Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[LNC]

If it's true then it's a CULT reality. A cult is still a cult, whether it's true or false.

 

OK, then we can probably identify most, if not all Americans as members of one or more cults. Here is the definition as proof: an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Given that narrow definition, I believe that most people in America would be cult members. Most recently, we saw the cult of Michael Jackson on display. I see a cult of Barack Obama on display as people drive around with their Obama bumper stickers. Of course, the main stream media is a great display of cult worship (again of Obama). There is the Dawkins cult, the Darwin cult, the cult of materialism, physicalism, evolution, etc., etc. I could go on and on.

 

Have you notified the Roman Catholics that they've got it wrong? From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: TRANSUBSTANTIATION: the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine John 6:54-56 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. The Catholic Church guides a large proportion of the world's Christian believers. The passage of 1 Cor 11:23-29 is used to justify a literal interpretation. 1 Cor 11:23-29 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

 

I used to be a Roman Catholic and left the church because I realized that they got it wrong. Have you heard of a little event that happened about 500 years ago called the Reformation? It happened because a lot of people realized that the Roman Catholic church got it wrong. As for the verses that you quote, that is just another example of taking verses out of context. Did Jesus rip off parts of his flesh for the disciples to eat? Did he cut himself and drain his blood into a cup for them to drink? The answer is obviously, no. That would clearly be symbolic language since he didn't do it then and after he was gone there would have been no way for any of them to get his blood (he took it with him.) Now, do you believe in transubstantiation? Unless you do, then your argument about Roman Catholics is moot. They can believe it all they want, but if there is no transubstantiation, then they are not really eating flesh or drinking blood.

 

You can declare it wrong all day long, but that doesn't change the scripture. Unbelief is justification to punish people. Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. There will be plenty of killing when Jesus establishes his new world order. Matt 13:41-42 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

Sure, it says that the unbelieving will have their part in the lake of fire, but that in no way proves that it is because of unbelief that they are in the lake of fire. Unbelief leads to actions, just as belief does. Some of those actions are spelled out in that list, I wonder why you aren't concerned about those people being condemned as well, or are you? Here is another question, why would you want God to force people to be in his presence for eternity? Wouldn't that be unjust of him? I don't disagree that the Bible makes it clear that there will be plenty of killing when he returns, many of those killed will be Christians by those in rebellion against God: And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Rev. 17:6 Do you also have a problem with that idea? I am very concerned about people being killed and sent to hell, that is why I am on this site pleading with you to investigate Jesus and to find in him your hope of eternal life. I don't want any of you to have to suffer this fate, and you don't have to. But I can't make you believe, that is something that you have to decide for yourself and it may require you to pull the Bible out and read it again and dig into it to better understand it.

 

Jesus overturned the dietary laws, the law on divorce, the law on adultery, and the law about working on the Sabbath. Jesus said he came to bring division and disharmony. Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

 

No, Jesus did not overturn dietary laws or laws on divorce, adultery, or working on the Sabbath. If anything, he refined them. Read Matthew 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount where he said, "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you..." In each case, he refined the law rather than abolishing it. In some respects Jesus was going to bring division, but only where some decide to continue pursuing the world while others pursue him. Yet, that is the choice of the people who make those decisions. I guess that in the same way Barack Obama brought division into the world as he made people choose between him and John McCain, but it was still the person that made the decision.

 

Mark 16:17-18 and many others.

 

And you are aware that this is a variant and not in the original text. So, this is not a good passage to which to refer to make your case.

 

Following Jesus makes them superior. They will sit in judgment of others. That's what Jesus told Peter when he asked what was his reward would be for following Jesus.

 

Matt 19:27-28 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

The same theme is illustrated here:

 

Rev 2:28 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: Jesus tells his followers that they are the light to the world. Matt 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

 

Jesus tells them that they have a better future than others because they are the "elect".

 

Matt 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

Paul chimes in by equating unbelievers to "darkness".

 

2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

 

Do you distinguish between this life and the next? I do believe that people who trust and follow Jesus will be in a superior place in the next life than those who don't. I think that heaven is a superior future than an eternal future in hell. However, the people who go to heaven will not be superior to those in hell, both are sinners. The difference is that those in heaven have been redeemed by Jesus through his death and resurrection. Yes, the Bible speaks of them as "elect" and that simply indicates that it was not due to anything that the elect did, but completely the work of Jesus, so again, this does not mean that the elect are superior, just that they have received a free gift from God which they didn't deserve.

 

Those who have been redeemed are also said to have been "made alive" according to Ephesians 2:4, and being alive, they are now in the light of God's revelation. Again, not something that the person can feel superior about since they did not earn it or deserve this. So, far from feeling superior, Christians are blessed and should be humbly grateful.

 

Whether he is or isn't is irrelevant. It's still a cult oriented reality.

 

If Jesus is God, which I believe he is, then he should be at the center of attention, not because he demands it, but because he deserves it.

[Deva]

Do you distinguish between this life and the next? I do believe that people who trust and follow Jesus will be in a superior place in the next life than those who don't. I think that heaven is a superior future than an eternal future in hell. However, the people who go to heaven will not be superior to those in hell, both are sinners. The difference is that those in heaven have been redeemed by Jesus through his death and resurrection. Yes, the Bible speaks of them as "elect" and that simply indicates that it was not due to anything that the elect did, but completely the work of Jesus, so again, this does not mean that the elect are superior, just that they have received a free gift from God which they didn't deserve.

 

So explain how the hell it is a "free gift". Pardon me for harshness, but we have heard it too often here. It isn't free. "Free" would be absolutely no preconditions or requirements. Then again you probably have another definition of "free" you would like to enlighten us with. In this case Christ had to die, and the person had to believe so it sure isn't free. A gift is something given with no strings attached. It isn't that I have to take it or else I will go to hell, which is the case here. If you can't see that you are blind as a bat.

 

Please, no more talk of this purported free gift. It is nothing of the kind.

 

At least you recognize that the "elect" are not superior. Redemption and the atonement is a ridiculous concept. No one can die or pay for someone else's deeds. Its a mercenary type business transaction. It is something that arose from the primitive beliefs and the practice of animal sacrifice and scapegoats.

 

If Jesus is God, which I believe he is, then he should be at the center of attention, not because he demands it, but because he deserves it.

 

He doesn't deserve it. His moral teachings have been equaled or surpassed by others. As far as the atonement -six hours or so on a cross and that's all? Then rose from the dead and went immediately to heaven. The man supposedly wasn't more than 33 years old. Give me someone that has had chemo and radiation treatments for cancer for five years then dies horribly. Jesus had it easy.

[chefranden]

...I used to be a Roman Catholic and left the church because I realized that they got it wrong. Have you heard of a little event that happened about 500 years ago called the Reformation? It happened because a lot of people realized that the Roman Catholic church got it wrong...

 

Yes, well was Catholicism right when you were in it? I bet it was at least for awhile.

 

Which of the 1999, give or take, other denominations got it right? I suspect that it would be your denomination. You might tell us what that is just in case you convince some of us. That way we won't become christians that are damned anyway.

 

You were wrong when you were a Catholic right? You were duped for one reason or another. How do you know you are not being duped now?

[chefranden]

...Here is another question, why would you want God to force people to be in his presence for eternity? Wouldn't that be unjust of him?...

 

What is your definition of force?

 

Deuteronomy 17:2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

I think that love me or die is a bit forceful.

[Ouroboros]

You were wrong when you were a Catholic right? You were duped for one reason or another. How do you know you are not being duped now?

Because, back then, he only knew that he was right, but now he know that he is right. So in 5 years, when he's in the next version, he will know that he's right then, but was wrong now... He's always right you see. Because the world changes according to his belief. God comes and goes, in and out of existence, changes faces, colors, and even shoes, and salvation is a moving target, all depending on LNC's opinion and mood.

 

This means... for us to be saved and go to Heaven, we have to have a direct link to LNC's brain. So when he changes his opinion and view on salvation and Christianity, we can tag along immediately, to make sure we don't go astray. We should pray to LNC. We should bow to him. We need LNC's spirit to fill us. Because without it, we will be doomed to eternity in Hell.

[centauri]

If it's true then it's a CULT reality. A cult is still a cult, whether it's true or false.

 

OK, then we can probably identify most, if not all Americans as members of one or more cults. Here is the definition as proof: an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Given that narrow definition, I believe that most people in America would be cult members. Most recently, we saw the cult of Michael Jackson on display. I see a cult of Barack Obama on display as people drive around with their Obama bumper stickers. Of course, the main stream media is a great display of cult worship (again of Obama). There is the Dawkins cult, the Darwin cult, the cult of materialism, physicalism, evolution, etc., etc. I could go on and on.

Then Christianity easily falls into the classification of a cult, it even has the ultimate cult leader who made far more extravagant claims than Jackson, Obama, Reagan, Limbaugh, Hannity, Darwin or Dawkins.

[centauri]

centauri:Have you notified the Roman Catholics that they've got it wrong? From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: TRANSUBSTANTIATION: the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine John 6:54-56 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

The Catholic Church guides a large proportion of the world's Christian believers.

The passage of 1 Cor 11:23-29 is used to justify a literal interpretation.

1 Cor 11:23-29 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

LNC

I used to be a Roman Catholic and left the church because I realized that they got it wrong. Have you heard of a little event that happened about 500 years ago called the Reformation? It happened because a lot of people realized that the Roman Catholic church got it wrong.

And you’ve done nothing to establish that the Catholics are wrong.

It’s simply your theological opinion.

There are reams of writings from highly trained and esteemed Catholic scholars that say otherwise.

The fact that there are great schisms among Christians doesn’t lend much credibility to Jesus as being sent from God.

 

LNC

As for the verses that you quote, that is just another example of taking verses out of context. Did Jesus rip off parts of his flesh for the disciples to eat? Did he cut himself and drain his blood into a cup for them to drink? The answer is obviously, no. That would clearly be symbolic language since he didn't do it then and after he was gone there would have been no way for any of them to get his blood (he took it with him.) Now, do you believe in transubstantiation? Unless you do, then your argument about Roman Catholics is moot. They can believe it all they want, but if there is no transubstantiation, then they are not really eating flesh or drinking blood.

It's not out of context.

The Catholics use that exact passage to validate their beliefs about transubstantiation.

You have a lack of faith in Jesus.

Unless you can prove they’re wrong, you’ve simply indicated that you have a strong anti-supernatural bias.

You only believe in limited miracles, denying that Jesus, who easily changed water into wine, couldn’t manifest wine into blood by simply willing it to be so.

[centauri]

centauri

You can declare it wrong all day long, but that doesn't change the scripture. Unbelief is justification to punish people.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

There will be plenty of killing when Jesus establishes his new world order.

Matt 13:41-42 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

LNC

Sure, it says that the unbelieving will have their part in the lake of fire, but that in no way proves that it is because of unbelief that they are in the lake of fire. Unbelief leads to actions, just as belief does. Some of those actions are spelled out in that list, I wonder why you aren't concerned about those people being condemned as well, or are you? Here is another question, why would you want God to force people to be in his presence for eternity? Wouldn't that be unjust of him? I don't disagree that the Bible makes it clear that there will be plenty of killing when he returns, many of those killed will be Christians by those in rebellion against God: And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Rev. 17:6 Do you also have a problem with that idea? I am very concerned about people being killed and sent to hell, that is why I am on this site pleading with you to investigate Jesus and to find in him your hope of eternal life. I don't want any of you to have to suffer this fate, and you don't have to. But I can't make you believe, that is something that you have to decide for yourself and it may require you to pull the Bible out and read it again and dig into it to better understand it.

So in your reality, it seems unbelief by itself is no justification for being tossed into hell.

That’s fascinating, considering that the verse lists it as a separate item along with other transgressions.

According to this verse unbelief alone results in punishment.

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

Are you suggesting that all unbelievers are people that perform wicked acts?

Are you concerned about unbelievers that aren’t abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, liars, and idolators?

Does Jesus give them an exemption from the killing?

 

LNC

Here is another question, why would you want God to force people to be in his presence for eternity? Wouldn't that be unjust of him? I don't disagree that the Bible makes it clear that there will be plenty of killing when he returns, many of those killed will be Christians by those in rebellion against God: And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Rev. 17:6 Do you also have a problem with that idea? I am very concerned about people being killed and sent to hell, that is why I am on this site pleading with you to investigate Jesus and to find in him your hope of eternal life. I don't want any of you to have to suffer this fate, and you don't have to. But I can't make you believe, that is something that you have to decide for yourself and it may require you to pull the Bible out and read it again and dig into it to better understand it.

 

Jesus is like a Mafia don.

Would it be unjust for the Mafia to force people to pay them protection money?

After all, if people don’t want to pay homage then they get what’s coming to them…eternal punishment.

How many Jewish forums have you enlightened with your superior knowledge of their God?

[centauri]

centauri

Jesus overturned the dietary laws, the law on divorce, the law on adultery, and the law about working on the Sabbath. Jesus said he came to bring division and disharmony. Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

 

No, Jesus did not overturn dietary laws or laws on divorce, adultery, or working on the Sabbath. If anything, he refined them. Read Matthew 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount where he said, "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you..." In each case, he refined the law rather than abolishing it. In some respects Jesus was going to bring division, but only where some decide to continue pursuing the world while others pursue him. Yet, that is the choice of the people who make those decisions. I guess that in the same way Barack Obama brought division into the world as he made people choose between him and John McCain, but it was still the person that made the decision.

That doesn’t reconcile the problem at all.

Apparently you want people to believe that when Jesus declared all food clean, implying that there were no longer any dietary restrictions on consumed food, he was simply “refining” the law, rather than overturning it.

If you get pulled over for speeding, I suppose you’re going to tell the officer that you were going 20 mph over the speed limit because you were refining the law.

What did God say to his people about tampering with the law?

Where do the Hebrew scriptures declare that a king messiah would tamper with the law and dilute it?

[centauri]

centauri

Mark 16:17-18 and many others.

 

LNC

And you are aware that this is a variant and not in the original text. So, this is not a good passage to which to refer to make your case.

It’s a very good passage to make the case.

It’s in the Holy Bible.

It’s part of the traditional Bible, and I’ve been assured by Christians that if it didn’t belong in the Bible it wouldn’t be there.

There are others verses that make grand promises as well.

 

centauri

Following Jesus makes them superior. They will sit in judgment of others. That's what Jesus told Peter when he asked what was his reward would be for following Jesus.

 

LNC

Do you distinguish between this life and the next? I do believe that people who trust and follow Jesus will be in a superior place in the next life than those who don't. I think that heaven is a superior future than an eternal future in hell. However, the people who go to heaven will not be superior to those in hell, both are sinners. The difference is that those in heaven have been redeemed by Jesus through his death and resurrection. Yes, the Bible speaks of them as "elect" and that simply indicates that it was not due to anything that the elect did, but completely the work of Jesus, so again, this does not mean that the elect are superior, just that they have received a free gift from God which they didn't deserve.

There is a hierarchy system where some people are in greater positions of authority than others.

That’s what Jesus promised Peter.

Following Jesus brings great rewards and benefits.

 

LNC

Those who have been redeemed are also said to have been "made alive" according to Ephesians 2:4, and being alive, they are now in the light of God's revelation. Again, not something that the person can feel superior about since they did not earn it or deserve this. So, far from feeling superior, Christians are blessed and should be humbly grateful.

Christians are very adept at channeling their superior feelings about themselves through a surrogate called “Jesus”.

They claim to be humble while at the same time they proclaim that their version of reality is the only one that exists for all other people.

 

centauri

Whether he is or isn't is irrelevant. It's still a cult oriented reality.

 

LNC

If Jesus is God, which I believe he is, then he should be at the center of attention, not because he demands it, but because he deserves it.

You can believe anything that makes you feel good.

However, that same line of thinking can be used to endorse any dictator.

[Neon Genesis]

And you are aware that this is a variant and not in the original text. So, this is not a good passage to which to refer to make your case.

But you speciically said earlier that the bible has no errors, it is completely and entirely historically accurate and there is nothing mythological about it at all. If you admit that the last half of Mark 16, which also includes the story of Jesus' ascent into heaven, teachings of baptism, and Jesus appearing to the apostles, which is a pretty important doctrine to fundamentalist Christianity, is not apart of the original Mark and was added in later, then you admit the bible does contain errors, that it's not historically accurate, and that there is content in it that is mythological. You cannot say the bible has no errors then turn around and say Mark 16:17-18 doesn't count because it's not original. If it's not the original, what do you call that other than mythological? If that story turned out to be mythological and not historical as you fully admit, then how do you know the rest of the miraculous stories in the bible is also not mythological and later additions to the life of Jesus? It is hypocritical for you to claim the bible is without error and then turn around and admit that it does contain an error. Either the bible is accurate or it's not. Either Mark 16 is accurate or it's not. You cannot have it both ways.

 

 

 

 

OK, then we can probably identify most, if not all Americans as members of one or more cults. Here is the definition as proof: an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Given that narrow definition, I believe that most people in America would be cult members. Most recently, we saw the cult of Michael Jackson on display. I see a cult of Barack Obama on display as people drive around with their Obama bumper stickers. Of course, the main stream media is a great display of cult worship (again of Obama). There is the Dawkins cult, the Darwin cult, the cult of materialism, physicalism, evolution, etc., etc. I could go on and on.

You mean like how you want us to join the cult of LNCism?

 

I don't want any of you to have to suffer this fate, and you don't have to. But I can't make you believe, that is something that you have to decide for yourself and it may require you to pull the Bible out and read it again and dig into it to better understand it.

This makes no sense. Why do you not want us to suffer a fate that's been approved by God? If you don't want us to suffer something God approves of, then you are defying God's authority and are questioning his will and are just as endangered of hellfire as we are. Why do you worship a being that approves of something you admit is wrong? If you yourself don't agree with God's plan of salvation, why should we worship a god you don't even agree with? Answer me this and don't you dodge the question like you usually do. Is Anne Frank going to hell because she was a Jew and not a Christian?

[dagnarus]

So, you want me to believe that a group of people who fled and hid out of fear, and denied that they knew Jesus were able to overpower armed soldiers whose lives depended upon them guarding the tomb? I think that explanation is less plausible than the biblical account.

And you want me to believe that a group of people who fled and hid out of fear and denied they knew Jesus later claimed to see a magical dead zombie and then started going around preaching and performing miracles yet there's absolutely no non-scriptural evidence for this at all?

 

Neon -

 

I'm pretty new at studying the Bible and these peoples, so I don't know much about how things worked, but it struck me in the middle of one of my own demands for extraBiblical evidence for some Jesus stuff that it only makes sense that the best accounts of jesus-related experiences would be included in the Bible due to their quality as support, thus becoming scripture. Logically that leaves....what as extraBiblical evidence?

 

Where would you, Neon, expect to find evidence of all this Jesus miracle stuff that would NOT have been included in the Bible?

 

I know I found an interesting answer to this once, but I can't remember the details. I believe the a contemporary historian who tended to record such things, and makes no mention of Yeshua in his chronicles, was named as support for doubting Jesus was who the gospels say he was. I can't remember his name, though. I'm curious as to where, specifically, outside of texts that would logically be included in the Bible, you expect to see references to Jesus if he was who he said he was, or even was just a very important rabble rouser (minus all the miracle stuff).

 

Thanks,

Phanta

 

Phanta

 

I'm fairly certain that even if you were to read the gospel account minus the miracles you would get the impression that he was an extremely important teacher of the time. I believe they even have king Herod hearing reports about him wondering whether he is Elisha. The various sects considered him a definite threat which they were constantly trying to trip up and stop. The even went so far as to arrange to have him crucified to silence him. That said when they went about getting him crucified they felt that they had to do it carefully lest they set off the revolution, in fact one of the reasons which was put into the chief priests mouth is that they were afraid that everyone would flock to him and the Romans would be force to come and destroy Judea to crush the resulting rebellion. Not to mention all the references to great crowds seeking proclaiming him king of Israel while he rides into Jerusalem. All in all the gospels paint him as a political force in the region (or at least what those who didn't believe in him would consider a political force). That said we could expect historians to mention him and the effects he had on the region. Josephus is known to have written about John the baptist. I believe he also mention several other wannabe messiahs. It seems strange that he would not mention someone as important as Jesus is meant to be (except in an obvious forgery, and a brief mention where it could just as easily be refering to another person mentioned in the immediate context.)

[bdp]

 

However, you have still failed to explain the post-resurrection appearances, which you have not even mentioned up to this point. Even skeptics like Gerd Ludemann believe that the Apostles and other eyewitnesses believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus. So, how did Joseph pull off this little feat? How did Thomas see someone with nail holes in his hands and a place in his side large enough to place his hand? How did he come up with someone who could enter a locked room twice, yet still eat a piece of fish in their presence. Maybe you could add that to your theoretical explanation.

 

 

Prove any of this is anything but stories in a book. Prove Robin Hood shot an arrow into a tree then split it exactly with a second arrow. Prove John Henry drove more steel faster than a steam hammer then fell over dead of a heart attack. Prove Arthur of Pendragon pulled a sword out of a stone.

[Ouroboros]

I see we're talking about Ghost Jesus now. Only ghosts goes through walls. Or Jesus could be an alien who can shift between different dimensions. So many ways to explain Jesus when fantasy plays into it.

 

There has been cases of crazy people believing that God told them to kill their own kids. No one really doubts that these crazy people really do believe in what they say, but no one is considering that these crazy people in reality, really, heard from God. And I think that's what Gerd Ludemann is referring to when he says the disciples believed they had seen Jesus. They saw something, they believed, it's plausible, but did they see a physical, real, divine being, or where they high on shrooms?

 

Besides Ludemann believe that Paul created Christianity and was teaching a different gospel: http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/paulfounder.htm

 

So if Ludemann is to be believed in one thing, why don't you believe him in another, LNC? You pick and choose?

 

Oh, this is good: (http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/002001002.htm)

Gerd Lüdemann

 

I can no longer relate Easter directly to the Bible and the creed. Since the resurrection of Jesus was not an historical event, we cannot expect him to come again, nor to provide us with a ticket to endless bliss. For me, resurrection has to do with this present life, which I liken to a small raft afloat on a vast, dark ocean. An icy wind blows, and we on the raft are united only by the bond of the death that will come to all of us. Nor can we expect any compassion from the impersonal universe that surrounds us. But by coming to terms with the reality of such terrors in humility, wisdom, and love, I believe we can discover the threshold of a new life. From now on I am no longer cowed by the notion that death is a punishment for my sin, nor do I hope for immortality. Instead, I accept my perishability, and that gives rise to a new Easter vision. Now impervious to the undertow of panic, I join with all humanity in the daily task of living in the light of love – a commitment by which together we can make life stronger than death. Nor do I consider this a new idea. Indeed, it reflects the teaching of Jesus before Christianity distorted his message.

 

I think I like Gerd Lüdemann. (And he's a frigging New Testament scholar and HISTORIAN! The real kind. No fake. But the kind who deserves the title.)

[agnosticator]

centauri

You can declare it wrong all day long, but that doesn't change the scripture. Unbelief is justification to punish people.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

There will be plenty of killing when Jesus establishes his new world order.

Matt 13:41-42 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

According to this verse unbelief alone results in punishment.

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

Are you suggesting that all unbelievers are people that perform wicked acts?

Are you concerned about unbelievers that aren’t abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, liars, and idolators?

Does Jesus give them an exemption from the killing?

 

Centauri, I'm particularly sensitive to bible verses about morality. LNC's postion is astoundingly ludicrous. Maybe he's hinting in his round about way that unbelievers' actions are rebellious no matter what they do? That unbelief corrupts our actions? I don't know....but that wouldn't change unbelief being the reason for condemnation.

[mwc]

Do you know anything about the history of the Canaanites?

Do you?

 

Since antiquity, references in the Hebrew scriptures and remarks in ancient Greek and Roman authors have been cited to prove that various North- west Semitic peoples practiced child sacrifice.1 These include the population whom the Hebrew Scriptures call Canaanites; the people whom modern schol- ars, following the Greeks, call Phoenicians; and the Phoenicians who settled in the western Mediterranean and whom modern scholars, following the Romans, call Punic.

 

Pozo Moro, Child Sacrifice, and the Greek Legendary Tradition

Author(s): John S. Rundin

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 123, No. 3 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 425-447

 

Do you know that they would offer their children to pagan gods by burning them?

The problem of human sacrifice or specifically of child-sacrifice provides a more serious though less extreme illustration of the methodological problem under discussion. W. F. Albright treated the subject under the head "Some Aspects of Canaanite Religious Practice," together with ritual prostitution. Human sacrifice is said to be attested as a Canaanite religious practice by many Biblical allusions and by Roman descriptions of a Carthaginian custom, as also by indirect references to human sacrifice and the witness of Philo of Byblos. Rather delicately, Albright notes: "The extent to which human sacrifice was practiced among the Canaanites has not been clarified by the discoveries at Ugarit, which nowhere appear to mention it at all."9 In sum, we confront references to human sacrifice in the Bible and apparently illumi- nating evidence from North Aftrica, but no literary or archae-ological evidence for such a thing from Phoenicia or Syria. Reversing our point of view, we could say that we would have no problem in this matter if we started from Ugaritic evidence. Our customary approach, from the Biblical side, is not necessarily wrong, but is shown to be problematic.

 

Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion

Author(s): Delbert R. Hillers

Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 75, No. 3 (Jan., 1985), pp. 253-269

I admit this isn't the most recent source but it does point out a necessary bias. To my knowledge there has been NO discoveries beyond what it written in the biblical texts to contradict what we know of the Canaanite religion. So, based on the Canaanite religion alone there is NO evidence of child sacrifice.

 

Did the Phoenicians perform any such sacrifices? Perhaps. But they are not the same peoples.

 

Do you know what other kinds of ritualistic practices in which they were engaged?

I might. You can be sure I'm willing to find out.

 

Unless you do, you are in no position to judge God for his commands.

Tough words. I guess that *I* get to judge "god?" If "god" found someone guilty then it should have punished them itself. No need to force any lacky to do the job. Floods and other destruction from above (see Genesis or Exodus) would be enough for the baby killers. A "god" doesn't need a human (or other) army...ever.

 

mwc

[buffettphan]

 

Can you provide a few examples, Hans, of stuff in the Bible that has been proven historically false? I don't mean stuff like there being no evidence for the Exodus, as I know a lot about that now. I mean something more directly wrong, as it can be shown to be something else altogether, like a certain King reigned during a certain period when we know it was someone else, or this group conquered that group, when we know it was the other way around.

 

Thanks for considering my request.

 

Phanta

 

Phanta,

 

Here's one little tidbit.

 

According to the gospels, city of Nazareth is Jesus' home town. There is no historical confirmation of this town. Other than the bible, no other source confirms that Nazareth even existed in the 1st century AD.

 

Of course, xtians get around this by saying that Nazareth was such a small place, that it just wasn't mentioned in the bible. Sure, a small insignificant town where their very big god grew up and it's not even mentioned in their great big holy book 'written' by their all-knowing god.

 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/naz2article.html

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

While some archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the bible, it certainly doesn't prove the accuracy of all of it. This article goes into a few discrepancies. Here are a couple of quotes---

 

.... (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

 

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai.....Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record......

 

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

According to the gospels, city of Nazareth is Jesus' home town. There is no historical confirmation of this town. Other than the bible, no other source confirms that Nazareth even existed in the 1st century AD.

 

Of course, xtians get around this by saying that Nazareth was such a small place, that it just wasn't mentioned in the bible. Sure, a small insignificant town where their very big god grew up and it's not even mentioned in their great big holy book 'written' by their all-knowing god.

Actually, Ehrman takes the view that it's likely a historical Jesus did come from a one horse town named Nazareth because it's doesn't advance a Christian agenda. Ehrman's view is that scriptures that don't advance a biased Christian agenda are more likely to be true than those that do. In the gospels, people refer to Jesus coming from Nazareth pejoratively, like how some people say "can anything good come from Nazareth?" Since it seems so unlikely that a god would come from a little town named Nazareth, then it's more likely that an ordinary human named Jesus who was not a god came from Nazareth because it doesn't advance a Christian agenda like the whole Bethlehem myth would.

 

A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai.....Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record......

 

Hah, I'd love to see how LNC gets around this one. Here's an actual archealogist who proves the bible is not historically accurate and some things in it are pure mythology and LNC can't accuse him of not being a true Christian or of having an anti-supernatural bias because the guy is a fundamentalist Protestant just like him.

[Ouroboros]

Can you provide a few examples, Hans, of stuff in the Bible that has been proven historically false? I don't mean stuff like there being no evidence for the Exodus, as I know a lot about that now. I mean something more directly wrong, as it can be shown to be something else altogether, like a certain King reigned during a certain period when we know it was someone else, or this group conquered that group, when we know it was the other way around.

 

Thanks for considering my request.

 

Phanta

It's very simple. If the Bible is historically correct in every detail, then there shouldn't be conflicts between the historical accounts in it.

 

Put it this way, if two stories in the Bible contradict each other, either one of them is right, or none of them, not both at the same time. One story of two conflicting stories can only be accurate. We can argue that the other (faulty) author had the intention to write story, but evidently one of them is a true story and the other is not (or the third alternative, both are false).

 

So we have the Gospel stories for instance which contradicts each other. Lets say we assume Matthew is right about the number of women going to the tomb. Then Mark, Luke, and John are not completely correct, i.e. not accurate historical accounts. They might have attempted to be accurate and historical, but they are not right if they are wrong.

 

There are also accounts of wars, numbers of people, and who did what in the Old Testament, given to us in two places, where one account is different than the other. Sure, if we want to, we can assume they are supposed to be historical, but they can't be seen as "historically correct." At least one of them must be false.

 

And that's what LNC stands for, logical non-contradiction, and that's what it's about above, the Bible proves itself to be faulty documents, historical or not.

 

Some people try to align the conflicting stories so they fit each other, but it becomes rather ridiculous, especially in the case of number of women, and in what progression they visited the tomb.

 

Remeber, this is what I said, "There are erroneous history in the Bible as well." And the Bible does the job, by providing alternative stories.

 

But if that isn't enough, according to the story of Jonah, Nineveh had a revival and turned around and started to worship Jonah's God. If Jonah was an Israelite, then it would be natural if that God was YHWH. I read once that extensive excavations in Nineveh, have given a very complete history of the kings and events from its inception as a city, and there are no YHWH revivals or any Monotheistic revivals of any kind. So if there was one, it wasn't the whole city as the story portray it, but rather a minor one, perhaps he converted the cows and sheep, who knows.

 

Another one is the event when Jesus cast out demons from the swine, and they jump into the ocean or a lake, but my understanding is that archeology have found that the city were many miles from any cliffs or water resources. So something is very wrong in that story since the pigs jump of a cliff into the waters after running for hours, and hours.

[dagnarus]

No, ex-Mormons by themselves don't prove Mormonism false, it is the evidence that does so. They have erroneous history in their writings (Jesus being born in Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem).

Gosh, you're so blind.

 

There are erroneous history in the Bible as well.

 

Can you provide a few examples, Hans, of stuff in the Bible that has been proven historically false? I don't mean stuff like there being no evidence for the Exodus, as I know a lot about that now. I mean something more directly wrong, as it can be shown to be something else altogether, like a certain King reigned during a certain period when we know it was someone else, or this group conquered that group, when we know it was the other way around.

 

Thanks for considering my request.

 

Phanta

 

Another Interesting Historical problem is that Luke puts Jesus's birth during the census conducted by Quirinus. This is hard dated to 6 AD. This is in contradiction to the account in Matthew that he had to have been born before the death of of Herod the great who died in 4BC. Thats at least a ten year descrepancy.

 

Edit: here is an article outlining this in more detail http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

[dagnarus]

When God commanded Joshua to slaughter the Canaanites it was because the Canaanites had become an abomination. Do you know anything about the history of the Canaanites? Do you know that they would offer their children to pagan gods by burning them? Do you know what other kinds of ritualistic practices in which they were engaged? Unless you do, you are in no position to judge God for his commands. The answer is that it does not fill me with joy that the Canaanites became so wicked that they had to be so harshly judged. Judgment is never a good thing; however, neither is the sin that brings on that judgment. I won't ask you if it brings you joy that they were sacrificing their children in such a heinous way as I'm sure it is as detestable to you as the thought of their judgment is. However, before you put God on trial, you better make sure you have your evidence straight. In fact, you better make sure you understand the situation completely lest you be the one to look foolish. It would be unfortunate if you were to defend the guilty and indict the innocent, which is what you appear to be unwittingly doing.

 

So because the Caananite children were being sacrificed, the Caananite children deserved to be killed by the Jews. Does god punish the child for the sins of the parents or not? Depends on his mood.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

And that's what LNC stands for, logical non-contradiction, and that's what it's about above, the Bible proves itself to be faulty documents, historical or not.

 

Some people try to align the conflicting stories so they fit each other, but it becomes rather ridiculous, especially in the case of number of women, and in what progression they visited the tomb.

 

I asked LNC to do this earlier in the thread but he didn't comprehend my plain English and just ignored it entirely. I'm still waiting for that response.

[centauri]

centauri

You can declare it wrong all day long, but that doesn't change the scripture. Unbelief is justification to punish people.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

There will be plenty of killing when Jesus establishes his new world order.

Matt 13:41-42 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

According to this verse unbelief alone results in punishment.

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

Are you suggesting that all unbelievers are people that perform wicked acts?

Are you concerned about unbelievers that aren’t abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, liars, and idolators?

Does Jesus give them an exemption from the killing?

 

Centauri, I'm particularly sensitive to bible verses about morality. LNC's postion is astoundingly ludicrous. Maybe he's hinting in his round about way that unbelievers' actions are rebellious no matter what they do? That unbelief corrupts our actions? I don't know....but that wouldn't change unbelief being the reason for condemnation.

I was taught by Christian "experts" that unbelief, regardless of specific actions, was justification for condemnation.

The verses support that position.

LNC creates his own reality and wants it to be binding on everyone.

[Justin]

LNC, you've probably been asked this many times, but i can't resist. What would you be now had you been born in say the Middle East? India? South America? Japan? Or China? Do you think you would still be a christian? Slim chance you would be. What you would be doing is getting on here with all your typical hard-headed, close-minded nonsense, with the notable exception that you would be hard-headed and close-minded and spouting nonsense in the name of Islam, Hinduism, Catholisism or Buddisim or whatever else religion is dominate in the region you live in.

 

You mentioned in an earlier post that the Catholic church got it all wrong and thats why there was the Reformation. Do you believe everyone got it all wrong and went to hell untill they got it all right in the 17th century? What about all the inhabitants of the New World prior to Europeon contact and the introduction of the christian way to salvation? Also, since you believe in an old earth, what of man all those thousands of years before Christ came to redeem humanity? Plus, while we're at it, what of our human like ancestors many, many years before them? Did they get to go to heaven?

 

You and Centauri have argued back and forth about whether or not christianity is a cult. Well, as Ehrman's 'Jesus Interrupted' explains, christianity in its infancy was regarded as a cult by the Jews, whom christianity sprang from. As far as its start, chrsitainity was indeed a cult. Had the cult surrounding David Koresh or the Heaven's Gate cult achieved monumental popularity due to government indorcing and backing, like christianity did due to Emperor Constantine and Rome, would you still call them cults? Can you not see the similarities?

[Ouroboros]

However, you are spot-on, Hans, in that, even in me, it is just one of many motivations behind argumentative behavior.

 

People are complex, and so often are their motivations.

That's right. Sometimes I argue because... I just want to argue. I find it entertaining and exhilarating to be challenged at times, and it's a training to learn to control ones own temper in a discussion. Sometimes I call people names too, to get a reaction, to stir feeling, and to check the other persons tolerance. There are soooo many reasons why I do things or argue the way I do, so why shouldn't I assume the same for others? I just wish that the hardcore fundamentalists could understand this too, but they usually don't. And it's probably because they see the world in black-and-white. They're very simple minded, even when they can talk and use advanced language. I think they only reach halfway on Bloom's taxonomy pyramid.