1. 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!

Featured Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by adrian009, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    Jn 14:16 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another/ALLOS Comforter, that he may be with you for ever”

    It did NOT say in this verse that Baha’u’llah was the other “COMFORTER/HOLY SPIRIT”, did it?

    The Lord Jesus specifically said that it was the “FATHER” who will give the “COMFORTER/HOLY SPIRIT” to the disciples and if you read it in Acts 2:1-4 you will see that this “COMFORTER/HOLY SPIRIT” came upon them that believed in the Lord Jesus. This “ANOTHER/THE SAME/ALLOS COMFORTER/HOLY SPIRIT”, i.e., the same as the Lord Jesus, and NOT Baha’u’llah, will come from the “FATHER” not hundreds of years later but on Pentecost.

    You can use deductive reasoning and see if there is any flaw in this statement.

    Is this really hard to understand?
     
  2. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    No ‘could be’ involved. If you had read what I pointed to, you would see that according to Celsus Mary was “turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child” Once more a link: Contra Celsus Book 1 Chapter 28. Nobody goes with Mary.

    Celsus is very explicit that Mary did not go with her husband. There is no ‘maybe’ here. Celsus invented a story based on Matthew but changed it to suit his own anti-Christian bias. Nobody else mentions Egypt (also in Book 1, Chapter 29) except Matthew. And Matthew very plainly does it to fit in with his prophecy fulfillment campaign. Celsus has no sources except Matthew and his own head.


    What is explicit in Luke 2 is that after the presentation in the Temple, on the fortieth day from the birth of Jesus as per the Law, “when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth”.

    Matthew 2 has them start in Bethlehem, having a house there, fleeing to Egypt, then going to Nazareth rather than their home in Bethlehem, out of fear of Herod’s son who succeeded Herod. Luke 2 has them start in Nazareth, go to Bethlehem for the tax/census nonsense, then return shortly thereafter to Nazareth, where Jesus grew up. No mention of Egypt, no fitting Egypt into the timeframe and no reason to go to Egypt since in Luke’s chronology this all happens years after Herod is dead.

    If you look at the things Celsus says, you will see that they are Gospel references, especially to the Gospel of Matthew.

    Virgin birth references already discussed could be either Matthew or Luke.

    Contra Celsum Book 1 Chapter 41
    "When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible witness beheld this appearance? Or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?"

    This could refer to any one of the here Synoptic Gospels, including Matthew.

    Contra Celsum, Book 1 Chapter 58

    “[Celsus] says that Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others; and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain the throne.”

    This is straight out of Matthew.

    Contra Celsum, Book 1 Chapter 66
    “What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant, should be conveyed into Egypt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest you should be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?”

    Only in Matthew is Jesus taken to Egypt. The reference to the two angels being previously sent is uniquely Matthew.

    Celsus very plainly used the Gospel of Matthew as a source. Unless you want to say that Herod being visited by wise men from the east, Herod wanting to kill Jesus who was taken to Egypt to escape, and the angels carrying messages were all historical events that Celsus got from some source other than Matthew. I did not think so.


    I do not believe any of Matthew. This was all a story he made up as part of his campaign to depict Jesus as the Jewish Messiah to his community of Jewish Christians. And Celsus took that story and made up another story to contradict Matthew’s story.


    I do not believe any of Luke either. His nativity story was intended to supplant Matthew’s, changing all of the details in very pointed ways. As he does in numerous places, Luke is saying that this is not Matthew’s story. It is Luke’s story and it is about Jesus being humble not exalted and accessible to everyone not just Jews.

    Matthew’s account in which Herod is alive and seemingly well would appear to make 5 BC the latest possible date. There are those who claim that Herod died in 1 BC and not 4 BC, which could change that terminus ante quem. Regardless of the exact year, recall that if any credence is to be given to Matthew, Jesus is born before Herod dies and therefore before the events at Sepphoris.

    Luke’s 6 AD date implied by the tax/census reference strikes me as an intentional subversion of Matthew. According to Luke 3:1, Jesus starts his public ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar and according to Luke 3:23 Jesus is about thirty years of age at this time. Tiberius Caesar began his reign in 14 AD. The fifteenth year would be about 29 AD. If Jesus was about thirty then (say 27 to 33) that would put the birth of Jesus between 5 BC and 2 AD. A 6 AD date is clearly out of the running. Luke’s tax/census story is not exactly the most credible of tales anyway. It looks like just a way to be obviously different from Matthew, replacing the Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth scenario with a Nazareth to Bethlehem to Nazareth one. In short, Luke lacks credibility concerning dates.

    What do you base your 3 BC date on?


    I have given my account. Matthew made up his story and Celsus made up a counter story, very clearly referring to Matthew. No credible historical content concerning Jesus can be found anywhere.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    Nice link, but this is atheists’ pride and joy website. Funny thing about this website is the millions of years of evolutions. How did they get those numbers? Perhaps with their own calibrated radiometric dating?

    So, you would agree with anyone, even with atheism, or make a pact with the devil, just to prove that your science and religion is right about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
     
  4. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12,969
    Ratings:
    +3,132
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Baha’u’llah did not give Himself that name. If you want to know the details you can ask one of the other Baha’is here… I am not great with Baha’i history.

    Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

    Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

    Besides that, I was not saying that alone is any proof of anything. You said: “I don’t see Baha’u’llah’s name here or another name at all, do you?” and I simply answered your question. Baha’u’llah means Glory of God or Glory of the Lord. Make of it what you will.
    You are free to believe Christ is God if you want to but please keep in mind that Jesus never claimed to be God; He disclaimed it…. Why doesn’t that even matter to Christians? I guess that is because the Church doctrines supersede what Jesus said in the Gospels… Here are just a few of many verses where Jesus differentiates Himself form God; there are many, many more.

    John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

    John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

    Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

    John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

    John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

    1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

    John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
     
  5. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12,969
    Ratings:
    +3,132
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Why should the Bible spell it out? For one thing, the “name” Baha’u’llah had not been assigned yet because only God knew who the Messiah would be at that time…

    It was enough of a hint that the name Baha’u’llah means the Glory of God in Arabic. :rolleyes:

    I was not trying to use these verses to prove who Baha’u’llah was. There is plenty of other evidence, not the least of which are all the OT and NT prophecies He fulfilled.
    I know all about Acts 2:1-4 but the Holy Spirit of an Almighty God is not limited to being “given” once and for all time. It is the Bounty of God and an Almighty God has unlimited Bounty. This is logic 101 stuff. Is it really that hard to understand? Well, it is impossible to understand if you define the Holy Spirit as one of the Three Persons of the Trinity that can ONLY be associated with Jesus Christ. This is all about Church doctrines, not about what Jesus or even Paul ever said… The Church took that and made doctrines.

    Please note that we have some JWs on this forum who do not believe that Jesus is God and they do not believe in the Holy Spirit the way you do, and they do not believe in the bodily resurrection, and they read the same Bible. What does this tell you, logically speaking? Why are they wrong and you are right? :confused:
     
  6. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,481
    Ratings:
    +7,827
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I've never believed in what the YECs have to say. Most people where I live don't. If YECs had something sensible to say, then more of us might be inclined to take them seriously. Statements like 'science has been hijacked by atheists' and 'make a pact with the devil' turn people off religion.

    I respect knowledge, reason and science but am a faith adherent. I have been to university, studied science and have qualifications that relate to science. Is that what you mean by making a pact with the devil?
     
