Calling Out Alang1216: The God of Abraham is a myth

[ding]

I have no conspiracy theory.

Sure you do, you just aren't being honest. Which is why you can't explain how the resurrection of Christ was embellished. The explanation you have given for the reason for those accounts is to evangelize pagans which screams conspiracy.

Your narrative is comical. According to you someone thought they saw the risen Christ and started a rumor that Christ had risen while his body still hung on the cross rotting away to have never been buried. Which was your explanation for why the tomb was empty. Never mind the fact that even Jews who were crucified were buried on the day they died. Never mind the idiocy of your logic that according to you the rumor started when the corpse of Jesus was still hanging on the cross in plain sight for anyone to see. Never mind that there are no accounts for anything you claim.

So yeah, you really do believe it was a conspiracy. It's not possible that all of these accounts exist because someone was mistaken and started a rumor that caused an avalanche of embellishments.

 

[ding]

I have no conspiracy theory.

According to you the narratives of miracles performed by Christ and the narratives of the resurrection of Christ exist for the sole purpose of tricking pagans into worshipping Jesus as God. How is that not a conspiracy?

 

[alang1216]

Sure you do, you just aren't being honest. Which is why you can't explain how the resurrection of Christ was embellished. The explanation you have given for the reason for those accounts is to evangelize pagans which screams conspiracy.

Your narrative is comical. According to you someone thought they saw the risen Christ and started a rumor that Christ had risen while his body still hung on the cross rotting away to have never been buried. Which was your explanation for why the tomb was empty. Never mind the fact that even Jews who were crucified were buried on the day they died. Never mind the idiocy of your logic that according to you the rumor started when the corpse of Jesus was still hanging on the cross in plain sight for anyone to see. Never mind that there are no accounts for anything you claim.

So yeah, you really do believe it was a conspiracy. It's not possible that all of these accounts exist because someone was mistaken and started a rumor that caused an avalanche of embellishments.

I don't recall giving a time line for when the rumor started, that is you putting words in my mouth, again.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why there are two birth narratives. I'll wait.

 

[ding]

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

What does that have to do with anything? So what? That has nothing to do with explaining why Jesus is worshipped as God. This isn't a theological discussion, this is an historical discussion. They were expecting a powerful, victorious king, not one who must suffer and die. It was because of their preconceived ideas that they couldn't wrap their minds around who Jesus was which is what the Gospel of Mark was showing.

 

[alang1216]

What does that have to do with anything? So what? That has nothing to do with explaining why Jesus is worshipped as God.

You asked:

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

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

This isn't a theological discussion, this is an historical discussion. They were expecting a powerful, victorious king, not one who must suffer and die. It was because of their preconceived ideas that they couldn't wrap their minds around who Jesus was which is what the Gospel of Mark was showing.

If you claim the NT is a historical document you are either naïve or dishonest.

 

[ding]

I don't recall giving a time line for when the rumor started, that is you putting words in my mouth, again.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why there are two birth narratives. I'll wait.

Why not? I gave you every opportunity to do so in post #457. But instead you chose to question who everyone was instead of clarifying your "rumors and empty tomb" conjecture. You literally argued the tomb was empty because Jesus was never placed there and was instead left rotting on the cross. You literally argued that the resurrection narrative began when someone mistakenly thought they saw Jesus after he was crucified. And then everyone else took that and ran with it WHILE HIS CORPSE WAS ROTTING ON THE CROSS IN PLAIN SIGHT.

Would you like to amend your argument?

As for the virgin birth narrative, no one believed Jesus is God because of a story that he was born of a virgin. They believed Jesus is God because they witnessed Jesus performing 37 miracles and rose from the dead. If you want to make an argument that the birth of Jesus was embellished AFTER THE FACT that's probably the only narrative of Jesus that you could do so successfully. But that has absolutely nothing to do with determining the historicity of the miracles performed by Christ. Specifically, him rising from the dead.

 

[ding]

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

What part of post #465 did you not understand? How does post #465 not address that?

 

[ding]

I have no conspiracy theory.

Sure you do. 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.

 

[alang1216]

Why not? I gave you every opportunity to do so in post #457. But instead you chose to question who everyone was instead of clarifying your "rumors and empty tomb" conjecture. You literally argued the tomb was empty because Jesus was never placed there and was instead left rotting on the cross. You literally argued that the resurrection narrative began when someone mistakenly thought they saw Jesus after he was crucified. And then everyone else took that and ran with it WHILE HIS CORPSE WAS ROTTING ON THE CROSS IN PLAIN SIGHT.

Would you like to amend your argument?

As usual you took what I wrote and added your own interpretation, filling in blanks to suit you, namely your "WHILE HIS CORPSE WAS ROTTING ON THE CROSS IN PLAIN SIGHT".

As for the virgin birth narrative, no one believed Jesus is God because of a story that he was born of a virgin. They believed Jesus is God because they witnessed Jesus performing 37 miracles and rose from the dead. If you want to make an argument that the birth of Jesus was embellished AFTER THE FACT that's probably the only narrative of Jesus that you could do so successfully. But that has absolutely nothing to do with determining the historicity of the miracles performed by Christ. Specifically, him rising from the dead.

So you accept that the birth narratives were embellished. Now it is you writing about a conspiracy to commit fraud. Why would anyone assume such embellishment AFTER THE FACT could only happen once in the NT?

 

[alang1216]

What part of post #465 did you not understand? How does post #465 not address that?

I understood it but it didn't address my issues. Let me clarify:

1. Each gospel has a different version of the events before and after the crucifixion. They can not all honestly be reconciled.
2. Additional ending verses were added to Mark long after that gospel was written. Why was that done and who did it?

 

[ding]

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

Sure we do. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. Paul was born around 4 BCE and was a devout Jew and Pharisee during Jesus' lifetime. Paul was alive during Jesus's ministry and crucifixion. Before his conversion, Paul was a zealous Pharisee who actively persecuted Christians. He was therefore aware of Jesus and His followers, even if he had not met Him. Paul was a credible witness.

Paul believed Jesus was divine and claimed to have an encounter with the risen Christ. We know this because Paul wrote about it and preached it.

Nothing in Paul's writing can be construed as embellishment. So either Paul was lying and is at the head of the conspiracy or everything Paul said was true.

 

[ding]

You asked:

You claimed all of the resurrection accounts were embellished. So I asked what is the point of the these accounts so that you would be forced to explain how they were embellished? Which you have yet to do because you can't.

You said, "That Jesus did in death what he never did in life." Without any explanation, justification or evidence of how the accounts were embellished. You can't show how they were embellished. For instance in the flood narrative a great and unusual flood that was so significant it was noteworthy was embellished to be a world wide flood with rain for 40 days and water coming from below. You can't explain the resurrection narratives like that. Either it happened or it didn't. And if it didn't then there was a massive conspiracy to make it look like it did.

You are just making stuff up. Just like you made up the tomb was empty because they left Jesus' corpse to rot on the cross despite that being contrary to Jewish custom. Just like you made up the accounts were embellished to convert pagans which by the way is a conspiracy, not an embellishment.

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

You keep saying that but there's no evidence at all for that. You can't point to one single thing. That's you making stuff up because you can't accept anything supernatural ever occurring.

If you claim the NT is a historical document you are either naïve or dishonest.

My claim is the the miracles and resurrection recorded in the NT are corroborated by the historical fact that Jesus was worshipped as God by people who witnessed his miracles and saw the risen Christ. That the NT accounts of Jesus performing miracles and claiming to be equal to God are corroborated by the Babylonian Talmud which recorded that Jesus was put to death for sorcery and blaspheme. That the claim of resurrection is corroborated by the departure from the Jewish perception of resurrection. That Paul and the apostles had nothing to gain and everything to lose by believing Jesus was divine. Not to mention the tomb was empty and there are no accounts which dispute the miracles performed by Christ or his resurrection.

 

[ding]

As usual you took what I wrote and added your own interpretation, filling in blanks to suit you, namely your "WHILE HIS CORPSE WAS ROTTING ON THE CROSS IN PLAIN SIGHT".

No. I'm walking you through your inconsistencies. Your problem is that you are throwing out alternate theories that are contradictory. It can't be that Jesus was never placed in a tomb and was left rotting (you were arguing there was no body to be found because he was left to rot) and that someone thought they saw Jesus after he was crucified which started an innocent cascade of embellishments (i.e. your stupid telephone game argument). It can't be both. Do you know why? Because if someone had said, hey I saw the risen Christ, the response to that would be, no, you didn't. His rotting carcass is still hanging on the cross.

So you accept that the birth narratives were embellished. Now it is you writing about a conspiracy to commit fraud. Why would anyone assume such embellishment AFTER THE FACT could only happen once in the NT?

No. I said, the birth narrative is the only one that I can think of that could have been embellished. I don't know if it was or if it wasn't. That has nothing to do with the historicity of the miracles performed by Jesus or his resurrection.

Why would anyone assume such a narrative after the fact? That's easy. Mark in his Gospel showed the confusion surrounding who Christ is. They were expecting a powerful, victorious king, not one who must suffer and die. It wasn't until after he rose from the dead that they understood his divinity. And even then they didn't understand that he was fully God and fully human until later. This isn't me shooting from the hip making up stuff like you are doing. These are the conclusions of centuries of Christian thought and debate. So to answer your question, once they understood who Jesus really was, the first Christians began to understand who Mary was. The beliefs about Mary began with the first Christians, but only after they understood who Jesus is.

 

[ding]

I understood it but it didn't address my issues. Let me clarify:

1. Each gospel has a different version of the events before and after the crucifixion. They can not all honestly be reconciled.
2. Additional ending verses were added to Mark long after that gospel was written. Why was that done and who did it?

How are each gospel different and why do you believe the differences are relevant? I have already explained why Mark is different, right? If you are going to make claims then be specific. So I can address the specifics.

And do any of those differences support your contention that the body was never placed in the tomb after his death as required by Jewish custom and that the accounts were embellished after someone thought they saw Jesus after his crucifixion?

 

[alang1216]

Sure we do. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. Paul was born around 4 BCE and was a devout Jew and Pharisee during Jesus's lifetime. Paul was alive during Jesus's ministry and crucifixion. Before his conversion, Paul was a zealous Pharisee who actively persecuted Christians. He was therefore aware of Jesus and His followers, even if he had not met Him. Paul was a credible witness.

Paul believed Jesus was divine and claimed to have an encounter with the risen Christ. We know this because Paul wrote about it and preached it.

Nothing in Paul's writing can be construed as embellishment.

Paul never witnessed any miracles but was as devout as any other apostle. Obviously, miracles were not a pre-requisite for belief. As I said, Paul may well have believed what he claimed. We will never know.

 

[alang1216]

You claimed all of the resurrection accounts were embellished. So I asked what is the point of the these accounts so that you would be forced to explain how they were embellished? Which you have yet to do because you can't.

You said, "That Jesus did in death what he never did in life." Without any explanation, justification or evidence of how the accounts were embellished. You can't show how they were embellished. For instance in the flood narrative a great and unusual flood that was so significant it was noteworthy was embellished to be a world wide flood with rain for 40 days and water coming from below. You can't explain the resurrection narratives like that. Either it happened or it didn't. And if it didn't then there was a massive conspiracy to make it look like it did.

You are just making stuff up. Just like you made up the tomb was empty because they left Jesus' corpse to rot on the cross despite that being contrary to Jewish custom. Just like you made up the accounts were embellished to convert pagans which by the way is a conspiracy, not an embellishment.

