"And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said."

"Most of it is in London. Eighty-six pages are held at the University Library in Leipzig, Germany, parts of 12 pages are held at the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg, and 24 pages and 40 fragments remain at St. Catherine's Monastery"

So, for about 165 years the original manuscript has been torn apart, with bits and pieces moving around at least four different countries.

Is it any surprise that something may have been lost, or perhaps misplaced? NASA lost Apollo 11 films for 40 years.

As for excluded books, the Council of Nicea had nearly 500 experts who agreed on the selection criteria, and then voted on what to put in Scripture, and what to recommend as 'inspired.'

The general standard was that it's better to exclude something that may be devine, rather than allow something uncertain into the canon.

This was following the Great Persecution (which John wrote about in the Apocalypse).

Martin Luther went further, which is why the Protestant Bible is a little thinner than the Catholic Bible.

it's all greek to me.

"since the Bible has developed and changed over the years."

so evolution is okay, as long as its only the Word of God that changes?

modern science was developed centuries after the bible. man has always wanted to explain and understand the world around him. we evolve. we change. we accept new truths as our logic and intellect grow.

Being wrong should be celebrated instead of scorned. Being wrong is only elevating someone to a new level of understanding.

Das Social

The historicity of the Bible and the resurrection and well-documented and known.

Anyone who knows anything of the Bible and its history knows of the Codex Sinaiticus.

Nice try, Zat. Old news.

Please, look it up for yourself.

Glad it's online now.

"As for excluded books, the Council of Nicea had nearly 500 experts who agreed on the selection criteria, and then voted on what to put in Scripture, and what to recommend as 'inspired.'"

500 experts who no doubt met with god before making their decision about what to include in their bible.

Experts who decide on bible content = good.
Experts who agree on global warming = bad.

Actually, Mossadegh, they did. They just were not able to shake hands with Him.

"Actually, Mossadegh, they did. They just were not able to shake hands with Him."

Is god germ-phobic?

"Is it any surprise that something may have been lost, or perhaps misplaced? "

or maybe they did't exist
and the pagan roman king added them for his control factors.

many of the compilers of the bible at the council of nicea didn't believe christ was God, or his Son including jolly old saint Nicholas.

Is god germ-phobic?

Always wore a glove and a medical face mask. Had a great voice.

Oh wait.....

Interesting to see this Bible doesn't deal with jesus' resurrection. Apparently they hadn't plagarized the Egyptian myths yet.

Kirk, you are right. But why spoil their fun? They need that paranoia of evil, conniving clergy to enjoy life.

"many of the compilers of the bible at the council of nicea didn't believe christ was God, or his Son including jolly old saint Nicholas."

Didn't the Easter bunny show up around this time?

""The historicity of the Bible and the resurrection and well-documented and known."""

Resurrection well-documented? There is more substantial proof of bbob's moon smokestacks than there is of any resurrection.

-this Bible doesn't deal with jesus' resurrection

-And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.

What is different about these two things?

A passage about the resurrection found in other copies of Mark is missing in this one. Not that the resurrection is missing from this compilation.

Nice to have Tischenfdorf's Bible, as it is also known, online. The fact that it was important enough to be created in the first place and that it is different in some respects to what came out of Nicaea, only lends credence to the independence of it's editor.

Resurrection well-documented?

The resurrection is well documented in numerous cultures, many even prescient enough to do it centuries or millenia before the actual event. They just got the names mixed up.

Even the druids and norse were smart enough to start celebrating Jesus' birthday thousands of years beforehand.

the 1,600-year-old text

So the oldest Bible was written 400 years after the fact...not a reliable source.

Let's see, didn't the Egyptians have a resurrection myth? What was the god's name ... Oh Yes!

HORACE

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"not a reliable source"

They got less so afterward with the KJV being the pinnacle.

-Resurrection well-documented?

Yeah, pretty much.

-So the oldest Bible was written 400 years after the fact...not a reliable source.

A "Bible", like this one, is merely a compilation of older material.

I don't trust the Torah and I'm Jewish for Christ's sake! If there is one thing I know, Jews exaggerate and no Jew likes to tell the story the same way he heard it; he have to add something to it to make it interesting to say. Now, extrapolate that for 400 years.

Jesus looked at a leper becomes
Jesus spoke to a leper becomes
Jesus fed a leper becomes
Jesus touched a leper becomes
Jesus cured a leper.

I'm a leper he's a leper she's a leper we're a leper wouldn't you like to be a leper too?

Apologies to Garth Brooks

the resurrection are well-documented and known

Links?

No one has yet to produce a single contemporary note, letter, decree, diary entry, memorial stone, cylinder seal, mp3, jpeg file, or cavewall drawing of any resurrection. Either your Jesus/Horace character didn't wake from the dead and walk around...OR he did and not a single person on planet Earth thought that miracle was worth writing down.

The first century AD is a thoroughly documented period of our history. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet even they seem to have been completely unconcerned with a walking dead man in their province.

"mp3"

#25 | Posted by r8rh8r at 2009-07-07 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

ff!

Digital audio sucks.

Resurrection well-documented? There is more substantial proof of bbob's moon smokestacks than there is of any resurrection.

#15 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-07-07 11:11 AM | Reply

Yes, it is well documented, in secular records compiled by the Romans. The historian Eusebius had access to many records which have since been lost in time. Fortunately, his work remains.

Now .... before you spit out the predictable response about corroboration .... how many other ancient texts do you accept at face value without secondary confirmation?

Phonecian, Assyrain, Babalonian, Egyptian records? They are all taken as true and accurate. But you would only exclude that which violates your anti-Christian bigotry?

I thought I rose from the dead the other day, but it turns out I was just really tired the night before.

The first century AD is a thoroughly documented period of our history. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet even they seem to have been completely unconcerned with a walking dead man in their province.

One Roman citizen contemporary with the event, living in the area at that time, did write about it at length and even met with people who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus.

Cheers

did write about it at length and even met with people who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus.

I read about someone who claims to have seen Michael Jackson at Burger King picking up a Whopper for Elvis. They say Jim Morrison was waiting outside in a Pinto.

How does one make "corrections" to the "infallible word of the living God"?

Just askin'.

The Resurrection of Elvis is better documented.

"I read about someone who claims to have seen Michael Jackson at Burger King picking up a Whopper for Elvis. They say Jim Morrison was waiting outside in a Pinto."

Totally false.

It was a Vega.

I don't know Dan...my source was "a Roman citizen contemporary with the event, living in the area at that time."

"It was a Vega."

A Chevy from the Levee?

Phonecian, Assyrain, Babalonian, Egyptian records? They are all taken as true and accurate. But you would only exclude that which violates your anti-Christian bigotry?

#27 | Posted by vernon at 2009-07-07 11:42 AM | Reply |

Most of the records and ancient texts I take at face value deal with facts. Which is usually what well documented means. I would challenge you to link roman records that were compiled. In all of the research I found, there is only a cryptic note about a man crucified for sedition...his name either jesus or james. That's it. Period. If you have knowledge of additional historical proof of his existence, and more specifically on his resurrection, I would be fascinated to read up on it.

And btw, it's not so much bigotry as it is a critical approach to an unlikely story.

I'm Jewish for Christ's sake! If there is one thing I know, Jews exaggerate and no Jew

#23 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-07-07 11:25 AM | Reply

Chances are you are not a real Jew, just a Khazar -- fake Jews from the 10th Century in the Ukraine.

If they accepted European Christianity, they'd be slaughtered by the Muslims; vice versa if they became Muslims. So they chose Judaism to appease both sides.

If your heritage goes back to Eastern Europe, and you are white, it's highly probable that you do not have the blood of Abraham.

But that's OK. Modern Arabs descended from Seljuks, who slaughtered all the natives when they rode in from Central Asia.

Fake Jews and Fake Arabs fighting for control of Palestine.

#29 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-07-07 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag: [CITATION NEEDED]

" it's highly probable that you do not have the blood of Abraham."

Since that's another bullshit myth for stupid people I'd have to agree.

Whatever Vern.

One Roman citizen contemporary with the event, living in the area at that time, did write about it at length and even met with people who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus.

Cheers

#29 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-07-07 11:44 AM | Reply |

Link?

If your heritage goes back to Europe, and you are white, it's highly probable that you are a fake American.

"my source was "a Roman citizen contemporary with the event, living in the area at that time."

In that case, I stand corrected. Jim Morrison with the Whopper in the Pinto it is!

Or was it Col Mustard in the Library with the Wrench?

Eusebius..

a Christian historian born 3 centuries after the so-called resurrection.

Contemporary?

We have a complete record of Sumerian culture dating back to at least 11,000 BC in neatly preserved seals and tablets for all the world to see. It seems humans have always had an intuitive precondition to record and preserve our history.

But what would be the most sacred and influential part of our history was all "lost" without a trace.

how many other (extemporary) ancient texts (reproductions) do you accept at face value without secondary (original) confirmation?

None.

And btw, it's not so much bigotry as it is a critical approach to an unlikely story.

#36 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-07-07 11:51 AM | Reply

Fair enough. I just pulled the book from my bookcase. I don't know if there is a link. But I'm sure you can find books by Eusebius -- provided you live in a real city. Go to the library.

A history prof from Michigan State (Paul Meir) has condensed some of Eusebius' works.

And yes, it is an unlikely story. So unlikely that it has only happened a few times in history.

God wants you to be skeptical.

Kanrei--you are on a roar today--lol

"God wants you to be skeptical.

#46 | Posted by vernon "

I doubt it.

HORACE?

see Horus.

What possible reason could a god have to want its followers to be skeptical?

Whatever Vern.

#40 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-07-07 11:56 AM | Reply

If your heritage goes back to Europe, and you are white, it's highly probable that you are a fake American.

#42 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-07-07 11:58 AM | Reply

It took only 2 minutes for the facts to get under your skin.

Sorry, Kanrei, I was born in Moline, Illinois. I am an American. I do not reach back to a mythical history in England or Germany to claim a false heritage.

Now, before you get your panties twisted, do some research on the Khazars. You may find out about the truth of who you are

#45 | Posted by r8rh8r at 2009-07-07 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eusebius had access to hundreds of years of documents at the library in Antioch.

Anybody working the same way today in the Library of Congress would earn your respect. But because it involves Christianity, it must be dishonest?

What an ass and narrow minded bigot

One Roman citizen contemporary with the event, living in the area at that time, did write about it at length and even met with people who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus.

Cheers

#29 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-07-07 11:44 AM | Reply |

Link?

What an ass and narrow minded bigot

#52 | Posted by vernon at 2009-07-07 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:Posting While Looking in Mirror

A history prof from Michigan State (Paul Meir) has condensed some of Eusebius' works.

And yes, it is an unlikely story. So unlikely that it has only happened a few times in history.

God wants you to be skeptical.

#46 | Posted by vernon at 2009-07-07 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

I said give me a valid reference or link and you respond with a bishop that lived 300 years after the fact? I'll keep an open mind, but at least try a little.

And vern,

Maybe you should be more selective on who's words you base your belief system :

I've never been a Christian but it's pitiful how so many on the DR feel compelled to ridicule their beliefs. Armchair psychology suggests that it's because your own theological beliefs are on feeble ground.

I doubt it.

#48 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2009-07-07 12:03 PM | Reply

Of course you doubt it. You know nothing and therefore understand nothing.

Knowing God takes effort. It is much easier to open a beer and type idiocy on a blog.

Being skeptical means thinking. OUCH!

Sorry!

Thinking through complex ideas and asking tough questions. It's much like the Socratic method. But if you make the effort God will answer you.

Nobody expects you to do that, though. Just twist another joint and tell everyone the truth.

You may find out about the truth of who you are

Yea, K. You need to go back to the Pontic Steppe to know who you are. Fortunately Vern need only drive to Moline, Illinois with a slight detour through Caesarea Palaestina to pick up Eusebius' Cliff Notes.

I read about someone who claims to have seen Michael Jackson at Burger King picking up a Whopper for Elvis. They say Jim Morrison was waiting outside in a Pinto.

Interesting.

This shows that the problem that you have is not with a paucity of accounts, contemporary with the event, but solely with the claim itself.

No amount of evidence will convince you, because you are simply convinced it cannot happen.

That is because I assume that you do not entertain the possibility of the existence of a divine being.

That is your belief, and I respect that.

Your facetious parody, of course, undermines the notion of historical documentation of any event that falls beyond what you have already decided is possible.

There is the rub.

If you admit the possibility of an omnipotent creator, then the possibility of his raising the dead becomes unlikely but not impossible. If you accept it as even a slight possibility then it behooves one to consider such claims and evaluate them in toto--evidence but also the values and ideas attributed to the individual, etc.

Cheers

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

www.google.com

#53 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-07-07 12:08 PM | Reply |

Why not list all of the apostles as historical proof?

Try again. Historical proof. It should be easy, no?

"""Of course you doubt it. You know nothing and therefore understand nothing.

Knowing God takes effort. It is much easier to open a beer and type idiocy on a blog."""

by that logic, the harder things are to believe in, the truer they are. It's a cop out.

I said give me a valid reference or link and you respond with a bishop that lived 300 years after the fact? I'll keep an open mind, but at least try a little.

#55 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-07-07 12:11 PM | Reply

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!

Do you mean to say that the Internet did not exist 1700 years ago?

Eusebius didn't make a Web site?

JESUS JOSEPH AND MARY!!@!!!!!!!

1. Go to the fucking library, you lard ass.

2. Yes, Eusebius lived 300 years after the fact. Give him the same benefit of the doubt you give other ancient historians after the fact

3. OK, now where is your 'open mind?'

The biblical god is a false god. This has been proven by the stories of the bible---all stolen from older false religions. A god based on false stories is a false god. Get it?

slight detour through Caesarea Palaestina to pick up Eusebius' Cliff Notes.

#59 | Posted by r8rh8r at 2009-07-07 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

it's always so obvious when some retard does not really care about the topic but is only emoting stupid .... desperate for attention but too lazy to actually say something interesting

Why not list all of the apostles as historical proof?

Try again. Historical proof. It should be easy, no?

The request was for the following:

The first century AD is a thoroughly documented period of our history. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet even they seem to have been completely unconcerned with a walking dead man in their province.

My post pointed out that there was someone who fit the bill and even went beyond the request.

Paul was a Roman Citizen, contemporary with the event, living in the area. He met with people who claimed to have witnessed the event, and Paul wrote quite a bit about it.

Whether you think his writings are proof of a risen Jesus is up to you to decide.

The problem is not with the source per se, but with the claim. If Paul wrote about Pilate and talked about his life, most would think he was an extremely reliable source, better than most found in the ancient world.

Cheers

The biblical god is a false god. This has been proven by .......

#65 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-07 12:26 PM | Reply

OK, retard point proven.

Thanks Boob

"Paul was a Roman Citizen, contemporary with the event, living in the area. He met with people who claimed to have witnessed the event,"

Didn't Paul claim to have actually met Jesus...in an hallucination?

This shows that the problem that you have is not with a paucity of accounts, contemporary with the event, but solely with the claim itself.

No amount of evidence will convince you, because you are simply convinced it cannot happen.

No, I was actually making fun of the believers, not the belief, and contrasting it to other pop culture icons that people can't let go.

If belief in Jesus is what it takes for you to do what is right, then so be it so long as you DO what is right, not what you think should be right. There is always more than one road to any destination and Christianity, Judism, Islam, Athiesim- they are all simply paths and tools that can be used or misued depending on the person using them.

That is because I assume that you do not entertain the possibility of the existence of a divine being.

Never assume Grendal. I don't believe in YOUR definition of a "divine being," but I certainly DO believe in G-d.

"If your heritage goes back to Europe, and you are white, it's highly probable that you are a fake American."

#42 | Posted by kanrei

What does that mean: fake American?

I was born in the US, though I can trace my family back to The Continent and England. I am no more and no less "fake" than the Amerinds who were born and live here now or who came and went before me: their ancestors too came from somewhere else.

Are the Dine, Aztec, Sioux, Uintah, Ute, and the rest of the band, real because their families happened to exploit this continent a few centuries earlier than the whites? My father's side of the family arrived here in the late 1600s. What's the minimum time line to have established non-fake American status? Am I half real/fake because my mother is a naturalized citizen?

Go back far enough and we're all African.

What does that mean: fake American?

Zot,

I was poking fun of Vern's #37 where he told me I was a fake Jew by saying "If your heritage goes back to Eastern Europe, and you are white, it's highly probable that you do not have the blood of Abraham."

If belief in Jesus is what it takes for you to do what is right, then so be it so long as you DO what is right, not what you think should be right. There is always more than one road to any destination and Christianity, Judism, Islam, Athiesim- they are all simply paths and tools that can be used or misued depending on the person using them.

Kanrei,

I do not think that Christianity is the sole road to spiritual enlightenment, but I think it is the most direct route given to us by the map maker.

I am not sure how you can divorce knowledge of ethics, from whence it develops and how, from ethical behavior itself. "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you do the right thing."

Believing in "doing the right thing" is a matter of faith in something in particular not in general and by its nature excludes belief in something else. Quite simply you expressed a tolerance and acceptance for people who believe in your notion of "doing what is right"--whatever that is. Perhaps you think that is more openminded than people who espouse a particular belief in a specific faith. I don't.

Cheers

Got to go for now.

Check in later.

Cheers

Jesus. The ultimate urban myth.

The Damn Bible is merely Egyptian (and an assortment of other Pagan mythology), mixed, matched, and plagiarised!

These holy idiots have been filling peoples' heads with nonsensical fairy tales, demonizing critical thought, and using Gawd as a catch-all excuse for inflicting pain and misery for two millennia and counting...all while enjoying tax exempt status, and all while asking for a little bit more!

They do have the best scam going in history, though...gotta hand that to the Christians!

And Horace was a barrel of laughs on the DR.
Say halitosis!

1. Go to the fucking library, you lard ass.

2. Yes, Eusebius lived 300 years after the fact. Give him the same benefit of the doubt you give other ancient historians after the fact

3. OK, now where is your 'open mind?'

#64 | Posted by vernon at 2009-07-07 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know vernon, I think your irritability comes from the fact that you can't defend your position rationally. You believe. And that's fine. Logic cannot lead to belief, but that is my problem. Your problem is when you try to justify your belief through fact, which is impossible.

Now for your points:

1. Go to the fucking library, you lard ass.

I have. Many times. I've (believe it or not) studied most of the major organized religions out of personal curiosity and always end up with the same result: no proof, no solid basis for belief, questionable sources, no historical basis whatsoever.

2. Yes, Eusebius lived 300 years after the fact. Give him the same benefit of the doubt you give other ancient historians after the fact.

Ancient historians usually base their interpretation of history on solid evidence or fact, not hearsay, as your eusebius did. And certainly not based on questionable sources, leading to false absolutes. I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at this point, his qualifications label him more as a story teller than a historian.

3. OK, now where is your 'open mind?'

Still here, still waiting. Where's your objectivity and your openness to the fact that all you believe in just might not be true?

Bottom line: if your belief system makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone, go for it. But you will never be able to convince anyone for the basis of that belief through empirical evidence. I think in your jargon it's called "the leap of faith".

There's a story about how the devil disseminated the stories, that would eventually become the life story of Jesus, throughout the world as parts of different myths, so as to undermine his credibility once he got here.

@ grendel

""The request was for the following:

The first century AD is a thoroughly documented period of our history. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet even they seem to have been completely unconcerned with a walking dead man in their province.

My post pointed out that there was someone who fit the bill and even went beyond the request."""

He doesn't fit the bill. There are no records on Jesus except for that tiny little passage of a man crucified for sedition (jesus? james?). So an apostle who's mission is to preserve and spread the faith is far from qualifying as an objective, historical source.

"""Paul was a Roman Citizen, contemporary with the event, living in the area. He met with people who claimed to have witnessed the event, and Paul wrote quite a bit about it.

Whether you think his writings are proof of a risen Jesus is up to you to decide."""

True enough. But the bigger question is: do those writings qualify as historical records? The answer is no.

"""The problem is not with the source per se, but with the claim. If Paul wrote about Pilate and talked about his life, most would think he was an extremely reliable source, better than most found in the ancient world."""

Yes and no. If Paul had written about Pilate, it would have had more validity because of the multiple sources that have written and covered Pilate's life and Paul's account could have stood the test of fact-based analysis. Show me one source that can stand that litmus test. I'm not goading, I'm serious. Just one.

Yes and no. If Paul had written about Pilate, it would have had more validity because of the multiple sources that have written and covered Pilate's life and Paul's account could have stood the test of fact-based analysis. Show me one source that can stand that litmus test. I'm not goading, I'm serious. Just one.

I know you are not goading.

Paul of Tarsus is not the only source for the life of Jesus. There are multiple sources. There are the gospels themselves, dated linguistically to the first century, plus a few other Roman sources others have alluded to. The truth of the matter is that there are more textual sources connected to Jesus than there are to most people of the ancient world.

You, of course, will not accept most of these texts as historical sources because of the spiritual claims they make. Thus your request for a litmus test is illogical.

You wish for a historical source to offer proof of Christ's divinity, but you will dimiss any text as non historical that makes claims to Christ's divinity.

Cheers

Whether you think his writings are proof of a risen Jesus is up to you to decide....Cheers - Grendel

Hey you Moron of Biblical Proportions:

Paul never met christ and didn't even CONVERT until AFTER the Zombie Christ's Voice shouted from the afterlife and told Paul to convert...Now there's a provable fact for ya!!!! Zombie Voices From the Dead.

The four gospels have NO witnesses to Christs' Ressurection. You'd figure that at least the BIBLE would hold a witness for christ's magical ressurection.

Even Jesus's follwers chased Paul around the M.E. while Paul was prostyletizing, and tried to have him emprisoned for spreading heresy about their Jewish Leader. Now why would they do that?

I hate to shatter your self-deluded paradigm of beatific perfection...

But you are a MORON.

And VERNON: Don't be such a Moron. It belittles you. Grendel Can't help it. But you're making a choice to be a moron.

Grendel, The Moronic:

It is Saul of Tarsus. Not Paul of Tarsus. Paul is a conversion name used to signify his break from his previous "unrepentant" life"

A Spiritual story is NOT a historical text.

You, in your desperation to protect your delusion, convince yourself that a spiritual text is historical.

Fortunately for us. Historical texts are crammed with facts.

Spiritual texts are crammed with crap.

So go ahead, eat up those spiritual texts.

Thank you Dumpling. I have read your posts and have taken to heart and mind everything from them that was of worth.

Cheers

The thing that is so funny to me is how everyone is so certain they are right about something no one can really know. Grendel is explaining how his concept of G-d is the right and others are trapped in folly while those who believe in no G-d feel the exact same way. Neither side really reads what the other says because they are so convinced in their correctness that there is no need and the debate continues day after day with the exact same points being rasied which nobody really reads.

Isn't that ironic? Don'tcha think?

"Historical texts are crammed with facts."

Said who? Mary?

#82 | POSTED BY GRENDEL
"You, of course, will not accept most of these texts as historical sources because of the spiritual claims they make."

Not necessarily. I have no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed. As you've said, there are numerous sources. But when an historical document makes supernatural claims, it looses some credibility as an historical document. Anyone, Paul or otherwise, can make a supernatural claim, but that doesn't make it history, regardless of how accurate the rest of his document may be.

"Thus your request for a litmus test is illogical."

I have to disagree. I have no problem with asking for sources, and then throwing out elements of those sources that are unrealistic. You can accept a document as valid evidence that Jesus existed, while at the same time reject the parts of that document that make spiritual claims.

Personally, I find the whole argument about whether or not Jesus existed to be a waste of time. Of course, from a Christian standpoint, his existence is not the issue. If someone is decidedly against Christianity, they may find validation in disputing the existence of Jesus, but there's no way to prove he didn't exist. Really no way to prove he DID exist either, but it's far more likely that he did.

Regarding claims of the supernatural, however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But then, if you're looking for evidence, you've already moved outside the realm of faith, which is ultimately what it's all about.

Neither side really reads what the other says because they are so convinced in their correctness that there is no need and the debate continues day after day with the exact same points being rasied which nobody really reads.

There is certain truth to what you say. For example:

You: "Grendel is explaining how his concept of G-d is the right and others are trapped in folly."

Me: "I do not think that Christianity is the sole road to spiritual enlightenment, but I think it is the most direct route given to us by the map maker."

"Trapped in Folly?"

Cheers

Isn't that ironic? Don'tcha think?
#86 | Posted by kanrei

Thank you, Alanis.

But seriously, its why I hate these threads.

Belief gets mistaken for knowledge.

Grendel,
Post the rest of your quote.

but I think it is the most direct route given to us by the map maker.

I am not sure how you can divorce knowledge of ethics, from whence it develops and how, from ethical behavior itself. "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you do the right thing."

Believing in "doing the right thing" is a matter of faith in something in particular not in general and by its nature excludes belief in something else. Quite simply you expressed a tolerance and acceptance for people who believe in your notion of "doing what is right"--whatever that is. Perhaps you think that is more openminded than people who espouse a particular belief in a specific faith. I don't.

You start off pretending to agree, but slowly disagree until the end where I am wrong and you are right.

See Gren,
I read your stuff...all of it. Nice try though.

But then, if you're looking for evidence, you've already moved outside the realm of faith, which is ultimately what it's all about.
#88 | Posted by TheTom

But then what would we argue about?

I like this part where you mock me subtly:
acceptance for people who believe in your notion of "doing what is right"--whatever that is.

I am not the typical moron here and I do catch things, like your hypocrisy.

I have to disagree. I have no problem with asking for sources, and then throwing out elements of those sources that are unrealistic.

Again, I would point out that your notion of realistic depends upon the assumption your bring to the text.

If what is real precludes the supernatural then there is no text in the world that will convince you of it occuring.

The claims of the gospels are extraordinary (which in a loose way is a synomym for supernatural--both meaning above or beyond the accepted or typical.) What you require as extraordinary proof is something you must decide upon.

You are right in saying that it a question of faith an assumption. Then anything that we hold as true begins in some way with an assumption--a leap of faith. The question is how much of a leap are you willing to make that you feel comfortable with.

Cheers

Once again we all have to put up with the so-called logic of Grendel...who can only support his/her belief system with proofs from his/her belief system. And who thinks that that passes as intelligence.

Jeebusss thinks you so smart...

Kanrei,

There was no mocking tone intended in the writing. If one came across it was certainly unintended.

I meant very straightforward that I believe your ideas are contradictory. Pointing that out is not mocking them but questioning them.

I apologize if there was a problem in tone. Writing quickly about such sensitive topics makes it difficult to always take in account how words may be perceived.
If you do not accept this explanation then there is nothing I can do.

Cheers

Grendel,
There is one in most of your writings. You write as if you are G-d's personal biographer who "tolerates" our cute little views and laughs at the quaintness of them all. You feel we are fools for not seeing what you see so clearly and, what is obvious from your writings, is that you feel superior to everyone else here who does not share your view. The pride alone contained within your position excludes it from being divine by definition.

Once again we all have to put up with the so-called logic of Grendel...

Apparently, I force you to come to the Retort and read my posts.

Perhaps, it is time to leave though. People seems to be hypersensitive today.

Cheers

To put it in a Confucius style of speaking:

You place certainty where question belongs.

Me: "I do not think that Christianity is the sole road to spiritual enlightenment, but I think it is the most direct route given to us by the map maker."

if I were a Christian I would be really excited about this bible, too...unless it conflicted with my absolute truth that JC is the only begotten ever possible.

Then I would do the proper thing & do what the Christian? transliterators did to the Nag Hammadi Library find...take almost 30 years to transliterate that opus because it was gnostic text that had to be buried after Roman empire declared only begottenism to be the state religion of the Roman Empire...

Perhaps, it is time to leave though. People seems to be hypersensitive today.

Cheers

#99 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-07-07 03:11 PM

AKA, they are seeing through my condescending style of writing and I am in danger of falling from my high horse.

"If what is real precludes the supernatural then there is no text in the world that will convince you of it occuring."

For the most part, I'd agree. Because it is extraordinary/supernatural, the "burden of proof" is a lot higher. "Real" does not necessarity preclude the supernatural, but it does demand a much higher level of evidence and corroboration.

A good example is the famous Luke 2:11, where Gabriel speaks to Mary about her child. The author of Luke, and most likely The Acts, is a detailed, factual-oriented guy. And I can generally accept what he writes as a reasonable portrayal of what may have actually happened....to an extent. When you start quoting the angel Gabriel, I begin to question the historicity of the writing. And, I think, for good reason.

#101 | POSTED BY BANI
"only begottenism"

Hehehe

.. Your facetious parody, of course, undermines the notion of historical documentation of any event that falls beyond what you have already decided is possible.
There is the rub.
If you admit the possibility of an omnipotent creator, then the possibility of his raising the dead becomes unlikely but not impossible. If you accept it as even a slight possibility then it behooves one to consider such claims and evaluate them in toto--evidence but also the values and ideas attributed to the individual, etc.
Cheers
#60 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-07-07 12:16 PM

And what is the Bibles? An historical documents? Is every component "possible" or probable? In order to appreciate the notion of historical accuracy we need a number of disciplines - languages both written and oral traditions, "bible code" and numerological theory, archeology and sociological traditions, classism, political climates, etc. But, imo most important to the Bible would be ancient rabbinic ceremony which could clarify both resurrections of Jesus and Lazarus as cult performance.

Vernon & R8RH8R - holy moley, thanks for the great arguments. I'll check out the Khazar and Eusebius.

Zarathustra - Christians of all stripes have a difficult time correlating their vernacular with the Egyptian faiths because they've been purposefully and methodically separated from their theological origins. However, they are all intrinsically entangled with source denial, forever. That possibly scares them.

Researching "The Lamb of God" should shock the hell out from them.

I have faith that when Grendel jumps out of an airplane at 8,000 feet without a parachute he/she will die horribly on impact.

Grendel has faith that god will save him/her before he/she hits the ground...

...and when god fails to save him/her from hitting the ground, that's because god has a GREATER PLAN in mind for Grendel.

That Grendel was meant to die!

And Grendel can now be a holy crusader in Heavens. Perhaps polishing harps, or servicing virgins. Yes, Grendel's god works in mysterious ways.

Of course, using Grendel's logic, Grendel has an excuse for god every freakin' failed step of the way.

but within 5 years transliterate the mostly proper JC is god texts as was done after some of the earlier finds

To clarify, ceremonial death & resurrection are quite common practice.

I forgot who made the term, but it has been missing from the DR for too long.

Hypochristians

What I love about Grendel's Faith is the serious attempts by his/her church's researchers to find meaning in John of Patmos's Book of Revelations.

You know: those 'intelligent' men and women who believe there are prophecies to unwind and re-interpret from the divine madness of a social outcast that even the Greek Orthodox Church won't recognize!

Truth is, if Grendel's god was real, why would he need to couch the future is so much symbolic clap-trap that the visions could apply to ANY situation.

Oh, that's right. (S)he works in mysterious ways...

And if that weren't enough; so dissatisfied with the inability to reconcile themselves with the failures of their omnipotent god, they scower the bible searching for secret codes, every third letter, or fourth, or fifth...or whatever the hell works for them this century...as if God couldn't just up and say what he meant in the first place.

Bible Codes? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

There is one in most of your writings. You write as if you are G-d's personal biographer who "tolerates" our cute little views and laughs at the quaintness of them all. You feel we are fools for not seeing what you see so clearly and, what is obvious from your writings, is that you feel superior to everyone else here who does not share your view. The pride alone contained within your position excludes it from being divine by definition.

This is the product of your own imagination, perhaps bred out of some insecurity. I don't know that is for you to consider.

I think you need religious people to be pompous and proud; that way you can dismiss them. You see me as you need to see me.

Unlike 99% of the denizens of the retort I write without out rancor and resource to invective. Instead I state my positions with confidence and in some detail. This is seen as prideful!?!