    #726 adrian009, Feb 7, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  7. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    17,100
    Ratings:
    +5,341
    Religion:
    deist
    Hello again. I like most of the above statement by Celcius, and/but I expect that Joseph took her back..... couldn't help himself, and that they had other children. Why do I support that view?...... because Mark, no doubt a partial witness, wrote it. Neither Matthewe nor Luke were witnesses, but copied Mark's statement, often word-for-word in places. Celcus's history of Jesus has mostly come from different sourcres to those folks, because he adds details which show this. But now it's time to wrap your debate up, I'm afraid.............. so let's go...............
    That's an anazing claim! Well, at least you've written it down clear as day. Now we're rolling........... let's see what you think about the others..............
    and
    And so, with the above three statements we can discover that you claim that Celcus is absolutely beyond credencce as well. And so Matthew, Luke and Celcus, for varying reasons are all unbelievable?
    The rest of what you write about their accounts can therefore be discarded, because you're only trying to show that the one either copied the other, or contended against the other. And you're flat wrong!
    I reckon that both Matthew and Luke had collected a bunch of 'oral-tradition' anecdotes and fiddled them about in attempts to build a story which is reversed into prophecy, and it's even possible that they were only additionally aware of Q-gospel' and Mark-gospel when they wrote. Why you would think that two devoted Christians would be hell-bent on countering the other is a question that baffles me.
    So your detailed quotes to counter each other and Celcus are very superficial, imo. You only simply had to write that the whole story is waffle in your opinion...........?
    Studies of archeology and history of the area, with G-Mark's account, with some details from Celcus's claims, together with valuable anecdotes (only) from Matthew, Luke and John and religious traditions and with valuable suggestions about translation from some RF members, have built a possible history of what and how everything happened.
    These studies have lead me to believe that the story started with the hilltop peasant communities of the Canas, Nazareth and the other one to the west and with the central 'city' of Sepphoris which provided much of the economy for these. The time frame links the overthrow and retaking of Sepphoris, the Roman involvement, that soldier etc with a Temple virgin's situation, an affair and the involvement with a handwaorker peasant after the soldier's departure. That would revolve around 4bc with a flight from the area circa 3bc.
    You want details? That's a long story................. :shrug: ......... and I don't sell stories........ :)
    As far as your attempts to debate against Celcus, we all need to accept that after a road traffic or crime incident, witnesses statements quite often read as if they were totall different incidents, written only hours or days after the events. We are trying to put an account together after millenia and it's difficult, so an understanding of how people 'tick' can help enormously. I'm not sure that you've got that gift, Sir.
     
  8. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    Nowhere in the Bible did it say that Baha’u’llah will replace the Lord Jesus on His return or 2nd coming. The Lord Jesus will NOT come again in the body form. This is how the 2nd coming of the Lord Jesus will be according to the Bible.

    Please read these verses.

    1Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;"
    1Thessalonians 4:17 "then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

    On Christ 2nd coming, Christians will be “be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air”.

    It did not specifically said that it was Baha’u’llah, who would come for the 2nd time, did it? NO, it did not, meaning there is NO room for you to INSERT Baha’u’llah in these verses, right?

    Notice: The Lord will not touch down here on earth until all Christians are all together with the Lord.

    The 2nd coming of the Lord Jesus is NOT about dealing with sin anymore, like His first coming where he dealt with sin with finality. “It is finished” -John 19:30.

    so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” -Hebrews 9:28

    Very clear it says: “not to bear sin, but to bring salvation” 1st COMING is about dealing with sin. The 2nd COMING is about salvation and judgment.

    Now, what’s gonna happen to those who were left behind?

    2Thessalonians 2:1 "Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him;"

    Here, Paul was saying about the 2nd coming of the Lord and the “gathering together” of Christians that was mentioned in 1st Thessalonians 4:17 and in 2nd Thessalonians 2:6 “And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.”

    Who is “restraining” him, or restraining satan?

    Now, we go back again to the “COMFORTER” even the “HOLY SPIRIT” that the “FATHER” will give to the disciples when Christs’ earthly ministry ends. First, Christ’s ministry then after the “RESURRECTION” Christ went back to the Father then the “HOLY SPIRIT” was given to those who believe in the Lord Jesus as their guide. All these you can read in the Bible.

    IOW, after Christ’s ministry, the Father will send the Holy Spirit to the believers as the 2nd ministry to guide the Christians while here on earth. Once the Christians are taken away by the Lord Jesus on His 2nd COMING immediately the Holy Spirit will be taken away as well because the Holy Spirit’s ministry would be over or there is no one in need of His guidance anymore and judgment will come to those who were left behind.

