Calling Out Alang1216: The God of Abraham is a myth

[ding]

But to answer you, the whole Jewish idea of the messiah was someone with great power in this world. Since that was obviously not Jesus, his power had to come from his death, not from his life.

It is the better question because it proves the risen Christ changed their beliefs on resurrection. The question I asked wasn't about the messiah. It was about the radical change in the Jewish belief of resurrection. So what could explain this radical change? The preaching of Jesus? No. Jesus does not say what it's like to be resurrected. Furthermore, He does not connect the resurrection to His Messiahship, and He certainly does not talk about the resurrection being transformed embodiment (or spiritual embodiment, or glorified embodiment), which is evident in the early Christian doctrine. The obvious explanation would be that the many witnesses (e.g., Peter, the Twelve, the 500 disciples, James, the early missionaries to the Gentile Church, and Paul himself) saw the risen Jesus in a transformed embodied state (manifesting at once a spiritual transformation which had the appearance of divine glory and power, and some form of embodiment which was continuous with Jesus’ embodiment in His ministry). This would easily explain all five of the above-mentioned mutations.

Address that.

 

[alang1216]

You mean besides the amount of time - according to your conjecture - he was left hanging for everyone to see?

Who is everyone? If you were a follower of Jesus you might not want to be seen crying for him in public as you might end up on the cross yourself.

 

[ding]

That is not a better question, only a question you use to dodge giving an answer to my question.

It most certainly was the better question as the radical change from the Jewish concept or resurrection to the Christian concept of resurrection could only have come from observing the risen Christ.

Everything you think about Mark needs to be re-examined with your new understanding of Mark.

So Mark documents a 'deliberate literary portrayal', that is not factual, for theological purposes. Correct?

First of all this isn't a theological discussion this is an historical discussion and Mark isn't defining theology. During the 3 1/2 year ministry of Jesus, there was confusion concerning who and what Jesus was. Here's a guy performing miracles, so it was quite natural to question who is this guy. The divinity of Christ was not established until after Jesus rose from the dead. At which point they could not understand how he could be fully human and fully God. That theology was not established until later.

But again... this isn't a theological discussion.

 

[ding]

If the answer to my question was 'well known' you'd be able to answer it. You didn't.

Your question is irrelevant to this discussion. You are just losing so badly you are grasping at straws.

 

[ding]

If the answer to my question was 'well known' you'd be able to answer it. You didn't.

It's so well known this was from google.

Mark wrote his gospel emphasizing the disciples' misunderstanding of Jesus to highlight a central theme: the enigmatic nature of God's Messiah, who was expected to be a powerful, victorious king, not one who must suffer and die. By showing that even Jesus' closest followers failed to grasp his true identity as the Son of God and the suffering servant, Mark underscores the difficult truth that the Messiah's path involved sacrifice and death, a perspective difficult for many to accept and which he likely used to challenge the prevailing ideas about the Messiah.

 

[alang1216]

What was the historical basis of the resurrection if it wasn't the resurrection?

People got resurrected all the time in pagan mythology.

There's tons of proof of the resurrection but you dismiss it all.

There's tons of proof of the resurrection was a myth but you dismiss it all.

And yes, given the depth and number of narratives and the lack of credible alternate explanations for the narratives, it would have had to been a massive conspiracy.

Your conclusion, not mine.

So walk me through the narratives of the resurrection and tell me what was the point of the account if it wasn't that Jesus rose from the dead.

Hey pagan, my God is better than your god.

 

[alang1216]

What is the point of the resurrection account? Why was it written?

That Jesus did in death what he never did in life.

 

[ding]

Who is everyone? If you were a follower of Jesus you might not want to be seen crying for him in public as you might end up on the cross yourself.

According to your wild conjecture he was left hanging until there was no flesh, right?

How long does your conspiracy theory postulate he hung there before someone started the rumor they saw the risen Christ.

 

[ding]

That Jesus did in death what he never did in life.

Which is what? And can you show me which verses you are talking about? Because it seems you are shooting from the hip.

 

[ding]

People got resurrected all the time in pagan mythology.

We are discussing a very specific resurrection. Which you are claiming was embellished and is not a product of a conspiracy to commit fraud. In the account of the flood, the point of the account was a flood. That was the history that was being passed down. The details of the flood were embellished to make the account more memorable and easier to pass down because that's how history and knowledge was passed down back then; orally.

So what was the point of each resurrection encounter with Jesus if it wasn't that Jesus rose from the dead? Because if there is nothing factual or historical about those accounts that makes them lies and that makes this a conspiracy to commit fraud.

 

[ding]

There's tons of proof of the resurrection was a myth but you dismiss it all.

What evidence do you believe I have dismissed?

 

[ding]

Your conclusion, not mine.

Based on the logical conclusion of you not having an explanation for why the resurrection accounts were written or explain the purpose of the accounts.

 

[ding]

Hey pagan, my God is better than your god.

So a conspiracy to trick pagans. Got it.

 

[ding]

Who is everyone? If you were a follower of Jesus you might not want to be seen crying for him in public as you might end up on the cross yourself.

Paul for one. Paul claimed to see the risen Christ.

Was Paul lying?

 

[alang1216]

According to your wild conjecture he was left hanging until there was no flesh, right?

How long does your conspiracy theory postulate he hung there before someone started the rumor they saw the risen Christ.

I have no conspiracy theory.

 

[alang1216]

Which is what? And can you show me which verses you are talking about? Because it seems you are shooting from the hip.

He did nothing the messiah was supposed to do and certainly not end up cursed by God.

 

[alang1216]

We are discussing a very specific resurrection. Which you are claiming was embellished and is not a product of a conspiracy to commit fraud. In the account of the flood, the point of the account was a flood. That was the history that was being passed down. The details of the flood were embellished to make the account more memorable and easier to pass down because that's how history and knowledge was passed down back then; orally.

So what was the point of each resurrection encounter with Jesus if it wasn't that Jesus rose from the dead? Because if there is nothing factual or historical about those accounts that makes them lies and that makes this a conspiracy to commit fraud.

I have no conspiracy theory.

 

[alang1216]

What evidence do you believe I have dismissed?

The wildly different accounts and the ending of Mark for two.

 

[alang1216]

Paul for one. Paul claimed to see the risen Christ.

Was Paul lying?

Paul may well have believed what he claimed. We will never know.

 

[alang1216]

So a conspiracy to trick pagans. Got it.

I have no conspiracy theory.