disagree strongly with
something Jesus is supposed to have said that causes all your doubt?

As I understand what jaywill says, he thinks you must be bothered by something that Jesus is reported to have said in the gospels. Do you disagree strongly with something Jesus is supposed to have said that causes all your doubt?

I think most of us are bothered about things said by Jesus. Jesus is difficult to ignore.

Our reactions to this "bothering" are different.

Originally posted by jaywill

and some of the months and weekdays are named after other mythical gods. so what's your point?

That's a point. So let's take the example of "Thor's Day" ie. Thursday. A considerable portion of the Western world uses a division of [b]B.C. and A.D. related to Jesus and a custom of designating the 5th day as "Thor's Day". ...[text shortened]... n more seriously since both were used as markers for time.[/b]

Why do you say the following?
"Conceivably BOTH Thor and Christ could be totally fictional characters. That is conceded."

If Christ is a fictional Character your faith is in vain. You have no hope of a
resurrection, if Christ has not risen. You might as well be an atheist, like the
rest of them. What are you anyway? Maybe, you are not my brother in Christ.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why do you say the following?
"Conceivably BOTH Thor and Christ could be totally fictional characters. That is conceded."

If Christ is a fictional Character your faith is in vain. You have no hope of a
resurrection, if Christ has not risen. You might as well be an atheist, like the
rest of them. What are you anyway? Maybe, you are not my brother in Christ.

Why do you say the following?
"Conceivably BOTH Thor and Christ could be totally fictional characters. That is conceded."

If Christ is a fictional Character your faith is in vain. You have no hope of a
resurrection, if Christ has not risen. You might as well be an atheist, like the
rest of them. What are you anyway? Maybe, you are not my brother in Christ.

"Conceivably" there simply meant logically. If that offended you, I am sorry that it offended you.

But I was talking to VoidSpirit. I will just have to bear the responsibility before my Lord for what I wrote. It is a small thing that I be judged by you.

Paul said "IF ... Christ be not risen."

Sure, I could jump on Paul and say "What do you mean Paul by IF? You're not my brother in Jesus Christ. There is no IFs about it Paul !" I was just using something like Paul's hypothetical "if" as a purely logical matter.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] Why do you say the following?
"Conceivably BOTH Thor and Christ could be totally fictional characters. That is conceded."

If Christ is a fictional Character your faith is in vain. You have no hope of a
resurrection, if Christ has not risen. You might as well be an atheist, like the
rest of them. What are you anyway? Maybe, you are not my br ...[text shortened]... was just using something like Paul's hypothetical "if" as a purely logical matter.

So you are conceding hypothetically to VoidSpirit that Christ may be a fictional
character to please VoidSpirit? I did not notice Paul conceding that Christ may
not have risen in his hypothetical. You seem to be lacking the ability to accept
constructive criticism that you once gave me. Do you think there might be a
problem with that?

Originally posted by jaywill

Nothing in this post is meant to be an endorsement of all methods of Charlamagne used to spread Christianity to the Norse tribes. The point here is which person's historicity is taken more seriously since both were used as markers for time.

your post made another significant revelation which you didn't proceed upon. that revelation are the people who came up with the concepts of using christ as a significant measurement of time. those people were christians.

and it goes further that christians, and in particular, christians who believe in the physical incarnation of christ are also the ones who would take the historicity of christ more seriously.

there are few, if any believers in norse mythology still around, and i bet they would take the historicity of their deities more seriously than would christians.

looking at the evidence over the last few days im going to park my backside on the fence. the historical evidence is weak at best but cannot be discounted, there is a possibility that there was a man who had a name like jesus, who may have been a priest or healer and may of had a following. it doesnt not prove that he has magic powers or was the son of god. all you have to do is look to the tabloid newspapers of today to see how easily stories can be made up and take a life of their own, so although im not convinced there was a jesus who existed in any form, i can accept that there may have been a man who became a myth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you are conceding hypothetically to VoidSpirit that Christ may be a fictional
character to please VoidSpirit? I did not notice Paul conceding that Christ may
not have risen in his hypothetical. You seem to be lacking the ability to accept
constructive criticism that you once gave me. Do you think there might be a
problem with that?

So you are conceding hypothetically to VoidSpirit that Christ may be a fictional character to please VoidSpirit? I did not notice Paul conceding that Christ may not have risen in his hypothetical. You seem to be lacking the ability to accept constructive criticism that you once gave me. Do you think there might be a problem with that?

For your sake I went back to erase my phrasing. But it was too late.

This is a matter of my style of conversation being a little bit of a stumbling block to you. I expressed a "sorry" to you about that already.

Now sometimes your style concerns me as well. You say some brash things followed by a graphic of a smug looking little face. With that you follow with a "HalelluYah!" .

When I see you use that style I sometimes say "Hallelujah for WHAT ? Surely he doesn't mean HalleluYah he's smug and has gotten 'one up' on the other guy and can be irritating ? " Neither do we see Paul behave like that.


Our different style of posting may concern us. I might have phrased it differently. I might have phrased many posts differently. I already explained what it was meant to convey.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]looking at the evidence over the last few days im going to park my backside on the fence. the historical evidence is weak at best but cannot be discounted, there is a possibility that there was a man who had a name like jesus, who may have been a priest or healer and may of had a following. it doesnt not prove that he has magic powers or was the son of ...[text shortened]... was a jesus who existed in any form, i can accept that there may have been a man who became a myth.

looking at the evidence over the last few days im going to park my backside on the fence. the historical evidence is weak at best but cannot be discounted, there is a possibility that there was a man who had a name like jesus, who may have been a priest or healer and may of had a following. it doesnt not prove that he has magic powers or was the son of god. all you have to do is look to the tabloid newspapers of today to see how easily stories can be made up and take a life of their own, so although im not convinced there was a jesus who existed in any form, i can accept that there may have been a man who became a myth.

[/b]
I think you need to ask if you are going to count the New Testament as a document informing us about Jesus, discount other evidence as well for other great teachers. Now if you take the position that "No. I will not listen to the disciples and pupils of Jesus from that time. I KNOW that they had a vested interest in keeping the legacy alive" be consistant.

Okay, let's be fair then. Let us also decide to discount the pupils of other comparable teachers. With equal suspicion let's decide to exclude anything written by the disciples of the teacher Socrates. Let's also discount the writings of the pupils of Confucius.

I think that mentioning this has caused the reaction "We're not talking about Socrates. We're not talking about Confucius."

The question that I will be looking into is "What reason do we have to believe there was a Socrates or a Confucius if we erect this stringent standard that NO disciple of theirs be permitted to speak ?"

Anyway skeptical Agnostic Dr. Bart Ehrman is distancing himself from the skeptics who say there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. However, he says Christ's teaching were a failure of prophecy and as a result His message was changed for the invention of Christianity.

YouTube

I take the New Testament as not only God's word but important historical documentation. Therein is the speaking of eyewitnesses.

Originally posted by jaywill

I think you need to ask if you are going to count the New Testament as a document informing us about Jesus, discount other evidence as well for other great teachers. Now if you take the position that "No. I will not listen to the disciples and pupils of Jesus from that time. I KNOW that they had a vested interest in keeping the legacy alive" be consi rd but important historical documentation. Therein is the speaking of eyewitnesses.

rec'd. interesting post.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] looking at the evidence over the last few days im going to park my backside on the fence. the historical evidence is weak at best but cannot be discounted, there is a possibility that there was a man who had a name like jesus, who may have been a priest or healer and may of had a following. it doesnt not prove that he has magic powers or was the son ...[text shortened]... important historical documentation. Therein is the speaking of [b]eyewitnesses.[/b]

to be honest i dont know enough about the disciples who's writings make up the new testament. i have always assumed the writings have been changed by various churches and kings over the years to suit their needs. its never struck me to look at the disciples as potentially real people, in my defense my interest in history is a new thing.
regarding socrates you have a point, but its something already historians are aware of. they think socrates existed due to the large number of people who reference him, but a lot of what is written about him is questioned and thought of as dubious as it is written in a fictional format or it is thought the person writing my have alterior motives to premote his teachings. the big difference between the acceptance of him being a real person is the content of what we know isnt fantastical like jesus and there doesnt seem much reason for somebody to invent socrates.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
to be honest i dont know enough about the disciples who's writings make up the new testament. i have always assumed the writings have been changed by various churches and kings over the years to suit their needs. its never struck me to look at the disciples as potentially real people, in my defense my interest in history is a new thing.
regarding socr ...[text shortened]... isnt fantastical like jesus and there doesnt seem much reason for somebody to invent socrates.

to be honest i dont know enough about the disciples who's writings make up the new testament.

I probably only have time for one response. In this post I would like to emphasize that the NT documents proclaims EYEWITNESS testimony.

1.) Peter speaking for 12 (at least if we count some of the 100 in the upper room on Pentacost)

"This Jesus God has raised up, of which WE are all WITNESSES." (Acts 2:32 my emph.)

2.) Peter and John before the Sandedrin:

"And the Author of life you killed, whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are all WITNESSES.

3.) Peter and John concerning what they saw and heard:

[b]"Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help soeaking about WHAT WE HAVE SEEN AND HEARD." (Acts 4:18-20)

4.) Again the apostles:

" We are WITNESSES of these things ... "(Acts 5:30-32)

5.) Again the apostles:

"We are WITNESSES of EVERYTHING He did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed Him by hanging Him on a tree, but God raised Him from the dead on the third day and caused Him to be seen ... (Acts 10:39-40).

6.) The earliest NT documents - Paul's letters records Peter as eyewitness -

" ... Christ died according to the Scriptures, ... he was buried, ... he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and THAT HE APPEARED TO PETER, then to the twelve..." (See 1 Cor. 15:3-8)


7.) Paul includes 500 simultaneous eyewitnesses most of which were still alive to be checked:

"After that He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living ..." (See 1 Cor. 15:3-8)

8.) In the same letter Paul says James was an eyewitness:

"Then he appeared to James ..."

9.) Paul includes himself as eyewitness:

" ... and last of all He [i]APPEARED to me also ..." (See 1 Cor. 15:3-8)

10.) Again in his epistle he reminds elders that he was an eyewitness:

"To the elders among you, I appearl as a fellow elder, A WITNESS of Christ's sufferings." (2 Pet. 1:16)

11.) Then the eyewitness (probably John) to seeing blood and warer coming from Christ's dead body:

" ... one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. That man who SAW IT has given testimony, ... (See John 19:33-35)

12.) The eleven told Thomas that they were EYEWITNESS -

"We have SEEN the Lord!" (See John 20:24-30)

13.) Thomas was an eyewitness (John 20:24-30)

14.) John and the apostles again:

"That which was from the beginning, WHICH WE HAVE HEARD, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN WITH OUR EYES< WHICH WE HAVE LOOKED UPON AND OUR HANDS HAVE TOUCHED - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; [i] AND WE HAVE SEEN IT, and we proclaim to you ..." (1 John 1:1-2)

In another post I will continue with declarations of eyewitnesses of Jesus.

Ie.

15.) Luke gathered information from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-2)

16.) The writer of the book of Hebrews says the gospel came to them through eyewitness (Hebrews 2:3-4)

17.) All four Gospels mention women as witnesses. Mark identifyingthem as Mary Mafgdalene, the mother of James, and one Salome. Luke adds Joanna.

18.) Acts further adds Joseph called Basabbas as an eyewitness (Acts 1:23)

Originally posted by jaywill

to be honest [I don't] know enough about the disciples who's writings make up the new testament.

I probably only have time for one response. In this post I would like to emphasize that the NT documents proclaims EYEWITNESS testimony.

The fact that it claims to contain eyewitness testimony doesn't mean it does actually contain
eyewitness testimony.

The harry potter books claim to have eyewitness testimony of voldermort...
This doesn't mean that it isn't fiction.

And even if it was eyewitness testimony, even if it happened today and we could go talk to these
eyewitness's, it still wouldn't be convincing of the existence of the supernatural.

And frankly the 'miracles' performed by modern day magicians are far more impressive.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The fact that it claims to contain eyewitness testimony doesn't mean it does actually contain
eyewitness testimony.

The harry potter books claim to have eyewitness testimony of voldermort...
This doesn't mean that it isn't fiction.

And even if it was eyewitness testimony, even if it happened today and we could go talk to these
eyewitness's, i

And frankly the 'miracles' performed by modern day magicians are far more impressive.

But you are comparing apples and oranges as the saying goes. Every one
knows the author of Harry Potter and she acknowledges that her writings
are fiction and it is clear from the writings that it is fiction. Not so for the Holy
Bible's historical account by more than one historian who wrote those accounts
down with remarkable agreement. In most cases of accounts by different
people of some events there would be greater differences than appear in
the history in the Holy Bible.