People, in general, don't like to have their ideas challenged. I enjoy get my religious beliefs challenged by scores every time I come on the retort--with much condescension and even hate, yet few here are able to handle their own ideologies challenged even in the mildest way.

You are who you are.

PAX

Your words apply to you more than anyone here Grendel and I hope you read them.

"I think you need religious people to be pompous and proud; that way you can dismiss them."

I don't know, Grendel. You do seem to come off that way. And I try to avoid these threads for the most part, but religious discussions are interesting to me so....

You feel we are fools for not seeing what you see so clearly and, what is obvious from your writings, is that you feel superior to everyone else here who does not share your view. The pride alone contained within your position excludes it from being divine by definition.

If it is obvious, show me.

PAX

You do seem to come off that way.

Hag, you only see it that way because you are insecure in the shadow of his unquestionable and infallible faith. It is an insecurity on on your part, not anything he is doing because he is saved and perfect.

If it is obvious, show me.

Your pride will never allow you to see it. I would have an easier time explaining "Blue" to a man born blind.

Your pride will never allow you to see it. I would have an easier time explaining "Blue" to a man born blind.

Try me.

PAX

#115
More than one reason I try to keep my religious beliefs to myself.

Here's another one: The "virgins waiting in heaven" is possibly an invasion from another world.. Thus, the sacrifice of a virgin of this world translates to "appease" the other. Or, perhaps to circumvent the virgin from joining the heavenly invaders? Maybe the virgins slaughtered here are the same virgins waiting in the heavenly wings for their promised penetration?

Do the big three specify girls or boys or both? One might presume that a sexless body would best equate to heavenly virginity. But those Muslim do seem enthusiastic to sex with virgins - painful or uncomfortable sex with young people hundreds and hundreds of times over. The Abrahamic faiths are disgusting.

No point. Your #114 requoting part of what you already quoted in your #111 shows you don't read posts. Why should I waste my time?

"People, in general, don't like to have their ideas challenged. I enjoy get my religious beliefs challenged by scores every time I come on the retort..."

I believe in Jesus the man...just never the only begotten part because it cheats me as Soul as becoming a co-worker with God, too, like he tried to be before the cultism of only begottenism set forth....hence ultimately Jesus' mission was/is a failure because of that salient but powerful truth as I see it.

but life after life we go trying to correct these sort of mistakes only to often muddy the waters even more with our passions of hate, vanity, & greed just to mention a few.

Christianity & any religion (including Atheism) probaby is a good place as any to hang out with for awhile or a lifetime.

But every religion has its detractors & you got mine on yours:>)

Cheers!

.. And if that weren't enough; so dissatisfied with the inability to reconcile themselves with the failures of their omnipotent god, they scower the bible searching for secret codes, every third letter, or fourth, or fifth...or whatever the hell works for them this century...as if God couldn't just up and say what he meant in the first place.
Bible Codes? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
#110 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2009-07-07 03:26 PM

I watched a public access show this weekend that had some guy who's written over sixty books since 1995 attempt to convince the host of "Bible code". From his laptop scans he shown his hand-written data encircling the selected letters, entirely ignoring biblical differences margin, font and spacing. I'm at a loss as to how someone so obscenely prolific and allegedly studied could miss that absurdity. And when you add the translations.. his explanation is that it was meant to be de-coded in every written language.

Grendel is obviously classically trained in a subject that everyone and their dog has an opinion on, which, imnsho, may make others seem to have to look up at what he says rather than viewing it levelly.

But he is kinder than most here in his criticism, and has more patience suffering fools like Dumpling than have I.

No point. Your #114 requoting part of what you already quoted in your #111 shows you don't read posts. Why should I waste my time?

If it was obvious as you state, it would be simple copy and paste from my posts. Not a waste of time.

Your characterization of me is based upon a feeling you can't explain--not upon my words.

You would not even accept a sincere explanation and a genuine apology if in any way my tone came off wrong.

I have tried to meet you halfway.

You have now left me no options in order to clear this up. There is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. You won't accept my posts for what they say because you know what you feel.

I am going to need to sit and think about all of this.

Take care.

And when you add the translations.. his explanation is that it was meant to be de-coded in every written language.

Posted by redlightrobot

I guess that's why I walked out of jim carrey's "28" for similar reasons...

but when the bible is the word, well, that's what those muslims do with koran...insanity with disclipline.

Kahil Gibran wrote one parable about everyone going insane from a tainted well. (Fluoride? jpw time again:>)

I forget how the story goes absolutely, but apparentlly someone ~ an outsider or the king ~ notice this & brayed about it.

they called him insane of course.

so he decided to drink of the water & join the insanity.

Matrix Redux, I suppose

"There is one in most of your writings. You write as if you are G-d's personal biographer who "tolerates" our cute little views and laughs at the quaintness of them all. You feel we are fools for not seeing what you see so clearly and, what is obvious from your writings, is that you feel superior to everyone else here who does not share your view. The pride alone contained within your position excludes it from being divine by definition." - Kanrei

Don't agree with this assessment. From all of his postings, I get the impression that Grendel posts enough to support his perspective. And he puts forth that perspective honestly. Foolishly he then adds how he thinks others will interpret his words. But that is _not_ the same as "tolerating our cute little views" nor a display of his "superiority". Hell, compared to 95% of the postings on this site, it doesn't even come close.

I give Grendel much credit for going through the effort of posting his views and restraining himself in the face of posters like skiz and dumpling who's focus is belittlement and who supply minimal, if any, support. You want "superiority" and "tolerance of cute views", read their posts.

I think you are way out of line here Kanrei.

Well, I am SO surprised to return here to find that no one read fully and critiqued the observations in the resurrectionist link I supplied above.

All hat....

#126

Ditto.

wait, did I just say "Ditto"? Does that make me a.... NOooooooooo!!

.. You have now left me no options in order to clear this up. There is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. You won't accept my posts for what they say because you know what you feel.
I am going to need to sit and think about all of this.
Take care.
#124 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-07-07 03:53 PM

Don't be unnecessarily harsher with yourself than you deserve. Do not expect to grow a thick skin without a thin heart. I may be a ridiculous clown hack but with the hundreds of posts to read through I can pick yours out immediately - because I enjoy your honesty, sensitivity and the well-written nature of your perspective.

And when you add the translations.. his explanation is that it was meant to be de-coded in every written language.
Posted by redlightrobot

I guess that's why I walked out of jim carrey's "28" for similar reasons...
but when the bible is the word, well, that's what those muslims do with koran...insanity with disclipline.
Kahil Gibran wrote one parable about everyone going insane from a tainted well. (Fluoride? jpw time again:>)
I forget how the story goes absolutely, but apparentlly someone ~ an outsider or the king ~ notice this & brayed about it.
they called him insane of course.
so he decided to drink of the water & join the insanity.
Matrix Redux, I suppose
#125 | Posted by Bani at 2009-07-07 04:05 PM

There is one method that ignores grammar and book-construction entirely - the Hebrew work that uses no punctuation. Taken as a stream of data it can easily be dimensionalized and re-coded many different manner. I'm not terribly interested in Pi theory so much as it's behavior that seeks meaning. If anything could be revealed - would it be exposed by the Jewish scholars or not? I'm guessing "no".

-with the hundreds of posts to read through I can pick yours out immediately - because I enjoy your honesty, sensitivity and the well-written nature of your perspective.

Worth repeating.

interesting...as pi always is. I like phi more though ~ redlite:>)

as for Corky's intriguing post on Jesus walking about with his astral body...I understand countless others
thru out herstory have done the same.

even as recently as now!

a new favorite is from a ghost stories collection article I read recently that was written by a Prince of Greece for Parade Mag 15 years ago or so that has at its end an interesting tale of a woman dreaming of visiting a mansion for several years & one day while in England she drives by that mansion that had been in dreams with her husband.

They both go up to visit the owner of it & the door opens to a whiten face of the caretaker who explains that the owners left awhile ago because it was haunted.

So the dreamer asks about who might be the ghost & the caretaker says, "You should know, it looked just like you!"

If you have knowledge of additional historical proof of his existence, and more specifically on his resurrection, I would be fascinated to read up on it.

And btw, it's not so much bigotry as it is a critical approach to an unlikely story.

#36 | Posted by panchovilla

Are you arguing that Jesus may not have even existed? It is agreed by many and most scientists and historians that Jesus did in fact live. You are asking for proof of something that is already widely accepted.

#132 | Posted by everwrong at 2009-07-07 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag: [CITATION NEEDED]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

horseshit

Jesus is a myth for stupid people.

IS data going for self retort of the day vanity reward?

I think you are way out of line here Kanrei.

#126 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-07-07 04:09 PM

I may have been...seems to be the consensus. I am sorry Grendel. I guess I misunderstood the tone of your posts. Please forgive me this one time.

Jesus was an Alien!

there is more evidence of UFO's than that of a Godman called Jesus who died and became a zombie then floated into the sky.

Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. EVERYONE, including you unbelievers, will bow and acknowledge Him as Lord on Judgement Day.

ask Al Sharpentot

Jesus was an Alien!
there is more evidence of UFO's than that of a Godman called Jesus who died and became a zombie then floated into the sky.
#136 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-07-07 06:05 PM

That would appear to be the case.

One Roman citizen contemporary with the event, living in the area at that time, did write about it at length and even met with people who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus.

wow! When I heard that I was so convinced that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Zombies are real! Just like when I watch those UFO documentaries. Then I know UFO's are real too. They have to be. There are so many eyewitnesses.

I may have been...seems to be the consensus. I am sorry Grendel. I guess I misunderstood the tone of your posts. Please forgive me this one time.

Misunderstanding tone is very easy to do on the internet. It is something I need to keep in mind when I write as well as read.

No need to mention any of this again.

"One Roman citizen contemporary with the event, living in the area at that time, did write about it at length and even met with people who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus."

wow! When I heard that I was so convinced that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Zombies are real! Just like when I watch those UFO documentaries. Then I know UFO's are real too. They have to be. There are so many eyewitnesses.
#140 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-07-07 06:15 PM

"rise from the dead" has a few problems, the first is that why does a god that cannot die rise from the dead.

do you think Joseph was a bit pissed at god for screwing his wife, Many of the ancient gods did this even kings did this. There are no female gods so did you expect god to jack off or screw mary.

what's harder to believe is that talking serpant with fruit from the tree of knowledge that led to needing the savior. Isn't that just a talking snake that sold apples? Why does god have to blame and continue to blame all humans for that. Hell that snake was just trying to make a living, that's ridiculous.

"Why does a God that cannot die rise from the dead...."

Christ wept for Lazarus even knowing He would raise him from the dead in just a few moments. Man and God. Men can die.

"Zombies are real...."

If you merit resurrection you'll rise much less of a zombie than you are at this moment.

just another astral body doing its thang Zed:>)

bye, bye

nice posts Grendel:>)

"They have to be, there are so many eyewitnesses..."

One of the more interesting things about this ongoing debate is the scorn eyewitnesses are held in.

It's all the world as if you want to surrender your autonomy as a participant in this reality by only accepting those things some "expert" has vouched for as being safe.

And I thought religion was what put the blinders on. Apparently not.

So, you might see something but you aren't necessarily allowed to accept it's there. Crazy stuff, but this is one reason the "rational" tend to be so damned crazy.

"The first century AD is a thoroughly documented period of our history. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet even they seem to have been completely unconcerned with a walking dead man in their province."

Josephus, Roman historian, wrote about Jesus.
St. John wrote about Jesus.
St. Paul, Roman citizen, wrote about Jesus.

So yes, there is testimony from Roman sources, Josephus (a Jew) being the most objective if you believe the others were liars.
But if these Apostles were liars, r8, for what reason? The Church was essentially underground for longer than the United States had been a country. Profit? Power?
Nope. Belief and ample proof from miracles.
Look up Fatima if you want one such miracle that was covered by a hostile press (who documented the miracle of the sun) and opposed by Europe's first socialist government in Portugal. They wanted the coverage to debunk it, and instead got overthrown by the event (peacefully, just like John Paul II did to Russia).

"Josephus, Roman historian, wrote about Jesus."

He was born in 70 AD, shit-for-brains.

Jesus has five femtoseconds to suck my ass or Diablo is an idiot.

Time's up!

(imbecile)

Josephus was born in 37 A.D.

DIABLO---It's hard enough to discuss Christianity here in the best of times, but at nightime I never recommend it. People are too busy worshipping elder gods.

I have faith that when Grendel jumps out of an airplane at 8,000 feet without a parachute he/she will die horribly on impact.

Grendel has faith that god will save him/her before he/she hits the ground...

...and when god fails to save him/her from hitting the ground, that's because god has a GREATER PLAN in mind for Grendel.

That Grendel was meant to die!

And Grendel can now be a holy crusader in Heavens. Perhaps polishing harps, or servicing virgins. Yes, Grendel's god works in mysterious ways.

Of course, using Grendel's logic, Grendel has an excuse for god every freakin' failed step of the way.

#106 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2009-07-07 03:16 PM

Playing devils advocate, eh? I presume you've read the book, or parts, anyway.

Did you read the part where the devil asked Jesus to throw himself down?

What was Jesus' response?

I hardly think Grendel thinks as you think he/she thinks.

Why not just tell the truth?

You're an angry queer and you're going to get in anyones face that won't applaud you for your perversion.

I applaud you for your patience, Grendel.

"He was born in 70 AD, shit-for-brains."

"Jesus has five femtoseconds to suck my ass or Diablo is an idiot."

Zatoichi, those are your words. How in the world would you believe they would convince me of your view?
Go ahead, let loose another diatribe.

I have to say I think Grendel has been a bit unfairly characterized.
He hasn't said anything that I find even remotely offensive, regardless of the fact that I disagree with him. I've never been one to like or respect someone just because I agree with them, and I've never been one to dislike or disrespect someone just because I disagree with them. (At least I hope.)

We're talking religion here, folks. It's about faith, not facts. We are Christian, ex-Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, straight, gay, from every walk of life, from every perspective. People are bound to disagree. But is it wrong to think we could at least TRY to disagree with some respect? Disagreeing with respect is a good sign of character, and that's very much what Grendel's been doing, and I hope I've done the same by him.

I wonder if we're so used to postings by certain others on DR that we tend to assume someone's guilty of being disrespectful until proven innocent. Granted, there are those who delight in disrespect, and there are examples of that in this very thread, but Grendel's not such an example.

The Josephus quote has been a known forgery since the 17th century.

The History of the Jews is like 30 volumes. Jo ( his friends call him jo) would devote entire chapters to minor players, whole books to child kings. Yet he gives "the son of god" who died for the sins of man, who had performed countless miracles...one sentence??

If you'll buy that I've got a slightly used Ark for sale.

Cheap.

As for the preaching of post-resurection Saints: I shouldn't have to point out dead branches in you evidence tree.

Hint: it's the ones with no fruit!

Okay, r8. Address the Fatima predictions. I trust your fairness. Don't do the cursory scoff. Read what simple peasant children said they were told (they did not predict, only repeated) what the 20th century would be. Choose your own reference sources. I trust it that much, and I do trust your basic truthfulness.

Okay, r8. Address the Fatima predictions. I trust your fairness. Don't do the cursory scoff. Read what simple peasant children said they were told (they did not predict, only repeated) what the 20th century would be. Choose your own reference sources. I trust it that much, and I do trust your basic truthfulness.
#159 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-07-08 01:06 AM

Those predictions seem rather.. distorted.

No one has yet to produce a single contemporary note, letter, decree, diary entry, memorial stone, cylinder seal, mp3, jpeg file, or cavewall drawing of any resurrection. Either your Jesus/Horace character didn't wake from the dead and walk around...OR he did and not a single person on planet Earth thought that miracle was worth writing down. The first century AD is a thoroughly documented period of our history. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet even they seem to have been completely unconcerned with a walking dead man in their province.#25 | Posted by r8rh8r at 2009-07-07 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag

You've obviously never looked beyond your "favorites" list on your internet history.

Pick up any number of scholarly books on the subject and you'll find ample evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, seen bodily by over 500 eyewitnesses.

The easiest to find (written for laypeople with detailed bibligraphies) is "Evidence that demands a vredict" by Josh McDowell. He's all over Amazon, your local bookstore.

Even famous atheists admit that the existence and resurrection of Jesus are beyond historical question.

Don't remain a rank amateur.

"Pick up any number of scholarly books on the subject and you'll find ample evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, seen bodily by over 500 eyewitnesses."
[CITATION NEEDED]

"Don't remain a rank amateur."

#161 | Posted by kirk at 2009-07-08 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag: rank liar

"Even famous atheists admit that the existence and resurrection of Jesus are beyond historical question."

bullshit

"He (Josephus) gives the Son of God...Who performed countless miracles...One sentence..."

1) It isn't the single reference to Jesus in Josephus that's most interesting. It's the second, more off-hand reference that is.

Go back, re-read "Jo", since you are a friend of his, and report back.

2) The attitude of the Jewish establishment towards Jesus at the time was that he was a "sorceror who deceived the masses".

So, the ancient Jews thought Jesus was real. Just like the ancient Christians thought he was real. What a coincidence.

"Even famous atheists admit the existence of Jesus was beyond doubt..."

Quite right.

What I've discovered is that, among scientists, there are much fewer true atheists than might be supposed.

Some of the nastier "atheists" are actually Deists, for an example. God is fine with them as long as they get to describe Him.

These people use their "atheism", so-called, as an excuse to be rude to belief systems they don't think are quite as cool as theirs are.

Don't anyone get too offended by ZAT, by the way. He's good at expressing what he thinks but not so good as expressing why.

Oh, by the way---Read with interest someone scoffing at God because people usually die after falling from great heights.

But people also live after falling from great heights, some of them in just the circumstances mocked, without a parachute (or one that works).

I guess these events don't have to be miracles because they look like miracles---But at least have the intellectual honesty to concede that things that at least look like miracles exist.

2) The attitude of the Jewish establishment towards Jesus at the time was that he was a "sorceror who deceived the masses".
So, the ancient Jews thought Jesus was real. Just like the ancient Christians thought he was real. What a coincidence.
#164 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 10:05 AM

I've come across that too. In other accounts Jesus was a highly trained rabbi who was mingled with upper class - having something to do with money and marriage. His "death" on the cross may have been a ceremonial process. According to Greek Biblical translation Jesus was still living when de-crucified and then promptly "entombed" for the resurrection part of the ceremony.

The December 25th celebrations apparently have zilch to do with that story.

I have to admit I've never read the "Greek Biblical Translation". But if you accept Jesus was crucified under the orders of the Prefect of Judea the notion he could have been "de-crucified" is a bit strange.

-The Josephus quote has been a known forgery since the 17th century.

Only parts of the passage were likely later additions.

I meant the birth versus the symbolic death and rebirth of the sun that part of Judaic tradition adopted from Egyptian beliefs. Otherwise, Christianity worships during originally non-Christian holidays.

I have to admit I've never read the "Greek Biblical Translation". But if you accept Jesus was crucified under the orders of the Prefect of Judea the notion he could have been "de-crucified" is a bit strange.
#168 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 10:39 AM

Thankfully it's now online.

"Pick up any number of fiction books on the subject and you'll find ample evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, seen bodily by over 500 eyewitnesses."

There, FTFY.

The portion where Jesus hears yelling from inside Lazarus tomb is also explaining the ceremony. His brother-in-law had successfully joined his cult.

"Thankfully it's now online."

Everything's online:

Whatever happened at Fatima has been abused and trampled by the Catholic Church.

It must be noted that the three children who died within a couple of years are very lucky to have been born in Portugal. Had they lived in Salem, MA their story would be much different.

I'm pretty sure the sun didn't "spiral to Earth" and explode. If you stare at it long enough it will do strange things though. Once 70,000 people show up to see a miracle, a "miracle" will happen.

If the third secret really foretold the time and place of PJP's shooting, why didn't the Vatican intervene before he got shot? What good are "predictions" that no one can understand until after the fact?

The first two secrets are vague and ambiguous. Anyone with a newspaper in 1917 knew war in Europe was imminent.

Perhaps there was a miracle at Fatima. Personally, I doubt it. But it is certain that if god or Mary sent a message that day, the message was intercepted and locked away in the Vatican for decades. It seems odd that god could make "the sun spiral towards Earth" but he can't make the Church release the testimony of the children until long after their deaths, and even then only in segments as recorded by the Church. It is also odd that whenever these miracle sightings occur they are ALWAYS of the same faith as the viewer. Buddhists see Buddha, Christians see Christ, Catholics see Mary. Just once I'd like a Buddhist to see Muhammad, a Jew see Ra, or a Wiccan see Jesus....

God's power seems wasted. Instead of saving the arms and legs of 100,000 children in Africa from machetes, he dries people's cloths after the rain in Portugal. If god does wield his power on Earth he uses it like Brewster spends his millions.

"The portion where Jesus heras Lazarus yelling from inside the tomb...."

Is not in the Bible. Tell me why you're "thankful" for the strange document you reference?

"The three children who died a few years later were lucky to have been born in Portugal...."

Two died young. One lived to advanced age. All three were persecuted by the officially atheist Portuguese government.

"Once 70,000 people show up to see a miracle, a miracle will happen...."

1) Not all expected a miracle. I'd assume that included the scietnists in attendance.

