IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It is impossible to know what Jesus actually said and didn't say. We have no texts written by jesus and no eyewitness accounts. Only collections of unreliable legends
-
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!
Why Don’t You Believe Jesus Rose From The Grave?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No .. spiritual souls don't eat broiled fish, and have physical wounds.
joelr
Well-Known Member
This is centuries before the Enlightenment. People were happy to hear a new myth and stress the truth of Zeus, Krishna, Osirus or whatever else an educated writer who put their tales into an official format/Gospel.
Historical truth wasn't a priority for people before the Enlightenment. They wanted a new myth to give them a different identity and would embrace anything. All nations did it.
The "stressed" and "witnesses" are in the myth. So your source is a story. Sorry, bad evidence.
The NT uses all Hellenistic changes all the mystery religions did. Exactly. Every nation the Greek colonists occupied ended up using the same generic package of ideas.
They are not fundamentalists who buy into a claim then try to do their work in a way only that approves their beliefs.
All archaeologists agree who are not indoctrinated. Dever, Carol Meyers. Mininalist is just a word for "not ignoring obvious evidence"
Also Thomas Thompson.
No, it started in the 70's way after Jesus with a Greek educated writer who invented an earthly story using Paul, the OT re-worked, Romulus, Persian and Greek theology.
Why Evangelical Christians Ignore the Earliest and only 1st-Person Testimony to Jesus' Resurrection
8:29 Paul’s description of seeing Jesus is similar to many of the Hellenistic accounts we have of seeing resurrected deities, Romulus is similar.
This is sharp contrast to the Gospel stories.
10:25 Paul’s idea of resurrection is not rising up from the grave but a transformation to a glorious immortal body.
The Gospel view has Jesus say he is flesh and bones. Not resurrection as Paul sees it. (14:30)
Luke does say this when he answers the Sadducees question about seven husbands.
25:00 Zombies in Matthew
26:30 Paul is writing in the 50’s, the Gospels are 70s, 80s, 90s and later.
Dr James Tabor, specialist in Hellenism and Christianity.
Ah, speaking of making things up. The Gospels are a blending of several myths.
Every scholar who can demonstrate anything about the Gospels, has evidence.
Death & Afterlife: Do Christians Follow Plato rather than Jesus or Paul?
Dr James Tabor
5:40 1st Hebrew view of cosmology and afterlife. The dead are sleeping in Sheol, earth is above, the firmament is above that and divides the upper ocean from falling to earth,
7:50 A linear version emerged with time and an end times and final Judgment.
Genesis says you will return to dust.
9:00 Translation of Genesis 2:6 God breathes the breath of life into Adam (giving him a soul). The actual Hebrew translation is “living-breathing”, meaning all life is this.
10:40 Hellenistic period - the Hebrew religion adopts the Greek ideas.
Sources the Britannica article and explains it’s an excellent resource from an excellent scholar.
13:35 In the Hellenistic period the common perception is not the Hebrew view, it’s the idea that the soul belongs in Heaven.
14:15 The basic Hellenistic idea is taken into the Hebrew tradition. Salvation in the Hellenistic world is how do you save your soul and get to Heaven. How to transcend the physical body.
Greek tomb “I am a child of earth and starry heaven but heaven alone is my home”
15:46 Does this sound familiar, Christian hymns - “this world is not my home, I’m a pilgrim passing through, Jesus will come and take you home”.
Common theme that comes from the Hellenistic religions. Immortal souls trapped in a human body etc…
47:15 Hellenistic Greek view of cosmology
Material world/body is a prison of the soul
Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world
Death sets the soul free
No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth
Immortality is inherent for all humans
Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul
Humans are fallen and misplaced
Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free
Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed
Asceticism is the moral idea for the soul
49:35 Genesis view
Creation/body very good, procreation good
Humans are “living breathers”, akin to animals, mortal, dust of the earth
Death is dark silent “sleeping in the dust”
Human history moves toward a perfected new age/creation
Salvation is eternal life in the perfected world of the new creation
Humans belong on earth
Resurrection brings a new transformed glorious spiritual body
Death is an enemy
Physical life and sensory pleasures are good
joelr
Well-Known Member
In the Bible it says the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. So your pushbak is not correct. There is no evidence until Paul spoke about folk tales and Mark wrote an obvious fiction using all older sources. I'll demonstrate some in a later post.
