"Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2015, 05:23 AM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 05:27 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: "Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
(07-10-2015 09:16 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  When their "prophet" was unceremoniously nailed to a piece of wood without making any of the alleged prophesies happen, it kind of made a huge problem with the whole son of god thing.

Well Jesus did manage to ride two asses into Jerusalem. I've been thinking about how ridiculous this particular part of Matthew is, it gives me a chuckle to see the comedic image of Jesus straddling two asses as he rode into Jerusalem.

This particular passage in Matthew is literally revealing the myth-making in process at that moment. Whoever wrote Matthew didn't even know how to interpret the Old Testament passage it was derived from, but that didn't stop him from pounding a square peg into a round hole. Laugh out load

It's so absurd, the atheism 101 podcast based their representative pic off of it:

[Image: new-donkey-icon-for-itunes.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 05:57 AM by RobbyPants.)
RE: "Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
[Image: stock-vector-hand-of-god-smiting-mortals...717589.jpg]
(07-10-2015 11:22 AM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  I hereby offer this post as a sacrifice to the gods of reason and the gods of fury. That the former would bring enlightenment, and if not, that the latter would redirect the unrelententing anger toward this post instead. Martyr me if you must. Failing both, surely the gods of amusement will at least be appeased.

Amen.

It is finished.



But yeah, I'm not seeing any real issue given that the OP clarified what he meant no less than three times. I'd rather he do that than ninja-edit his first post to "fix" the confusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 07:51 AM
RE: "Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
(08-10-2015 12:27 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 11:22 AM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  I am not sure if it is a misunderstanding of the OP's intent or what, but I do not understand the adversarial approach being taken here.

How long have you known Bucky? Tongue

Just long enough, I think.

I just wanted to let you know that I love you even though you aren't naked right now. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 04:21 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2017 06:09 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: "Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
(06-10-2015 01:59 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus “appeared”. He makes no distinction, but in fact, equates the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to the others. The Greek verb Paul uses for all these appearances he mentions is the same one – ὤφθη (Greek – ōphthē) meaning “appeared, was seen” – in each case.

Actually he doesn't and that's not a correct translation (either).

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look
"When Saul first talks about the resurrection, other than himself as a "revealed" thing, he says that he "appeared to Cephas". The word "appeared", is an ok translation but not exactly correct, in context. The Greek word is "ophthe". It has a *passive* element. In English it is an intransitive verb. "Appeared" is a word which means "to become visible", or "was made visible", or "became apparent". The Greek verb is the past tense of the passive verb "horao", "to see", ("was seen"). The passive translation is "The Anointed has been seen by Cephas". HOWEVER, normally a Greek translation of "by whom" would be translated in Greek using the "hypo" (preposition), to indicate "agency". THAT is not here, in the Greek. It really should be translated as "The Anointed has been seen FOR the advantage of Cephas or to BENEFIT Cephas, or for Cephas' *Advantage*". It does NOT mean "Cephas saw the Anointed". It means the "Anointed was made manifest for Cephas' advantage". That begins to look very different, than Cephas seeing something. It's more like Saul's vision. There are many examples of these kinds of misuse, and mistranslations, due to assumed cultural overlay, which when translated correctly, make the entire picture look very very different, especially in terms of the many "sightings" of various beings, and mysterious things, in both the Old and New Testaments. The most famous of these "shifts" is the sighting of Moses of Yahweh in the burning bush, where the angel shifts into the bush and is also "seen for" Yahweh, when Abraham moves from Ur, (which Philo of Alexandria talks about around 20-50 CE, in "On Abraham". There is NO physical "seeing". The correct translations all mean "seeing in the mind". It's a MENTAL change. Guess what ? SAUL's "blinding", and the "new seeing" is an EXACT correlation of these prior Biblical "manifestations", and any Jew or Christian, or Greek of the day would conflate these various "manifestations", "blindings", "and then seeings" as METAPHOR, for a mental attitude change. The same verbs, and words are used. Saul's blinding and then seeing" was equated, as Abraham's "vision", where his "mind saw again with it's recovered sight". Just like Saul. Saul "saw" with a different "sight". It was NOT a physical thing. It was a metaphor for a mental change. THAT is how he "*saw* the Anointed One". It's like we say, "oh, ok, I get it, now". He did not intend to say he physically "saw" the Anointed One. It means "I have come to understand the Anointed One". In 1 Corinthians 9:1-2, in defending his apostleship, he appeals to his new "seeing". "Have I not seen the Lord". That means that a requirement for apostleship, one has to have "seen the light Lord". But here he changes the passive past tense, to active verb. He means the "seeing" has an ONGOING present continuing "influence". It's all missed in translation, usually."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 06:14 PM
RE: "Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
(07-10-2015 10:46 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  What blows me away is with how much certainty I've seen that argument made. Several times.

