Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy and covered in dung...but the pig likes it.
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. So far, Vic has not produced a case that stands up - not even the well worn appeal to (scholars') authority.
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. So far, Vic has not produced a case that stands up - not even the well worn appeal to (scholars') authority.
And I still don't know what the Stegosaur is - I just know it ain't fake. I may have to go back and check on all the 'animal' friezes (there is perhaps one in every temple) to try to get a clue.
And is Vic maintaining the he is atheist? His arguments sure look like someone arguing for a gospel -Jesus. It wouldn't be the first 'sheep in wolfs' clothing' we have had.
And is Vic maintaining the he is atheist? His arguments sure look like someone arguing for a gospel -Jesus. It wouldn't be the first 'sheep in wolfs' clothing' we have had.
Indeed Sir. First 'atheist' I've ever come across that has based his arguments on the inane ramblings of such gems as William. L. Craig and Gary Habermas!!
Indeed Sir. First 'atheist' I've ever come across that has based his arguments on the inane ramblings of such gems as William. L. Craig and Gary Habermas!!
Well, while one suspects, the unbeliever still could give credence to these arguments. For a long time I took the Popular line (apparently shared by far too many "Scholars") that the gospels, give or take a slip of memory or two, were eyewitness testimony. Detailed study showed that they are not and cannot be, but are the work of Greek Christian polemicists. But I can understand even atheists who take the accounts as reliable.
But Vic strikes me as someone who has studied the matter quite a bit and the line he takes shows up pretty clearly as not digging to get at the truth, but of trying to prop up a Known Truth with appeals to the gospels..Paul...Bible scholarship and the historical Jesus which do not strike me as reasons to question unbelief, but reasons to prop up belief.
But Vic strikes me as someone who has studied the matter quite a bit and the line he takes shows up pretty clearly as not digging to get at the truth, but of trying to prop up a Known Truth with appeals to the gospels..Paul...Bible scholarship and the historical Jesus which do not strike me as reasons to question unbelief, but reasons to prop up belief.
That is the problem, Vic has not studied the matter, he is relying on cherry picked experts and denying anything that refutes his position (including anything from relevant experts).
That is the problem, Vic has not studied the matter, he is relying on cherry picked experts and denying anything that refutes his position (including anything from relevant experts).
Well, I don't mean he's studied it to masters' degree level, but he has looked into it. But I agree there is an element of rummaging around for anything that supports the claim for a gospel -Jesus. Unless such an atheist is really playing devil's advocate to the limit, he has to be a Christian apologist.
I never showed this, I claimed it. I was waiting to see if you would ask me to show this.
Galatians 4:14 is where Paul says Jesus was an angel (and I believe Bart Ehrman also points this out).
That verse does not say Jesus was literally an angel. It doesn't even necessarily say he was an angel figuratively. That is, Paul could've easily been giving a list of people/types of people they treated him like!
Quote:
Col 1:15-16 for Jesus creating the universe. Literally "He is (the*) image of the God the invisible, (the*) firstborn of all creation, because [in / on / at / by / with§] him were created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, etc".
Neither does this say that Jesus created the universe...
Quote:
The fact that the word can be used in a few different ways still does not get you away from the fact that it properly means to see in visions or dreams (whether Paul meant it so or not).
I thought that was your whole angle, arguing that Paul was saying it was a dream or vision of the mind...
I agree. My reading of Paul makes it clear that Jesus is not God, nor any god, but comes close in being (or being inhabited by) a heavenly spirit. Not an angel, but the spirit of the messiah. And there are clear indications that Paul sees this as the spirit of Adam, having got humankind into sin with his disobedience, came back to put it right by obedience to death.
This is all there in Paul, but who really reads it? It's even there in the gospels. Jesus, a messianic figure being of the line of David 'according to the flesh' as Paul says, receives the spirit of the messiah (Adam) at the baptism, though this is changed by the original writers - both of the synoptic gospel and in John - to the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove, though in the Synoptics this is explicit and in John is just told to the disciples by the Baptist.
Thereafter the 'spirit' drives Jesus out into the wilderness and you can see the original idea in Mark of a 'meat puppet' (as I think of it) being driven around by the Spirit, whereas in the Matthew - Luke version (with the actual temptations added to the original gospel ..and therefore "Q" material) Jesus is more politely 'led'. There in nothing of this in John which frankly, gives the Lie to the synoptic version. But they all four agree on the baptist being arrested and beheaded, and indeed, Josephus has this bit of history too, including the political dimension with John doing his 'repentance' is the suspicious bit of Peraea bordering Nabatean land - while Antipas was in dispute with Aretas. In his position, I'd have arrested him, too.
Flitting to where the spirit leaves the body on the cross (Mark/Matthew borrowing a bit of Psalms to stuff into Jesus' mouth to make the point) it was always a bit odd that the spirit of God (supposedly) leaves Jesus, at the same time as God's spirit packs its bags and storms out of the Temple, ripping the veil in It's haste. Let the Bible apologists rummage through Einstein to explain being in two separate identities, but I think this is the spirit of man (Adam), leaving Jesus, Mission accomplished, while the Shekinah vacates the Temple. They are two different spirits.
But none of this seems to be picked up by the Biblical scholars. They seem to be too busy with drooling over the personality of the evangelists while shrugging off problems like Matthew's Two donkeys, or coming up with some 'Real Jesus' theory, like Paul, Pilate and Antipas hatching a plot to discredit Christianity, and then cherry -picking and "Interpreting" the gospels (which they of course accept as reliable eyewitness when demonstrably they bloodywell aren't) to support their theory.
If I haven't made the case for what this Jesus - spirit meant to Paul (and therefore to the apostles) I have at least hinted why I am not too impressed by appeals to Biblical scholarship.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-28-2019 at 11:45 PM..
That verse does not say Jesus was literally an angel. It doesn't even necessarily say he was an angel figuratively. That is, Paul could've easily been giving a list of people/types of people they treated him like!
It says Jesus was an angel in the Greek. Even Ehrman agrees on this. Or is Ehrman suddenly not good enough as an authority when you do not like what he says?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Neither does this say that Jesus created the universe...
It depends on how you translate the Greek. That is why I gave you the choices§. So choose which ones actually make sense. Not just one, choose all of them that make sense.
He is (the*) image of the God the invisible, (the*) firstborn of all creation, because [in§] him were created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, etc
He is (the*) image of the God the invisible, (the*) firstborn of all creation, because [on§] him were created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, etc
He is (the*) image of the God the invisible, (the*) firstborn of all creation, because [at§] him were created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, etc
He is (the*) image of the God the invisible, (the*) firstborn of all creation, because [by§] him were created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, etc
He is (the*) image of the God the invisible, (the*) firstborn of all creation, because [with§] him were created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I thought that was your whole angle, arguing that Paul was saying it was a dream or vision of the mind...
I am saying that is what Paul is literally saying. Because it is, whether he meant it literally or not. So you can not assert they definitely saw a risen Jesus from Paul alone without reading the gospels back into Paul.
And Paul says 'me too' when he was talking of these appearances, and Paul only saw Jesus in visions. So in 1 Cor 15:5-9, he is saying the appearance to the others were also visions.
And we have the 500 / Pentecost possibility, where the 500 witnesses may actually be a 'correction' for the Pentecost. And if Acts is recording that event (we have strong evidence 'Luke' is using Paul's letters., then they definitely saw a vision.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 01-29-2019 at 10:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. So far, Vic has not produced a case that stands up - not even the well worn appeal to (scholars') authority.
And I still don't know what the Stegosaur is - I just know it ain't fake. I may have to go back and check on all the 'animal' friezes (there is perhaps one in every temple) to try to get a clue. 
which do not strike me as reasons to question unbelief, but reasons to prop up belief.
