15 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd you seem to like arguing just to here yourself talk. A wooden cross was once a tree. Do you see a connection at all?
whodey: Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Christ was not crucified on the corss?
Here's two. Your comment is idiotic.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThis is a common and ridiculous argument. Jesus (assuming he existed) was a minor figure in the Middle East at the time. The cult of Christianity was small and divided on whether Jesus was ever resurrected or not. The New Testament contains those writings which reflect the views of those who would later impose this orthodoxy; written documents of the same period which argued against it were not accepted into the NT. The reasoning is circular.
The passage is in the 15th chapter of First Corinthians which is largely dedicated to Paul's correction of the error of disbelief in God's ability to resurrect.
[b/]"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third d years of the events it recorded, the chances are slim that what it proports is legendary.
Pretending that Paul's letters were well-known throughout the civilized world in the first century is simply a fantasy.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI don't believe that Nemesio posted this post. I think someone by the name of Sweeney McFugal came in to the room while Nemesio was out and typed that post on the same terminal under Nemesio's ID.
If you are referring to Saint Paul, then I regret to inform you that several of the letters
are pseudonymous -- by a later writer who used the name 'Paul' to gain popularity. As
you know, this was a common technique -- Gospels attributed to Sts Thomas, James,
Philip and many others are well known, but few people take them to have been written
by those w ...[text shortened]... e reason you should also reject an ascription to Saint Paul in
the letters above.
Nemesio
Therefore the post is incorrectly attributed to Nemesio and is not at all reflective of his true thoughts.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by jaywillThere is two points in these set of verses: I read them all and still my case open:
[b]Let me ask you a question? Jesus said several times that he will be raised to the Father or to GOD, but he never said that he will be crossified, why do you think he didn't do that although it is a major part of his message?
He said repeatedly that He would be killed. And in another place He said that His disciples would have to pick up their cr ...[text shortened]... nd resurrection. And the cross is mentioned in connection with His disciples following Him.[/b]
1. He didn't say he will be crossified.
2. I didn't ask where he mentioned the cross, I asked you where he said he will be crossified. Asking the disciples to carry their cross is allegory of the suffer and dangure of the danger they will face to carry out his message. Because crossification was the common punishment of crimes at that time. And so they are expected to face punishment for their call.
3. This is doesn't answer the remaining questions...
Lets start with this question: Why the man on the cross was not happy?
15 Nov 06
3 edits
Originally posted by ahosyney----------------------------------
There is two points in these set of verses: I read them all and still my case open:
1. He didn't say he will be crossified.
2. I didn't ask where he mentioned the cross, I asked you where he said he will be crossified. Asking the disciples to carry their cross is allegory of the suffer and dangure of the danger they will face to carry out his message. aining questions...
Lets start with this question: Why the man on the cross was not happy?
There is two points in these set of verses: I read them all and still my case open:
1. He didn't say he will be crossified.
------------------------------------------
How important is the MANNER of death? I think you place arbitrary weight on Jesus not saying that crucifixion per se was the manner in which He would killed. I am not persuaded that His mentioning or not mentioning cricifixion specifically has much bearing on the reliability of the history that He was crucified.
Having said that, I would refer you to utterances which come pretty close to mentioning crucifixion:
”And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that every one who believes into Him may have eternal life.” (John 3:14,15)
The reference to the brass serpent being lifted up on a pole by Moses is used here by Jesus Himself to speak of His being ”lifted up”. Crucifixion, Roman style, I believe, is the most obvious method of death to which Jesus was refering.
One may argue and say lifting up could be done by hanging or being lifted to be thrown down a cliff. But I would take these as merely evading the obvious.
Furthermore, though you reject the surrounding comments of the evangelists, most of we disciples in Jesus regard them as authoritative. And the evangelist tells us that Jesus uttered something specifically to indicate which manner of death by which He was to die:
”And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.
But He said this signifying by what kind of death He was about to die” (John 12:32,33)
The Apostle John tells us that this utterance was Christ’s way of indicating that crucifixion would be His manner of being lifted up and put to death.
I still say that your case is over simply because your greater case is that He did not die at all, totally contradicting the New Testament. I choose to believe the New Testament over Quran on this. Your subcase is that He never mentioned death on the cross. And I have proved that the Apostle John would not agree with you based on John 12:32,33. I think I should take John’s opinion over yours in the matter.
Then again, how important it is that Jesus mention every detail of His execution is questionable. You could easily keep moving the goal post and say “Yea, but He didn’t mention the spear in His side.” Or you could say “Yea, but show me where He mentioned being whipped and beaten.”
Your second question:
-------------------------------------
2. I didn't ask where he mentioned the cross, I asked you where he said he will be crossified. Asking the disciples to carry their cross is allegory of the suffer and dangure of the danger they will face to carry out his message. Because crossification was the common punishment of crimes at that time. And so they are expected to face punishment for their call.
---------------------------------------
What do you think the person was to carry the cross FOR? Obviously it was to be crucified upon. So in His speaking of the disciples carrying their cross to FOLLOW HIM, He obviously is refering to carrying that cross to be crucified upon it.
Your third point:
------------------------------------------
3. This is doesn't answer the remaining questions...
Lets start with this question: Why the man on the cross was not happy?
------------------------------------------
Here you totally fail to understand a central point of the New Testament. The Word became flesh. God was incarnated as a Man.
What MAN would be happy being crucified upon a cross? That He was obedient to the Father’s will even unto an unhappy death is why His name is exalted so high forever:
”And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of a cross.
Therefore also God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, That in the name Jesus every knee should bow … etc.” (Phil. 2:8-10)
He was a man who thirsted, who hungered, who wept, who grew weary, who felt pain and sorrow. He was made like us in all respects yet He was without sin. And He sorrowed at His death on the cross.
But this is not all. ”Looking away unto Jesus, the Arthur and Perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him He endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down on the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb.12:2)
Though He sorrowed He also saw the joy that was set before Him. And He passed through not only the sorrow of the cross but the entire sorrow and cross of the whole human experience from birth through death. Then He rose from the dead.
His passing through the sorrows of human life and the sorrow of His execution were necessary steps to perfect Him to be our great High Priest to carry out God’s eternal salvation:
”Even though He was a Son, learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, Being addressed by God as a High Priest according to the order of Melchisedec.” (Hebrew 5:8-10)
You must grasp the revelation that in Jesus Christ God and man are mingled together in a united life. God is interwoven in humanity to be a God-man.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen it says tree does it specify living tree or dead tree? In fact, it does not specify, rather, you assume it to mean living tree.
That's just absurd. Would someone write "I live in a tree" because their house is made of wood? Are you really that much of an moron?
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeySo the answer to my second question is "yes". The convoluted and strained "reasoning" you and other Biblical literalists employ to escape the plain meaning of statements in your so-called Holy Book is a wonder to behold.
When it says tree does it specify living tree or dead tree? In fact, it does not specify, rather, you assume it to mean living tree.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI choose to believe the New Testament over Quran on this.
[b]----------------------------------
There is two points in these set of verses: I read them all and still my case open:
1. He didn't say he will be crossified.
------------------------------------------
How important is the MANNER of death? I think you place arbitrary weight on Jesus not saying that crucifixion per se was the manner in which and man are mingled together in a united life. God is interwoven in humanity to be a God-man.[/b]
And that is, and will continue to be, the impassable divide—for both of you.
It is the same kind of divide as between a Christian and a rabbinical Jew (NT versus the dual Torah)—although here the “scriptural divide” is far more hermeneutical, at least with regard to interpreting the Hebrew scriptures. Or between a Hindu and a Buddhist. The question of what we regard as authoritative sources.
Once we reach these kinds of impasse, there might still be room for an exchange of understanding, but there is no more room for real argument. Better to say “Be well,” and move on, than get frustrated. (Well, sometimes the argument can be continued in a friendly way, as a beneficial exercise in fleshing out all the points, if both parties are willing—but that seems rare.)
Here you totally fail to understand a central point of the New Testament. The Word became flesh. God was incarnated as a Man.
Of course not: (1) It’s outside his paradigm, and (2) I don’t think most Christians “understand” it, they simply accept it.
Remember the small discussion you and Nemesio and I had on Christology? That discussion took place on a higher level, all around, than anything I ever learned in church or Sunday school. The implications of incarnation (whether understood in an orthodox Christian sense, or otherwise*) are profound and complex—and radical. That’s why it is a “stumbling block” (to me, for instance), and a skandalon to others. Christians of high intelligence have been debating it for centuries: Arius was no more ignorant, stupid or perverse than was Athanasius. St. Paul, for example, was an accomplished dialectician—anyone who thinks Romans or Galatians is a simple, clear-cut read has read them very simplistically (the same for, say, Ecclesiastes, or the Upanishads, or the Qur’an).
Man, it took me so long—and a helluva lot of effort—to learn Jewish hermeneutics, without unconsciously reading the texts through a New Testament lens. It was totally outside my paradigm. But I wanted to understand—and I enjoyed the labor. Now, if someone were to start talking about Sikhism on here, I’m lost; I don’t even have a Huston Smith The World Religions knowledge. In Buddhism, I know Zen; but I can’t talk about Tibetan Buddhism at all, and what little I’ve read, I don’t really get.
You must grasp the revelation that in Jesus Christ God and man are mingled together in a united life. God is interwoven in humanity to be a God-man.
You “easterner,” you! 😉 That’s well-put—even if I read it through my heretical monist’s monocle...
* Since I’m a monist, rather than a monotheist, I see it somewhat “otherwise”—even within a quasi-Chalcedonian...
______________________________
With all that said, jaywill, I do once more compliment you on your exegetical/hermeneutical skills; I don’t always agree (often?) with the outcome ( 🙂 ), but you do handle the texts well.
15 Nov 06
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThree non Christians sources such as Celsus, Tacitus and the Jewish Talmud could all be considered anti-Christian sources. It is interesting that Jesus is mentioned by ten non-Christian sources and Tiberius Ceasar is mentioned by nine. We have as much or more reason to believe that Jesus lived as we do to believe that Tiberius Ceasar lived. One more source mentions Jesus than mentions the Roman Emporer.
This is a common and ridiculous argument. Jesus (assuming he existed) was a minor figure in the Middle East at the time. The cult of Christianity was small and divided on whether Jesus was ever resurrected or not. The New Testament contains those writings which reflect the views of those who would later impose this orthodoxy; written documents of the sam etters were well-known throughout the civilized world in the first century is simply a fantasy.
Though the three mentioned above are anti-Christian writings, they with a number of neutral non-Christian sources mention Jesus within 150 years of His earthly ministry. And they do agree that Jesus existed. And comparison of all sources yield some points points in which they are in agreement:
1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Ceasar
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a worker of wonders.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimd to be the Messiah.
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
7. He was cricified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed that he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. The Christian faith spread rapidlu as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.
It is a skeptic's daydream to assert that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillWhere did you cut and paste this from?
Three non Christians sources such as Celsus, Tacitus and the Jewish Talmud could all be considered anti-Christian sources. It is interesting that Jesus is mentioned by ten non-Christian sources and Tiberius Ceasar is mentioned by nine. We have as much or more reason to believe that Jesus lived as we do to believe that Tiberius Ceasar lived. One more source m ...[text shortened]... d.
It is a skeptic's daydream to assert that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure.
None of the non-Christian sources you actually say a person called Jesus of Nazareth existed. Tacitus calls Christianity " a pernicious superstition". And you'll excuse me if I seriously doubt your claim regarding Tiberius Ceasar being less well documented than Jesus; please offer some evidence of this.
I also think your list is filled with BS. I doubt any non-Christian sources support 3, 5 ("acclaimed"?), 7, and 8 (utter nonsense). 1, 2, 4, and 6 are unremarkable. The rest are what Christians believe. So what?
EDIT: More importantly, you utterly ignored the main points I was making. Personally, I'm willing to believe that there is some historical basis in the existence of the Jesus figure. But he was a minor figure and Christianity a small cult until a least 100 years after his death.
15 Nov 06
vistesd,
Thanks for the compliment. You seem to be answering something I wrote to the Moslem participant.
Anyway, I have to brush up on Monist to refresh what these people believed.
===========================
You “easterner,” you! That’s well-put—even if I read it through my heretical monist’s monocle...
===========================
I think that different branches of the divided church carried different emphasis with them. There are some things quite valuable in Eastern Orthodoxy and there are also some things not to be lost from Western Catholicism. Though I am of neither denomination I recognize the amid the various errors there are also gems of the truth.
God "manifest in the flesh" is explicitly right there in Paul's letter to Timothy not to mention the gospels.
The impassible divide is really established in the New Testament between those who believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and those who bring another doctrine. Don't you think?
15 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhere did I cut and paste that from? Cut only by way of paraphrased quoting. No pasting took place.
Where did you cut and paste this from?
None of the non-Christian sources you actually say a person called Jesus of Nazareth existed. Tacitus calls Christianity " a pernicious superstition". And you'll excuse me if I seriously doubt your claim regarding Tiberius Ceasar being less well documented than Jesus; please offer some evidence of this. was a minor figure and Christianity a small cult until a least 100 years after his death.
I am happy to let you know that I selected sections of a discussion in Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Athiest"
You may find the full discussion from which I referenced (not strictly quoted) on pages 222 and 223. But such a rebuttal could have come from any number of other souces which discuss the camparitive authenticity of New Testament documentation to that of other ancient books.
Now, Christ is not a major figure in Christianity??? Well He should be. He certainly is THE major figure in my Christian faith and in the faith of millions of my fellow believers.
You're daydreaming. You're going to have to work pretty hard to demote Jesus to a coincidental also ran in the establishment of the Christian church.
15 Nov 06
3 edits
No1 Maurauder,
==============================
Personally, I'm willing to believe that there is some historical basis in the existence of the Jesus figure. But he was a minor figure and Christianity a small cult until a least 100 years after his death.
=============================
Am I suppose to take that as gracious of you?
You never met my Jesus. Do you think one more petty skeptic will be able to convince people that Christ did not rise from the dead and manifest Himself to His believers?
Do your best. Voltaire said that when he finished with his critique of the Christians there would be nothing left for them to believe.
Voltaire's gone off to his reward and we're still here. Now's your noble effort. Do your best.
"Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers."