|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Divinity of Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This is a link to a talk given by the Anglican Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright, on the question of "Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?".
It is a bit of a read but I believe it is enlightening for anyone who is really trying to come to grips with the question. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Faraday.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote:It's simple. No natural event fits the description, therefore references to natural events cannot confirm that the description is factual. quote: It is STILL less likely than that there would be a confirming record IF the massacre had actually happened.
quote: Actually a very bad one,, since it deals with events referred to in only one Gospel, events that would have happened a long time before Jews were even aware of that Gospel and concerning a ruler whoxsse memory they had no wish to defend.
quote: If there had been usch works then is is unlikely that they owuld have been preserved. Works confirming the massacre would be more likely to survive because Christians would prefer those. You do know that our knowledge of some of the major criticisms of Christianity is limited to Christian responses to those works ?
quote:If you can't even admit the fact that you have a religion, then what hope is there for you ? quote:I have said nothging about Saul of Tarsus. About the alleged Massacre the weight of evidence indicates that it is a fiction. You can't answer that evidence and so you resort ot distortion, misrepresentation and double standards. quote: Then your conduct here must be all the more disappointing.
quote: Maybe because he believed his fiction. Or because he was so self-righteous he didn't care. Either is plausible. Tell me, do you beleive all the many falsehoods that you have produced in this thread ? Do you really beleive that your behaviour here has been honest ? Either answer damns your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
It's simple. No natural event fits the description, therefore references to natural events cannot confirm that the description is factual. I take the appearing of the star to be a supernatural event. How the mechanics of it worked I do not know. But that it was arranged under the supervision of the Creator on behalf of the incarnation of the Son of God, is how it seems presented in the Bible. I do not know the scientific mechanics of how it happened.
Actually a very bad one,, since it deals with events referred to in only one Gospel, events that would have happened a long time before Jews were even aware of that Gospel and concerning a ruler whoxsse memory they had no wish to defend. I don't think this helps your skeptical analysis that much. It implies that things repeated in all the gospels are more credible. So should we say then that the appearance of the star, because it is mentioned only in Matthew is not to be believed. But the resurrection of Christ from the dead, because repeated in all four gospels, is much more likely to have occured? Anyway, I see God overseeing the writing of His book. And it was under His guidance what was mentioned and how many times. If you look at a cell under a powerful microscope you will notice of course incredible detail of the mechanics of life. I don't think God would be more sloppy in the passing on to us a revelation of His move of salvation as recorded in the Bible. I include God in my reasoning process. I think you exclude the possibility of the presence and power of God in your reasioning process about these things. Now if the resurrection had been mentioned only in Matthew and the star mentioned four times in all four gospels, I would wonder that there was something more important to realize about that star. As it stands God saw fit that one mention of it in Matthew was good enough. It is the difference between regarding the Bible as a religious scap book thrown together willy nilly and a sovereign and wise God overseeing its writing, preservation, and transmission. I believe the latter.
If there had been usch works then is is unlikely that they owuld have been preserved. Works confirming the massacre would be more likely to survive because Christians would prefer those. You do know that our knowledge of some of the major criticisms of Christianity is limited to Christian responses to those works ? This theory doesn't hold up to me. There are too many things recorded in the New Testament, that if it were false propoganda, a sensible propogandist would have NOT included them. Had they wanted to eliminate difficult, embaressing, and suspect material there are plenty things that they could have made sure that they were eliminated from the gospels. For example: 1.) Jesus's own brothers not believing in Him2.) His family thinking that He was mad or beside Himself 3.) He being accused of being a winebibber 4.) He being accused of having a demon 5.) Sayings causing His own disciples to withdraw from Him 6.) Women being the first to witness His resurrection rather than men 7.) His own disciples being too cowardly to bury Him 8.) His calling the lead disciple "Satan" on one occasion 9.) His crying out "Why have you forsaken Me" to God 10.) Diffiult teachings which practically no one can accept 11.) Some of His own disciples doubting His resurrection 12.) He being accused of socializing with sinners and tax collectors These and other inclusions of the Gospel accounts could have been eliminated because they would be problematic to the cause of the Christian propogandist. The testimony of women was not counted in court for example. Yet the mentioning of the fact that the women and not the men were the first witnesses of the singularly most important aspect of Christ's mission - His resurrection, is telling. It speaks of the candor of the record.
If you can't even admit the fact that you have a religion, then what hope is there for you ? Oh, you haven't read? He is the God of eternal encouragement.Christ is not a religion but a living Person. If I do have some religion in me I know Who to go to to be saved from it, Jesus.
I have said nothging about Saul of Tarsus. About the alleged Massacre the weight of evidence indicates that it is a fiction. What evidence? Your speculations that this or that is more likely to have been the case? Is that your weighty evidence? Instead of accusing me of having a religion you should consider that you are an obsessed person perhaps - obsessed with acculating a lot of speculative "Should have beens" and "More likely thats" and parading it as solid "evidence".
You can't answer that evidence and so you resort ot distortion, misrepresentation and double standards. I don't see evidence to distort. I see a lot of speculative - "This should have been the case" and "that is more likely" and "certainly it would have been like this" and "only mentioned once so it probably didn't happen". Junk
The writer of the book of Matthew displays a concern that Christians would have the highest morality in the world. The writer of the book of Matthew highights the most difficult teachings of Christ in terms of the morality and behavior. Then your conduct here must be all the more disappointing.
I'm still a work in progress. Doesn't rescue the flimsy skepticism your obsessed with.
Maybe because he believed his fiction. Self deceived? Maybe. A self deceived writer writing with lucidity about a Person Jesus who seemed to be very soberminded, honest, straight forward, frank, not self serving, absolute for His Father's will to the point of torture and death. This is the theory of a befuddled Matthew writing about a extrememly lucid and soberminded Savior. What other theory do you have?
Or because he was so self-righteous he didn't care. A self righteous and self deceived writer writing about Christ's constant exposure of the hypocrisy of of the self righteous religionists? Not caring? Are you projecting? I think you're the one who couldn't care less about what the Apostle Matthew recorded for us. You're the one who seems to not care that a Son of God was born to be the Savior of the world. Why do you want now to project your apathy onto Matthew?
Either is plausible.
Tell me, do you beleive all the many falsehoods that you have produced in this thread ? Do you really beleive that your behaviour here has been honest ? Either answer damns your argument. I think that is a loaded question like, "Don't you think it is time you stop beating your wife?" I'm not immoral just because I don't take some of your speculative skepticism hook, line, and sinker. After the event with the star what is the next bone you choke on in Matthew's gospel? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: To an extent that's true. But it is hurt by the fact that the synoptic Gospels involve a good deal of copying. Truly ndependent confirmation has signfiicant value, the trouble with Biblical sources is that we can't be sure just how independant they are. (Even if John was written without knowledge of the synoptic Gospels, it was still written in a Christian milieu and from a Christian veiwpoint).
quote: This is a fine example about what I meant. Since the Gospels are repeating Christian doctrine they are not truly independent on this issue. The evidential value is not nearly sufficient to overcome the inherent unlikelihood of any such event ocurring. Let us note that you are still ignoring the problems with Matthew - not least Luke's Nativity account which is all but completely incompatible. Remember, neither author shows any sign of knowing - or believing - the other's story at all. (Some scholars believe that the author of Luke used Matthew as his source. If this were true it would imply that the author of Luke knew - and completely rejected - the Nativity story found in Matthew)
quote: The Gospels were not invented as complete fictions, although they certainly include a strong element of propaganda. And items on you list may have been included for quite sensible reasons other than being historical truth. I will also note that not one comes from the particular section we are discussing.
quote: Or possibly not. On the assumption of Markan priority it is entirely possible that aspect of the story originated in the Gospel of Mark. In the genuine portion of Mark the women leave and they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). This could be an invention to explain why the Empty Tomb story had not been heard before (we have no mention of it that is definitely prior to Mark). Remember that the women are not required to act as formal witnesses - we have a story, not their personal testimony - so any requirements held of formal witnesses would not apply.
quote: So to you, Jesus is all about denying the truth ? And rejecting Christianity ?
quote: If you blind yourself to the evidence then that is your problem. But it hardly indicates that you are being honest.
quote: The evidence I presented in earlier posts. You see, you can't even admit that it exists. If my case were so flimsy you could take it head on and refute it. But you don't even try.
quote: I don't state that Matthew was befuddled. You cam't even manage to accurately present the one suggestion that I do present.
quote: Well it isn't,because your failure to honestly deal with my arguments is established fact. The question is whether you are aware of it or not. You still have to deal with the possibliity that the author of Matthew was like you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Essentially, they were teaching people how to disbelieve the gospel of Christ. What are you doing? Searching for the truth, as all historians should do. You see, people like myself, Jar and Paul actually do care about the truth and we use several research methods to arrive at plausible accounts of the past. We do not just blindly accept what a source tells us, we test it and retest it alongside the other available evidence to try and discover a plausible, falsifiable theory. The blinkered approach that you and others like you take, means that you are missing out on so much of the amazing literature contained in the Bible. Are you really not intersted in how the Bible came to be, are you not interested in the history of the peoples mentioned in it, are you mot interested in discovering what actually went on in the ancient near east?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You see, people like myself, Jar and Paul actually do care about the truth and we use several research methods to arrive at plausible accounts of the past. We do not just blindly accept what a source tells us, we test it and retest it alongside the other available evidence to try and discover a plausible, falsifiable theory. We see that often here at EvC; other recent examples are Why is Faith so Important to God? and Manna from Heaven. What the Grossness? (Ex. 16). In both cases folk become so tied down in arguing trivialities that they totally miss the messages of the Bible. It's the MESSAGE folk. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
The perceived "threat" to Roman politics was not immediately ascertained. This is completely irrelevant. I asked why Paul, before his conversion was allowed to persecute Christians when Rome didn't persecute them. In fact, Rome didnt persecute any groups for their religious beliefs, people were free to continue folowing their faith under the protection of Rome.
When the Christians grew in number in Rome the perceived danger materialized. As far as they were concerned the tension of the CHristians and the Jews was just a religious squabble within the Jewish religion. Big deal. But this is the whole point I am making. Rome didn't ignore 'religious squabbles', they protected religious groups. You do know about Pax Romana don't you? Romans allowing hit squads to do what they want within the Empire is a ludicrous suggestion.
Some of the Ceasars did not appreciate not being thought of as gods themselves. So how can you say that if the Christians regarded Jesus as another God besides the Ceasar they would not be concerned? Well, apart from the idea that Jesus was God wasnt accepted until about 400 years after He died, this whole idea is falsified by the FACT that Jews did not consider a caesar to be god and the Jews were not persecuted by anyone for that. When you say 'some caesars' do you have any particular caesar in mind, one that says what you would like them to say?
Even the suggestion that Pilate might be allowing the proclaimation that there was another King besides Ceasar was held up to Pilate as a threat. He caved into the mob and had Jesus crucified. There was another king besides caesar, have you never heard of King Herod? Rome happily allowed many nations to retain their monarchies, so try another approach.
I think you have some revisionist history going on suggesting that the Romans couldn't care less about the cult of Jesus. I think you have some fairytale history going on that ignores all the evidence. However. I really didnt say that the Romans couldn't care less about the cult of Jesus, i did in fact say the exact opposite.
I suggest that as time progressed gradually intolerance of the Christian church grew to the Romans. That may well be, but what I asked was why PAUL was allowed to persecute Christians when Rome didnt presecute them. So, I would be requiring evidence that Rome persecuted Christians at the same time as Paul. If you dont have any, then why would the Romans break their own law and allow Paul to persecute people who were under the protection of the Roman Empire.
I'm kind of wary of Christians who have sold millions of books. I'm wary of Christians in general.
So your compliant is that Paul hyped his conversion experience? Paul or the anonymous author of the Book of Acts, who knows?
And you say that the Roman Empire was tolerant towards the "Jesus is a King" cult among the Jews? They were tolerant of all the religious groups under their protection at that time, which really is common knowledge Jay.
Very INTERESTING !! Well if there is anything else you would like to know just give me a shout, I don't mind helping you out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Brian, PaulK
This topic content (as you have presented it) is misplaced in this forum. You should take your talk to Bible Innerancy and Accuracy. What the Bible really means is pretty obvious that the Man Jesus is Divine. If you want to argue that the meaning is otherwise then we have something to talk about here in this room. Do you have reason to believe that the Bible means to teach that Jesus is not divine? I don't know why the Moderators are leniently allowing this discussion under Bible Study (What the does the Bible Really Mean). Anyway, you should be over at Innerancy and Accuracy. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If Jesus is divine while living among us then the whole lesson is pretty much a fraud and worthless.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
So, after making multiple responses to Paul and I about what you now feel were off topic posts, you suddenly decide that it belongs elsewhere! You are hilarious Jay. What's wrong, having trouble supporting your fantasies yet again? But, I'll start a thread, hope you contribute. Brian. Edited by Brian, : spilled my beer when i read jay's post!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
...the anonymous author of the Book of Acts... Luke.
I asked why Paul, before his conversion was allowed to persecute Christians when Rome didn't persecute them. Some Jews did.
In fact, Rome didnt persecute any groups for their religious beliefs, people were free to continue folowing their faith under the protection of Rome. Completely untrue.
Well, apart from the idea that Jesus was God wasnt accepted until about 400 years after He died, 'Nother falsehood.
Jews did not consider a caesar to be god and the Jews were not persecuted by anyone for that. More malarkey.
They were tolerant of all the religious groups under their protection at that time, which really is common knowledge Jay. No, sorry, wrong again. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
I said it long ago earlier in the discussion. And I just repeated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
If Jesus is divine while living among us then the whole lesson is pretty much a fraud and worthless. No, it is worthless to those who do not receive and experience His divinity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
What's wrong, having trouble supporting your fantasies yet again? Most of the rebuttals I have seen are simply speculations that maybe this or that alternative is the case. All I see is a lot of creative proposals that perhaps this or that is what happened. Anyway, its not a matter of Bible interpretation which is the main thing here. I'm traveling and writing from a temporary lodging and don't have a lot of my historical books with me. So laugh harder and while you're at it - cheer up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, it is worthless to those who do not receive and experience His divinity. I'm sorry but that is not only silly and laughable nonsense, it is irrelevant to the topic. Do you have anything other than theobabble or related to the topic? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024