Jesus Resurrection

[Jollybear]

Why does everything have to be lying? We have gone over that error countless times.

Sorry, it just appears to be a big conspiracy theory lie.

Paul preached against lying in his epistles. Why would a disciple of his lie to give him more credability?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its quite logical. He already had power. Just being able to read and write was an upper hand.



He very well could have stayed a jew and preached against homosexuality . Saying rome accepted homosexuals is like saying the USA government acceps them. Ok....so? One dont need to leave there religion because of that.



No it was not overblown. Your downplaying it now.

It was a road to more power. And I will have to do some more searching on homosexuality in those times, but you need to remember that Paul opposed all sex. A lot of the rather ill approaches to sexuality of Christendom can be traced to him.

And yes, it is well known that martyr stories are exaggerated. When one looks into how many apostles were martyrs it was perhaps three.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, it just appears to be a big conspiracy theory lie.

Paul preached against lying in his epistles. Why would a disciple of his lie to give him more credability?

religions grow from myth, exaggeration, people who receive the "truth" etc. You should study other religions. The reasons that you will reject them are the same reasons to reject your own.

 

[Jollybear]

It was a road to more power.

You got no evidence it gave him more power.

And I will have to do some more searching on homosexuality in those times, but you need to remember that Paul opposed all sex.

I dont need to remember that because thats not true. But debating that i think would be a distraction from the more important issues here.

A lot of the rather ill approaches to sexuality of Christendom can be traced to him.

I dont know what christians do in there bedroom, i doubt you do either.

And yes, it is well known that martyr stories are exaggerated. When one looks into how many apostles were martyrs it was perhaps three.

3 is enough, but, hey, no, it was more then 3, plus the persecutions without myrters. Plus myrters of the church fathers and christian communities.

 

[Jollybear]

religions grow from myth, exaggeration, people who receive the "truth" etc. You should study other religions. The reasons that you will reject them are the same reasons to reject your own.

Do you ever stop generalizing and just stay focused?

You didnt answer my question. It was very specific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You got no evidence it gave him more power.



I dont need to remember that because thats not true. But debating that i think would be a distraction from the more important issues here.



I dont know what christians do in there bedroom, i doubt you do either.



3 is enough, but, hey, no, it was more then 3, plus the persecutions without myrters. Plus myrters of the church fathers and christian communities.

Wow! If you are that ignorant of Paul what are you doing here? His general anti-war attitude is obvious. He thought that marriage was only of use as a way to fend off sex outside of marriage. He thought it better to go without. Time to take off the blinders.

 

[Jollybear]

Wow! If you are that ignorant of Paul what are you doing here? His general anti-war attitude is obvious. He thought that marriage was only of use as a way to fend off sex outside of marriage. He thought it better to go without. Time to take off the blinders.

Its irrelavent WHAT paul believed about sex in relation to the issues im talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you ever stop generalizing and just stay focused?

You didnt answer my question. It was very specific.

Why do you think he would apply his standards to himself? Those that make the rules often think they are above them. They often excuse themselves since they are preaching a "greater truth".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its irrelavent WHAT paul believed about sex in relation to the issues im talking about.

Then why did you object to the obvious?

 

[Jollybear]

Why do you think he would apply his standards to himself? Those that make the rules often think they are above them. They often excuse themselves since they are preaching a "greater truth".

And paul also preached against hypocrisy, the very thing your implying he is now.

So, hes a lier, a hypocrite and power hungry and a homosexual and is against sex. And halucinates WAY too much.

Dam, this guy sounds like a few fries short of a happy meal. He sounds worse then that.

And dang, hes gonna go through hell and not recant.

Dont buy it. Makes zero sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And paul also preached against hypocrisy, the very thing your implying he is now.

So, hes a lier, a hypocrite and power hungry and a homosexual and is against sex. And halucinates WAY too much.

Dam, this guy sounds like a few fries short of a happy meal. He sounds worse then that.

And dang, hes gonna go through hell and not recant.