You keep saying that but there's no evidence at all for that. You can't point to one single thing. That's you making stuff up because you can't accept anything supernatural ever occurring.

My claim is the the miracles and resurrection recorded in the NT are corroborated by the historical fact that Jesus was worshipped as God by people who witnessed his miracles and saw the risen Christ. That the NT accounts of Jesus performing miracles and claiming to be equal to God are corroborated by the Babylonian Talmud which recorded that Jesus was put to death for sorcery and blaspheme. That the claim of resurrection is corroborated by the departure from the Jewish perception of resurrection. That Paul and the apostles had nothing to gain and everything to lose by believing Jesus was divine. Not to mention the tomb was empty and there are no accounts which dispute the miracles performed by Christ or his resurrection.

Nothing new here. To sum up:

• We both agree there are embellishments in the NT but disagree on where the facts end and the embellishments begin
• You believe that a few stories from a single religious tradition are based on supernatural events but all others are not, I just believe none are.
• You believe the Romans cared more about Jewish traditions than making an example of a trouble maker.
• You ignore the fact that the NT is not a reliable historical document.

 

[alang1216]

How are each gospel different and why do you believe the differences are relevant?

One event, multiple versions. You read the gospel, put together the actual events of the resurrection into a single version if you can.

I have already explained why Mark is different, right? If you are going to make claims then be specific. So I can address the specifics.

Except I made a claim that you ignored (Mark's final verses)

And do any of those differences support your contention that the body was never placed in the tomb after his death as required by Jewish custom and that the accounts were embellished after someone thought they saw Jesus after his crucifixion?

Nothing about the unreliable stories is plausible.

 

[alang1216]

No. I'm walking you through your inconsistencies. Your problem is that you are throwing out alternate theories that are contradictory. It can't be that Jesus was never placed in a tomb and was left rotting (you were arguing there was no body to be found because he was left to rot) and that someone thought they saw Jesus after he was crucified which started an innocent cascade of embellishments (i.e. your stupid telephone game argument). It can't be both. Do you know why? Because if someone had said, hey I saw the risen Christ, the response to that would be, no, you didn't. His rotting carcass is still hanging on the cross.

And if the sighting were a month or a year after his death?

No. I said, the birth narrative is the only one that I can think of that could have been embellished. I don't know if it was or if it wasn't. That has nothing to do with the historicity of the miracles performed by Jesus or his resurrection.

It has everything to do since there are many other contradictions in the NT.

Why would anyone assume such a narrative after the fact? That's easy. Mark in his Gospel showed the confusion surrounding who Christ is. They were expecting a powerful, victorious king, not one who must suffer and die. It wasn't until after he rose from the dead that they understood his divinity. And even then they didn't understand that he was fully God and fully human until later. This isn't me shooting from the hip making up stuff like you are doing. These are the conclusions of centuries of Christian thought and debate. So to answer your question, once they understood who Jesus really was, the first Christians began to understand who Mary was. The beliefs about Mary began with the first Christians, but only after they understood who Jesus is.

Like you, they decided Jesus was the messiah/divine and worked backwards from there.

 

[ding]

Paul never witnessed any miracles but was as devout as any other apostle. Obviously, miracles were not a pre-requisite for belief. As I said, Paul may well have believed what he claimed. We will never know.

Yes, Paul believed Jesus performed miracles, viewing them as signs of Jesus's divinity and the truth of the Gospel, though he emphasized the resurrection more in his letters as the ultimate proof. While Paul's letters focus less on the specific historical events of Jesus's life, they do mention Jesus's death and resurrection as foundational to his message and acknowledge that Paul himself performed signs and wonders, implying that Jesus, as the source of that power, also performed miracles.

Evidence of Paul's belief in Jesus's miracles:

• Signs and Wonders:
  Quora states that in the book of Acts, Paul himself performs signs and wonders to back up his preaching, which implies he saw miracles as a way to testify to the truth of his message and the power of the one he served.
  
  
• Divine Status:
  Paul saw miracles as proof of Jesus's divinity and messiahship. He saw the power of the Holy Spirit working through him, and his ministry was a continuation of the power that flowed from Jesus.
  
  
• The Resurrection as a Miracle:
  The primary miracle Paul emphasizes is the resurrection of Jesus, a foundational event that confirmed Jesus's divine status.
  

Why Paul didn't mention Jesus's miracles more:

• Different Focus:
  Paul's primary purpose in his letters was to explain the significance of Jesus's death and resurrection, rather than recounting his earthly life.
  
  
• Audience Awareness:
  Paul's readers likely already knew about Jesus's miracles, so Paul didn't need to elaborate on them.
  
  
• The Resurrection was the Main Event:
  Paul focused on the resurrection as the most powerful confirmation of Jesus's identity.
  
  
• Miracles Through the Apostles:
  Paul's own ability to perform miracles meant he didn't need to focus on Jesus's prior miracles as proof; instead, the power of the Spirit working through the apostles served as a testament to the ongoing reality of God's work.

Yes, in his letters, the Apostle Paul presented Jesus as divine, attributing to him divine attributes and roles, such as sharing in creation and receiving worship. Though Paul was a devout monotheistic Jew, he saw Jesus as possessing a unique identity with God, as seen in 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Jesus is called "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things". This perspective is further supported by passages like Philippians 2:6-11, which describes Jesus existing in the "form of God" before his incarnation and ultimately receiving supreme exaltation.

Here's a breakdown of how Paul's writings indicate his belief in Jesus' divinity:

• Sharing in God's Creative Act:
  Paul states in 1 Corinthians that "through whom are all things". Since only God is the Creator, this implies Jesus shares in God's creative identity, rather than being a created being.
  
  
• • Pre-Existence and Incarnation:
    The hymn in Philippians 2 describes Jesus as existing "in the form of God" before becoming human, highlighting his pre-existence and involvement in the incarnation.
    
  • Receiving Worship:
    Paul's writings also suggest Jesus receives worship, a practice reserved for God alone in Jewish tradition.
    
  • Lordship:
    By applying the title "Lord" (Kyrios in Greek) to Jesus in a context parallel to the one God in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul aligns Jesus with the divine identity of Yahweh.
    
  • Exaltation and Confession:
    The passage in Philippians concludes by stating that "every knee should bow" at Jesus' name and "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," echoing the worship due to God.
    

While Paul maintained the belief in one God, his writings present Jesus as uniquely sharing in God's identity, demonstrating a "high Christology" that was early and foundational to Christian belief, according to Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) and michaeljkruger.com.

 

[ding]

Nothing new here. To sum up:

• We both agree there are embellishments in the NT but disagree on where the facts end and the embellishments begin
• You believe that a few stories from a single religious tradition are based on supernatural events but all others are not, I just believe none are.
• You believe the Romans cared more about Jewish traditions than making an example of a trouble maker.
• You ignore the fact that the NT is not a reliable historical document.

Can you be more disingenuous?

Here's my evidence. The first Christians who witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.

The resurrection is supported by the Christian departure from the Jewish perception of resurrection and the remarkable rise of Christian Messianism. It actually begins to worship Jesus as Lord, associate Him with divine status, and attribute to Him co-eternity with the Father. This is not only historically unique, but also apologetically unappealing – so much so that the early Church had to pay the ultimate price for it (including separation from the synagogue and even persecution). Additionally, the early Church organized itself into a missionary community that not only went beyond the boundaries of Israel but also to the very frontiers of the Roman Empire, making it one of the most pluralistic religious organizations in the history of religions. With a crucified Messiah as its head, the early Church formed one of the most dynamically expansive communities in history.

You believe in a conspiracy. You have zero evidence for any of your conspiracy theory beliefs. Which is why you argue everything was embellished for the express purpose of duping pagans which is a conspiracy theory in sheep's clothing.