What Is The Nature Of Jesus?

[currentchristian]

The disagreements are minimal.

 

FALSE. The gospels are hopelessly contradictory. See this link:

 

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone

 

Thanks for the link. I read the essay. Perhaps we have different definitions of what vital and minimal mean, but to me the vital fact of the resurrection accounts is just that -- the resurrection, that Jesus picked his life up. Who got there first; if there was one woman or two; if the earthquake happened before or after the women arrived; the time of day; etc. These things, for me, are minimal.

 

If I may draw a comparison again to recent American history (well, perhaps the word recent doesn't apply since we're talking about April 1865). We don't know exactly what John Wilkes Booth said as he lept from the presidential box after shooting Abraham Lincoln. Members of the audience reported different things. It's interesting to know what was said, but a rather minimal point. The vital point is that he shot Abraham Lincoln before he jumped from the presidential box onto the stage.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

Okay CC - I have a question for you concerning the gospels.

 

Mark was the first gospel written. I'm going to assume you agree with this statement.

 

At the time Mark was authored, it was the only written record (we know about) concerning Jesus.

 

You would think that Mark would have taken great care to record the important highlights of the life of this man named Jesus.

 

Explain to us, if you can, how Mark managed to overlook:

 

1. The raising of Lazarus from the dead.

 

2. The appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

 

3. The virgin birth.

 

Surely these can be considered hugely pivotal moments in the life of Jesus. Yet the author of Mark missed them.

 

If you can't explain the absence of these events, then you shouldn't ever try and pass off the gospels as harmonious again.

[Dave]

Hello Dave. I'm not saying I agree with the patristic fathers regarding the authorship of Matthew and John, only that many of the so-called fathers held that view. While the topic of authorship is of interest, it doesn't really matter all that much.

If you did not agree with the "patristic fathers" (who ever they are) you would not have mentioned it AND AGREED WITH THEM! The authorship does matter. You claimed that parts of the NT were written by eyewitnesses. That has been proven wrong. You claimed that parts of the NT were written by only second hand knowledge. That was proven wrong. Then you fall back on the false claim that it doesn't matter. It matters in that ALL the authors of the NT, and OT, made it all up.

I maintain my view that the differences among the gospels are minimal. But I respect your contrary view about that.....

Of course you need to maintain your belief that the differences are minimal. That way you can protect, or compartmentalize, your belief. It is important that each "miracle" changes with each telling, whole stories are changed, added, or left out. You claimed that some were eyewitnesses, yet they tell a different story. With something as important as this you'd think they'd get their stories straight.

 

 

.....Surely these can be considered hugely pivotal moments in the life of Jesus. Yet the author of Mark missed them.

 

If you can't explain the absence of these events, then you shouldn't ever try and pass off the gospels as harmonious again.

Here are a few more contradictions and errors. This list has only 194 contradictions.

[currentchristian]

Okay CC - I have a question for you concerning the gospels.

 

Mark was the first gospel written. I'm going to assume you agree with this statement.

 

At the time Mark was authored, it was the only written record (we know about) concerning Jesus.

 

You would think that Mark would have taken great care to record the important highlights of the life of this man named Jesus.

 

Explain to us, if you can, how Mark managed to overlook:

 

1. The raising of Lazarus from the dead.

 

2. The appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

 

3. The virgin birth.

 

Surely these can be considered hugely pivotal moments in the life of Jesus. Yet the author of Mark missed them.

 

If you can't explain the absence of these events, then you shouldn't ever try and pass off the gospels as harmonious again.

 

Silence on a detail doesn't mean that the detail did not happen. I sometimes get "bored" reading the gospels because they are so similar. Thank goodness they do not share every story. Imagine reading the so-called Christmas story (which, frankly, bores me to tears) of Luke 1-2 in all four gospels. I'd die. Truly, I am very happy the four gospels vary in the stories they choose to tell. Thank goodness! Read any biography of any person (not that the gospels meet our modern criteria of biography) and you'll find that each biography highlights different events. By reading several biographies of one person, a more whole picture developes. Likewise, in my view, with the gospels.