Dont buy it. Makes zero sense.

Let's try to honestly address the arguments. Have you not noticed that religious leaders are amazingly hypocritical when it comes to sex? It seems the more they preach against it the more likely it is that they are breaking their own rules. And yes, Paul was more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal. That has been obvious from the start.

 

[joelr]

Where does the gospels start with that?

Kata Matthaion euangelion is how all the gospels start (with different names) in those times it was the way Greek writers would say "as told to me by", if they wrote it themselves there is a different Greek to start your writings.
The gospels were in Greek before translated to English.

Plus, the gospel content, plus the epistles claim to be witness accounts.

All the gospels are just re-writes of Mark each time adding more supernatural junk.
The Pauline letters, the ones not considered forgeries by scholarship only mention 2 things, scripture and revelation. Nothing else about the life of Jesus.

In fact none of the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses. We have no eyewitness narratives of the empty tomb or appearances of Jesus. We also have no evidence any author of any Gospel died for their belief. And none of the Gospels are independent of each other: Matthew copies Mark verbatim, and embellishes with things Mark never heard of and that are often ridiculous or even contradict Mark’s account in fundamental ways; Luke copies Mark and Matthew verbatim, and embellishes with things neither of them ever heard of and that are often also ridiculous or contradict their accounts in fundamental ways (e.g. the Nativity Accounts between Matthew and Luke contradict each other on nearly every primary detail, and even put the birth date of Jesus ten years apart); and John rewrites Mark and Luke in his own words and embellishes yet again with yet more implausibilities and deliberately contradicts them in several primary details

And thats not what it means to be a witness.

I don't care if some dude said he's a believer, or he shook gods hand and went to a baseball game with him. Every religion and supernatural claim has people seeing all kinds of silly stuff or some internal revelation.

Stop acting like everyone believed the supernatural. It was then like it is now, a wide variety of views. Just with less technology.

That's your reply, "stop acting like.."?? Why don't you read writings from people of the time. They were wildly superstitious and didn't even think to question the reality of magic and supernatural entities.
Justin Martyr Christian apologist from 1AD explains that so many people already believed in dying and rising savior gods that the church had to tell them that this new one the "Real one".
Early bishops like Ignatius told Christians that the devil went back in time to make it look like there were so many other savior gods to fool Christians.
Everyone associated with some movement, Roman gods, Greek gods, Pagan religions.

And wer they witnesses or did they believe?

Or did they believe they were witnesses? I don't care about belief/witness. I'm sure there were witnesses to Zalmoxis as well, it's still a myth.

Where does plutarch mention jesus as an angel, son of God? Where?

It clearly doesn't matter here. I just hooked you up with a gigantic load of exactly what you were whining about - sources to back up the claim about earlier messianic demigods who were similar to Jesus.

So many legit sources which you somehow ignore (yet trust the gospels whose authors we don't actually know). You haven't challenged one single point of that entire sourced essay now I'm supposed to keep sending you sources?
If you want to do research email Carrier. Plutarch mentions that the Jews have a firstborn son of god angel named Joshua, in Aramiac Jesus and Joshua are the same.
You're just going to ignore any links I send anyways.

Did you even read that crap man?

Yup, and his book.

I dont think you know what the hell your talking about.

I understand, I show sources and you throw your hands up and say I don't know what I'm talking about. As if I wrote the essay?

Who said it was hard for the apostles to die for him? Yes, they wer human, but they still died for him.



Exaggerated huh? Have you read any of the persecutions and myrters?

You sound clueless. And it looks like you dont even know your own crap either.

I'm sure many Christians were persecuted. This has no bearing on the fact that it's mythology.
I give you your sources and suddenly I'm "clueless" and don't know my "crap".
You've clearly got no response here.
I'm not getting into the Pauline letters and anything else that requires sources because you'll just write a one sentence "you don't know anything" reply.

You asked several times for sources, you know full well what a source is, I imagine you were not expecting actual sources. I don't care if you want to bury your head in the sand.
So follow through, You show me where the sources are wrong. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

 

[Jollybear]

Kata Matthaion euangelion is how all the gospels start (with different names) in those times it was the way Greek writers would say "as told to me by", if they wrote it themselves there is a different Greek to start your writings.
The gospels were in Greek before translated to English.

Just because you say that dont mean anything to me. Heres what i want from you.

The quoted section THEN the source by it. Otherwise how do i know your not using some factor and slanting it with your perspective in order to misslead?

All the gospels are just re-writes of Mark each time adding more supernatural junk.

Your perspective.

The Pauline letters, the ones not considered forgeries by scholarship only mention 2 things, scripture and revelation. Nothing else about the life of Jesus.

Paul mentions Jesus was crucified and put in tomb and appeared to the apostles. Paul met with peter, james and john.

In fact none of the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses. We have no eyewitness narratives of the empty tomb or appearances of Jesus. We also have no evidence any author of any Gospel died for their belief. And none of the Gospels are independent of each other: Matthew copies Mark verbatim, and embellishes with things Mark never heard of and that are often ridiculous or even contradict Mark’s account in fundamental ways; Luke copies Mark and Matthew verbatim, and embellishes with things neither of them ever heard of and that are often also ridiculous or contradict their accounts in fundamental ways (e.g. the Nativity Accounts between Matthew and Luke contradict each other on nearly every primary detail, and even put the birth date of Jesus ten years apart); and John rewrites Mark and Luke in his own words and embellishes yet again with yet more implausibilities and deliberately contradicts them in several primary details

All your perspective. And i dont care about your perspective. I care about debating where the facts lay and the issues that come from the facts.

I don't care if some dude said he's a believer, or he shook gods hand and went to a baseball game with him. Every religion and supernatural claim has people seeing all kinds of silly stuff or some internal revelation.

Well.....i care. So, if you dont care, why are you putting your own worthless 2 cents in here?

That's your reply, "stop acting like.."??

Thats exactly my reply.

Why don't you read writings from people of the time.

I have, i havent read everything, but i have read stuff of the time.

They were wildly superstitious and didn't even think to question the reality of magic and supernatural entities.

Well that was some people, yea, not all though. And i dont know how you could even possibly know how it could be "most".

Justin Martyr Christian apologist from 1AD explains that so many people already believed in dying and rising savior gods that the church had to tell them that this new one the "Real one".
Early bishops like Ignatius told Christians that the devil went back in time to make it look like there were so many other savior gods to fool Christians.
Everyone associated with some movement, Roman gods, Greek gods, Pagan religions.

Man, your incredable. Everytime you do that means nothing to me. Quote the section then the source next to it, otherwise how do i know your not speaking a factor with your slanted spin? And seeing your careless additude makes me not trust you on top of it either.

Or did they believe they were witnesses? I don't care about belief/witness. I'm sure there were witnesses to Zalmoxis as well, it's still a myth.

I care because for me thats the most important thing in this debate. So if you dont TRY to care, well, get lost because i dont care to talk to you.

It clearly doesn't matter here. I just hooked you up with a gigantic load of exactly what you were whining about - sources to back up the claim about earlier messianic demigods who were similar to Jesus.

Yes it DOES matter and if you dont try to care, again, get lost, people like you **** me off.

So many legit sources which you somehow ignore (yet trust the gospels whose authors we don't actually know). You haven't challenged one single point of that entire sourced essay now I'm supposed to keep sending you sources?

Because the sources you gave me are crap. On top of it, you didnt quote the relavent sections with sourcing the section near it. Thats what i want. You dont care to do that, get lost. Im not a hypocrite either, i do that very same thing for my debate opponents.

If you want to do research email Carrier. Plutarch mentions that the Jews have a firstborn son of god angel named Joshua, in Aramiac Jesus and Joshua are the same.
You're just going to ignore any links I send anyways.

Quote the section and provide the exact relative spot plutarch says the angel son of god jashua. Come on man, if you gave a crap to put your 2 cents in, give a real crap and do that curtisy for me.