    If you read the following verses it will tell you what’s gonna happen after Christians were taken away.

    2Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way.
    2Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming;
    2Thessalonians 2:9 even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
    2Thessalonians 2:10 and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
    2Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie:
    2Thessalonians 2:12 that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

    It’s very clear, according to the Bible, that on the 2nd COMING of the Lord Jesus two things will happen, i.e., Christians and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the ‘”RESTRAINER”, will be taken away and “shall we ever be with the Lord”, and the other one is JUDGEMENT “that they all might be judged who believed not the truth”.

    There is no room for Baha’u’llah here.
     
  9. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Mark was not a witness. Even conservative tradition makes him a follower of Peter and the scribe who wrote Peter’ memoirs. Matthew is said to be a witness but as you point out, he borrows much from mark. Likewise Luke, who is not thought to be a witness.

    I fail to see any sources for the things Celsus says about the circumstances of the birth of Jesus except the passages in Matthew that he explicitly references. Perhaps you could offer some quotes from Celsus found in Contra Celsum and identify what other sources he used. Also point out what details Celsus provides about this subject that are not simply contradictions of passages in Matthew. Without that, the claim of independent sources is unsupportable.


    Not at all amazing. Celsus wrote around 177 AD, or something like 180 years after the estimated date of the birth of Jesus. Unless you can produce them as requested above, there is no evidence supporting the idea of Celsus using any sources in this matter than Matthew, which he obviously used. Mathew likewise can be seen as having been written for specific purposes around 80 years or so aafter the supposed birth date of Jesus. Similarly there is no trace of anything prior that supports Matthew’s claims. He made them up. Nothing else existing prior to Celsus makes the claims that Celsus does and his comments are conspicuously agenda driven – opposition to Christianity - a popular theme in the Roman world at that time. His dependence on Matthew’s invented story is itself a clear sign that Celsus had no other sources. Celsus made up his counter-stories. There is no reason to think otherwise. Not at all amazing.


    Matthew, Luke and Celsus all invented stories for easily detectable purposes. Mark can be seen as collecting oral traditions about Jesus on which to base his story. Matthew and Luke each incorporated much of Mark into their stories. But Mark has no inkling of the detailed genealogy, virgin birth and nativity stories, the Sermon on the Mount and a number of other themes that appear in Matthew and Luke. In fact, Matthew and Luke are the only NT writings that mention those three themes, and in each case, Luke tell a radically different story from Matthew. Not merely different but plainly in direct opposition to the purpose of Matthew’s versions and presenting Luke’s purposes instead. This can also be seen in their post-resurrection narratives, Luke reversing those details specific to Matthew.

    No, Matthew and Luke did not dig up any oral traditions. They invented the unique parts of their stories for very obvious purposes.

    Celsus can be seen taking parts form Matthew, even to the point of direct references to small details (like the two angels) and inventing a new story to contradict them. There is no sign of Celsus saying anything about Mary, Joseph or the young Jesus that is not a reflection of something in Matthew. Celsus has nothing new to say in this respect except contradiction of Matthew. Since Matthew clearly invented those unique parts of his story for his unique purposes and since the arguments of Celsus connect directly with those portions of Matthew, it is patently clear that Celsus’ story is likewise a fabrication.


    Yes, I want details. All you have done is refer to possible sources of evidence but not any evidence itself. You also appear to be using the ideas of the Sepphoris incident and the pagan temple virgin as support for your story when in fact Celsus never mentions those topics, nor does any source prior to Celsus that I can find.

    The differences between the Gospels, especially between Matthew and Luke, are very clearly deliberate and purposeful. No ‘point of view’ claims can get around that.

    The gift I have is called paying attention to details and their implications before reaching a conclusion. Starting with the conclusion and proceeding to ‘prove’ that conclusion by ignoring anything contrary and inventing any suppositions needed is not a valid methodology. Showing all the details of your above mentioned conclusion that Jesus was born in 3 BC etc. would help dispel that inference.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    You borrowed the words “Bounty of God” from Islam, i.e., the “Bounty of Allah and his mercy”, and insert this Islam praise in the Bible. You are MIXING the Bible and the Koran into your belief and like I said before, it would only create confusion because of contradictions.

    The “COMFORTER/parakletos/counselor/advocate” and the “HOLY SPIRIT” and the “Spirit of truth” are all the same and here is the proof of that, John 14:26 “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit,” or other translation “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit,”

    Jn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
    Jn 14:17 even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.

    Now, if the “COMFORTER” is the “HOLY SPIRIT” and the “COMFORTER” is the same as the “Spirit of truth” then the “Spirit of truth” should be the same as the “HOLY SPIRIT” also, right? IOW, there is no difference between the “COMFORTER”, the “HOLY SPIRIT”, and the “SPIRIT OF TRUTH”, right?

    But see how your statement contradicts my statement that is based on the Bible:



    If “Baha’u’llah was the Spirit of truth” then he must be the Holy Spirit and the Comforter too, but you contradicted this with your own statement “I do not believe that Baha’u’llah was the Holy Spirit”, but based on the Bible there is no difference between the “COMFORTER”, the “HOLY SPIRIT”, and the “SPIRIT OF TRUTH”. Now, do we see any contradictions between your own statements? YES! It’s either your statements are all TRUE at the same time otherwise you are guilty of the excluded middle if both your statements are TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
     
  11. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    ”I am not great with Baha’i history” WOW! No wonder why you are so confused about your statements.
     
  12. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    this cult leader in the Philippines, Iglesia ni kristo, think he’s the angel in Revelation 7:2
    Rev 7:2 “And I saw another angel ascend from the sunrising, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a great voice to the four angels to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,”
    You could do the same by saying Baha’u’llah, means the Glory of God, is the “Glory of God” in the bible.
     
  13. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    Philosophical Faith is different from Christian Faith. I don’t compromise my faith for the sake of relativism. God is absolute therefore my faith must be absolute too not adhering to what the consensus is demanding or relativism. That’s probably the reason why your statements, most of the time, are self-contradictory because there is no truth in it because your belief’s main objective is to bring all religion into one. I don’t need to adulterate the inerrant word of God just to satisfy my flesh or for my own satisfaction.
     
  14. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    17,100
    Ratings:
    +5,341
    Religion:
    deist
    I can only answer this one point tonight.

    You did not read what I wrote about Mark. I wrote that Mark was a partial witness. He was indeed a follower of Cephas and we can place him at certain key events.

    There is little doubt that he was at the arrest of Jesus and the scattering of the disciples. Time to be your own investigator:-
    Mark: {14:50} And they all forsook him, and fled. {14:51} And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about [his] naked [body;] and the young men laid hold on him: {14:52} And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

    Now, if you stand there (virtually) and watch, what will you see? I suggest you will see absolute panic and mayhem, with followers legging it in panic and Temple officials trying their best to catch who they can. As you stand there, cann you see anybody calmly watching the scenes? But some folks remember that scene as written...... do you think the young officials spoke of their failures? Do you think they got in contact with followers later and passed on their meoirs? Or do you think that the one person who would remember that incident for the rest of his life would make special mention of it, in the third person maybe, but there it was.

    Mark could have been the only person who remembered that, and to write about it especially, as a 'by the way' mention not essential to the story.

    Think again.
     
  15. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    17,100
    Ratings:
    +5,341
    Religion:
    deist
    To repeat, the list of sources that I have drawn from include 'some details from Celcius's claims' and so I will focus on only those to give answer to your question, but I will need to draw from other sources to anchor them. Here is what I wrote before, about my sources:-
    Studies of archeology and history of the area, with G-Mark's account, with some details from Celcus's claims, together with valuable anecdotes (only) from Matthew, Luke and John and religious traditions and with valuable suggestions about translation from some RF members, have built a possible history of what and how everything happened.
    Moving forward, Celcius refers to Jesus as '
    the man of Nazareth,' and 'Jesus, the man of Nazareth,' twice in Origen's contention, and this clearly shows that Celcius had believed that Nazareth was where Jesus came from.

    Celcus wrote of Mary:- she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been
    betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;'

    and again:- as Celsus thinks, by an act of
    adultery between Panthera and the Virgin.

    Celcius has already placed Jesus's origins from Nazareth, and now he connects Mary's affair with a Soldier, a Roman soldier by his name. The Roman force in Galilee at that time would have been at Sepphoris, exactly where Legate Varus had sent it, to overthrow the brigand Judas BarEzekiah.
    Nazareth is about 4 miles to the south of Sepphoris, a hilltop village which almost certainly protected peasants who worked upon Sepphoris. How do we know this? Because there are no remains (apart from one) of any 1st century buildings on Nazareth, and peasant handworkers, labourers, hauliers were by their very nature itinerant, able to travel to work..... they most probably lived in tents when they set up home on Rocky Hilltops, goat hair tents.
    Celcus writes :- Him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor
    woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, ..............

    Again, a certain Jewish village. No cities for Jesus, just Nazareth.
    And Celcus continues to explain how Jesus is taken to Egypt where he learns about healing and magical abilitires before returning:-.............. and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of
    adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, ...............

    Egyptians new more about health and healing than Palestinians, I have read. And The Greek word Tekton, as with the Eastern Aramaic 'Nagar' or 'Nagarra' can mean 'Magi', which of course Jesus had to be if he could carry out his healings so well that folks thought of him as miraculous.
    I like Celcius' additions to the story quite a lot, but you would need to fit his contributions in to the overall picture created by so many other contributions.
    If you don't like it............ fair enough. :shrug:
     
  16. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Read Mark 14 again. The young man did not stay ‘calmly watching the scene’. He also ran away. Mark 14:52. It was Peter who followed at a distance all the way into the courtyard of the high priest observing what happened. Mark 14:54.

    Mark 14:51 says that the young man was “wearing nothing but a linen garment”. The Greek word used is sindōn. The primary meaning is “linen cloth, esp. that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped’. This is the same word used in Mark 15:46 for the linen Jesus was wrapped in when he was buried. The alternate meaning for the word refers to “light and loose garment worn at night over a naked body”. In other words, an old-fashioned nightshirt. One wonders why some follower of Jesus would be wearing only a nightshirt outdoors in weather cold enough that the guards were warming themselves by a fire. Mark 14:54 (Or even weirder, weairig a burial shroud.) I know Jesus berates the disciples for falling asleep but wearing a nightshirt is a little blatant, don’t you think?

    Anyway the piece about the young man in a linen garment is not a puzzle that easily solved. Neither does it make the man a witness, because he runs away too. It is Peter who is a witness, supporting the tradition that Mark got his material from Peter. Regardless, there is no real reason for identifying the man with Mark except to retrofit the idea of Mark as a witness. Which does not work anyway.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    All you are doing is quoting Celsus and introducing material not even in Celsus. Where are the independent sources that Celsus is supposed to have used? I still see nothing but Celsus writing in opposition to the Gospel of Matthew. His ‘additions’ are simply contradictions of Matthew including direct textual references to Matthew. Celsus made up his story to counter Matthew’s made up story. Neither of them really happened. And now it seems you are making up a story even beyond anything Celsus said based solely on the word Nazareth.

    The word in Matthew 2:1 is magoi which is ”the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc.” The word was already in use by Sophocles and Herodotus in that sense. Nothing Egyptian there.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    5,791
    Ratings:
    +2,511
    Religion:
    undecided
    But Baha'u'llah is not the second coming. He's the fourth. They have Muhammad as the second one after Jesus.
     
  19. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12,969
    Ratings:
    +3,132
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I am not a bit confused. It is the Christians that are confused, all of them, at least when it comes to the Return of Christ.

    Just because I do not know something does not mean it is not the Truth. The Truth is the Truth and it would still be the Truth, even if I was illiterate. That is logic 101 stuff. :)

    You cannot refute the Baha’i Faith so it is best you quit while you are ahead. I hardly have to know the Bible at all to refute a Christian. It is like water off a duck’s back. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12,969
    Ratings:
    +3,132
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    You just committed the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization by comparing Baha’u’llah with a cult leader. I have been down this road so many times with an atheist I posted to on other forums who claimed to be so logical so I have Word documents of all his posts saved by subject. He claimed that all messengers represent imaginary gods, meaning there is no real Messengers of God and no real God.

    Here is part of one of my favorite posts… I love posting to atheists. One thing they all have in common is that they do not like religion or the idea of Messengers of God (Prophets). Another thing most of them have in common is that they are ex-Christians... :D

    Here is part of one post I wrote to a poster I will call Atheist X:

    Let us tear this down to manageable pieces:

    What you said is true. All through history and down to the present, alleged messengers have represented imaginary gods. These are called false prophets.

    What you said is true. Every imaginary god ever believed in did as well as to have at least one alleged messenger to tell all about the god.

    The point you so easily blow off is that that in no way precludes a Messenger that represents the Real God. Unless you can prove that there was never a Messenger that ever represented a Real God you are up the creek without a paddle. You would have to prove that both Moses and Jesus were messengers who represented imaginary gods.

    The reason I say this is that if there is even one Messenger who represented the Real God, then it is possible there are other Messengers that represented the Real God, since an omnipotent God can send as many Messengers as it wants to, whenever it wants to.

    Atheist X said...“every imaginary god ever believed in did as well as to have at least one alleged messenger to tell all about the god -- just like your Bahalula from 19th century Persia.”

    If the premise that some Messengers have represented the Real God is true, we can conclude that it is possible that there are other Messengers who represented the Real God.

    Now let us look at the fallacy of hasty generalization and see how you commit it.

    Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

    You assume, without any evidence (since you never researched the claim of Baha’u’llah) that Baha’u’llah represents an imaginary god. Thus, you have based your conclusion on “insufficient evidence,” essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. There is no way you can wriggle out of this unless you can prove there were never any Messengers who represented the Real God.

    Atheist X said...So, fantasizing that your alleged god had a better messenger, a messenger who was the real deal and put out direct revelations from this god -- well, that could have been said of any alleged messenger for any imaginary god, all of whom were believed to be real gods.

    It does not matter if it could have been said of any alleged messenger for any imaginary god that they had a better messenger. That is completely irrelevant. The only point that is relevant is whether the evidence indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger who represented the Real God. Again, if there were ever any Messengers that represented the Real God, then Baha’u’llah might have been another such Messenger.

    Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
    1. messenger a represented an imaginary god
    2. messenger b represented an imaginary god
    3. messenger c represented an imaginary god.
    4. messenger d represented an imaginary god.
    5. Therefore, messenger e (in this case Baha’u’llah) represented an imaginary god.
    For example, if a person travels through a town for the first time and sees 100 messengers, all of them representing an imaginary god, they may erroneously conclude that there are no Messengers in the town that represent a Real God.

    Atheist X said...So, your fantasy about your god being real because he had a "real" messenger doesn't mean Jack **** as far as credible evidence and logical inference is concerned.

    It does mean jack squat because there is enough evidence for Baha’u’llah to sink a large ocean liner. Whether it is credible to you makes no difference because what people find credible (believable) does not prove jack squat. Baha’u’llah either represented a Real God or not. The only thing that is relevant for making that determination is the evidence, period.

    Atheist X said...Just because you have been fooled, and imagine what he wrote made him special, as evidence that still counts for nothing, since the messengers for all imaginary gods also fooled people and were believed to be special.

    You won’t even look at the evidence, so you imagine Baha’u’llah was not special. However, that counts for nothing because Baha’u’llah was either special or not. The fact that messengers for all imaginary gods fooled people and were believed to be special has absolutely nothing to do with Baha’u’llah. If you STILL cannot understand why after all the trouble I went to writing this up, I suggest you take a basic logic course.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I have more fun with atheists than Christians, and they are a lot less work since I do not need to know the Bible, I only need to know logic. :D

    BTW, everything I wrote to Atheist X also applies to Christians who believe that Baha’u’llah is a false prophet. ;)
     
Loading...