Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Is not up to science to price it doesn't happen. Those who make the claim have to furnish the evidence, and this far what we do know is irreparable damage sets in just a few minutes after death.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Why don't you just admit that due to your bias there's no evidence you will ever accept?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, he was quite right. The burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim. Think of Mohammad's trip to the Moon on the back of a winged horse. I don't believe that and I bet that you do not believe that either. And you do not probably believe it for the same reason that @Shadow Wolf does not believe the resurrection myth. You should demand massive evidence for the Mohammad claim, just as we demand massive evidence for your claims.
What reliable evidence do you think that there is for the resurrection story?
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Not reliable evidence at all only an opinion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No need. It is only a comforting book for the gullible.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I'd accept it if there were actual concrete evidence.
The first Jesus is Paul's (50s CE). He pre-exists in Heaven with God, made the material world, and mediates between that world and God. The Father is God and the Son is Lord. That is, he's very similar to gnosticism's demiurge. The little that Paul gives about his earthly life says he was born of an unnamed woman, and was descended from David; was 'handed over' to 'the archons' for reasons never mentioned, who crucify him for reasons never mentioned.
The second is Mark's (c, 75 CE). He doesn't pre-exist in heaven with God. He's an ordinary Jewish citizen, born of ordinary unnamed Jewish parents, without annunciations or moving stars, is not descended from David, and doesn't become the son of God until adopted by God when baptized by JtB on the model of Psalm 2:7 as affirmed by Acts 13:33. He preaches that the Kingdom will be established in the lifetime of his hearers. He's a defeated, woeful, abandoned figure at his crucifixion.
The third is Matthew's (80s CE). He doesn't pre-exist in heaven with God. He's the genetic son of God, born of divine insemination, in the manner of Greek tradition. Matthew's author associates him, impossibly, with Isaiah 7:14. An angel reassures the cuckolded husband of Mary. Jesus is descended from David (shown by a fake genealogy). The wise men, the flight into Egypt, and the murderous Herod are all brought into the story. An excuse is invented to explain why JtB baptizes the already-son of God. Jesus preaches the imminence of the Kingdom. He says he isn't God. On the cross he feels foresaken. Dead saints walk in the streets of Jerusalem.
The fourth is Luke's (80s CE), and Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses are the closest to a pair in the five. In Luke, Jesus doesn't pre-exist in heaven. Mary, still a virgin, is warned in advance f her divine insemination and the birth of Jesus as son of God. Jesus is descended from David (shown by another fake genealogy). An unhistoric story is devised to have Jesus born in Bethlehem with angels and shepherds. JtB is now the foreteller of the coming Jesus, but baptizes him without explanation. Jesus preaches the imminence of the Kingdom. He says he isn't God. To and on the cross, Jesus is much cooler, doesn't despair, but commends his spirit to God.
The fifth is John's (c. 100 CE). Gnostic like Paul's; he pre-exists in Heaven, made the material world, and mediates between it and God. He 'became flesh' without further details, though Mary is his mother. Written around 100 CE, he discreetly omits mention of the imminence of the Kingdom. He says he's not God. The Jews are cast as the enemy. On the cross he's not a victim but the master of ceremonies.
So even just scratching the surface like this, five Jesuses, five Christologies, with Matthew, Luke and John each improving on Mark as their respective authors prefer.
Did Jesus pre-exist with God? Yes 2, No 3.
Was Jesus divinely conceived? Yes 2, No 1, abstain 2.
Was Jesus descended from David? Yes 4, No 1
Will Jesus (or else 'the Son of Man') bring in the Kingdom in the life of Jesus' hearers? Yes 3, Abstain 2.
Is Jesus God? Yes 0 No 5.
And so on.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Maybe he should have said that in Mark, Matthew and Luke. John's Jesus is pictured differently and that's okay.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
They grasp at straws. It's way too scary to leave the fundamentalist/inerrant view, so they justify. I was scared to death of punishment to stop thinking the Bible was literal and inerrant. After 4 or 5 days, I was okay.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
God alters natural laws via an unnatural law not yet discovered, you know, like what scientists say happened before Planck time.
According to natural law, time travel isn't possible for humans who cannot approach the speed of light, so the Bible's extreme prescience proves a God exists.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
The deity of Jesus is seen in all four Gospels. And according to the Old Testament only God can save. So it should be a no-brainer to the spiritually-attuned.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Nice try, but the deity of Jesus is seen in all four Gospels (read article below). Sorry you missed it all.
The Divinity of Jesus Revealed in the New Testament
The Bible is just a book
No it isn't.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
How would you possibly know, having not read it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have heard arguments from it.
Edit: Of course, I am more than fair. Send me the money for a copy and I will buy it and read it.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
That would explain some things, for sure.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I dont remember how long it took me to get over all that. I'm pretty sure it was weeks, perhaps months of struggling with trying to hold onto a dying faith. Once I did renounce Christianity though I was largely and mostly over the fears of Hell, upsetting god, and all that and it all immediately stopped then and there. But getting there was difficult.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
There are more than four Gospels, and the idea of Jesus being divine didn't really happen and become deeply entrenched in Christianity until the Nicene council decided to "paganize" Jesus by elevating him to the status of god. Before then, a "Jesus as God" would have been seen as a major violation of "thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Apologists try to claim that the four Gospels are independent sources. They forget the history of the Bible when they do so. That we no longer have the large number of gospels that used to exist is largely due to an early eradication program of the church. Competing ideas were banned, and often destroyed. The Gospels are not independent. When the gospels that did not toe the line were rejected that makes them all dependent on that one standard. Second Mark was copied quite extensively by Matthew and Luke. And John copied parts of Luke:
They are far from "independent".