They'll say "If there was no resurrection, how do you explain the empty tomb?".

Then, after two seconds, I make the face my avatar is making when I realize that's it, and they don't have anything else to add. Because yes, the most plausible way that a physical thing could have been moved when no one was looking is magic. These jaggofs need to give David Copperfield all of their money.

"He showed us a jet in a hanger, then, when we returned 12 hours later, it was gone!"

I'm ashamed I ever bought into all of that shit. I remember sitting in church listening to sermons, nodding my head in agreement.

I remember sermons and bible classes where the teacher/preacher would LAUGH at rational explanations, and yes their answers would be things like you said. Or my favorite "No one would lie about a miracle so powerful!"

That boiled down to the root of the problem with any kind of "discussion" in bible studies, because everything started with the assumption that every thing the bible said was 100% true. Back then I thought it was the silver bullet, and now I just smh at how stupid it all was/is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2017, 05:01 AM
RE: "Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
(15-06-2017 06:14 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  I'm ashamed I ever bought into all of that shit. I remember sitting in church listening to sermons, nodding my head in agreement.

Don't feel too bad. I believed for a few decades. A lot of it involved (deliberately!) not thinking about it too hard.


(15-06-2017 06:14 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  I remember sermons and bible classes where the teacher/preacher would LAUGH at rational explanations, and yes their answers would be things like you said. Or my favorite "No one would lie about a miracle so powerful!"

That boiled down to the root of the problem with any kind of "discussion" in bible studies, because everything started with the assumption that every thing the bible said was 100% true. Back then I thought it was the silver bullet, and now I just smh at how stupid it all was/is.

I think in part, Christians get mad at skeptics because we make them believe in a god they don't want to believe in. That's why the apologetics you get when the skeptics are gone are so weaksauce. The god Christians believe in is a magical wizard with a divine plan who mucks around with literally everything. Not a molecule combines without him having his grubby mitts all over it. Everything is under his control. This is why they ask for things like getting jobs or "guiding leaders" or what not...

...Then a skeptic comes by and asks the hard questions. Suddenly, God becomes this distant, inscrutable concept. And when asking about the problem of evil, free will becomes the most important thing ever. It justifies rape and murder, because we have to have choices, man.

So, if free will excuses rape and murder, what was so fucking important about that job interview that's gonna make God go and circumvent it? Christians hate skeptics because they make them temporarily have to believe in a god they don't like. Your pastor there, laughing about the "bad arguments" was doing his best to preserve that god by not even acknowledging the hard questions. I'm sure he's been through it many times and wasn't eager to do so again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
17-06-2017, 08:17 AM
RE: "Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
Quote:They'll say "If there was no resurrection, how do you explain the empty tomb?".


Which empty tomb is that, Rob. There are so many!

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
18-06-2017, 10:31 AM
RE: "Visions" of Jesus in the earliest sources
(17-06-2017 05:01 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I think in part, Christians get mad at skeptics because we make them believe in a god they don't want to believe in. That's why the apologetics you get when the skeptics are gone are so weaksauce. The god Christians believe in is a magical wizard with a divine plan who mucks around with literally everything. Not a molecule combines without him having his grubby mitts all over it. Everything is under his control. This is why they ask for things like getting jobs or "guiding leaders" or what not...

...Then a skeptic comes by and asks the hard questions. Suddenly, God becomes this distant, inscrutable concept. And when asking about the problem of evil, free will becomes the most important thing ever. It justifies rape and murder, because we have to have choices, man.

So, if free will excuses rape and murder, what was so fucking important about that job interview that's gonna make God go and circumvent it? Christians hate skeptics because they make them temporarily have to believe in a god they don't like. Your pastor there, laughing about the "bad arguments" was doing his best to preserve that god by not even acknowledging the hard questions. I'm sure he's been through it many times and wasn't eager to do so again.

Yeah, it's mind boggling when you actually think about it, and even worse are the ones who even have the nerve to become mocking about skeptism. I remember one study where the teacher was talking about how he was trying to get a guy to believe and the person just saying he didn't "get it", and the teacher ended with something like "He was right...he didn't GET it!" and many in the room snickered. Even then I thought to myself, "Well maybe it's because you weren't very good at teaching".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: