Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:01 pm

True points, Tom.

Along that line of thinking, perhaps the most compelling argument for Jesus being the Christ (from a logical point of view) is the fact that the man JESUS followed a PRECISE lineage that the coming Christ was prophecied to be coming through.

Pretty neat the way Jesus pulled that little trick off, eh...?

What a kooky guy.

---------------------------

"To begin, we need to go way back to Genesis 3:15. Here we have the first messianic prophecy. In all of Scripture, only one Man was "born of the seed of a woman"--all others are born of the seed of a man. Here is one who will come into the world and undo the works of Satan ("bruise his head").

"In Genesis 9 and 10 God narrowed the "address" down further. Noah had three sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham. Today all of the nations of the world can be traced back to these three men. But in this statement, God effectively eliminated two-thirds of them from the line of Messiahship. The Messiah will come through the lineage of Shem.

"Then, continuing on down to the year 2000 B.C., we find God calling a man named Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees. With Abraham, God became still more specific, stating that the Messiah will be one of his descendants (Genesis 12;17;22). All the families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham. When Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, many of Abraham's descendants were eliminated when God selected his second son, Isaac(Genesis 17; 21).

"Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau, and then God chose the line of Jacob (Genesis 28; 35:10-12; Numbers 24:17). Jacob had twelve sons, out of whom developed the twelve tribes of Israel. Then God singled out the tribe of Judah for Messiahship and eliminated 11/12ths of the Israelite tribes. And of all the family lines within Judah's tribe, the line of Jesse was the divine choice (Isaiah 11:1-5). One can see the probability building.

"Jesse had eight children and in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and Jeremiah 23:5 God eliminated 7/8ths of Jesse's family line: we read that God's Man will not only be of the seed of a woman, the lineage of Shem, the race of the Jews, the line of Isaac, the line of Jacob, the tribe of Judah, but that he will also be of the house of David…" "…Isaiah 7:14 adds that he will be born of a virgin: a natural birth of unnatural conception, a criterion beyond human planning and control…" (ibid. pp. 104, 105.)

Josh McDowell, More than a Carpenter

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:07 pm

For me the "confluence of events" is just far too coincidental to be coincidence.

I believe Jesus was exactly what He spake Himself to be.

Dig the old school "spake".

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:17 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:The Sanheddrin, didn't crucify people.
No, stoning was their method of capital punishment. Crucifiction was a Roman punishment reserved for rebellion or treason against the Roman state.

It also more than likely that Pilate's role was soft-pedalled as one of the modifications to the story to make Christianity more palatable to the Roman audience.

He was trying to appease a restless "colony". He gave them a choice, Barabas or Jesus. The crowd chose Jesus.

Psalm 22 vs 12-18

12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Written 1000 years BEFORE the event took place. Those Roman soldiers gambling for Christ's clothes must have been well educated in the Torah.

Like I said, just a bit too coincidental to be coincidence.

Apparently, it pre-dates crucifixtion as well.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:24 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Written 1000 years BEFORE the event took place. Those Roman soldiers gambling for Christ's clothes must have been well educated in the Torah.
I doubt it. The persons writing the Gospels certainly were, though.

Point.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:28 pm

mvscal wrote: Why would a soldier "cast lots" on a beggar's rags? Sorry, but it is nothing but straight up bullshit.

Even rags are worth something. Besides, they had to gamble for something; soldiers have never gambled "just for fun", ever.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:32 pm

mvscal wrote:
Cuda wrote:
mvscal wrote: Why would a soldier "cast lots" on a beggar's rags? Sorry, but it is nothing but straight up bullshit.
Even rags are worth something. Besides, they had to gamble for something; soldiers have never gambled "just for fun", ever.
Just save it. The story is laughable.

Your point is made and understood. The problem is you might be right, but you might be wrong as well. Just because something is "laughable" doesn't mean it didn't occur.

I think your point was better made with this statement

"I doubt it. The persons writing the Gospels certainly were, though. "

Basing that statement on your presumption that Roman soldiers would "never" do something, detracts from it.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:39 pm

mvscal, you imply bad-faith on the part of the gospel writers, but they all went on willingly to deaths just about as brutal as Jesus' was. People just don't do that for a scam- especially a scam of their own making.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:43 pm

...but they all went on willingly to deaths just about as brutal as Jesus' was. People just don't do that for a scam- especially a scam of their own making.

Sin,

Jonestown
Heaven's Gate
The Branch Davidians
Islamist Jihadists

etc.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:54 pm

None of those apply here, Fester

Jonestown: Jim Jones & fliends committed suicide

Heaven's Gate: Suicide

Branch Davidians: Deaths were Brutal & Gruesome, but not willing

Islamist jackoffhadists: Suicides

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:56 pm

Cuda wrote:mvscal, you imply bad-faith on the part of the gospel writers, but they all went on willingly to deaths just about as brutal as Jesus' was. People just don't do that for a scam- especially a scam of their own making.

Well actually Cude's considering Jesus was who He said He was, God made flesh, His death WAS by design of His own making. The sacrifice of animals and humans by humans was not good enough to redeem mankind of original sin, Jesus, untouched by original sin, had to be sacrificed BY GOD, as His offer of redemption to mankind. Only THROUGH that sacrifice are we all saved.

At least, that's how I think it goes.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:07 pm

For Tom- no explanation is necessary

For mvscal- no explanation is possible

Pancho Pillow · Post by **Pancho Pillow** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:16 pm

From "The Historical Jesus - The Beginning of Luke's Gospel":

Four hundred years before Jesus, a Greek scholar named Thucydides wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. His methods of investigating historical fact came closer to modern methods than for many centuries afterwards. Concern with history as "what really happened" was stronger in Greek and Roman minds than in most.

Luke's stories imitate the style of Greek historians. His words reveal that he is a second- or third-generation Christian who is attempting to improve upon existing tradition.

We shouldn't be misled by the Gospel author's claim to have "carefully studied all these matters from their beginning". Though he isn't quite as firmly wedded to a non-historical outlook on the past as were his fellow Hebrew Christians, his almost overwhelming concern is with "the full truth about everything which you have been taught" in the sense of the truth about how God acts in the world. So his information about Jesus' age may or may not be accurate. To judge that requires that it matches his probable year of birth, for example.

What does Luke's theological priority mean for us 21st century readers of his Gospel? In summary, the following distinctions apply to its first three chapters:

Many in Luke's time conceived of the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament) as repositories of truth. This conception operated in a way very strange to us. What we call "rational thought" was for them subordinate to truth from the past. We are aware of the strong possibility of perceptual error, indeed of self-deception, in our own evaluations of the world around us. So we seek to find "the truth" through an analytical process and by making multiple checks on "the facts". Even then, our conclusions tend to be held provisionally. For Luke and others, rational thought focused on analysing the truth as revealed by God in his past actions. The "historian" or wise man was able to confirm from the past that something now must be true. Reason was subordinate to what was revealed by past authorities, who had after all recorded God's actions. Thus the prophet Isaiah, for example, had to be believed because God had spoken directly to him. It must, therefore, have been Jesus to whom he was referring in Isaiah 53.7-9.

When ancient authorities predicted that something would happen, one looked to the present for confirmation that it had happened. We might wonder if a prediction had been fulfilled. Luke would have known that it had been fulfilled. It was therefore possible to first to observe data in the here-and-now and then examine the Old Testament with certainty, knowing that God through a sage or prophet would have predicted anything of fundamental importance. Thus, if Luke believed that Jesus was the Messiah, he would search the Old Testament knowing that he would find those predictions which fitted the facts about the life of Jesus as he knew them.

This enabled the Gospel authors to "invent" facts. Of course, that's not how they perceived it. Rather, it's how we perceive it from our analytical, scientific standpoint. In the first century, if one knew that Jesus was the Messiah then stories which had been applied to the Messiah and other great wonder-workers could be applied to him. This back-to-front way of reasoning seems incredible to us. But that's the closest we can today come to understanding the thought processes of the Gospel authors.

Great men sent by God from heaven to carry out his work here on earth were always given great powers. One only had to look back at the accounts of the Hebrew escape from Egypt, to Moses, to Elijah and to David to know that this is how things work. The Hebrews thought that their God was the only god with genuine power. But in the Roman and Greek cultures the same principle applied. If the gods didn't actually come to earth in disguise to do their work, then they endowed humans with supernatural powers to enable them to do great things. If Jesus was the Messiah, then it followed that he also would have supernatural powers and would be able to do things ordinary people can't. Luke's author and the other Gospel authors would have thought it unbelievable if Jesus had not carried out what we would today call miracles. But these acts were not important because they broke natural laws - that wasn't in any way the point. They mattered because they confirmed the God-sent nature of the person performing them.

Once one is able to recall these points constantly, Luke's Gospel takes on a different look altogether. It's not until the beginning of Chapter 3 that anything approaching history in a modern sense can be discerned.

Even then (as you can tell from the "bare bones" text here of the first five chapters) the author of Luke is mainly concerned with theological truths. "What really happened" has to be dug out through a sometimes uncomfortable process of eliminating the theology. As J P Meier remarks, "... Luke wishes to impress on his Graeco-Roman readers that the seemingly paltry events of Jesus' public ministry belong to the sweep and indeed the pivotal moment of history."

Meier adds: "Little or nothing can be said with certitude or high probability about the birth, infancy and early years of the vast majority of historical figures in the ancient Mediterranean world." This applies, of course, to Jesus - and perhaps more so because the Gospels are unsupported by any external sources. Nevertheless, some history of Jesus is possible.

A current, and quite conservative, consensus on the main details of the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel, goes something like this in summary:

The infancy narratives in both Matthew and Luke stand apart in every way from the rest of the two gospels. Once the narratives have been set down, they are not referred to in any way in what follows.

The authors of Matthew and Luke contradict each other in important details. The journeys and geographical details can't be harmonised. This doesn't make for good history, especially since we have so few sources external to the gospels.

The author of Luke gets a number of things wrong about Jewish religious practice. He's wrong about Mosaic Law requiring that Jesus be presented at the Temple, for example. This doesn't enhance the credibility of his account.

The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem is almost certainly not what really happened. Everywhere else he's known as coming from Nazareth, including Mark and John's gospels. Placing the birth in Bethlehem seems to be the authors' attempt to link up with Micah 5.2 and therefore with the illustrious king David. Referring to the Hebrew scriptures tended to give credibility to the early Christian communities.

The genealogy in Luke disagrees with that in Matthew. The genealogies have another purpose entirely. They are not intended to be historical records of birth and descent. The same applies to John the Baptist's genealogy. This is shorter that that of Jesus, presumably because John doesn't have the same status.

Both John and Jesus are given miraculous conceptions. That of John has extremely strong echoes of the conception of Isaac by Abraham and Sarah. These are tales typical of great people in the places and times in which the Gospels were written. Zechariah's doubt about the angel's message is typical of ancient birth stories.

Luke 2.1-7 gives the impression of an accurate dating of Jesus' birth day. There is no evidence that the Emperor Augustus held a census. But a registration for tax purposes was held in the year 6 when (as we know from elsewhere) Quirinius was Governor of Syria. Luke's dating is almost certainly inaccurate, however, because he later makes it clear that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod died in the year 4. Our conclusion must be that Jesus is more likely to have been born in the year 4, with the year 6 coming a close second in probability.

While it's highly probable that Jesus was circumcised according to Hebrew custom on the eighth day, the rest of Luke 2.21-40 isn't probable. Not only does the author make large errors about Jewish rituals. but it's clear that he's creating theology by paralleling the dedication of the baby Samuel (1 Samuel 1.24-2.11) with the baby Jesus.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:21 pm

"Fairy tale" ? mvscal ?

More like a self fullfilling prophecy. What it was, what it is, and what it shall be.

You can't refute the impact this man's life has had on civilization, history, and the foreseeable future. Whether you judge that impact as good, bad or indifferent ... it's there.

No attempts at destroying it will ever change that. I mean NONE.

It's bigger than the both of us.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:34 pm

Understood. So are you saying that this "mummery" actually detracts from the "Divinity" of Christ as opposed to lending creedence to it ?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:50 pm

poptart wrote:
1.
Jesus attended a wedding and they ran out of wine to drink. After His disciples filled six water pots with water Jesus caused the water to become very tasty wine.

* Easy enough to have arranged someone to bring it from elsewhere. Time alters many things.

2.
Jesus healed a boy who was about to die. * He was very good at teaching the outcast of society basic health care.

3.
Jesus healed a man with an unclean spirit. * And exactly how was it determined his spirit was dirty?

4.
Jesus healed Simon's mother-in-law from a fever. At the same home He also healed many who were sick of different diseases and cast out many devils. * See # 2 above, except for the devil thing. Even Mark David Chapman believed he was possessed, and some priest, the 12th who came by, supposedly "healed" him by casting the demons out. Does that make him Jesus, too?

5.
Jesus healed a man of leprosy. * Prove it. You can't. Some guy has a few sores, Jesus washes them, they heal. bam. No more leprosy.

6.
Jesus healed a paralytic who could not walk. Just another story that cannnot be proven. Was it hysterical paralysis? was it some temporary paralysis from a fall or injury, and Jesus again did the right things when it comes to basic health care.

7.
Jesus healed an impotent man. * I'd like to hear how he accomplished this one. was it hands on healing?

8.
Jesus cured many people of infirmities and plagues and of evil spirits. *So do many of TV preachers and southern scam artists, supposedly. Most of it is hysterical belief. Evil Spirits? come on!

9.
Jesus healed a man with a withered hand. *See # 2

10.
Jesus healed multitudes of people. * because they believed he could, the power of suggestion.

11.
Jesus healed a servant who was sick and tormented. * again with the evil spirits thing. was everyone possessed back then?

12.
Jesus healed a dead man who then sat up and began to speak. * Deep Coma. You can't heal death.

13.
Jesus healed one possessed with a devil, caused the blind to see and the mute to speak. * You really buy all those words written by his devoted followers, don't you?

14.
Jesus rebuked the winds and the sea that covered the boat and the sea became calm. * So he saw the storm coming to an end. Any sailor could predict that.

15.
Jesus cast the devils out of two exceedingly fierce men. These men were naked, wild and could not be held with chains. They were living in the cemetery. * again with the possessed thing. Too much already.

16.
Jesus healed a woman who had been bleeding for 12 years and the doctors could not cure her. She touched His clothing and was healed instantly. * he was good at health care.

17.
Jesus took a girl who died at the age of 12 and caused her to walk and to eat. * See #12

18.
Jesus healed two blind men and a mute man, and every sickness.
Bible Passage * Yea. The bible is REAL accurate. :roll:

19.
Jesus' disciples healed all manner of sickness and disease. * So they say.

20.
Jesus took two fish and 5 rolls of bread and fed 5000 men plus the women and children and had 12 baskets of food left over. See #1

21.
Jesus walked on the water during a bad storm. * If the storm was so bad, how did anyone see him?

22.
Jesus healed as many as touched Him or touched the border of his clothing. * Myth

23.
Jesus healed a girl grievously vexed with a devil. * see the many instances above. DEvil . Bah.

24.
Jesus caused multitudes of lame to walk, blind to see, mute to talk, and maimed to be made whole. Didn't you already say this one?

25.
Jesus healed a deaf man who had a speech impediment, tongue was loosed. * See # 10. Any televangelist worth his salt has done that. Power of suggestion.

26.
Jesus fed 4,000 men plus women and children with 7 pieces of bread and a few little fish, and 7 baskets full were left over. * I'd say being able to procure that much food from local resources was amazing, but if you believe that 7 pieces of bread turned into 7 baskets of bread, I have a few card tricks I'd like to show you.

27.
Jesus healed a blind man.
you're repeating yourself.

28.
Jesus healed lunatic who was foaming at the mouth and gnashing his teeth as he threw himself into the fire. * sounds like the WWF to me. SO what if he's able to get a few kooks to refocus?

29.
Jesus healed a man who was blind from his birth.
* See #27

30.
Jesus heals a woman who had a spirit of infirmity 18 years; she was bowed over and could not stand up. * why didn't The pope get healed when he visited Fatima, when over the decdes many people claimed they were?

31.
Jesus healed man of dropsy. * Maybe he should work with Terrell Owens.

32.
Jesus raised Lazarus who had been dead four days. * I don't believe he was dead. It was a coma.

33.
Jesus healed 10 men who were lepers. See #5

34.
Jesus healed blind Bartimeus.
* See #29

35.
Jesus touched and healed the soldier whose right ear had been cut off
with a sword. * Crap. HE grew an ear back? BS.

These things don't happen either.

You've got that right. All of this BS came out of the new testament, and 30 or more years passed between the event and the writing of the event. Embellishment and combining events would be the standard course of action in that case, especially since most of them were approaching of not over 60 years old. Not exactly a time when Memory of the distant past is sharp and vivid.

but you keep right on believing that crap. I Suppose you also buy into the Shroud of Turin being Jesus' burial shroud?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:52 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Understood. So are you saying that this "mummery" actually detracts from the "Divinity" of Christ as opposed to lending creedence to it ?
What "Divinity" of Christ? He was no more divine than you .....

We'll agree to disagree on that one.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:59 pm

mvscal wrote:
Cuda wrote:For mvscal- no explanation is possible
The explanation is quite simple really. It's a fairy tale.

This is where faith comes in. I know organized religions attempt to create specific doctrines as to what you are to believe (I'm catholic though I don't practice as much because of the issues with the church) however anytime you get sucked into believing something is absolute you've become snookered and to that I agree with you. The bible was written by men who claim inspiration from God but they were writing with the influences of their time. So I think it's foolish to complete believe everything you read in the bible but I think it's equally foolish to think the opposite. Something happened a long time ago and it's caused people to do all sorts of crazy things since.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I call it line item veto christianity.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:03 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Cuda wrote:mvscal, you imply bad-faith on the part of the gospel writers, but they all went on willingly to deaths just about as brutal as Jesus' was. People just don't do that for a scam- especially a scam of their own making.
Well actually Cude's considering Jesus was who He said He was, God made flesh, His death WAS by design of His own making. The sacrifice of animals and humans by humans was not good enough to redeem mankind of original sin, Jesus, untouched by original sin, had to be sacrificed BY GOD, as His offer of redemption to mankind. Only THROUGH that sacrifice are we all saved.

At least, that's how I think it goes.

Jesus died becauase he was a threat to the romans, especially at the time off passoer, when the city population swells with jewish pilgrims. Jesus had the ability to incite crowds, and he had a sufficient enough following that the local roman leaders saw to it he would be crushed to prevent an uprising, riot, or both. They knew: Cut off the head and the body withers away. It worked in the short term.

Jesus saw a wrong ( the treatment of the poor, the iron handed rule of Rome) and tried to right it. He got killed for it.

All of these singular events such as coming back to life and ascending to heaven are merely constructs of the faithful, who wanted to ensure that jesus would be looked upon as the Son of God.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:11 pm

mvscal wrote: He was made "divine" because Romans weren't about to worship a failed Judean revolutionary who got himself nailed to a cross without a damn good reason. Romans worshiped men as Gods, not Jews.

Rome didn't become Christian until a few hundred years later, Mr. History Major.

And how do you explain Christianity among the Arabs & Greeks- whose various Christian sects predate Christianity in Rome?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:14 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
Cuda wrote:mvscal, you imply bad-faith on the part of the gospel writers, but they all went on willingly to deaths just about as brutal as Jesus' was. People just don't do that for a scam- especially a scam of their own making.
Well actually Cude's considering Jesus was who He said He was, God made flesh, His death WAS by design of His own making. The sacrifice of animals and humans by humans was not good enough to redeem mankind of original sin, Jesus, untouched by original sin, had to be sacrificed BY GOD, as His offer of redemption to mankind. Only THROUGH that sacrifice are we all saved.

At least, that's how I think it goes.
Jesus died becauase he was a threat to the romans, especially at the time off passoer, when the city population swells with jewish pilgrims. Jesus had the ability to incite crowds, and he had a sufficient enough following that the local roman leaders saw to it he would be crushed to prevent an uprising, riot, or both. They knew: Cut off the head and the body withers away. It worked in the short term.

Jesus saw a wrong ( the treatment of the poor, the iron handed rule of Rome) and tried to right it. He got killed for it.

Actually, no, that's not correct. Number one, HE did not represent a threat to Rome. The Judean powers that be represented more of a threat, which is why Pilate appeased them with the choice between Barabas and Jesus. Jesus, was selected.

This notion of Jesus as being some Jewish version of Che Gueverra is not correct either.

Jesus was about the will of the father, doing it, and instructing us to do the same (Our Father). Compassion, for people in general, was at it's core.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:15 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:All of these singular events such as coming back to life and ascending to heaven are merely constructs of the faithful, who wanted to ensure that jesus would be looked upon as the Son of God.

How did the "faithful" manage to get this Jesus fella to be born through the PRECISE family line that the messiah needed to be born through....?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:20 pm

poptart wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:All of these singular events such as coming back to life and ascending to heaven are merely constructs of the faithful, who wanted to ensure that jesus would be looked upon as the Son of God.
How did the "faithful" manage to get this Jesus fella to be born through the PRECISE family line that the messiah needed to be born through....?

They read all the books.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:23 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
poptart wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:All of these singular events such as coming back to life and ascending to heaven are merely constructs of the faithful, who wanted to ensure that jesus would be looked upon as the Son of God.
How did the "faithful" manage to get this Jesus fella to be born through the PRECISE family line that the messiah needed to be born through....?
They read all the books.

WHAT....?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:24 pm

poptart wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:All of these singular events such as coming back to life and ascending to heaven are merely constructs of the faithful, who wanted to ensure that jesus would be looked upon as the Son of God.
How did the "faithful" manage to get this Jesus fella to be born through the PRECISE family line that the messiah needed to be born through....?

I'm sure there are plenty of historical sources you can access to back that up?

What? Just an oft interpreted tertiary source?

:roll:

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:29 pm

John's gospel was written by the original apostle, John in the latter part of the 1st century.

While not all of the apostles wrote gospels, they all did write contemporaneously. The Bible was comprised of only those sacred scriptures deemed by one of those early Vatican Councils to be essential to teaching the faith. Lots of sacred writings, including some written by the orignial apostles didn't make the final cut. It doesn't mean those writings weren't true or reliable, just non-essential.

And I'm not a Bible Thumper- I'm a sinner!

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:34 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
Jesus died becauase he was a threat to the romans, especially at the time off passoer, when the city population swells with jewish pilgrims. Jesus had the ability to incite crowds, and he had a sufficient enough following that the local roman leaders saw to it he would be crushed to prevent an uprising, riot, or both. They knew: Cut off the head and the body withers away. It worked in the short term.

Jesus saw a wrong ( the treatment of the poor, the iron handed rule of Rome) and tried to right it. He got killed for it.

Actually, no, that's not correct. Number one, HE did not represent a threat to Rome. The Judean powers that be represented more of a threat, which is why Pilate appeased them with the choice between Barabas and Jesus. Jesus, was selected.

I did not mean ROME, I said "Romans" More specifically, the local roman rulers. They knew any trouble that might get back to Rome could result in them losing their cushy positions as local leaders, they knew of Jesus, he cleared the temple in a rage, he made it very clear how he felt about oppression and how the poor were treated, and he marched into Jerusalem as a leader. He would have been a natural to lead an uprising against the Romans on a week when they were far outnumbered. No way they could have that happen. The facts surrounding the barrabas thing are unclear. It was not the typical roman thing to do.

This notion of Jesus as being some Jewish version of Che Gueverra is not correct either.

Jesus was about the will of the father, doing it, and instructing us to do the same (Our Father). Compassion, for people in general, was at it's core.

Never said he was a politician or a murderer. He was indeed quite remarkable and unique. A man of high morals with a great intelligence who cared for the poor and the sick, but his rise to power failed because he allowed himself to be martyred.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:36 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Number one, HE did not represent a threat to Rome. The Judean powers that be represented more of a threat, which is why Pilate appeased them with the choice between Barabas and Jesus. Jesus, was selected.
Of course he represented a threat. The only thing the Romans were interested in was order. They were actually a light touch as long you behaved yourself and didn't cause any trouble. Fuck around, though, and they would drop the hammer without the slightest bit of remorse.

Jesus was very clearly trouble. That's why he was crucified.

Nothing he said threatened Rome. In fact, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." and all that. The upholders of Judean Law at the time, had to cajole Pilate into thinking Jesus represented a threat. Ergo the choice. Pilate washing his hands of the situation and having the crowd to decide.

Jesus represented a threat to the power of the Sanheddrin, and he really didn't represent a threat to them, they felt Him blasphemous and that He undermined their control of the people.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:38 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:.... but his rise to power failed

When people are dedicating their lives to the name of Bushice and Tom In VA, thousands of years after we're dead, I'll make that claim. Until then ......

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:44 pm

Tom In VA wrote:[
Jesus represented a threat to the power of the Sanheddrin, and he really didn't represent a threat to them, they felt Him blasphemous and that He undermined their control of the people.

Yet it was the roman rulers they turned to who ultimately put him to death. The bottom line is just because the Sanheddrin turned him in does not make Jesus any less of a threat to the local roman rulers. I'm sure they pointed out to caiphus and pilate what the potential for uprising and riot Jesus represented, not because of what he did, but because a mob of fanatical religious followers is a mob to bedealt with no matter what. The high priests and governors lived very very well back then. Any disturbance in the order of things would have been dealt with swiftly in this way. They didn't want the gravy train to end re: word getting back to rome they were having problems controlling the locals.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:52 pm

BSmack wrote:What? Just an oft interpreted tertiary source?

If you think the lineage of Jesus was "made up" after the fact to coincide with the lineage of the prophecied Messiah then I really can't help you, Bri.

That's a VERY strange take.

Believe what you will.

Bottom line is that there is a multitude of evidence showing that Jesus is indeed the Christ. Ultimately, and as powerfully pursuasive as the evidence IS, it is "circumstancial" for those of us not among the 500 or so who saw and interacted with the risen Christ.

For this reason, belief in Jesus as the Christ does require a measure of faith.

But without faith it is impossible to please him (God).

Hebrews 11:6

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:52 pm

Are you tweeking, Babshice?

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:54 pm

Yep, I believe Jesus rose from the dead and was/is God the Son in that whole Trinitarian God thang.

At a science department meeting last year, our physcis/earth science teacher was flummoxed at the fact that the other two members of the department were regular churchgoers and religious. He came right out and said that it was inconsistant and illogical for "men of science" to even entertain the idea of God, Jesus' divinity, etc.

I and the other teacher responded in kind: "That's why it's called FAITH."

I have no problem separating my faith from my scientific views.

Of course, I got to turn his own argument back on him when he was going off on how there HAD to be life outside of Earth due to the mathematical odds ("If even one galaxy in a million...yadda yadda yadda...). I pointed out that every single hoper for E.T. who argues that line is pulling every single number out of their ass, is working without a shred of scientific evidence (or backing for their numbers) and is indulging in faith as much as us religious folks.

He didn't like that very much. :)

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:59 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:.... but his rise to power failed
When people are dedicating their lives to the name of Bushice and Tom In VA, thousands of years after we're dead, I'll make that claim. Until then ......

I meant his rise to power in the short term, and locally, not as a deity over the centuries. If he had not placed himself in such a vulnerable position, he would have lived longer, accomplished more, who knows?. Perhaps he underestimated the fear/jealously/anger he generated in the sanhedrin? we'll never know. It's clear that, as usual, one religious sect did in another.

But just to be sure, you can call me THE Bushice from now on. ;)

Lizard King · Post by **Lizard King** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:14 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Of course, I got to turn his own argument back on him when he was going off on how there HAD to be life outside of Earth due to the mathematical odds ("If even one galaxy in a million...yadda yadda yadda...). I pointed out that every single hoper for E.T. who argues that line is pulling every single number out of their ass, is working without a shred of scientific evidence (or backing for their numbers) and is indulging in faith as much as us religious folks.

At least he's seen life on one planet.

With many more to come.

Voice of Reason · Post by **Voice of Reason** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:39 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Of course, I got to turn his own argument back on him when he was going off on how there HAD to be life outside of Earth due to the mathematical odds ("If even one galaxy in a million...yadda yadda yadda...). I pointed out that every single hoper for E.T. who argues that line is pulling every single number out of their ass, is working without a shred of scientific evidence (or backing for their numbers) and is indulging in faith as much as us religious folks.

Well, that was a weak attempt at "turning his argument back on him", then and you failed miserably.

Like you said, he had an argument based on mathematical odds on the number of stars, galaxies and "yadda yadda yadda" to base his belief on.

So, when you start basing your religious faith using calculations of the mathematical odds of things occuring that break the laws of nature and physics as we know then you can have a point and piss on the faces of the science and logic fools out there.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:47 pm

Jesus attended a wedding and they ran out of wine to drink. After His disciples filled six water pots with water Jesus caused the water to become very tasty wine.

True, but when the groom said, "Can you make it something in a Merlot?" Jesus smote him over the head with one of the flower arrangements.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:52 pm

Voice of Reason wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Of course, I got to turn his own argument back on him when he was going off on how there HAD to be life outside of Earth due to the mathematical odds ("If even one galaxy in a million...yadda yadda yadda...). I pointed out that every single hoper for E.T. who argues that line is pulling every single number out of their ass, is working without a shred of scientific evidence (or backing for their numbers) and is indulging in faith as much as us religious folks.

Well, that was a weak attempt at "turning his argument back on him", then and you failed miserably.

Like you said, he had an argument based on mathematical odds on the number of stars, galaxies and "yadda yadda yadda" to base his belief on.

So, when you start basing your religious faith using calculations of the mathematical odds of things occuring that break the laws of nature and physics as we know then you can have a point and piss on the faces of the science and logic fools out there.

It depends. If the ET theorist was stating that there HAD to be ETs because of the mathematical odds, then Lab Rat is correct in raking him over the coals. If, on the other hand, said ET theorist was simply stating that he had come to an educated guess that life exists on other planets, then the Lab Rat is guilty of using his considerable forensic skills to eviscerate yet another hapless victim regardless of the facts. Having seen this in person, I feel sorry for whomever was on the recieving end of that blast in either case.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:56 pm

Uncle Fester wrote:
Jesus attended a wedding and they ran out of wine to drink. After His disciples filled six water pots with water Jesus caused the water to become very tasty wine.
True, but when the groom said, "Can you make it something in a Merlot?" Jesus smote him over the head with one of the flower arrangements.

Just goes to prove: Jesus hates fags. Groom would-a been ok with Cool-J if he'd have asked for some Hamms.

Voice of Reason · Post by **Voice of Reason** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:58 pm

Cuda wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
Jesus attended a wedding and they ran out of wine to drink. After His disciples filled six water pots with water Jesus caused the water to become very tasty wine.
True, but when the groom said, "Can you make it something in a Merlot?" Jesus smote him over the head with one of the flower arrangements.
Just goes to prove: Jesus hates fags. Groom would-a been ok with Cool-J if he'd have asked for some Hamms.

Actually, its already been proven that Jesus loves fags.

In fact, Jesus once sucked a cock to completion and then spit out whisky

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:00 pm

You'll smoke a turd in hell for all eternity fort that, VOR