2) So it's not a miracle if nothing happens, but also not a miracle if something does?

Fuzzy thinking will mean your doom eventually.

Only parts of the passage were likely later additions.

"later additions"=forgery

It is an all or nothing prospect.

Why would "Christians" think they need to forge historical documents in the first place? Isn't the power of god obvious on its own merits? Shouldn't it be?

"Oh yeah, we forged that part, but the other part is true, I promise."

Give me a break!

It's the second, more off-hand reference that is.

It is purely Christian in tone and vocabulary. No Jew, especially Jo, would ever write such a flattering line, never mention him again, and leave out all the relevant spiritual and historical information. No mention of the resurrection, atonement, ascension, or divinity.

All three were persecuted by the officially atheist Portuguese government.

And the Church who promissed to "drown them in boiling water" if they didn't recant.

They were witches I tell you!

Witches!

She's got a wart!

She turned me into a newt!

Burn her!

You folks are funny.

-It is an all or nothing prospect

Why is that? History is chock full texts, religious or not, that are accepted as authentic sans likely later add-ons by copiers with their own spin.

Oh, wait. It might not fit your prejudicial viewing were it authentic. Now I see.

Why is that?

Because that is how we always examine evidence or testimony. Once you lie, everything else becomes suspect. If Jo really did write part of the passage, again, why is there a need for Christians to alter it?

Oh, wait. It might not fit your prejudicial viewing were it authentic. Now I see.

And you do the same thing (but only in this situation). Some of your brethren are willing to go even further in an attempt to make everything fit their "prejudicial view" resorting to outright forgeries. You want historical verifiable evidence so you're willing to forgive a fraudulent sentence and accept the following sentence as authentic. If the situation were reversed and an atheist forged a historical document, changing the message entirely, I doubt you would put much faith in any information contained in that document similar to the forged passage, much less the immediate clause.

#167

"Greek text says Jesus was decrucified"

That's the most laughable non-historic thing ever said here.

Cite the passage.

ALL manner of Greek texts are available for cynic and believer alike, and anyone can "fact check" any verse in the Greek / English New Testament on scores of online Bible versions.

You cited a complete fabrication.

If what you said were true, you'd give the citation for us all to check.

ZATIOCHI,
All you can do is call names? "Liar" and "Bullshit" is the best you got?

I'll take that as a win again.

You name-call and run away.

I'd expect better from someone who had the technical knowledge to at least start this thread...if I didn't know your m.o.

Jesus lives.

And Zat concedes.

Again.

Laugh-a-babble.

Secular texts are authenticated on a daily basis sans later add-ons.

You show your cards when questioning the motivation of copiers who tried to spin it their way. Who cares what or why they added text? Particularly since that is obvious.

We have Josephus talking about a historical Jesus, no matter what a later copier might have added. And most historians no longer even bother to argue his histerocity.

Only those with something to lose.

I suggest you take a good read of the link I provided above, and then get back to me.

"And Zat concedes.

Again."

#185 | Posted by kirk at 2009-07-08 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Kirk makes up shit again, actually.

Josephus was born in 70 CE, shit-for-brains.

That's the most laughable non-historic thing ever said here.

Must be, you're the expert on the laughable and "non-historic".

37 C.E.: Josephus is born to prominent parents in Jerusalem

He did, however, divorce his wife in 70 CE, so maybe it is a "re-birth" to which you refer, lol.

He did, however, divorce his wife in 70 CE, so maybe it is a "re-birth" to which you refer, lol.

#191 | Posted by Corky

That was also about the time he went back to Rome with Titus after the final defeat of the Jewish uprising.

Yep. He became a Roman citizen only after having commanded the "Tories", so to speak, the Pharisees that stood with Rome.

He convinced many that the messianic prophecies of the revolution, "actually applied to Vespasian, and thus made him destined to become Emperor
Vespasian likes what he hears and keeps Josephus as hostage and interpreter."

He was later commissioned to write the history of the war form the Emperor's perspective.

And some want to know why he didn't write about the messianic Jesus, lmao.

and then get back to me.

Or not...

We've been through this before. If you want to accept a man named Jesus lived somewhere around Galilee in the first century, that isn't hard to do. None of the evidence for that concludes he was divine, supernatural, or rose from the dead. Not even the Jo line if taken as a whole does that.

I'm pretty much done reading your links to christian sites telling everyone how right you are and how great god is.

I see kids with no arms die from blunt force trauma, and no god. I see good people wither from disease, god never comes. I see whole Nations torn to shreds over gold, or diamonds, or the books they read, and god is absent. My beliefs are founded in the world around me, what I can see, yours are from 6000 year old campfire stories which you admit are the result of "additions" over time by men. The same men that cut the arms off kids, the same men that wage war for greed and power, the same men allowed to walk this Earth by a god who spends his time making the "sun spiral to the ground" and putting Mary on a piece of wheat toast.

-If you want to accept a man named Jesus lived somewhere around Galilee in the first century, that isn't hard to do

I'll accept your surrender.

-I'm pretty much done reading your links to christian sites telling everyone how right you are and how great god is.

Translation: I have no retort to the facts stated or the rationals offered by a PhD from Stanford.

Blah-blah-blah-blah. God let my popsicle melt! How could God possibly exist?

When people diverge from the specific points being argued and let loose with their general angst about the human condition, their emotional prejudices have gotten the better of their rationality.

And some want to know why he didn't write about the messianic Jesus

Your cherrished and addmittedly forged line came from Antiquites which was completed under the reign of Domitian, not Vespasian.

It has nothing to do with The War of the Jews written under Vespasian.

Well, hey. Like that makes a difference?

He was obviously speaking of the same time period, 10 years earlier.

Josephus' mention of a historical Jesus wasn't part of the copier's add-on.

When people diverge from the specific points being argued

Like when the question is ALWAYS about d.i.v.i.n.t.y and you change it to the simple existence of a human carpenter named Jesus?

Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about!

"Michael Grant

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Well, hey. Like that makes a difference?

Dummy, you're the one who suggested Jo was negatively influenced by Vespasian when he accidently forgot to mention 'the most important man to ever walk the Earth'. Not me.

I'm just pointing out it is hard for Jo to bow to the will of an Emperor before he, ya know, becomes Emperor.

Sorry, dear. The question was about the authenticity of a quote from Josephus, not about the substance of the quote.

Whenever we have a thread that has anything to do with religion, it does turn into a "does God exist?" proposition. Unfortunately.

But then, if one does put up a thread containing a rational argument for "divinity", others are too "tired" to read it.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth

Ooo look the same strawman as before.

You're getting good at this, Cork.

A whole army of photocopied strawmen.

Divinity.

Divinity.

Divinity.

Address that or shut the fuck up.

#200

You are pettifogging the timeline.

I pointed you to a detailed presentation on the subject of Jesus' divinity by a noted Stanford PhD, but you were too "tired" to read it.

So, either read it fully and get back to me or.... stfu.

Why won't God heal amputees?

How are the 'Biblical literalists' going to reconcile stuff like 'handwritten corrections' or when they notice that one or more their favorite passages are missing?

OCU

'Biblical literalists'

If you mean the people that think if the KJV was good enough for Moses, it's good enough for them?

I don't think there's much hope for them.

Why won't God heal amputees?

#205 | Posted by CaptainNemo

same reason he let yer Popsicle melt! (I like that one Corky)

Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

It is not difficult to imagine that a person named Jesus existed. There is even historical evidence to support this. There were many Jews named Jesus. many with parents named Joseph and Mary too. So not so hard to believe one became infamous. Even now there are many Hispanics named Jesus! There is even one who believes he IS Jesus. Heard of that loon in Florida?

Anyway...

There have been many teachers and philosophers and scientists throughout the ages. Many were wise beyond their time. Interestingly, MANY humans have died for the sins of mankind. Ghandi always comes to mind here.

But, and here is the important point for you and all you "believers"... there is no evidence on EARTH today that shows that any human or God has risen from the dead after three days and floated into heaven on a cloud to meet up with the other third of himself. We have WAY more evidence of flying saucers and aliens and I don't even really believe in THEM. (sorry BBob)

In addition, the fact that Gene is also a believer in a young earth and creationism vs an Earth that is 4.5 billion years old and evolution leads me to believe he did not pay attention very well in his science classes. I bet he thinks that crap they are selling you (for 27 million dollars) in that creation museum in Kentucky is true also. He was probably one of those stubborn ass students who memorized answers but did not actually understand them or believe them. Smart but dumb. I have met a few PhDs that fit THAT bill.

So, your crazy "PhD" from STANFORD, Dr. (always thought that was humorous) Gene Scott (and I have listened to him)is ok in his so-called proof up to that the point where a human named Jesus may have existed...there is even historical evidence to support him on this..beyond that he goes way deep onto crazy town. And all you little BeJesus Dittoheads have followed him willingly on the slim hope that you will get to live for (happily) ever after... you know that Life After Death thing.

And BTW-your hero Gene Scoot WAS VERY hard to listen to for very long, at least for us rational "nonbelievers". He made life a bit surreal at 3 in the morning...remember?

What loon. Lite his cigars with a blowtorch as I remember.... Had to be one of the most bizarre guys I ever saw at 3 in the morning. So so glad he won't be on the tube anymore! This guy proves the point that even "smart" people do stupid shit.

-Gene is also a believer in a young earth

Not. But since you got everything else wrong, that should be expected.

-he goes way deep onto crazy town

Translation: That intellectual stuff is hard werk.

you were too "tired" to read it.

Oh I get it. This is another "correction" christians like to substitute for what actually happened.

monkey see, monkey do...

I said I was "done". As in, I've followed your links to crackpots (with no evidence of divinity), preachers, and church.com before, dismissed them, and I am ready to move on.

btw, If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing...

I didn't read any of it, and have no questions whatsoever on the article(s). I understand the premises perfectly: "Jesus is divine, it says so right there in the bible".

"Jesus is divine, it says so right there in the bible".

How ludicrous, and typical. The link I posted says just the opposite, but, as you are afraid to find out for yourself, I guess ignorance will remain bliss for you.

-Gene is also a believer in a young earth

Not. But since you got everything else wrong, that should be expected.

show me. got a link?

Did he not believe that the Bible is the Literal Word of God? Did he not believe in the literal Old Testament and New right?

If this is true then by default he is a fundamentalist and evolution denier and a creationist young earther.

Anyway...Show me I am wrong. I am going on what I remember of his spiel (I did try to find some links to his beliefs on this and other things but I will not pay that Snake Oil salesman a penny to get access).

-he goes way deep onto crazy town

Translation: That intellectual stuff is hard werk.

#209 | Posted by Corky

now that is funny! I would never have thought of referring to his stuff as "Intellectual"!

Donny,

I have never seen anyone so wrong. There is no 6,000 year statement in those texts, that is a fabrication based on supposed genealogies.

Doc called fundies and TV evangelists, "Pussys for Jesus". You have no idea what you are talking about.

-a penny to get access

Access to what? The web site is free 24/7. Viewers are told never to even contribute voluntarily unless they have been taught. Prayer in public is almost nil, there are no alter calls in the church, and the church sells nothing.

"Intellectual"!

You either did not read the full link I provided or your mind isn't capable of following the logic in the argument made there.

I find superficial atheists just as ignorant as superficial takeitez "christians". Mainly because they get what little they know about the subject from the worst kind of fundie fools out there.

Two sides of the same coin of ignorance.

You either did not read the full link I provided or your mind isn't capable of following the logic in the argument made there.

I read it all. It is not something I would remotely consider "intellectual". Nothing but smoke and mirrors. Typical of Snake Oil sales man. All I need to know about YOUR mind is that it thinks that Gene Scott was an Intellectual. If we are known by the company we keep I would never want to hang out with that dude OR you.

I find superficial atheists just as ignorant as superficial takeitez "christians".

I am neither atheist or christian.

Access to what? The web site is free 24/7.

Access to anything of substance. They charge for DVDs and provide no access to any text of substance that contain his beliefs for me to analyze. I can only go on his video ramblings. BORING! So why don't you provide something of substance that supports your contention he is not a Creationist or Young Earther.

-I would never want to hang out with that dude OR you.

See? There is a God.

-supports your contention he is not a Creationist or Young Earther

I knew him for over 25 years and don't need a link, thanks anyway.

-Nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Yes, tribal Africans once deified cargo planes, so your confusion is not unusual.

Viewers are told never to even contribute voluntarily unless they have been taught. Prayer in public is almost nil, there are no alter calls in the church, and the church sells nothing.

right... he is a Snake Oil salesman who lived off the "Church". He was smart enough to find his loophole in the system and he exploited it well.

...in a 1994 Los Angeles Times article, their tithes were estimated at more than $1 million per month. His faithful wrote on their checks that the funds could be used in any way Scott saw fit, thus thwarting FCC inquiries into church finances. His salary of $1 per year plus unlimited expenses allowed him to live handsomely, collecting stamps, art, Bible texts, show horses and coins. Scott once said that if he were stranded on a desert island, God would provide a market for sand.

Richard Parker, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, grew up in Southern California watching Scott on TV. "Scott was in the best American evangelical tradition," he says, "but he oozed contempt for the unwashed masses who attended his sermons. . . . He felt he was the smartest person in the room. Scott's appeal was in the promise of access to superior knowledge."

Is that you Corky? Someone who thinks Scott makes you feel smart? He was an Evangelical. So, of course, he believed that the Bible was the Unerring and Literal Word of a God. That sort of cancels out the fact that he learned 6 languages.

I knew him for over 25 years and don't need a link, thanks anyway.

He is NOT ...well... because I say so!

Well, I guess we are done here.

Gee whiz, Donny found a critic. How unusual is that?

Scott denigrated Young Earthers loud and often. The fact that you attribute the stupidity of some in a group to all in the group lets us know some of the vast limits of your own intellectual capabilities.

Doc usually was the smartest person in the room, and his entire obit from Stanford Magazine along with other info can be read here:

Gee whiz, Donny found a critic. How unusual is that?

Not unusual at all. Anyone who questions the Religious Dogma you are preaching had better be prepared for a little conflict in their life.

That doesn't change that fact that what you read at the link is a rational and cogent argument, not proof, but a concise apologetic for resurrectionism, likely better than any you have ever read, if you have ever read any at all.

I have read better. Personally I think Bart Erhman is a way more an Intellectual read than Scott.

But, he obviously can write a good thesis. After all he did get his doctorate. And that is all his "proof" is, a college thesis that he preached and improved upon over the years.

Like I said, his thesis falls apart immediately after you agree that there could have been an historical Jesus. All that is written in the bible is used as circular logical to support his previous statements.

In those days, you could assemble eyewitnesses; not today. But like any other historic fact, from who wrote Shakespeare to Julius Caesar's existence, you can look for the FACT of history on which Christianity is based, namely: Jesus came out of the tomb.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously lousy. Today, yesterday, always.

And none were available when the Gospels were even written and NO original documents exist to confirm ANYTHING Jesus said or did as a FACT. And when you base your entire thesis on something which is not a FACT but you call it a FACT anyway you fail. You house of cards falls apart.

Sorry Corky. YOU fail on this one like you did on Obama. I somehow think the two things are related.

This is all a bit hard to keep up with. Let me jump in this way---

The kids at Fatima were threatened BOTH by the Postuguese secular authorities AND by the Catholic Church (who later accepted them entirely).

This is interesting for at least two reasons---

1) It debunks the oft-repeated claim that atheists never repress religion as atheists.

2) When the two most powerful instutions threaten the un-educated sub-adult peasants, but the peasants don't recant, it can be suggested the kids thought they were onto a valuable truth.

"Eyewitnesses are notoriously lousy..."

Yes, and there are pretty much all we have for anything. ANYTHING.

ALL knowledge is provided by eye-witnesses. Why is this even an issue of debate?

"No original documents exist to confirm ANYTHING Jesus did as a fact..."

Depends on your notion of "original" which I suspect is unique. It's possible Mark as been dated to 45 A.D. It's not like archeology is a static field. What you say you want may well be found at some point.

But I have the impression you're being disingenuous. Let's say a contemporary record claiming to be that of a Roman centurion (or anyone) describing a miracle of Christ was discovered.

That doesn't get past your disdain for "eye-witnesses". It just backs your disdain up a couple of decades up the line.

There's no way an honest man can compete against such sophistry.

"And none (eyewitnesses) were available when the Gospels were even written...."

You know, even the most cynical concede there were eyewitnesses available during the creation of at least some of the Gospels.

Paul quotes Mark, and we can date Paul's letters very well. Paul was a contemporary of the Apostles, or course.

Educated hate is more effective than un-educated hate. Then again, if you actually learned something about the basics here, you might find no room to hate at all.

"Why won't God heal amputees...?"

Now, that's an interesting one. Christ may have healed an amputee when he dealt with Malchus' severed ear. There are other occasions when he appears to replace human physical structures to include bones, tissues, and nervous systems.

One again, however, what's the use of pointing out you could answer these questions on your own just by reading the Book?

You don't want to read the Bible and you aren't going to. But going through life repeating juvenile questions you've read on the internet seems a good use of your time.

ALL knowledge is provided by eye-witnesses. Why is this even an issue of debate?

#221 | Posted by Zed

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable so there must be some kind of corroborating evidence for something as extraordinary as a God landing in our midst. Your witnesses are biased. It is called the Expectancy Factor.

Scientific Knowledge is different from eyewitness knowledge. i.e. I witness that the sun is circling the Earth yet scientifically I KNOW that it does not.

DNA Testing and Eyewitness Testimony

Posted on: April 14, 2009 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton

Balko has an excellent article at Reason Online about some of the problems of relying on eyewitness testimony. We already knew from psychology and numerous studies that eyewitness testimony can be highly inaccurate, but now that we have DNA testing to prove guilt or innocence -- and now that so many people who were convicted based on eyewitness testimony have been proven innocent -- we can no longer pretend that such testimony is, by itself, proof of much of anything.

why is this a debate? Your "witnesses" claim extraordinary events. Your "witnesses" are biased.

"The portion where Jesus hears Lazarus yelling from inside the tomb...."

Is not in the Bible. Tell me why you're "thankful" for the strange document you reference?
#177 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 11:02 AM

"And they come into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over [his] naked [body]. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan. 14

'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' explains the de-crucifixion:

"In English translations of Mark's Gospel Joseph asks Pilate for Jesus's body. Pilate expresses surprise that Jesus is dead, checks with a centurion, then, satisfied, consents to Joseph's request. This would appear straightforward enough at first glance; but in the original Greek version of Mark's Gospel, the matter becomes rather more complicated. In the Greek version when Joseph asks for Jesus's body, he uses the word soma a word applied only to a living body. Pilate, assenting to the request, employs the word ptoma which means "corpse'.=9 According to the Greek, then, Joseph explicitly asks for a living body and Pilate grants him what he thinks, or pretends to think, is a dead one. Given the prohibition against burying crucified men, it is also extraordinary that Joseph
receives any body at all."

Thankful certain scholars, research and studies bother to publish in the face of condemnation and severe ridicule.

Paul quotes Mark, and we can date Paul's letters very well. Paul was a contemporary of the Apostles, or course.

Of course you realize no original documents from Mark or Paul exist right? You also realize that the Gospels contradict each other right? You realize that these documents have been "adjusted" by scribes to "fit" the religion right? You realize that documents from that same time period that conflict with the synoptic gospels were intentionally left out of the "bible" right?

ok, just checking...

Eyewitnesses are always cooborated by other eyewitnesses. Yes, I understand you don't like the subjectivity factor. No, you can't avoid it.

Eyewitnesses are always cooborated by other eyewitnesses. Yes, I understand you don't like the subjectivity factor. No, you can't avoid it.

In regards to most else that you argue, you behave as if reading Greek, or reading the Bible in Greek, was a radical innovation.

It's been done forever. There are no brave scholars advancing secret knowledge except in your own mind.

In regards to Lazarus, Christ knew Lazarus was dead from a great distance, though his Apostles did not. There's nothing to suggest a secret messenger came to Him late at night.

I suppose you impute some secret timing and collusion here to be enacted over many days before Jesus was even at the tomb in question.

A plot secret even to Lazarus' relatives and his very large extended family, people who (ahem) buried the man.

My problem with you is that you have absolutely no respect for the text, finding it fantasy, but then also have no issues simply making things up as if they are fact because they seem to make sense to you.

You don't argue well because you've got such a bias, such a plank, in your eye. You should worry about subjectivity, you're a monument to it.

In regards to most else that you argue, you behave as if reading Greek, or reading the Bible in Greek, was a radical innovation.
It's been done forever. There are no brave scholars advancing secret knowledge except in your own mind.
#230 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 08:29 PM

I'll presume you are texting regarding my post.

Well, it is the earliest Bible known and it's data appears to have been selectively modified throughout the ages. This may have been a very good reason for the church to disallow non-clergy from reading from it whatsoever. Some laymen are going to find the biblical inconsistencies and question the churches authority.

I didn't write the original Greek orthodox interpreted data, just presenting it as factually existing prior to the bibles in use today. Now that Internets and Googles make cursory searches that much more fruitful, imagine what a determined "believer" could accomplish? Particularly if they could also read the ancient Greek and other important religious scholars.

In regards to most else that you argue, you behave as if reading Greek, or reading the Bible in Greek, was a radical innovation.

Interesting you should mention that the Bible was written in Greek.

