Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2012, 01:34 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Be that as it may, it was the apostle Paul who was the one who the one really kicked off belief in the resurrection, which was then carried to extremes by Matthew and copied by Luke and John.

Given that Paul was a pharisee (a sect that believed in resurrection, and a belief that had no basis whatsoever in historical Judaism, but came about only after 165 BCE due to this passage from Daniel 12:2, 'Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt,' a belief that was not shared by all Jews) Paul would have been intimately familiar with the Jewish scriptures, and it was he that scoured them looking for obscure references to force fit them into the reality of what happened to Jesus.

To quote Professor Geza Vermes from The Authentic Gospel of Jesus:

'Bearing in mind that the crucifixion of Jesus was perhaps the greatest difficulty which the early church had to overcome in proclaiming him as the Messiah promised to the Jews, the absence of detailed biblical proof concerning this essential doctrine is astonishing. Though allegedly Jesus several times foretold his future suffering and death, vaguely hinting that they were fulfilling Scripture, he never backed these predictions with actual excerpts from the Bible. Remarkably, when St Paul later declared that Christ ‘died in accordance with the scriptures’ (1 Corinthians 15:3), he did not give this as a message of the Lord, nor did he quote chapter and verse from the holy books to substantiate his claim.'

By the way, all this stuff is in my book. If I give it all away here, there will be nothing left to publish. Big Grin

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Diogenes of Mayberry's post
09-08-2012, 01:39 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
And, if I might take the liberty, I will quote from my own book, as I have a section that deals with Matthew's attempts to justify the crucifixion.

"Matthew was the first-century equivalent of today’s notoriously biased media, taking out of context a sound bite here and a sound bite there and totally blowing them out of proportion in a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

“Let me give an example. This very famous line from the Passion narratives of the crucifixion should sound very familiar, as Matthew ripped it off from Psalm 22:1: ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ This Psalm was not a prediction for the future suffering of Jesus—it was just strategically misappropriated for him by Matthew—but is in fact the tale of the suffering of a righteous man who ultimately has the last laugh when God dishes out some divine justice. Odd, I wonder why Matthew would have used that particular story?” Jeff pondered in mock thoughtfulness.

“Another major piece of pirated prophecy came from Isaiah 52-53, which speaks of God’s suffering servant, and most importantly for Christian doctrine, that he died for the sins of others. Please note from Isaiah 53:4-5, ‘Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.’ This passage related directly to a time of threat from the Babylonians, whom the Israelites were suffering under, just like the earlier passages in Isaiah and Micah referred to the Assyrians.

“You can bet Matthew knew exactly who and what all these passages referred to, and why they applied only to specific times and places in order for them to be relevant and understood correctly. They did not relate to the future suffering of the expected Messiah, but he twisted them around for his own propaganda anyway. These are just a few examples of how Matthew selectively chose a few conveniently worded passages—one that was mistakenly translated—and intentionally molded them into a prophetic fulfillment that changed everything for Christians. Now, far be it for me to suggest that such a fine and devout fellow would be so disingenuous as to deliberately and artificially assign these old prophecies to the inspirational founder of his cult in order to produce a reimagined version. Messiah Redux, buy your copy today! Sadly, this difference in messianic interpretation was the basis for a fundamental change in meaning among Christians, who basically got it all wrong.”

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Diogenes of Mayberry's post
09-08-2012, 01:11 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
09-08-2012, 06:10 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2012 06:41 PM by Superluminal.)
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(09-08-2012 01:11 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:

So lets look at the "Core Principals" and how they relate to the Bible:

Core principles

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[1]

"- Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives."

So here immediately, the Bible is shown to be weak, as it is essentially a narrative.

"-Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability."
We know the Bible is not original source material, because we can find large portions of it existing in other volumes from much earlier in history. Here again it's credibility is damaged. Additionally we KNOW
that it has been altered drastically from whatever "original" form the Bible may have had at one point. Altering the Bible's content was practically the main past-time for the early church.

"-The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened."
2000 years old anyone? Again, serious damage to the Bible's credibility. We know most of it was compiled hundreds of years after the supposed events of Jesus' time.

"-A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on."
Again, we know from other REAL evidence that much of the Bible, especially some of the more important parts like the gospels are forgeries or second hand relations of the accounts. A failure of credibility again.

"- If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased."
No independent sources confirm Jesus ever even existed outside of the Bible. There is only grasping at straws and intentional mistranslation to try and support that he even existed in any way. Again the Bible fails miserably.

"-The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations."

"-If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased."

LOL. Is it even possible to be more corrupt than the Bible in this area? Oh yeah, Jesus was real, trust us, and by the way join our Church and give us money, lots of it.

Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing about the Bible would create a situation where it would be allowed as "compelling evidence" in a debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Superluminal's post
10-08-2012, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2012 06:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Habermas assumes, and indeed the core of his argument, rests on the assumption, that the Paul in Acts, is the same Paul who wrote at least some of the Pauline literature, with his name on it. No one argues that within the Pauline literature there is a development seen, of various themes, (which of course begs the question of the "inspired" nature of the earlier material, vs the later material), but, there there is good reason to think that apart from the development question, there is also an "identity" question. Maybe they were were not actually the SAME dude. And of course, the entire enterprise of present day Christianity rests on the false assumptions of the "salvation" paradigm, "unique Messiahship", "fall from grace", "unique sonship", bla bla, bla,...all of which are individually easily refutable, historically, when placed in the the context of their known historical origins.

Then there is the problem about the assertion that Jeebus was the "firstborn from the dead", (which the resurrection is said to be). The Pauline writer actually created another contradiction with the "transfiguration" event, when the Apostles were said to have seen Moses and Elias with Jeebus, on the mountain. This establishes a "vision" event, or "sighting" of (dead) bodies, which does not serve them later, when they assert the physical resurrection. Does anyone actually think Moses and Elijah actually were there on the mountain with them ? So, whatever this "poetic" "seeing", is, it cannot possibly mean the same thing as actual visual sight.

There is also another small mistake, in Acts when it says Jeebus appeared to the "Twelve". What ? Wasn't Judas Iscariot dead by then ? Yet another lie, as the replacement for Judas won't be dealt with until later.

And finally, while the assertion is made that Jeebus was actually physically raised from the dead, that is not what Paul actually says. He creates a new "unknown" category of bodies, ("spiritual bodies"), Jesus is “the first-fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20). “Since death came by man, by man also is the resurrection of the dead. As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). “With what sort of body will they come?” (1 Corinthians 15:35). “It is sown a physical body, but raised a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44). Even if the physical body has been cremated, the spiritual body will “be like his glorious body, according to the power which enables him to subject all things to himself” (Philippians 3:21). Thus, it is clearly evident, that Paul is saying whatever it is, it is NOT a physical body, in the same sense that that is understood, in his use of the term "physical".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2012, 10:21 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Just a though on the validity of the bible and the side issue of additiional sources to it.

It would seem to me that an interesting example, of something believed to be fictional, wrong or poetical is the Illiad and Plato's writtings on Atlantis.

The trogan wars have been considered mythical fiction for centuries, that of late has changed and whilst it isnt proven, archeologists and historians have given the historical basis of Troy and the Trogan war a lot more creedance, some going as far as asserting that the ruins Schlemann (Approxmate spelling) discovered are Troy.

On the issue of Atlantis, the island of Santorini, there is also a lot of similarities between the island and the description given by Plato in paticular plato's account is written centuries after the event. The island of santorini prior to the eruption, had city on an island in a lake within the a crater. This matches Plato's description, of Atlantis.

The eruption of Santarini, had a catastrophic effect on the minoan civilisation, has been sited as a possable source of of the pillar of smoke by day, fire by night of the Genesis account. From what I understand the dates are approximate, the desciption in Genesis is accrurate to what the eruption would have looked like at that distance. This would be an indepentantly verifiable historical event, mentioned in the bible. Admittedly, Im no expert on the santarini event my knowledge stems from 4 or 5 documenteries Ive seen on the subject.

Anyway, my point, Atlantis and Troy have been the primary examples of the fanciful for centuries and yet more so with troy than atalantis now we're having to and academics are having to reexamine these issue.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: