This week's discussion in my christian vision class
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 03:09 PM
This week's discussion in my christian vision class
So I am in week 4 of Christian spirituality vision class at a religious university. I enjoy taking these to keep me sharp, and abreast of the newest dogma and propaganda shoveled onto the faithful.

This week's topic was Christology....who was jesus. below was my post, with references. Good times Drooling

Christology - “who do you say that I am?”

An interesting question to be sure. Since, as I’ve pointed out before, no author within the Bible who writes about Jesus actually met the earthly Jesus. Paul, had a vision where he heard a voice from a light while traveling to Damascus, this does not constitute reality or meeting Jesus.

Matthew 15:30 - and great multitudes came unto him, having with him those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them (Mueller 112).

I find it intriguing that no literate person who existed at the time of the event, such amazing miracles that pulled multitudes of people from all over, ever bothered to write down and record such amazing feats. Now, the stories written down 50 - 250 years later, based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of the 25th hand story, of the alleged teachings and miracles of Jesus are what constitutes the pseudepigrapha of the New Testament.

I know, the faithful will point to what the traditional church has long portrayed as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John. Even though Mark appears after Matthew, the gospel of Mark was written at least a generation before Matthew. The author of Mark had clearly never served as his personal follower. Then there are the three synoptic Gospels, Mark served as the common source for Matthew and Luke. The earliest manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20. These are what is called interpolations, later additions by an unknown author. So the gospel of Mark ended without anyone seeing the resurrected Jesus or any of the cool stuff about snake handling, drinking poison or nonbelievers. (Wells 1286)

The author of Matthew simply improved the grammar of Mark’s gospel, modified what he felt was theologically important, and exaggerated the miracles and magic.The author of Luke freely admits to be an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). The unknown authors of John disagree with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke and wrote in fluent Greek.

Let’s fast-forward to the alleged execution and resurrection. First, no contemporary Roman record shows Pontius Pilate executing Jesus. Just before he died, “and it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour (Luke 23:44). Yet again, nowhere in the world amongst all the civilizations, from the Egyptians to the Chinese, or even there in the local area at the time of this grand global event, did a single Royal scribe, historian, or literate person record that the entire earth went dark from 6 to 9 PM. A thinking person must surmise this is yet again, another allegory.

How is it possible to affirm that Jesus is somehow God while avoiding undesirable conclusion that there are two gods? (Mueller 121) Well let’s look at Psalms 82.1 “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods (Bible KJV). Seems there are more than one.

According to scholars, Jesus himself never claimed to be the Messiah; he was only given that role by the church after his resurrection. As I pointed out before, the non-Christian authors who write about Jesus, as Jesus Christ, for example Tacitus (born 55 CE), Suetonius (born 69 CE) and historian Josephus (born 37 CE) (Albl 309) were all born after his death, and based their stories on hearsay, thus not a credible source.

The theological theory that the father and the son were equal (Trinity concept) was established at the Nicene Council of 325 CE.

“Who do you say I am”; well upon careful contemplation and consideration of all evidence available, a thinking person would surmise a charismatic, self-prophesizing, man named Jesus, however, it is highly doubtful based on empirical evidence, that he was a miracle performing, son of God who was resurrected and flew into the sky.

Works cited

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.



Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.



The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.



The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. SAB Books, LLC, 2013. Print.

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

Thoughts or comments from TTA?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
23-03-2014, 08:42 PM
RE: This week's discussion in my christian vision class
(23-03-2014 03:09 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  So I am in week 4 of Christian spirituality vision class at a religious university. I enjoy taking these to keep me sharp, and abreast of the newest dogma and propaganda shoveled onto the faithful.

This week's topic was Christology....who was jesus. below was my post, with references. Good times Drooling

Christology - “who do you say that I am?”

An interesting question to be sure. Since, as I’ve pointed out before, no author within the Bible who writes about Jesus actually met the earthly Jesus. Paul, had a vision where he heard a voice from a light while traveling to Damascus, this does not constitute reality or meeting Jesus.

Matthew 15:30 - and great multitudes came unto him, having with him those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them (Mueller 112).

I find it intriguing that no literate person who existed at the time of the event, such amazing miracles that pulled multitudes of people from all over, ever bothered to write down and record such amazing feats. Now, the stories written down 50 - 250 years later, based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of the 25th hand story, of the alleged teachings and miracles of Jesus are what constitutes the pseudepigrapha of the New Testament.

I know, the faithful will point to what the traditional church has long portrayed as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John. Even though Mark appears after Matthew, the gospel of Mark was written at least a generation before Matthew. The author of Mark had clearly never served as his personal follower. Then there are the three synoptic Gospels, Mark served as the common source for Matthew and Luke. The earliest manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20. These are what is called interpolations, later additions by an unknown author. So the gospel of Mark ended without anyone seeing the resurrected Jesus or any of the cool stuff about snake handling, drinking poison or nonbelievers. (Wells 1286)

The author of Matthew simply improved the grammar of Mark’s gospel, modified what he felt was theologically important, and exaggerated the miracles and magic.The author of Luke freely admits to be an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). The unknown authors of John disagree with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke and wrote in fluent Greek.

Let’s fast-forward to the alleged execution and resurrection. First, no contemporary Roman record shows Pontius Pilate executing Jesus. Just before he died, “and it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour (Luke 23:44). Yet again, nowhere in the world amongst all the civilizations, from the Egyptians to the Chinese, or even there in the local area at the time of this grand global event, did a single Royal scribe, historian, or literate person record that the entire earth went dark from 6 to 9 PM. A thinking person must surmise this is yet again, another allegory.

How is it possible to affirm that Jesus is somehow God while avoiding undesirable conclusion that there are two gods? (Mueller 121) Well let’s look at Psalms 82.1 “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods (Bible KJV). Seems there are more than one.

According to scholars, Jesus himself never claimed to be the Messiah; he was only given that role by the church after his resurrection. As I pointed out before, the non-Christian authors who write about Jesus, as Jesus Christ, for example Tacitus (born 55 CE), Suetonius (born 69 CE) and historian Josephus (born 37 CE) (Albl 309) were all born after his death, and based their stories on hearsay, thus not a credible source.

The theological theory that the father and the son were equal (Trinity concept) was established at the Nicene Council of 325 CE.

“Who do you say I am”; well upon careful contemplation and consideration of all evidence available, a thinking person would surmise a charismatic, self-prophesizing, man named Jesus, however, it is highly doubtful based on empirical evidence, that he was a miracle performing, son of God who was resurrected and flew into the sky.

Works cited

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.



Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.



The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.



The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. SAB Books, LLC, 2013. Print.

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

Thoughts or comments from TTA?

Well written. Agreed.

One little correction. The account in Acts of Paul’s abrupt, theatrical conversion to belief in Jesus on the road to Damascus is very familiar to most Christians. It’s a fabrication. Paul was a man eager to be believed and desperate to shore up his own credibility. If he’d experienced a visit from Jesus’ ghost on the road to Damascus and been temporarily blinded, he undoubtedly would have mentioned it in his letters, and he doesn’t. I think the author of Acts was trying to make his readers believe that Paul had received his commission - and therefore his legitimacy - directly from Jesus (via Jesus’ ghost,) despite the fact that Jesus had died many years earlier.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 08:54 PM
RE: This week's discussion in my christian vision class
Is the account of Paul's "vision" or to be more accurate "blinding" of jesus only recorded in one place in Acts? You would think he would mention it somewhere else, if his life was so changed by it.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: This week's discussion in my christian vision class
(23-03-2014 08:54 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Is the account of Paul's "vision" or to be more accurate "blinding" of jesus only recorded in one place in Acts? You would think he would mention it somewhere else, if his life was so changed by it.

Yes...only in Acts. The author of Acts also fabricated the cordial relationship between Paul and the disciples. I carry on a bit about this because Jeebus and his disciples were Jews, not Christians, which means the foundation of Christianity is a lie.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2014, 04:06 AM
RE: This week's discussion in my christian vision class
I disagree with your point that Matthew was written after Mark. The structure inherent in Matthew suggests that he wrote it himself and therefore mark would have instead copied Matthew. Matthew clearly wrote is gospel as a way of bringing out the hexateuch and thus showing how Jesus fulfilled the old law.

Also I would like to point out that John only has about 1000 words in his vocabulary.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2014, 06:06 AM
RE: This week's discussion in my christian vision class
This reminds me of one of my old flatmates. She did a bachelors in religious studies. She then went on to do a masters in the same subject. She absolutely hated religion and spent all her years studying to find ways to argue against it. She actually achieved really good grades (a first for her bachelors). All the other students didn't do so well because the sole evidence they would present would be a Bible passage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2014, 06:13 PM
RE: This week's discussion in my christian vision class
(24-03-2014 04:06 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I disagree with your point that Matthew was written after Mark. The structure inherent in Matthew suggests that he wrote it himself and therefore mark would have instead copied Matthew. Matthew clearly wrote is gospel as a way of bringing out the hexateuch and thus showing how Jesus fulfilled the old law.

Also I would like to point out that John only has about 1000 words in his vocabulary.

good point, I have read it viewed from both directions. Some scholars posit it as I posted, some quite the opposite.

The majority view of modern scholars is that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.

"The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew


"The Gospel According to Mark, the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

please excuse the wiki links as a reference, I know how people view wiki as a reference, but it is easy to cross validate. It was the first pop on the internet for authorship of matthew and mark, and was a easy reference at this time, I had duty yesterday and zero sleep so I am about fried. I am too tired to pull out my books that I used initially to give you a solid reference, but trust me when I say I didnt pull it out of the thin air Smile

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
25-03-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: This week's discussion in my christian vision class
(24-03-2014 06:06 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  This reminds me of one of my old flatmates. She did a bachelors in religious studies. She then went on to do a masters in the same subject. She absolutely hated religion and spent all her years studying to find ways to argue against it. She actually achieved really good grades (a first for her bachelors). All the other students didn't do so well because the sole evidence they would present would be a Bible passage.

exactly, the more I learn, the better I can articulate why it is BS.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2014, 08:44 PM
RE: This week's discussion in my christian vision class
(25-03-2014 06:13 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 04:06 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I disagree with your point that Matthew was written after Mark. The structure inherent in Matthew suggests that he wrote it himself and therefore mark would have instead copied Matthew. Matthew clearly wrote is gospel as a way of bringing out the hexateuch and thus showing how Jesus fulfilled the old law.

Also I would like to point out that John only has about 1000 words in his vocabulary.

good point, I have read it viewed from both directions. Some scholars posit it as I posted, some quite the opposite.

The majority view of modern scholars is that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.

"The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew


"The Gospel According to Mark, the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

please excuse the wiki links as a reference, I know how people view wiki as a reference, but it is easy to cross validate. It was the first pop on the internet for authorship of matthew and mark, and was a easy reference at this time, I had duty yesterday and zero sleep so I am about fried. I am too tired to pull out my books that I used initially to give you a solid reference, but trust me when I say I didnt pull it out of the thin air Smile

RE wiki's "and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle"

They're guessing. The gospel wasn't called "Matthew" until the 180's CE.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: