Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[Chuz Life]

really - how about the simple truth concerning the bible belt, desert religions ...

View attachment 1269997

who's not letting people believe what they want to believe ... how is being agnostic an excuse not to be involved dealing with religious tyranny.

Dafuq?

Believing in "the resurrection" =/= automatic tyranny.

You are connecting and equating things that are not axiomatic.

 

[Hypatia415]

Your points are meaningless. You aren't addressing the 800lb elephant in the room. If the NT portrays the divinity of Christ as an historical event

The NT is an anthology that comprises the four canonical gospels, epistles and one apocalyptic piece of literature.

- and it's not correct - how do you explain when, how and why people began worshipping Jesus as God?

The gospels were all written post 70 CE by men who never knew either Jesus of Nazareth or those men and women who followed him. And if Jesus was divine why did he not declare as much in Mark 10:18?

You are relying on much later texts that are retrojecting more developed ideas back to the twenties and thirties CE.

And if he was God why did he have to become filled with wisdom as Luke writes in 2:40? Does an omniscient deity need to learn? Nor is the Son of Man equal with God.

The man was a charismatic Jew and as I have written he was not the only charismatic Jew who was believed to be capable of performing miracles. As I have also previously written a belief in magic underpinned Jewish and gentile society in the ancient world. So for such a person the believed ability to perform magic and exorcisms would be expected. Elisha and Elijah could, according to the Hebrew texts, also perform miracles and raise the dead but no one believed either was God.

And then, how do you explain the NT being written that way?

As I wrote above the NT is an anthology.

And those works that are contained in it were included based on the much later (by several centuries) decisions of ecclesiastics. We also know that Siniaticus contained texts that were later removed from that canon.

 

[Hypatia415]

Says the atheist that can't explain when, how and why Jesus was first worshipped as God or explain why the NT portrays it as an historical event.

Again I remind you that the NT texts are an anthology.

If the gospels are what you claim why are there so many contradictions to be found in them?

Why do the Synoptic narratives for Jesus' baptism differ? Did the voice speak to the crowd or John (Matthew)? Did it speak directly to Jesus (Mark)? Did it say "today I have begotten you" (Luke)?

Why have we got three endings for Mark?

Why have we got an additional chapter in John after the narrative at 20:30?

Who actually went to the tomb and what was there? Had the stone already been removed? Or did an earthquake occur and an angel then roll back the stone? One young man or two young men/angels? And where precisely were they? Only one sitting on the stone? One sitting inside the tomb? Two sitting inside the tomb? Or one standing next to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb?

When was Jesus born? Or are you going to allege that Luke and Matthew were both present during their two contradictory narratives?

 

[ding]

The NT is an anthology that comprises the four canonical gospels, epistles and one apocalyptic piece of literature.

The gospels were all written post 70 CE by men who never knew either Jesus of Nazareth or those men and women who followed him. And if Jesus was divine why did he not declare as much in Mark 10:18?

You are relying on much later texts that are retrojecting more developed ideas back to the twenties and thirties CE.

And if he was God why did he have to become filled with wisdom as Luke writes in 2:40? Does an omniscient deity need to learn? Nor is the Son of Man equal with God.

The man was a charismatic Jew and as I have written he was not the only charismatic Jew who was believed to be capable of performing miracles. As I have also previously written a belief in magic underpinned Jewish and gentile society in the ancient world. So for such a person the believed ability to perform magic and exorcisms would be expected. Elisha and Elijah could, according to the Hebrew texts, also perform miracles and raise the dead but no one believed either was God.


As I wrote above the NT is an anthology.

And those works that are contained in it were included based on the much later (by several centuries) decisions of ecclesiastics. We also know that Siniaticus contained texts that were later removed from that canon.

Why are you changing the questions?

 

[ding]

Again I remind you that the NT texts are an anthology.

If the gospels are what you claim why are there so many contradictions to be found in them?

Why do the Synoptic narratives for Jesus' baptism differ? Did the voice speak to the crowd or John (Matthew)? Did it speak directly to Jesus (Mark)? Did it say "today I have begotten you" (Luke)?

Why have we got three endings for Mark?

Why have we got an additional chapter in John after the narrative at 20:30?

Who actually went to the tomb and what was there? Had the stone already been removed? Or did an earthquake occur and an angel then roll back the stone? One young man or two young men/angels? And where precisely were they? Only one sitting on the stone? One sitting inside the tomb? Two sitting inside the tomb? Or one standing next to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb?

When was Jesus born? Or are you going to allege that Luke and Matthew were both present during their two contradictory narratives?

Irrelevant to the questions I asked.

 

[Meriweather]

Again I remind you that the NT texts are an anthology.

If the gospels are what you claim why are there so many contradictions to be found in them?

Why do the Synoptic narratives for Jesus' baptism differ? Did the voice speak to the crowd or John (Matthew)? Did it speak directly to Jesus (Mark)? Did it say "today I have begotten you" (Luke)?

Why have we got three endings for Mark?

Why have we got an additional chapter in John after the narrative at 20:30?

Who actually went to the tomb and what was there? Had the stone already been removed? Or did an earthquake occur and an angel then roll back the stone? One young man or two young men/angels? And where precisely were they? Only one sitting on the stone? One sitting inside the tomb? Two sitting inside the tomb? Or one standing next to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb?

When was Jesus born? Or are you going to allege that Luke and Matthew were both present during their two contradictory narratives?

Have you read Sir Lionel Luckhoo's conclusions regarding any differences in the accounts? The three endings to Mark's Gospel have and the various reasoning for them has also been discussed and are readily available with a minimum amount of study/research.

Have you investigated why people from the Resurrection onward become Christian and continue to practice Christianity? Before the word "Christian" developed, were known as people of The Way. We follow The Way of Christ, his teachings, the Beatitudes, his parables, his life.

Have you read the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson held no belief in miracles, including the Resurrection, and his Bible makes no mention of them. It focuses on what Jesus taught. This is the core of Christianity, and what practicing Christians strive to live by. In addition, the great majority of Christians have no issues with miracles. While I believe in miracles--Jesus walking on water, changing water into wine, raising people from the dead, etc.--these have nothing to do and no impact on my practice of The Way (Christianity). The Beatitudes do. His teachings do. Christ's teachings have such an impact on how one lives life, the differences in Gospels are (like the miracles) superfluous.

I admire Thomas Jefferson, and it does not trouble me that he could not believe in miracles. Perhaps he had no miracles (or didn't notice any) in his own life. Miracles (small ones) have come into my life. Therefore, I'll never dismiss miracle accounts that occurred in the lives of others either now or in Biblical times.

 

[BreezeWood]

I worship God. I don't worship a book.

what desert dwellers worship are their bibles written to appease their insecurities using draconian and sadistic measures to control what otherwise is not within their purview of concern - as jesus who instead taught liberation theology, self determination as an example.

worshiping their madeup, unverified god is what enables the use of their bibles to persecute and victimize those they disparage being a congregational despotism they refer to as a religion.

 

[ding]

what desert dwellers worship are their bibles written to appease their insecurities using draconian and sadistic measures to control what otherwise is not within their purview of concern - as jesus who instead taught liberation theology, self determination as an example.

worshiping their madeup, unverified god is what enables the use of their bibles to persecute and victimize those they disparage being a congregational despotism they refer to as a religion.

Not me and God isn't made up. Christians aren't persecuting anyone. You are bearing false witness.

 

[Hafar1014]

Not me and God isn't made up. Christians aren't persecuting anyone. You are bearing false witness.

God is made up but that doesnt men the concept is not real. Its not Jesus thats for damn sure. A Jew as a god with a Mexican name. Are you kidding me.

 

[BreezeWood]

Have you investigated why people from the Resurrection onward become Christian and continue to practice Christianity?

why do you refer them as christians - a messiah your christ, whatever that may be, is not a singular god in the heavens of which jesus denied both during their detention - the only real distinction between judaism and 4th century christianity.

were that the intent of jesus to prove their viability by a resurrection their deliberation would require a time honored proof as a form of physical linkage perhaps a monolith where the resurrection occurred that does not exist otherwise the event remains at most a myth used as an excuse for their belief - meriweather.

 

[BreezeWood]

You are connecting and equating things that are not axiomatic.

really -

ask those who have been their victims throughout the ages ...

 

[Chuz Life]

really -

View attachment 1270147

ask those who have been their victims throughout the ages ...

Because all Christians are monolythically the same in every sense.

Right?

Does that apply to all Muslims as well?

Are they too, all the same?

 

[Hypatia415]

Have you read Sir Lionel Luckhoo's conclusions regarding any differences in the accounts?

Should I? He was a lawyer.

The three endings to Mark's Gospel have and the various reasoning for them has also been discussed and are readily available with a minimum amount of study/research.

Yes we know that sections were added later.

Have you investigated why people from the Resurrection onward become Christian and continue to practice Christianity?

That is a complex question but could briefly be explained by the fact that Christianity was open to all. Many other mystery religions were not. It also had an initial appeal to the lower classes and women because all were equal in the religion. The promise of an eternal life was also appealing, although it was not the only such belief in some post-mortem state.

Before the word "Christian" developed, were known as people of The Way. We follow The Way of Christ, his teachings, the Beatitudes, his parables, his life.

That is good. I always find Matthew 25: 31-46 especially pertinent.

Have you read the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson held no belief in miracles, including the Resurrection, and his Bible makes no mention of them. It focuses on what Jesus taught. This is the core of Christianity, and what practicing Christians strive to live by. In addition, the great majority of Christians have no issues with miracles. While I believe in miracles--Jesus walking on water, changing water into wine, raising people from the dead, etc.--these have nothing to do and no impact on my practice of The Way (Christianity). The Beatitudes do. His teachings do. Christ's teachings have such an impact on how one lives life, the differences in Gospels are (like the miracles) superfluous.

I am glad that those beliefs give you comfort.

I admire Thomas Jefferson, and it does not trouble me that he could not believe in miracles. Perhaps he had no miracles (or didn't notice any) in his own life. Miracles (small ones) have come into my life. Therefore, I'll never dismiss miracle accounts that occurred in the lives of others either now or in Biblical times.

The problem with miracles is how is one to be defined.

Would a medical missionary that used anti-biotics to treat septicaemia in an individual from a tribal group at a lower technological level than our own be considered a miracle worker when that group knew from its experience that such a a condition led to death?

 

[Hypatia415]

Irrelevant to the questions I asked.

On the contrary. You keep telling me that these gospels are historical records so please explain their contradictions.

 

[Hypatia415]

Why are you changing the questions?

You claim that from the outset Jesus was worshipped as God so why can you not address the questions I posed?

 

[BreezeWood]

Because all Christians are monolythically the same in every sense.

Right?

Does that apply to all Muslims as well?

Are they too, all the same?

that explains the fractures in all three desert religions - however would be true also those under the spells of their individual bibles are the same including as one that the preambles to each bible is the same also.

than the liberation theology, self determination taught during the 1st century as a difference.

 

[Chuz Life]

that explains the fractures in all three desert religions - however would be true also those under the spells of their individual bibles are the same including as one that the preambles to each bible is the same also.

than the liberation theology, self determination taught during the 1st century as a difference.

Well.

Those were some words, alright.

 

[Chuz Life]

You claim that from the outset Jesus was worshipped as God so why can you not address the questions I posed?

WTF? Really?

I'm not practicing any religion at all, but even I can remember the stories.

Did three "wise men" show up unannounced at YOUR birth?

No?

Mine, neither.

I guess neither of us was worshiped at such an early age.

 

[Hypatia415]

WTF? Really?

I'm not practicing any religion at all, but even I can remember the stories.

You certainly employed the right word - stories.

Did three "wise men" show up unannounced at YOUR birth?

Matthew does not mention how many Magi there were but if his narrative is correct, then Luke's is wrong and of course vice versa.

 

[Chuz Life]

You certainly employed the right word - stories.

Matthew does not mention how many Magi there were but if his narrative is correct, then Luke's is wrong and of course vice versa.

Perhaps you should consider where the word "HiSTORY" gets its meaning.

The story is that he ("Jesus") was "worshipped" from birth.

That is the part you denied.

I'm not chasing you down the rabbit hole for any of the rest that you are now trying to drag into it.