 

-CC in MA

[Brother Jeff]

The disagreements are minimal.

 

FALSE. The gospels are hopelessly contradictory. See this link:

 

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone

 

Thanks for the link. I read the essay. Perhaps we have different definitions of what vital and minimal mean, but to me the vital fact of the resurrection accounts is just that -- the resurrection, that Jesus picked his life up. Who got there first; if there was one woman or two; if the earthquake happened before or after the women arrived; the time of day; etc. These things, for me, are minimal.

 

If I may draw a comparison again to recent American history (well, perhaps the word recent doesn't apply since we're talking about April 1865). We don't know exactly what John Wilkes Booth said as he lept from the presidential box after shooting Abraham Lincoln. Members of the audience reported different things. It's interesting to know what was said, but a rather minimal point. The vital point is that he shot Abraham Lincoln before he jumped from the presidential box onto the stage.

 

-CC in MA

 

It's interesting that you draw a comparison between a verifiably historical person and event and a person/event for which there is no historical evidence. The magical undeadening of Jesus is not a fact of history. It is nothing more than a religious assertion, and it is backed up by ZERO evidence. There is no evidence that Jesus even lived in history, much less that he magically undeadened himself. Your "vital point" has no force because it is backed up by no evidence. I agree that we have different views about what is vital/minimal concerning the gospel accounts.

[Dave]

Silence on a detail doesn't mean that the detail did not happen.

Silence on important details is a pretty big clue that they didn't happen.

I sometimes get "bored" reading the gospels because they are so similar.

You've just proven my point; you're purposely glossing over important contradictions and errors to preserve your belief system.

[currentchristian]

Here are a few more contradictions and errors. This list has only 194 contradictions.

 

In a quick look at this list, the vast majority can be "explained" by a more careful reading (in my opinion); the vast majority also are not meaningful matters. The good news is not that Mary and one woman or Mary and two women or the three Marys found an empty tomb; the good news is that the tomb was empty. That's just how I see it, Dave.

 

BUT I respect very much your right to see it otherwise, and the right of most members of this forum to see it otherwise. I really do.

 

-CC in MA

 

It's interesting that you draw a comparison between a verifiably historical person and event and a person/event for which there is no historical evidence. The magical undeadening of Jesus is not a fact of history. It is nothing more than a religious assertion, and it is backed up by ZERO evidence. There is no evidence that Jesus even lived in history, much less that he magically undeadened himself. Your "vital point" has no force because it is backed up by no evidence. I agree that we have different views about what is vital/minimal concerning the gospel accounts.

 

I agree, Brother Jeff, that the resurrection of Jesus is not verifiable by the tools of historical inquiry. A historian can only say that many claimed that Jesus was risen, many claimed to have seen him, many consumed the rest of their days and gave their lives for this view. That's it. A historian cannot go beyond that.

 

But a person can, and I do. In my worldview, Jesus is risen, and I gain great joy from that (what is to me) fact. But I respect that in your worldview he may not have existed and if he ever did exist and ever did die, he certainly did not return from the dead.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Silence on a detail doesn't mean that the detail did not happen.

Silence on important details is a pretty big clue that they didn't happen.

I sometimes get "bored" reading the gospels because they are so similar.

You've just proven my point; you're purposely glossing over important contradictions and errors to preserve your belief system.

 

Sorry, Dave, on both points I disagree. Silence is just that, silence. If none of the gospels reported a virgin conception, that silence would be deafening. But, as I wrote in another post, a virgin conception is only a miracle because it happened in 6 BCE (or 4 BCE); thanks to science, virgin conceptions can happen every day now by means of IVF, and I have no problem believing in a miraculous conception -- even if only one gospel reports it.

 

I also do not think that I am "purposely glossing over important contradictions and errors" to preserve my belief system. I would never suppose that you are "purposely glossing over important evidence to preserve your unbelief." Why would you think that you can know that this what I am doing? I think you and most of the others I have encountered on this forum have very serious and very valid issues with the church, religion, God, the Bible, whatever. I do not negate them. Nor do I think you are playing mind games with yourselves. Likewise, neither am I playing a mind game with myself; I believe and I gain great joy and solace and peace from that belief. And my belief, I believe , is not unreasonable or nearsighted or unlearned. Nor is your disbelief.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

Silence on a detail doesn't mean that the detail did not happen.

 

Oh, I see.

 

I suppose to you it is a "detail" that John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

[currentchristian]

Silence on a detail doesn't mean that the detail did not happen.

 

Oh, I see.

 

I suppose to you it is a "detail" that John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

 

That one made me laugh. Not a disrespectful laugh at you, but just a laugh. That President Kennedy was assassinated is a major detail.

 

Whether there was one gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald shooting from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building (as I believe, based on the evidence I have read), or whether there was a second gunman on the Grassy Knoll is a...not minor...but less major detail.

 

Whether there was someone standing near the roadway with an umbrella is a minor detail. Some believe the "Umbrella Man" was part of a grand conspiracy. Whether it was raining or sunny, not a disputed point thanks to the Zapruder film, is a minor detail. Whether or not Mrs. Kennedy was wearing a pink or a read suit (again, not a disputed point) is a minor detail.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

I'm sure you understand my point.

 

Jesus raises a guy whose been dead FOR THREE DAYS.

 

And, you neglect to mention it when you're writing about the life of Jesus?

 

That's a detail?

 

 

Seeing Jesus alive again after he had died - a DETAIL?

 

Surely your religious blinders are not that firmly attached.

 

No offense, cc. You seem like a nice fella. We most assuredly have had much more obnoxious religionists here than yourself. In fact, you seem quite likeable.

 

But, you'll have to do better than telling us that Mark left out a few "details".

 

Unless you want to concede that the gospels have a few problems.

[Brother Jeff]

A historian can only say that many claimed that Jesus was risen, many claimed to have seen him, many consumed the rest of their days and gave their lives for this view. That's it. A historian cannot go beyond that.

 

Any honest, unbiased historian can only say about Jesus that "many consumed the rest of their days and gave their lives for this view". He cannot say that "many claimed that Jesus was risen" or that many claimed to have seen him", as these assertions are taken straight from the gospels, which are NOT eyewitness accounts and are NOT historically reliable. Many people have strong beliefs that they may be consumed with and may even be willing to give their lives for. That doesn't make their views literally true or true at all. Many people cling strongly to beliefs that are false. Christians do it all the time. An honest, unbiased, informed historian can't say much at all about Jesus as a person in history because there is no evidence that he ever actually lived.

[currentchristian]

I'm sure you understand my point.

 

Jesus raises a guy whose been dead FOR THREE DAYS.

 

And, you neglect to mention it when you're writing about the life of Jesus?

 

That's a detail?

 

 

Seeing Jesus alive again after he had died - a DETAIL?

 

Surely your religious blinders are not that firmly attached.

 

No offense, cc. You seem like a nice fella. We most assuredly have had much more obnoxious religionists here than yourself. In fact, you seem quite likeable.

 

But, you'll have to do better than telling us that Mark left out a few "details".

 

Unless you want to concede that the gospels have a few problems.

 

I think Lazarus was dead four days, according to John 11, but that's a minor detail. That he ws dead is a major detail, but I am grateful I don't have to read the story four times! Once is enough. Matthew, Mark and Luke: Give me other stories, please.

 

Of course the gospels have a few problems, but these are....dare I say it again....minor - in my view. All the gospels have Jesus alive at the end of the story. That's the main point, I think.

 

Thank you, Mythra, for your kind words to me. But are you saying I am obnoxious, not just as bad as others you've had in the past??

 

BTW, am I ever glad I'm not the only one doing nothing on Thanksgiving. My partner and I ate at Home Town Buffet -- our traditional Thanksgiving lunch. (His and my familes are 1000 miles away, so we're on our own!) He's sleeping. The kitty's sleeping. I'm talking with a bunch of atheists!

 

-CC in MA

[Legion]

But if you and others who are ex-Christians find my presence unsatisfactory, I will immediately cease posting and say goodbye with no hard feelings.

I'm an ex-Christian and it seems to me that having the occassional Christian drop in here spices things up a bit. At the very least it gives many of us an opportunity to vent.

 

CC does not seem to me to be much of a fundamentalist. In my opinion if more Christians shared his attitude and outlook we wouldn't have nearly the beef with Christianity that many of us do.

[Brother Jeff]

I'm sure you understand my point.

 

Jesus raises a guy whose been dead FOR THREE DAYS.

 

And, you neglect to mention it when you're writing about the life of Jesus?

 

That's a detail?

 

 

Seeing Jesus alive again after he had died - a DETAIL?

 

Surely your religious blinders are not that firmly attached.

 

No offense, cc. You seem like a nice fella. We most assuredly have had much more obnoxious religionists here than yourself. In fact, you seem quite likeable.

 

But, you'll have to do better than telling us that Mark left out a few "details".

 

Unless you want to concede that the gospels have a few problems.

 

I think Lazarus was dead four days, according to John 11, but that's a minor detail. That he ws dead is a major detail, but I am grateful I don't have to read the story four times! Once is enough. Matthew, Mark and Luke: Give me other stories, please.

 

Of course the gospels have a few problems, but these are....dare I say it again....minor - in my view. All the gospels have Jesus alive at the end of the story. That's the main point, I think.

 

Thank you, Mythra, for your kind words to me. But are you saying I am obnoxious, not just as bad as others you've had in the past??

 

BTW, am I ever glad I'm not the only one doing nothing on Thanksgiving. My partner and I ate at Home Town Buffet -- our traditional Thanksgiving lunch. (His and my familes are 1000 miles away, so we're on our own!) He's sleeping. The kitty's sleeping. I'm talking with a bunch of atheists!

 

-CC in MA

 

I celebrated Thanksgiving with my Dad - turkey, dressing, pumpkin pie, and football! What more could you ask for? Glory!

 

You do seem like a nice guy, cc. I hope you'll stick around for a while.

[currentchristian]

Any honest, unbiased historian can only say about Jesus that "many consumed the rest of their days and gave their lives for this view". He cannot say that "many claimed that Jesus was risen" or that many claimed to have seen him", as these assertions are taken straight from the gospels, which are NOT eyewitness accounts and are NOT historically reliable. Many people have strong beliefs that they may be consumed with and may even be willing to give their lives for. That doesn't make their views literally true or true at all. Many people cling strongly to beliefs that are false. Christians do it all the time. An honest, unbiased, informed historian can't say much at all about Jesus as a person in history because there is no evidence that he ever actually lived.

 

I love your avatar, Brother Jeff. Funny one.

 

A point you did not make, but that also is true is that dying for what one believes in doesn't make it true, either. (Think Nazis).

 

But I do find it quite acceptable for a historian to say that "an early follower of Jesus, by the name of Saul, wrote to a group of Christians in Corinth, Greece, about 25 years after Jesus had died that at one time 500 witnesses claimed to have seen Jesus alive and most of them, Saul claimed, were alive at the time he wrote his letter He also wrote that Jesus had appeared to his disciples as alive and this man, Saul, knew the disciples first-hand."

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

Thank you, Mythra, for your kind words to me. But are you saying I am obnoxious, not just as bad as others you've had in the past??

 

No, cc. Actually, you seem unusually tolerant, considering you're wading around amongst the pirranha.

 

After being a bible-believing christian for 27 years and escaping, I guess it's more the thought of religion itself which I find obnoxious.

 

Nothing personal. We enjoy your company. You're certainly welcome here.

 

 

But I do find it quite acceptable for a historian to say

 

To what are you referring? I'm not aware of this historian.

[currentchristian]

I'm an ex-Christian and it seems to me that having the occassional Christian drop in here spices things up a bit. At the very least it gives many of us an opportunity to vent.

 

CC does not seem to me to be much of a fundamentalist. In my opinion if more Christians shared his attitude and outlook we wouldn't have nearly the beef with Christianity that many of us do.

 

Very kind of you to say so, Legion Regalis. Last night when watching Dr. James Dobson on "Larry King Live," I thought to myself, "If this guy were all that I knew of Christianity, I'd run from it as fast as I could do so." (Not to say there there are not other reasons to run from Christendom, and that all of you are "out there" for having done so.)

 

At one point, Larry asked Dr. Dobson, "Do you ever question your faith?" His answer was a quick and clear, "No." My goodness, I thought, I question my job; I question my relationship; I question if I want to have a cat to take care of; I question whether or not I want Chinese or Italian.

 

Anyone who never questions their faith is way out of step with even the Bible they claim such allegience to -- the Bible is full of questions! What is wrong with questioning ourselves, questioning our views, questioning God? (Has Dr. Dobson not read the books of Job or Ecclesiastes?) Anyway, I don't mean to judge Dr. Dobson. Sorry for the rant. (This should have been posted in the RANT thread!)

 

In the interest of full disclosure, however, let me say that while I try to be reasonable and open-minded and moderate and peaceful and all that, sometimes I'm just the opposite. (Ask my partner of the last 8 years!) Just so you know. Don't want to let anybody down next week if I go off on somebody.

 

-CC in MA

 

After being a bible-believing christian for 27 years and escaping, I guess it's more the thought of religion itself which I find obnoxious.

 

Thank you. At what age did you become a "bible-believing christian?"

 

 

But I do find it quite acceptable for a historian to say

 

To what are you referring? I'm not aware of this historian.

 

Just meaning a historian in general, and what a historian could say, as a historian, as opposed to what a person could say by means of faith (as opposed to the evidence a historian would need to support his/her view).

 

--CC in MA

[Mythra]

Last night when watching Dr. James Dobson on "Larry King Live," I thought to myself, "If this guy were all that I knew of Christianity, I'd run from it as fast as I could do so."

 

I watched most of the Dobson interview also. I cracked up when he said that Ted Haggard was not a hippocrite. He just gave in to his dark side. Not a hippocrite! Condemning homosexuality at the same time as you're indulging in it...

 

When I was a fundy, I used to listed to Dobson on the radio all the time. During a rare moment of cador, he admitted that he was not able to have the internet at home, because he didn't trust himself to stay away from porn sites. It's a shame to have to live your life with Big Brother God watching and scrutinizing your every move.

[Dave]

In a quick look at this list, the vast majority can be "explained" by a more careful reading (in my opinion); the vast majority also are not meaningful matters.

You mean they have excuses, not explanations that make any sense.

The good news is not that Mary and one woman or Mary and two women or the three Marys found an empty tomb; the good news is that the tomb was empty. That's just how I see it, Dave.

They didn't find any tomb, empty or not. "They" never existed.

BUT I respect very much your right to see it otherwise, and the right of most members of this forum to see it otherwise. I really do.

yeah, right.

I agree, Brother Jeff, that the resurrection of Jesus is not verifiable by the tools of historical inquiry. A historian can only say that many claimed that Jesus was risen, many claimed to have seen him, many consumed the rest of their days and gave their lives for this view. That's it. A historian cannot go beyond that.

yet you claim fact where there are not facts and you even admit there are no facts and admit the historians can verify nothing of which you claim. why?

[Mythra]

I had a rather dramatic conversion to christianity at the age of 22. I was a christian musician and a praise and worship leader in several different churches over the years. At the ripe old age of 49 I figured out it was nonsense. I've been clean and sober (from religion) almost two years now.

