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.
Quite so my old carrot. Unfortunately, as we know only too well, the theists seem to think that as Herod is mentioned in the Bible and Herod was a real person, then everything else mentioned in the Bible must be true also.
Indupitably, Old horse. But it does (for me) make some kind of case for a factual basis. The fish-hooks in Capernaum do not in any way validate the miraculous draught of fish (which was done with nets, anyway) but it does indicate that the writers knew that Capernaum had a fishing industry. which is something reliable to put down on the workbook, anyway.
Indupitably, Old horse. But it does (for me) make some kind of case for a factual basis. The fish-hooks in Capernaum do not in any way validate the miraculous draught of fish (which was done with nets, anyway) but it does indicate that the writers knew that Capernaum had a fishing industry. which is something reliable to put down on the workbook, anyway.
Indeed old beast. But the existence of Pilate, as we will agree, is not evidence that he officiated at the trail of any 'Jesus'. As you have already eloquently pointed out at other times... only Roman citizens would have received a trail and even if that were not the case, it us unlikely that someone as high as Pilate would have been called upon to officiate at the trail of a common Jewish trouble-maker.
Indeed old beast. But the existence of Pilate, as we will agree, is not evidence that he officiated at the trail of any 'Jesus'. As you have already eloquently pointed out at other times... only Roman citizens would have received a trail and even if that were not the case, it us unlikely that someone as high as Pilate would have been called upon to officiate at the trail of a common Jewish trouble-maker.
True old Gnueportian. In fact someone else argued that Jesus would not have received a trial. I think (for a number of reasons) that is so, and the trial is based (in the original form of the story) on some story of Paul on trial. I'll have a look.
I might respectfully disagree with you on the apostles - or at least some followers of Jesus. I am convinced that Paul's letters are genuine. Thy show a flawed, self - justifying, crafty and essentially dishonest peddler of a new Cult (Gentiles for Jesus) and are thus convincing.
A real Paul speaks (often deprecatingly) of the apostles. Peter and James, to name two. You don't have followers of Jesus without a Jesus to follow.
However, a Caiaphas and Pilate do not validate a Gospel trial -story. Nor does a real Antipas validate Luke 23. 6, especially as nobody else hints at this event and indeed contradict it because the mockery was done by Pilate's men. Indeed we can guess why Luke thought it was a marvellous idea to blame it on someone else. He didn't know there were gospels that would contradict him.
He could hardly know that for near 2,000 years nobody would even notice.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-02-2016 at 08:47 AM..
Reason: had to change that.
Some followers of an itinerant rebel rabbi ...who made up stories about the person they followed ....think you old thing?
No quite, Old krummhorn, I have a theory.... .... the wangles in a transition from a dead messiah to a brilliant idea and subsequent vision of a risen spirit who would return on the clouds to finish the job. Paul, after initial opposition to the group (and it could only be because they were anti - Roman and Paul was a loyal Roman) he had his own brilliant idea - his gentile fellow -citizens could be saved, too. That was the 'conversion' which is dealt with rather vaguely and followed up with the claim that Paul got it all from a visit to Jesus (II Cor. 12. 2) and not from any man (read 'apostle').
And Mike and I have argued about this, but he knows that I do not consider the conversion account in Acts to be true or even compatible with what Paul writes. What even Acts does is to support the hints in Paul that the Apostles (notably James, brother of Jesus and leader of the apostles after Jesus' death) were concerned with Jewish Law, traditions and rites, and that Paul was at odds with them because of the question of circumcision.
Without that, you couldn't be a Jew and that meant no salvation. The increasing spite and venom Paul emits is surely directed against those who are undermining his gospel. The 'super -apostles' of whom he once regarded himself as a lower form, but came to boast that he was as good as them anyday.
All this Pauline stuff (together with a Greek hatred of Jews, to start with) was dumped into the actual true crucifixion -story. Initially without a resurrection except in the spirit. That wouldn't do. you needed the body to get up and walk about, offer the war -wounds for inspection and have a fish supper. So thee conflicting stories were invented to fill that need. And, as I say, the sin -sacrifice idea was now so doctrinal that everything possible had to occur on Passover. John becomes quite absurd about it.
What happened to Mike?
Is he
(a) too disgusted to answer?
(b) going through the videos, making his points?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-02-2016 at 09:23 AM..
There are arguably scriptures about the prophecies of Jesus' death from the old Testament.
However, every successful sacrifice in the Old Testament was a burnt offering, and the Hebrew word used to describe the burnt offerings literally meant, to be carried away, up in smoke. There was literally nothing left, so why would Jesus' resurrection after his death not have negated the sacrifice. For it to count, according to Old Testament law, there should be nothing left but ashes.
A conundrum?
No. It confirmed that the Father accepted the sacrifice. He now is in Heaven serving as our great High Priest to intercede for us.
No quite, Old krummhorn, I have a theory.... .... the wangles in a transition from a dead messiah to a brilliant idea and subsequent vision of a risen spirit who would return on the clouds to finish the job. Paul, after initial opposition to the group (and it could only be because they were anti - Roman and Paul was a loyal Roman) he had his own brilliant idea - his gentile fellow -citizens could be saved, too. That was the 'conversion' which is dealt with rather vaguely and followed up with the claim that Paul got it all from a visit to Jesus (II Cor. 12. 2) and not from any man (read 'apostle').
And Mike and I have argued about this, but he knows that I do not consider the conversion account in Acts to be true or even compatible with what Paul writes. What even Acts does is to support the hints in Paul that the Apostles (notably James, brother of Jesus and leader of the apostles after Jesus' death) were concerned with Jewish Law, traditions and rites, and that Paul was at odds with them because of the question of circumcision.
Without that, you couldn't be a Jew and that meant no salvation. The increasing spite and venom Paul emits is surely directed against those who are undermining his gospel. The 'super -apostles' of whom he once regarded himself as a lower form, but came to boast that he was as good as them anyday.
All this Pauline stuff (together with a Greek hatred of Jews, to start with) was dumped into the actual true crucifixion -story. Initially without a resurrection except in the spirit. That wouldn't do. you needed the body to get up and walk about, offer the war -wounds for inspection and have a fish supper. So thee conflicting stories were invented to fill that need. And, as I say, the sin -sacrifice idea was now so doctrinal that everything possible had to occur on Passover. John becomes quite absurd about it.
A cunning theory indeed old thing...and one worthy of Dr Cunning, Professor of Cunning at Cunning University, Cunningtown.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,917,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
.....
And yes, there is historical evidence which can be examined for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I'm fairly certain that you won't even bother to take the time to listen to the videos, but you've been given the opportunity to do so.
And with that, I see no point in having any further dialog with you on the matter.
I'm not going to go over well over an hour's of time watching what appears, after watching the first one, 'evidence' built on fallacies.
However, if you care to give a summary, and perhaps advise which video and at which time slot those summary points can be seen, I'll gladly review those.
I'm not going to go over well over an hour's of time watching what appears, after watching the first one, 'evidence' built on fallacies.
However, if you care to give a summary, and perhaps advise which video and at which time slot those summary points can be seen, I'll gladly review those.
You won't take the time to listen to the videos, but you have no problem devoting a great deal of your time trying to cast Christians and Christianity in a bad light.
You people have been given a choice. Either sit yourselves down and listen to the videos and at least attempt to objectively evaluate the historical evidence, or you can choose not to. And you people have made your choice. None of you are willing to take the time or make the effort to look at the evidence which has been gone into in great detail on the videos. But I never actually expected any of you to do so. I therefore am not about to waste my time providing the details when you people are simply going to bark 'nuh uh.'
Last edited by Michael Way; 05-02-2016 at 12:11 PM..
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.
.... the wangles in a transition from a dead messiah to a brilliant idea and subsequent vision of a risen spirit who would return on the clouds to finish the job. Paul, after initial opposition to the group (and it could only be because they were anti - Roman and Paul was a loyal Roman) he had his own brilliant idea - his gentile fellow -citizens could be saved, too. That was the 'conversion' which is dealt with rather vaguely and followed up with the claim that Paul got it all from a visit to Jesus (II Cor. 12. 2) and not from any man (read 'apostle'). 