Yup, and his book.

I understand, I show sources and you throw your hands up and say I don't know what I'm talking about. As if I wrote the essay?

Like i said above, try to care.

I'm sure many Christians were persecuted. This has no bearing on the fact that it's mythology.

The apostles, the witnesses, the church fathers who knew the witnesses, THOSE being persecuted have bearing. Subductionzone has done a better job debating then you have and that dont mean i agree with him because i dont. But, at a minimum, hes done way better then you.

I give you your sources and suddenly I'm "clueless" and don't know my "crap".

Exactly, you dont know your crap. Care, quote the relative section, source the relative section.

You've clearly got no response here.
I'm not getting into the Pauline letters and anything else that requires sources because you'll just write a one sentence "you don't know anything" reply.

I wont do that if you CARE, QUOTE the relative sections and source the relative SPOTS.

You asked several times for sources, you know full well what a source is, I imagine you were not expecting actual sources. I don't care if you want to bury your head in the sand.

If you dont care if i "burry my head in the sand" then why are you adding your 2 cents?

So follow through, You show me where the sources are wrong. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

You quote the relative sections, source the relative spots then ill show you where its wrong.

 

[Jollybear]

Let's try to honestly address the arguments. Have you not noticed that religious leaders are amazingly hypocritical when it comes to sex? It seems the more they preach against it the more likely it is that they are breaking their own rules. And yes, Paul was more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal. That has been obvious from the start.

I have not noticed. Mayby i just got lucky. But ive never been a church hopper. And the 2 churches ive faithfully gone too both ministers were not sex suppressors.

I remember in fact the methodist minister did a series on just sex and it was in the context of promotion, not suppression.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And I will have to do some more searching on homosexuality in those times, but you need to remember that Paul opposed all sex.

From what I understand, Greeks and Romans didn't hate homosexuality per se. They just preferred to be the top, not the bottom.

 

[Prometheus85]

You left out the word "know" there.

Explain “know”

 

[lukethethird]

Your perspective.

We ought to be careful of dismissing out of hand what is demonstrably true. The author of Matthew copied Mark, making a few minor changes for theological purposes, it's plain to see. The author of Matthew added a birth story to Mark, some sayings, and a post resurrection story, this is well known and well understood to be the case and anyone can check it out for themselves.

 

[Jollybear]

Explain “know”

To know means more then belief. If you know, then you dont believe, because you know.

To know is certainty. To believe, even strong belief is not perfectly certain.

I know im typing this message to you. I know im doing so on my phone. I dont believe it, i know it.

Assuming you take my word for it that im typing it on my phone, this would mean you believe im typing it on my phone and not say, a laptop. But, you dont "KNOW" that im typing it on my phone because you dont see it, only i know because i see it. You believe, but i know. Im in the position to know but your in the position to believe.

Likewise, the apostles wer in the position to know if these things wer true or not true.

 

[Jollybear]

We ought to be careful of dismissing out of hand what is demonstrably true. The author of Matthew copied Mark, making a few minor changes for theological purposes, it's plain to see. The author of Matthew added a birth story to Mark, some sayings, and a post resurrection story, this is well known and well understood to be the case and anyone can check it out for themselves.

Thats not proven though. But, even if they used mark to JOG there memories, they still are 4 independent accounts due to there variations and supplementations.

And i contend they are witness accounts. Even if there not written BY witnesses, they would have gotten it from the witnesses.

Look here for instence. Luke 1:1-4

"1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled a among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

 

[lukethethird]

Thats not proven though. But, even if they used mark to JOG there memories, they still are 4 independent accounts due to there variations and supplementations.

And i contend they are witness accounts. Even if there not written BY witnesses, they would have gotten it from the witnesses.

Look here for instence. Luke 1:1-4

"1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled a among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

You could read for yourself but you're too big on believing for the sake of believing that the book is all to be taken literally, so I'll just leave you to your beliefs.