[Dave]

.....But I do find it quite acceptable for a historian to say that "an early follower of Jesus, by the name of Saul, wrote to a group of Christians in Corinth, Greece, about 25 years after Jesus had died that at one time 500 witnesses claimed to have seen Jesus alive and most of them, Saul claimed, were alive at the time he wrote his letter He also wrote that Jesus had appeared to his disciples as alive and this man, Saul, knew the disciples first-hand."

Those are just empty claims. There is nothing to back them up with except more claims. No historian would give them any credence. Remember that "Saul" was a salesman trying to sell his religion to others. Never believe anyone trying to sell you something.

[currentchristian]

In a quick look at this list, the vast majority can be "explained" by a more careful reading (in my opinion); the vast majority also are not meaningful matters.

You mean they have excuses, not explanations that make any sense.

The good news is not that Mary and one woman or Mary and two women or the three Marys found an empty tomb; the good news is that the tomb was empty. That's just how I see it, Dave.

They didn't find any tomb, empty or not. "They" never existed.

BUT I respect very much your right to see it otherwise, and the right of most members of this forum to see it otherwise. I really do.

yeah, right.

I agree, Brother Jeff, that the resurrection of Jesus is not verifiable by the tools of historical inquiry. A historian can only say that many claimed that Jesus was risen, many claimed to have seen him, many consumed the rest of their days and gave their lives for this view. That's it. A historian cannot go beyond that.

yet you claim fact where there are not facts and you even admit there are no facts and admit the historians can verify nothing of which you claim. why?

 

Sorry to disappoint you, Dave, but I truly, truly respect your right to believe what you want to or don't want to believe. I embrace freedom of and freedom from religion as foundational cornerstones to happy living. I am happy to believe that the tomb existed, the women existed, and the tomb was empty. I trust you are happy to believe otherwise. We'll know for sure when we leave this existence, or maybe we won't. But for now you and I, Dave, will have to agree to disagree.

 

-CC in MA

 

I had a rather dramatic conversion to christianity at the age of 22. I was a christian musician and a praise and worship leader in several different churches over the years. At the ripe old age of 49 I figured out it was nonsense. I've been clean and sober (from religion) almost two years now.

 

I love biography/autobiography and I really enjoy reading about Democrats who become Republicans, Jews who become Christians, Christians who become atheists, and vice-versa to all that, etc., etc. I find the process of releasing oneself from a certain way of life/thinking to live/think another way a fascinating process.

 

Is your conversion and deconverstion story recounted in the testimonial area? If so, I'll check it out. (I have no doubt that religion can be toxic and take your "clean and sober" remark quite literally.)

 

Thanks.

 

-CC in MA

 

.....But I do find it quite acceptable for a historian to say that "an early follower of Jesus, by the name of Saul, wrote to a group of Christians in Corinth, Greece, about 25 years after Jesus had died that at one time 500 witnesses claimed to have seen Jesus alive and most of them, Saul claimed, were alive at the time he wrote his letter He also wrote that Jesus had appeared to his disciples as alive and this man, Saul, knew the disciples first-hand."

Those are just empty claims. There is nothing to back them up with except more claims. No historian would give them any credence. Remember that "Saul" was a salesman trying to sell his religion to others. Never believe anyone trying to sell you something.

 

What are you trying to sell me, Dave?

 

Seriously, I get your point. But everyone is a salesman. Ever watch QVC? (My stomach turns more when I run across QVC than it turns at collection time with a TV preacher!)

 

We are wise to turn a cynical ear to just about everything we hear, if not everything. Not necessarily a rejecting ear, but a cynical one.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

Here is my ex-timonial.

It's a pretty short story. My posts (just like my telephone conversations) are usually brief and (occasionally) to the point.

[Legion]

Very kind of you to say so, Legion Regalis.

No problem CC. Don't get me wrong though. I think that you are a strange animal. You interest me. I hope you stick around long enough to allow us to get a better feel for where you're coming from.

 

Back to topic...

 

You believe in a literal, flesh and blood Jesus that died and rose again. Yet you respect the views of someone who might interpret Jesus as being metaphor. Is that about right?