Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[Hypatia415]

Since you're European:

Why don't you argue against Islam rather than Christianity? Isn't Islam your biggest political/social threat in Europe?

No it is not. There are some fanatics in Islam as there are in Christianity, and Judaism but none of my Muslim friends have ever tried to convert me at knife point.

What are the Christians doing to you these days?

The insidious spread of US Christian evangelical movements all which are very well funded from the USA, is starting permeate sections of European society.

 

[Hypatia415]

Well to use that logic....God can and will "murder" you, and He will "murder" me.

But of course it's not murder. He who created life alone can take it, anytime for any purpose, as the sculptor can destroy his creation.

You should read some of the texts in the Hebrew bible.

 

[Hypatia415]

You don't even seem to be aware that the recording of the sending of the disciples are from two different events. We all tailor what we pack to where we are going, for what purpose.

Again this hilarious attempt to reconcile two contradictory passages.

 

[ding]

Paul's gospel which is the one that he spread to the gentiles was hardly unique in its salvic ideas. The contemporary Graeco-Roman world teemed with various religious cults and esoteric philosophies that promised salvation of various kinds.

The ancient world believed in miracles. Nor was Jesus of Nazareth the only charismatic Jew who was believed to perform miracles.

What this hallucination/experience meant to those men and women who knew Jesus of Nazareth remains unknown.

The catastrophic impact of the First Jewish War put an end to the messianic sect that surrounded Jesus of Nazareth and the gospel of Paul along with various later interpretations and additions to his ideas, also by men from the Hellenised world had, as it were, a clear field.

The advent of Christianity can't be explained any other way than the first Christians witnessing and experiencing the divinity of Christ firsthand.

 

[ding]

You should read some of the texts in the Hebrew bible.

I have. The OT is men seeking God and that's why it was written the way it was. The NT is God answering man and that's why it was written the way it was.

 

[ding]

Are you including divinely ordained genocides?

Never happened. That was Jewish embellishment. The Israelites crafted narratives of historical events to teach lessons about obedience, justice and that God was on their side.

 

[SweetSue92]

No it is not. There are some fanatics in Islam as there are in Christianity, and Judaism but none of my Muslim friends have ever tried to convert me at knife point.

The insidious spread of US Christian evangelical movements all which are very well funded from the USA, is starting permeate sections of European society.

You just hate Christianity, that's all.

Ever wonder why that is?

 

[SweetSue92]

Again this hilarious attempt to reconcile two contradictory passages.

No it's not.

You don't pack different things for different trips?

You pack heavy sweaters in July? Bikinis to a ski vacation?

 

[ding]

What scholars might these be? Do you have any texts from which you can quote?

I do enjoy the way some Christians desperately try to reconcile evidently contradictory texts.

Are you now trying to contend that Mary's pregnancy lasted for more than ten years right up until 6 CE?

All you have are arguments against Christianity. You don't have an explanation for how, when and why Christianity arose.

 

[Hypatia415]

All you have are arguments against Christianity. You don't have an explanation for how, when and why Christianity arose.

What gave Christianity its impetus was being granted toleration.

 

[Hypatia415]

No it's not.

Yes it is and what evidence are you going to present to show us all that the two passages in Mark and Matthew refer to different events?

 

[Hypatia415]

You just hate Christianity, that's all.

Oh look! Yet another over-reaction.

 

[Meriweather]

What scholars might these be? Do you have any texts from which you can quote?

As I've said before: I've done my research, so I know what's out there. I am not going to do research for you. I'm giving you credit for doing your own work.

I do enjoy the way some Christians desperately try to reconcile evidently contradictory texts.

No, you don't. Before your arrival, Christians already had these questions and did some research into language, history, culture and etymology. I have done my studies, and so have other Christians. Do your own. It's out there.

Are you now trying to contend that Mary's pregnancy lasted for more than ten years right up until 6 CE?

I am going to ignore the idiocy of this question. I am saying Luke and Matthew have the same timeline for the birth of Jesus. Your own conclusion about the census is it was the 14 AD census, which was a second census. What about if it was the first census Caesar August called? That began about 8 BC, and may have aligned with a provincial census Quirinius called around 3 BC.

We hear from both Gospels that Jesus was born when Herod was king and at the time of a census (enrollment). You may be aware that birth dates weren't even recorded for the common people in Israel until the early 20th century. Matthew and Luke placed the approximate year Jesus was born during the final years Herod reigned, about the time of a census. At that time, in that culture, the common people did not record events by years, but by important events. Therefore, when Matthew and Luke recorded the time of Jesus' birth they gave the events people of their time would remember.

Given this information (which you can research and study on your own), why is it so vital to you that Matthew and Luke didn't come up with the same precise date?

 

[Hypatia415]

Never happened.

What never happened?

That was Jewish embellishment.

What was? Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:11-16; 21:10-14?

The Israelites crafted narratives of historical events to teach lessons about obedience, justice and that God was on their side.

Do you know anything about ancient warfare?

 

[Hypatia415]

I have. The OT is men seeking God and that's why it was written the way it was. The NT is God answering man and that's why it was written the way it was.

What monumental arrogance you display.

The Hebrew bible is the bible for Jews.

 

[Hypatia415]

The advent of Christianity can't be explained any other way than the first Christians witnessing and experiencing the divinity of Christ firsthand.

Oh yes it can.

 

[Hypatia415]

As I've said before: I've done my research, so I know what's out there. I am not going to do research for you. I'm giving you credit for doing your own work.

Why so shy? If you know of these academics cite their names and works.

No, you don't.

I am mocking you.

Before your arrival, Christians already had these questions and did some research into language, history, culture and etymology. I have done my studies, and so have other Christians. Do your own. It's out there.

Had they all really? How very interesting.

I am going to ignore the idiocy of this question. I am saying Luke and Matthew have the same timeline for the birth of Jesus. Your own conclusion about the census is it was the 14 AD census, which was a second census.

Oh not that old canard. There was no census in Judaea in 14 CE

Do you actually know why the 6 CE census was conducted?

What about if it was the first census Caesar August called? That began about 8 BC, and may have aligned with a provincial census Quirinius called around 3 BC.

You really are monumentally badly informed.

We hear from both Gospels that Jesus was born when Herod was king and at the time of a census (enrollment).

Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. The census of Quirinius was in 6 CE. That leaves a gap of ten years.

ed the approximate year Jesus was born during the final years Herod reigned, about the time of a census.

You are repeating age old nonsense.

At that time, in that culture, the common people did not record events by years, but by important events. Therefore, when Matthew and Luke recorded the time of Jesus' birth they gave the events people of their time would remember.

The author of Matthew writes:

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea

According to that text the author is referring to when Herod the Great was alive and controlled Judaea. There were no further kings in the region until Agrippa I in 41 CE.

Following Herod the Great's death his territories were divided up and his son Herod Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee (where Bethlehem is located) and Perea. A tetrarch is not a king.

Given this information (which you can research and study on your own), why is it so vital to you that Matthew and Luke didn't come up with the same precise date?

For those who believe in an inerrant Bible both narratives cannot be right.

Of course we actually have no idea when the human being Jesus of Nazareth was actually born. It was probably sometime around 5-4 BCE.

 

[ding]

What gave Christianity its impetus was being granted toleration.

No. That's not why they worshipped Jesus as God. They worshipped Jesus as God because of what he said and did.

 

[ding]

What never happened?

God never ordered a genocide. That was Jewish embellishment to show that God was on their side. You're an atheist so even you don't believe God gave anyone an order to commit genocide, so therefore you must believe that that was Jewish embellishment to show that God was on their side.

 

[Meriweather]

Why so shy?

It has nothing to do with shyness, only a teacher's knowledge/experience that students learn best by their own discoveries, not receiving information passively. You have said you want to learn (discover) the truth. So, go discover! Note that everything I have presented for your passive reading has been overlooked by you. I am telling you--have told you--the discoveries I have presented through my own studies and research are out there. Go discover them for yourself if it is what interests you. My own assessment of you is it is not truth you seek, but a punching bag--and you have chosen Christianity. Why?