First, Christianity started in Antioch. "its converts were the first to be called Christians." see below.
Hellenistic religion
The apotheosis of rulers also brought the idea of divinity down to earth.
Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.
The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century AD, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its traditions, such as the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.
Antioch on the Orontes
The city was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. Antioch was part of the pentarchy and was called "the cradle of Christianity" as a result of its longevity and the pivotal role that it played in the emergence of early Christianity.[5] The Christian New Testament asserts that the name "Christian" first emerged in Antioch.[6]
[5] "The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church." — "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186
- [6] "Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. So for a full year they met together with the church and taught large numbers of people. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch". biblehub.com.
Christianity
Antioch was a chief center of early Christianity during Roman times.[26] The city had a large population of Jewish origin in a quarter called the Kerateion, and so attracted the earliest missionaries.[27] Evangelized by, among others, Peter himself, according to the tradition upon which the Patriarchate of Antioch[28] still rests its claim for primacy,[29] and later (according to the Acts of the Apostles) by Barnabas and Paul[30], its converts were the first to be called Christians.
Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible
by Cheyne, T. K. (Thomas Kelly), 1841-1915; Black, J. Sutherland (John Sutherland), 1846-1923
"
We feel that we have moved more out of a Hebrew into a Greek atmosphere
in the Pastoral Kpistles, in Hebrews— which is beyond doubt dependent both in form and in contents on the Alexandrians (e.g. , 131814) — and in the Catholic Epistles ; the Epistle of James, even if, with Spitta, we should class it with the Jewish writings, must have had for its author a man with a Greek education. Tt was a born Greek that wrote Acts. If his Hellenic character does not find very marked expression it is merely due to the nature of his work ; no pure Jew would have uttered the almost pantheistic -sounding sentence, ' in God we live and move and have our being' (1723). In the Fourth Gospel, finally, the influence of Greek philosophy is incontestable. Not only is the Logos, which plays so important a part in the prologue (Ii-i8), of Greek origin ; the gnosticising tendency of John, his enthusiasm for ' the truth ' (svithout genitive), his dualism (God and the world almost treated as absolute antithesis), his predilection for abstractions, compel us to regard the author, Jew by birth as he certainly was, as strongly under the influence of Hellenic ideas. Here again, however, we must leave open the possibility that these Greek elements reached him through the Jewish Alexandrian philosophy ; just as little can his Logos theory have originated independently of Philo, as the figure of the Paraclete in chaps. 14-16 (see J. ReVille, La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrieme Evangile,. Paris, '81). Cp JOHN [SON OK ZKBEDEE], § 31.
We must conclude with the following guarded thesis. There is in the circle of ideas in the NT, in addition to what is new, and what is taken over from Judaism, much that is Greek ; but whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed at a complete fusion of Hellenism and Judaism, is, in the most important cases, not to be determined ; and primitive Christianity as a whole stands considerably nearer to the Hebrew world than to the Greek."
Did the Encyclopaedia Biblica "make up" the entry? Weird thing to make up for serious Christians? Is making claims you cannot back up all you can do? Doesn't look good for defending this fictional work if you have to resort to fabrication.
" In the Fourth Gospel, finally, the influence of Greek philosophy is incontestable."
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
A small part of the evidence for borrowed stories. Please tell me what is "made up".
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark
Previously, I’ve written about the historicity of Jesus, and mentioned how the most recent analysis, in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (the first comprehensive, academica…
lagevondissen.wordpress.com
Previously, I’ve written about the historicity of Jesus, and mentioned how the most recent analysis, in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (the first comprehensive, academically published, and formally peer-reviewed book written on the subject), showed that it was in fact very unlikely that Jesus Christ ever existed as a historical person, but rather likely began as a celestial deity who was later euhemerized, that is, placed into history as if he were a real person. As a part of Carrier’s comprehensive analysis, he analyzed the Gospels, and thoroughly demonstrated (as many other scholars have before him, though to varying degrees) that the Gospels are quite obviously mythical allegorical fictions, and thus can not be used as evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. As a former Christian, I never analyzed the Gospels from a literary or historical-critical perspective, as this wasn’t particularly relevant nor entirely feasible with my faith-based assumption that I was reading an “inerrant book inspired by God” supposedly based on nothing but true history. As a result, I never gave it much thought, nor realized just how much literary invention there was. In some cases, the care and thought taken to write these narratives is nothing short of brilliant. I wanted to share some of the content and literary devices discovered not only to illustrate that the Gospels are demonstrably mythical allegorical fictions, but also because I thought some of the literary devices used were impressive feats in themselves which I believe deserve recognition. I’ll be discussing a few of these elements found within the Gospels, as mentioned (though in greater detail) by Carrier in his comprehensive analysis. I’ve decided to split this into a series of four posts, one for each Gospel.
First of all, before even identifying or examining these literary constructs, allegories, and prospective elements of myth, we can already see by reading the Gospels that they fail to show any substantive content of being actual researched histories. Nowhere in the Gospels do they ever name their sources of information, nor do they read as eye witness testimonies (nor do they identify themselves as such), nor is it mentioned why any sources used would be accurate to rely upon. The authors never discuss any historical method used, nor do they acknowledge how some contents may be less accurate than others, nor do they mention alternate possibilities of the events given the limited information they had from their sources. They never express amazement or any degree of rational skepticism no matter how implausible an event within the story may be — something we would expect from any rational historian (even one living in antiquity). The authors never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge that they did such a thing in the first place — despite the fact that Matthew and Luke clearly relied on Mark as a source (as did John, though less obviously so), for example, and then they all redacted Mark’s version as needed to serve their own literary and theological purposes (which explains some of the contradictions found between one Gospel and another). Instead, the Gospels appear to be fictional historical biographies, likely written by specially interested Christians whose intent was to edify Jesus, just like many other fictional historical biographies that were made for various heroes and sages in antiquity. In fact, all students of literary Greek (the authors of the Gospels wrote their manuscripts in literary Greek), commonly used this fictional biographical technique as a popular rhetorical device — where they were taught to invent narratives about famous and legendary people, as well as to build a symbolic or moral message within it, and where they were taught to make changes to traditional stories in order to make whatever point they desired within their own stories.
So we already have a bit of contemporary background information showing us that fictional biographies were commonplace at the time, and thus warrant caution when examining writings that may look like histories upon first glance. However, there are also certain things we should expect to find in writings that are laden with myth and allegory as opposed to history. We can’t simply try to categorize the writings as fitting within some particular genre, as myths have been written in any and all genres, even as historical biographies (as was just mentioned), for example Plutarch’s Life of Romulus. In fact, quite a large amount of ancient biography, even of real people, was composed of myth and fiction, and thus we are forced to actually examine the content in detail to determine whether or not it is more likely to be myth or history. Some characteristics of myth include (but are not necessarily limited to): potent and meaningful emulation of previous myths, or potent emulation of real events in some cases; the presence of historical improbabilities — which is not only limited to magic or miracles, but also natural events and human behaviors that are unrealistic as well as the presence of amazing coincidences; and also the absence of external corroboration of key (rather than peripheral) elements, since a myth often incorporates some real historical people and places that surround a central mythical character and story (just as we see in most fiction, e.g., though Dorothy’s home-state of Kansas is a real place, the primary setting, main characters, and story in The Wizard of Oz, including the Wizard of Oz himself, are fictional constructs). It should be noted that not all of these characteristics need be present simultaneously for a story to be myth, but the more that are, or the more instances of each type found, only increases the likelihood that what one is reading is in fact myth rather than history.
From a historical-critical perspective, the most important thing to note is that whenever there are elements of myth found in a story, the rest of the story can no longer be used as reliable historical evidence (concerning any of the more plausible events found within the same story), due to the principle of contamination — just as a court of law assumes that a personal testimony that contains claims of magic, miracles, amazing coincidences or other implausibilities occurring is highly suspect, unreliable, and therefore must be dismissed from the pool of evidence under consideration. So in the context of the Gospels, if they are in fact demonstrated to be filled with highly devised literary structures constituting elements of allegory and myth, though that fact isn’t in itself evidence against a historical Jesus, it means that the Gospels can no longer be used as evidence for a historical Jesus. Furthermore, if any mythic content found in the Gospels can be cross-examined with other examples of myth found in history, for example, if one demonstrates that there is a historically high probability that any person claimed to possess certain attributes (e.g. being born of a virgin) are usually non-historical people, then the Gospels can in fact be used as evidence against the historicity of Jesus (as opposed to them merely being unusable to support historicity). Before I begin, I want to mention that although the Gospels in the New Testament (NT) had anonymous authors, for the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the authors as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.
Beginning with the later story of Barabbas in Mark’s crucifixion narrative (Mark 15.6-15), Mark tells us:
“At the feast, Pilate used to release to them one prisoner of their choice. And there was one called Barabbas, chained up with those who’d engaged in rebellion, who in the insurrection had committed murder. The mob went up and began to ask him to do what he usually did for them. And Pilate answered them saying, ‘Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?’ For he realized the chief priests had seized [Jesus] out of jealousy. But the chief priests stirred up the mob, so he would release Barabbas to them instead. And Pilate again answered and said to them, ‘So what should I do about the one you call the King of the Jews?’ And they cried out again, ‘Crucify him!’ And Pilate, wishing to satisfy the mob, released to them Barabbas, and sent Jesus to be whipped and crucified.”
There are several elements in this passage alone that suggest it is surely myth, and not historical fact. For one, no Roman magistrate, let alone the infamously ruthless Pontius Pilate, would let a violent and murderous rebel go free, and most importantly, no such Roman ceremony (i.e. letting the mob choose to free a particular prisoner) is attested as ever having taken place, as we simply don’t have any Roman documentation or archeological artifact found thus far to support such a claim. Even more telling though, is the fact that this ceremony quite obviously emulates the Jewish Yom Kippur ritual, namely the scapegoat and atonement, and this apparent allegory takes place in a story that is itself about atonement (Jesus’ fundamental role as portrayed in Mark’s Gospel). Since there is quite a bit of evidence that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus’ death served to merge the sacrifices of the Passover and Yom Kippur, it is surely no coincidence that Mark appears to have done just that, by having Jesus be a Yom Kippur sacrifice during Passover.
Another interesting coincidence is the name Barabbas itself, an unusual name that means ‘Son of the Father’ in Aramaic, and Jesus is often portrayed as the ‘Son of the Father’ as well. So in this story we have two sons of the father; one released into the wild mob carrying the sins of Israel (such as murder and rebellion), effectively serving as an allegorical scapegoat (Barabbas), and the other sacrificed so his blood may atone for the sins of Israel (Jesus) — and we have one bearing the sins literally, and the other bearing the sins figuratively (just as we find in the Yom Kippur ceremony of Leviticus 16 in the Old Testament). We get further confirmation of this belief in the Epistle to the Hebrews (9-10), where we hear Jesus’ death described as the ultimate Yom Kippur atonement sacrifice. Interestingly enough, it is also implied in this part of Hebrews that Jesus’ death and resurrection would have taken place in the heavens, as that was where the most perfect atonement sacrifice would be made and where the most perfect holy temple would be for which to pour the blood of that sacrifice (another element supporting the contention that Jesus was initially believed to be a celestial deity rather than a historical person). So Mark here appears to be telling us through his own parable, to reject the sins of the Jews (notably violence and rebellion) and instead embrace the eternal salvation offered through the atonement sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
joelr
Well-Known Member
PT 2
Additionally, in this story, Mark seems to be pointing out how the Jews are erroneously viewing Jesus as the scapegoat, where Jesus is scorned, beaten, spat upon, crowned and pierced, and dressed in scarlet, and though Barabbas is the actual scapegoat, the Jews mistakenly embrace him instead. So Mark seems to be portraying the Jews as acting completely blind to the situation and choosing their sins (i.e. Barabbas) rather than their salvation (i.e. Jesus). Finally, this story seems to suggest that the Jews have also chosen the wrong model for the expected messiah. Whereas Barabbas could be seen as the murderous revolutionary, in line with the common Jewish belief that the messiah was expected to be a kind of revolutionary military leader, Jesus on the other hand, exemplified the suffering servant model of the messiah (another Jewish messianic model, though arguably less popular than the former), and one that would circumvent any need for a military revolution by enacting a spiritual victory through his death instead. So the Jews appear to have chosen the type of messiah they want, rather than the type of messiah that God wants instead (or so Mark believes anyway). Furthermore, rather than using a random lottery (i.e. God) to choose which “goat” would serve as the scapegoat, and which would serve as the atonement, the Jews removed God from the equation and made the choice themselves. If one looks at all of these elements together, we can see just how brilliant Mark’s story is, having multiple allegorical layers weaved into one.
Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”
Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”
Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”
Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”
Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.
Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself. In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead.
As for some other notable coincidences, we see Mark reversing a few details in his version of the story. Instead of a woman begging for her son, it is a man begging for his daughter. While in 2 Kings, an unnamed woman comes from a named town (Shunem) which means “rest”, in Mark we have a named man coming from an unnamed town, and the man’s name (Jairus) means “awaken”. In Mark’s conclusion to this story (5.42), he mentions that “immediately they were amazed with great amazement”, and he appears to have borrowed this line from 2 Kings as well (4.13 as found in the Greek Septuagint version of 2 Kings), which says “You have been amazed by all this amazement for us”. It’s important to note that this verse from 2 Kings (as found in the Greek Septuagint), refers to an earlier encounter between the unnamed woman and Elisha where he was previously a guest in her home and this verse was what the woman had said to Elisha on that occasion. Then Elisha blesses her with a miraculous conception (as she was said to be a barren woman in 2 Kings). In fact, this miraculous conception was of the very son that Elisha would later resurrect from the dead. So to add to this use of 2 Kings we also have another reversal from Mark, reversing the placement of this reaction (double amazement) from the child’s miraculous conception (in 2 Kings) to the child’s miraculous resurrection (in Mark 5.42).
Another hint that Mark is writing historical fiction in his Gospel is the way he structures his narrative such that he can successfully accomplish certain literary goals rather than historical plausibility. One primary example of this is the ceaseless incomprehension of the disciples to what Jesus is saying and doing, where they are quite honestly dumber than can be reasonably believed. This archetype of the “dense lackeys” appears to be adapted either from Homer’s similarly unrealistic portrayal of Odysseus’ fickle and clueless crew, or the portrayal of the Jews in Exodus. Mark’s use of this type of literary device, requiring the invention of narrative material to make the structure work, thus allows him to accomplish a certain literary theme that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.
The disciples also behave unrealistically in other ways, such as being gullible beyond belief. For example, in Mark 1.16-20, we read:
“As Jesus walked along the shore of Lake Galilee, he saw two fishermen, Simon and his brother Andrew, catching fish with a net. Jesus said to them, “Come with me, and I will teach you to catch people.” At once they left their nets and went with him. He went a little farther on and saw two other brothers, James and John, the sons of Zebedee. They were in their boat getting their nets ready. As soon as Jesus saw them, he called them; they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and went with Jesus.”
So after one brief statement from Jesus, without even a second thought, these random fishermen simply dropped what they were doing and followed him? These fisherman didn’t have to be persuaded at all, even though they know nothing about this man, who Jesus is, or his reputation. They don’t bother making sure that their means of income and food (including their boat) are taken care of as they leave? Instead, they simply drop it all, leave it all, and go without question. This kind of behavior is incredibly improbable in real life, as people simply don’t act like this. However, in myth and (unrealist) fiction, it happens all the time.
Another way Mark develops this theme is through an elegant ring composition, another common literary device popular at the time (used in myth as well as in history). In the central part of Mark’s narrative (revolving around Jesus’ travel by sea), Mark carefully crafted nested cycles of themes specifically to convey an underlying message about faith and one’s ability (or lack thereof) to understand the gospel. Here is what the ring structure looks like:
Cycle 1:
Phase 1 (4.1-34) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (preaching from a boat)
Phase 2 (4.35-41) — Eventful crossing of the sea
Phase 3 (5.1-20) — Landing with healings/exorcisms
Interval 1: Step 1 (5.21-43) — First stop (after an uneventful boating)
Step 2 (6.1-6) — Second stop
Step 3 (6.6-29) — Going around
Cycle 2:
Phase 1 (6.30-44) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (with an uneventful boating)
Phase 2 (6.45-52) — Eventful crossing of the sea
Phase 3 (6.53-55) — Landing with healings/exorcisms
Interval 2: Step 1 (6.56-7.23) — Going around
Step 2 (7.24-30) — First stop
Step 3 (7.31-37) — Second stop
Cycle 3:
Phase 1 (8.1-12) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (with an uneventful boating)
Phase 2 (8.13-21) — Eventful crossing of the sea
Phase 3 (8.22-26) — Landing with healings/exorcisms
It’s really quite brilliantly crafted when you look at it: three triadically composed intervals, each of which contains one triadically composite minimal unit. Furthermore, every “Phase 1” in all cycles, takes place during the day and describes Jesus’ actions with crowds on one side of the sea. Every “Phase 2” occurs on the evening of that same day (though not stated explicitly in Cycle 3’s “Phase 2”, it is implied by what would have been a long sea crossing), and also describes actions between Jesus and the twelve disciples in the boat while in transit across the sea. Each “Phase 3” represents Jesus’ healing (and/or exorcising) of people who either come to him or that are brought to him following his arrival on the other side of the sea. Then there are other healings or exorcisms that are interspersed among the intervals that follow each “Phase 3”. Each cycle of this triad occupies one day, so the whole ring structure represents three days, ending with a resolution on the third day — all of which concludes by transitioning into a debate regarding who Jesus really is and what the gospel really is (Mark 8.27-9.1, which is the first time we hear Jesus speak about any of this himself).
"Dead people don't walk" (Django)
Brian2
Veteran Member
Luke 9: 22“The Son of Man must suffer many things,” He said. “He must be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”
Islam denies what Jesus did by His death, iow Islam denies the gospel message.
It sounds spiritual and even pro Jesus, as does Baha'i, but imo is from the spirit of antichrist.
So Islam is built on denying the gospels and making out that what is really needed is more laws for people to obey.
James 2:19 You believe that God is one. Good for you! Even the demons believe that— and shudder.
Brian2
Veteran Member
So believe the Hebrew scriptures which say the same thing.
Brian2
Veteran Member
2Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
A witness compared to the modern opinion that the witnesses lied and were not really witnesses.
I believe the witness and you believe the modern opinion. That is fine, we disagree.
The prophecies about the Messiah and what He would do came hundreds of years before the Greeks.
So you believe your group of archaeologists are honest and those who disagree are dishonest. OK
But evidence can be interpreted in different ways and the way you do that can be about what presuppositions you are using.
There are many specialists in Hellenism and Christianity who believe the gospel accounts are true and who interpret what Paul said in completely different ways to how James Tabor does.
Neither Judaism not Christianity is the Gnosticism you/he is describing.
That sounds more like Judaism and Christianity. God created us to be physical beings who also are spiritual.
All this comes from the first pages of the Bible and is what Judaism and Christianity teach these days.
So what is the Hellenistic part, considering that Genesis came hundreds of years before Hellenism?
You can and no doubt do believe what modern archaeologists say about Judaism and when the Torah was written and you are entitled to do that but you also say that the opinions of your archaeologists and historians are the only true and unbiased ones and so that what you present is proof. But that is naive at the least.
It is just your faith and what you call the evidence that proves your faith, but it proves nothing.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No .. it guides us to what is right .. confirming Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and
basically explaining what happened in the first few centuries after Jesus' ascension.
3 in 1 was never taught by Jesus, and it was a product of a mix of cultures..
..much like in Sikhism, where Hindu and Muslim produced a new sect/religion.
It seems that all sects of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are more concerned with their particular tenets
than the core guidance, and continue to squabble.
G-d is one, and he has guided us in the Scriptures so that we may be rightly guided.
..and not to 'throw away the law/guidance', and claim about G-d of which we have no sure knowledge.
Brian2
Veteran Member
That does not make sense for a start.
What do you want me to do, argue against your cut and past quotes of modern historians that you assume to be correct?
In the 4th gospel John is writing to Gentiles mainly and uses concepts familiar in Greek philosophy I guess, but with the centre being Jesus.
In John's gospels he fights against the concepts of gnosticism.
Why would I? Why would anybody? Death
I don't believe that, either
Then you don't know what judging means. It means, "form an opinion or conclusion about."
Whatever you can think of, there are people who call themselves Christians who believe it. And why not? Faith allows one to believe whatever he likes. Do you want to believe that Jesus was Dracula? You can with faith.
Don't believe "what has been placed on you to believe." It's a trap. I know. It snared me once, but I wriggled out.
I think you've confused him with a faith-based thinker. He's a critical thinker, which is the sine qua non of caring if one is right or wrong. Critical analysis is the only method that filters out false and unfalsifiable ideas. If you don't use it, you have accumulated bad and wrong ideas.
I'd say gullible. One would need to actually act to be a fanatic. What you call truth is what I call myth and legend.
No, that is skepticism, or the conviction that nothing should be believed just because somebody else believes it, and you've misworded it a bit. Skeptics don't say that the supernatural doesn't exist. They say that they have no reason to believe that it does. Those two ideas are identical to many believers, but they are distinct to critical thinkers.
Same answer. There is a difference between "not believe" (agnosticism) and "believe not" (a positive belief).
No, it is not. Faith is an alternative path to belief that bypasses reason and evidence.
Stressing a story doesn't make it truth. I don't believe those stories. Why? Because I have no reason to, and unlike the faith-based thinker, I need a reason to believe besides just liking the story before believing
Critical thinkers don't need a reason to reject those claims apart from them being unsubstantiated.
Those claims are not evidence that the claims are correct.
It's irrational, meaning that it's an unreasoned belief.
That's a reason to disbelieve the creation myth.
Three were facts: the Bible contains historical errors, scientific errors, and its prophecies are weak (nonspecific). As for it containing moral errors, that's opinion - one I share.
Hopefully, you didn't believe it just because somebody said it. Now look at the title of this thread again.
The only evidence any Christian has or can offer for a resurrection is anonymous third person claims. Feel free to believe that. The critical thinker needs more.
You have evidence that death is final, but you believe otherwise anyway.
Sure it was. It's just another error from people who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night, but which science has corrected. Fortunately, you don't believe it. Sometimes you use evidence and reason like there, and other times you simply believe what you've read. You don't seem to have a standard for deciding which things to believe and which to disregard.
Still with prove?
He doesn't need to demonstrate that he is correct beyond reasonable doubt to reject insufficiently justified claims, but if you want to be believed by a critical thinker, you DO.
Then you need to abandon faith, and review your belief set critically, tossing out that which you have accepted as correct but shouldn't have. I went through that a few decades ago after leaving Christianity.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It appears to be all made up imo. All made up by people without faith in the power of God to prophesy and to set up cross references in the scriptures which really happened. These people actually see made up stories where real history exists because their aim is to discredit the gospels and the Hebrew scriptures and so they explain everything to try to make it look as if it had to have been made up stories.
If people have not got faith, and especially if they once were believers, they need to make up stuff for their own selves, to justify rejecting the truth.
The made up stuff they come out with is a result of twisting the scriptures.
So not believing the story and having to make up something else to explain it.
Brian2
Veteran Member
To me, what you just said means that you deny the older scriptures, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and replace them with the scriptures that came from Muhammad, saying that Muhammad knows best and the Book that the people of the Book believe is wrong.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Well you would claim that .. because you yourself, assume the NT to replace the OT.
The OT being included for reference.
There's not a lot in it, when it comes to the difference in law between Islam and Judaism.
Of course, many retort with the changes to the Sabbath .. but as many 'Christian countries'
now open commercially 24/7, perhaps they should reflect on that one!
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
The goal is to discern what's true from the error, separating right (correct) from wrong (erroneous). It's a process. Brain games, perception, and coming into knowing and understanding as we traverse unfamiliar territory. The Socratic method was/is a nice addition to my arsenal of tools that help enable me to understand the difference. Satan, the devil ... deceiver, liar, thief is always laying traps for us to fall into, and they're not always so easy to wriggle out of. I can't say I've never played the role, but I can say I've learned the way of truth since and that I'm still growing in it. Like I stated, it's a process. The holy spirit is holy for a reason. It's the spirit of truth that helps guide us into all truth. It starts at home base. An honest spirit. Being honest isn't always so appealing though, and this is why it can be so difficult. You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. Being true to me was the hardest part for me to accept and it appears to be even more so difficult for others to accept due to the conformity conquests and civilization expectations. I'm a loner ... What can I say.
Applying the Socratic method to your advice: What do I believe?
I Am Hugh
Researcher
Would it be absurd and implausible to suggest that DNA could be used to resurrect an animal long dead? Or that a highly intelligent extraterrestrial being could take that one step further and actually resurrect the specific person?
I think skeptics object to the myth, its history, what it stands for, not the possibility and probably not the origin but rather the misrepresentation that became the myth.
Agreed, but there is only one path to knowledge: critical thought and empiricism.
What I mean by knowledge is not something that one believes by faith or intuition, but ideas that are demonstrably correct in the sense that they accurately predict outcomes, and that includes mundane beliefs such as where to find a good Italian meal in your hometown or how to get home from the beach - ideas that allow one to control some aspect of his future.
One would be well advised to build his mental map of reality using only such ideas, but first, one needs how to evaluate evidence properly and come to sound conclusions about what it infers and commit to only believing such ideas.
I'd be more wary of people.
I don't know. You described it as "what has been placed on you to believe." My comment wasn't about what you believe, but rather, the path you took in believing.
That's not resurrection in the literal sense of revivifying a dead organism. That's metaphor.
But yes, that's the only way we know for creating a living thing - start with DNA and assemble new cells de novo. Life is a result of certain ingredients being arranged and maintained in a particular way. Life is a far-from-equilibrium state. Once metabolism ceases, cellular disorder ensues. Subcellular structures fall apart, contents are leaked, and equilibrium is attained. The process is irreversible. If you want to make that cell "live" again, it can only be done by reducing it to its ingredients and building a new cell from them.