Didn't Jesus and the disciples speak Aramaic?

.. My problem with you is that you have absolutely no respect for the text, finding it fantasy, but then also have no issues simply making things up as if they are fact because they seem to make sense to you.
You don't argue well because you've got such a bias, such a plank, in your eye. You should worry about subjectivity, you're a monument to it.
#231 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 08:38 PM

Perhaps so, but at least I'm not the ass in this conversation. Maybe I should be - so here goes:

Well, if you have had a lifetime of research, interest and faith in this material I find it highly specious if you could bother considering anyone non-bias. You find evil in every shadow, a lie in every whisper.

Happier?

In regards to most else that you argue, you behave as if reading Greek, or reading the Bible in Greek, was a radical innovation.
Interesting you should mention that the Bible was written in Greek.
Didn't Jesus and the disciples speak Aramaic?
#233 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-07-08 08:41 PM

There is a line of thought that Hebrew is a variant of Greek.

My problem with you is that you have absolutely no respect for the text,

LOL!

Now I call that irony

"I'm not the ass in this conversation...."

You are in Greek.

The entire "swoon" theory regarding Christ's Resurrection, of which a variant is presented here, has been dealt with in detail by much better men than I am.

My favorite rebuttal is this one: That the broken shell a "decrucified" Jesus must have been after a day of torture and permanent maiming would have provided inspiration for no one.

Then there's the pesky datum of Roman efficiency, assuring the dead body is really dead by piercing heart and lungs from beneath the rib cage.

I'll return to this point: If you want to see the entire story of Christ as a lie and fabrication that's what you'll do.

What's dishonest are the fantasy elborations on what you already consider fantasy in an attempt to kill the story as dead as you can make it.

Some people are threatened by questions against faith, and even you can understand why that might be so.

However, some people are just threatened by faith, period. Maybe someone can explain that to me.

"Didn't Jesus...Speak Aramaic...?"

My assumption is that He spoke any language He wanted.

The entire "swoon" theory regarding Christ's Resurrection, of which a variant is presented here, has been dealt with in detail by much better men than I am.
My favorite rebuttal is this one: That the broken shell a "decrucified" Jesus must have been after a day of torture and permanent maiming would have provided inspiration for no one.
Then there's the pesky datum of Roman efficiency, assuring the dead body is really dead by piercing heart and lungs from beneath the rib cage.
I'll return to this point: If you want to see the entire story of Christ as a lie and fabrication that's what you'll do.
What's dishonest are the fantasy elborations on what you already consider fantasy in an attempt to kill the story as dead as you can make it.
Some people are threatened by questions against faith, and even you can understand why that might be so.
However, some people are just threatened by faith, period. Maybe someone can explain that to me.
#238 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 10:49 PM

Sure enough, the centurions pierce the lung. This makes the entire affair in question more suspect.

I can believe Jesus would have been crucified for a short period, hours rather than the 2-4 days gifted to everyone else - which makes this less a symbolic crucifixion in the name of Rome. I can also believe that he would have been alive when removed from the cross, again which Romans would not have permitted a crucified traitor.

I question that Jesus would have actually been a traitor to Rome if he was permitted burial - again on private grounds. That explains why there would not have been an actual piercing - which means the recounting his capture and scourging may have also been changed entirely.

If this were a personal ceremony performed on private grounds with only sect individuals involved, it would follow closely with the current and past traditions of scourging death and rebirth ceremonies. Particularly the ancient rites to become Sacred King.

"Past traditions of scourging death and rebirth ceremonies...."

If you credit the New Testament at all-Jesus was a Jew, saw himself as a Jew, and was treated as Jew by other Jews and also by the gentiles.

Therefore positing "ancient rites" seems very odd. You're talking about a society so religously conservative in the best of times they stoned women for extra-marital sex.

Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. Making Him into a Freemason or an Illuminatus makes no sense to me.

The New Testament states the Apostles watched Christ die and thought him dead. Moreover, they considered it quite possible they were next.

They did not easily credit Him being alive again. The overwhelming weirdness they felt in seeing a "dead man walking" is evident almost up to the Ascension.

eat of my flesh drink of my blood- bunch of pagan cannibals, but since so many "believe" it gains the power of "truth"

ummmm dont believe the apostles watched jesus die, only mary, the whore and possibly ONE of the apostles, the rest were hiding if my memory serves me.

"Pagan cannibals"---We had a discussion about exactly this insult at evening church Sunday. The insult is ancient, and went along with the allegation Christians were also "atheists".

"Do this in remembrance of Me...."

That's what Christ said about Communion, so that's what we do. There may be few cannibals left in New Guinea, however, if you're really interested.

"The rest were hiding if memory serves me..."

I think that's correct.

The New Testament states the Apostles watched Christ die and thought him dead. Moreover, they considered it quite possible they were next.
They did not easily credit Him being alive again. The overwhelming weirdness they felt in seeing a "dead man walking" is evident almost up to the Ascension.
#242 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 11:30 PM

I'd like to compare that "watching him die" with the ancient Greek text. Also, symbolic death still fits the scenario perfectly enabling the non-hobbled Jesus to walk out from his tomb.

Wasn't there a foreign healer or three involved just before that happened?

Pick up any number of scholarly books on the subject and you'll find ample evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, seen bodily by over 500 eyewitnesses.
#161 | Posted by kirk

I'll consult "religious scholars" just after I check up on the latest from the Peter Pan punditry.

Or perhaps experts on Spiderman could shed some light on the subject of why there are so many fanbois/fangirls dedicated to obvious works of fiction?

Hey, what do you think Mickey Mouse has to say about the afterlife? Seems to me he's about as reliable as any of the "ordained" eschatologists.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ.

Pick up a book other than the Damn Bible...please...

Pick up a book other than the Damn Bible...please...
#249 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-07-08 11:51 PM

What you mean is that weak-minded fools should be kept safe from material they cannot comprehend? ELITIST! :]

What Roman records exist regarding Jesus and his crucifixion?

I'm trying to learn the different Koine Greek versions in relation to the Aramaic Targum and Hebrew of their originals. It appears that there are even versions of those..

"I'd like to compare that 'watching him die' with teh ancient Greek text..."

Ah, the larger historical objections to your argument don't faze you, such as that the Jews didn't behave the way you want them to?

All for scholarship, myself. My bet: any strangeness you think you've found will be explainable in terms of multiple meanings of a word, archaic uses of a word, or interpretation of phrases without caring about or understanding context.

"Did you hear what Mickey Mouse had to say about the afterlife...?"

Yes. He said you're damned.

-Sorry Corky. YOU fail on this one like you did on Obama

What a maroon!!

#219- Unfamiliar with the well-accepted "Q" document.

#226 - The "scholorship" of Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, roflmfao!

-Sorry Corky. YOU fail on this one like you did on Obama

What a maroon!!
#219- Unfamiliar with the well-accepted "Q" document.
#226 - The "scholorship" of Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, roflmfao!
#254 | Posted by Corky at 2009-07-09 11:02 AM

This online Bible includes the passage I quoted. Ridicule from someone who is familiar with credible research is irresponsible and needless. You apparently know better than I, so refute it.

I'm not purposefully being insensitive to people of faith, merely observing the reaction to logical questions regarding their principal "holy" documents.

Don't anyone get too offended by ZAT, by the way. He's good at expressing what he thinks but not so good as expressing why.

#165 | Posted by Zed

ff

"As for excluded books, the Council of Nicea had nearly 500 experts who agreed on the selection criteria, and then voted on what to put in Scripture, and what to recommend as 'inspired.'"

500 experts who no doubt met with god before making their decision about what to include in their bible.

#6 | Posted by Mossadegh

hence the 'word' of GOD

What Roman records exist regarding Jesus and his crucifixion?

I'm trying to learn the different Koine Greek versions in relation to the Aramaic Targum and Hebrew of their originals. It appears that there are even versions of those..

#251 | Posted by redlightrobot

whoa, you are deeper into this than I am...

37 C.E.: Josephus is born to prominent parents in Jerusalem

wiki.brown.edu

#190 | Posted by Corky at 2009-07-08 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

He did, however, divorce his wife in 70 CE, so maybe it is a "re-birth" to which you refer, lol.

#191 | Posted by Corky

lol

I'll presume you are texting regarding my post.

Well, it is the earliest Bible known and it's data appears to have been selectively modified throughout the ages. This may have been a very good reason for the church to disallow non-clergy from reading from it whatsoever. Some laymen are going to find the biblical inconsistencies and question the churches authority.

I didn't write the original Greek orthodox interpreted data, just presenting it as factually existing prior to the bibles in use today. Now that Internets and Googles make cursory searches that much more fruitful, imagine what a determined "believer" could accomplish? Particularly if they could also read the ancient Greek and other important religious scholars.

#232 | Posted by redlightrobot

works for me:>)

"Pagan cannibals"---We had a discussion about exactly this insult at evening church Sunday. The insult is ancient, and went along with the allegation Christians were also "atheists".

#245 | Posted by Zed

now there is an image zed and his church buddies sitting in a room whining about ancient insults.

"Do this in remembrance of Me...."

That's what Christ said about Communion, so that's what we do. There may be few cannibals left in New Guinea, however, if you're really interested.

#246 | Posted by Zed

yes communion, the act of communing with one's deity, as in getting closer by taking him into you.

pagans prior to the pagan christians, communed with their gods by sacrificing an animal and eating that sacrifice to join with god.

jesus, the lamb of god, was sacrificed for us, we eat him (the man-god) to commune WITH god.

pagan as in eating a sacrificial animal to get closer to your god.

cannibalism as in jesus was both man and god

#255

If you would care to cite an example of anyone who ever survived a Roman crucifixion, be my guest.

"Scholarship" in HBHG would be an oxymoron.

.. pagan as in eating a sacrificial animal to get closer to your god.
cannibalism as in jesus was both man and god
#262 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-07-10 09:50 AM

Handle accuracy +150 points!

Love was a promise made of smoke
In a frozen copse of trees
A bone cold and older than our bodies
Slowly floating in the sea

Every morning there were planes
The shiny blades of pagan angels in our father's sky
Every evening I would watch her hold the pillow
Tight against her hollows, her unholy child

I was still a beggar shaking out my stolen coat
Among the angry cemetery leaves
When they caught the king beneath the borrowed car
Righteous, drunk, and fumbling for the royal keys

Love was a father's flag and sung like a shank
In a cake on our leather boots
A beautiful feather floating down
To where the birds had shit on empty chapel pews

Every morning we found one more machine
To mock our ever waning patience at the well
Every evening she'd descend the mountain stealing socks
And singing something good where all the horses fell

Like a snake within the wilted garden wall
I'd hint to her every possibility
While with his gun the pagan angel rose to say
"My love is one made to break every bended knee"