U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-27-2019, 04:06 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,400 posts, read 10,408,952 times
Reputation: 2628

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
There is this collection of writings that tell you what Jesus allegedly said. It is called the New Testament. It is all in there. I would quote the actual passages, but you will just pretend they mean something else, or use ad hoc arguments to argue contradictory passages are for different groups of people.



The first Christian texts (Paul, Hebrews) say Jesus was a divine being, this is a fact whether Jesus existed or not. The references to Jesus being 'human' are found in OT scripture, revelations and allegories (end of Galatians 3 - Galatians 4), so it is 50/50 whether Paul knew of a human Jesus, because nowhere does Paul say where or when Jesus took on human form.

I can even demonstrate using the early Christian fathers why the brother of the Lord passage (your strongest argument) MAY even be an interpolation. But even if genuine, the passage never says Jesus was a literal brother, so even here you are left with a 50/50.

Even the early Christians argued against people who thought Jesus did not exist.

I have the evidence for my position, all you can do is point out it is not conclusive. And I would agree with you.

I can back my arguments up all day long. You have to support your apologetics by reading the later, fictional gospels back into Paul; and by ignoring any possible alternatives, even when backed up by evidence.



But you think being honest is being dishonest, so you are in no position to argue about who is an intellectual and who is not. You cherry pick a lexicon to tell someone who knows Greek they are wrong, which is something pseudo-intellectuals do.

I have the texts, you have ad hominems. I see a flaw in your arguments.
Well said old horse!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2019, 04:13 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,393 posts, read 7,728,692 times
Reputation: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
There is this collection of writings that tell you what Jesus allegedly said. It is called the New Testament. It is all in there. I would quote the actual passages, but you will just pretend they mean something else, or use ad hoc arguments to argue contradictory passages are for different groups of people.
let's just take the handwashing thing: you take a criticism of the disciples of Jesus and state it as if it were something Jesus advocated; tripe

Quote:
The first Christian texts (Paul, Hebrews) say Jesus was a divine being, this is a fact whether Jesus existed or not. The references to Jesus being 'human' are found in OT scripture, revelations and allegories (end of Galatians 3 - Galatians 4), so it is 50/50 whether Paul knew of a human Jesus, because nowhere does Paul say where or when Jesus took on human form.

I can even demonstrate using the early Christian fathers why the brother of the Lord passage (your strongest argument) MAY even be an interpolation. But even if genuine, the passage never says Jesus was a literal brother, so even here you are left with a 50/50.

Even the early Christians argued against people who thought Jesus did not exist.

I have the evidence for my position, all you can do is point out it is not conclusive. And I would agree with you.

I can back my arguments up all day long. You have to support your apologetics by reading the later, fictional gospels back into Paul; and by ignoring any possible alternatives, even when backed up by evidence.
Paul never met Jesus, nor claimed his instructor was in human form, but no references indicate that he thought He was not human. Your claim that such a respected scholar as Ehrman supported your position was a chimera and you provide no documentation for the grammar "rule" you claim, and which was apparently ignored by ever translator I can find. So far I have seen no credible "backing" and it has all the earmarks of a busted flush you are trying to make good.
Quote:

But you think being honest is being dishonest, so you are in no position to argue about who is an intellectual and who is not. You cherry pick a lexicon to tell someone who knows Greek they are wrong, which is something pseudo-intellectuals do.

I have the texts, you have ad hominems. I see a flaw in your arguments.
When you show ANY credible translation of the Galatians passage that reflects your position or even show that I have given a secondary meaning to the cogent word you can say you have support. Until then it looks like you are busted.
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2019, 04:40 AM
 
Location: Germany
5,303 posts, read 995,131 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
let's just take the handwashing thing: you take a criticism of the disciples of Jesus and state it as if it were something Jesus advocated; tripe
A fair point, you can read my short version that way. But that is what the passages argue whether they advocated it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Paul never met Jesus, nor claimed his instructor was in human form, but no references indicate that he thought He was not human.
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he (Jesus) made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he (Jesus) humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Do you you think that is a human Jesus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Your claim that such a respected scholar as Ehrman supported your position was a chimera and you provide no documentation for the grammar "rule" you claim, and which was apparently ignored by ever translator I can find.
That will be Bible translations, I presume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
So far I have seen no credible "backing" and it has all the earmarks of a busted flush you are trying to make good.

When you show ANY credible translation of the Galatians passage that reflects your position or even show that I have given a secondary meaning to the cogent word you can say you have support. Until then it looks like you are busted.
.
I have told you how you can check this for yourself. Until you do, you have busted nothing except your eggs.

Do the research yourself. Until then, do not claim victory like pseudo-intellectuals would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2019, 05:31 AM
 
39,651 posts, read 11,061,143 times
Reputation: 5135
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me View Post
Meh, Why would this be disturbing to Christians who have taken the time to examine the Hebrew Scriptures, the OT?

The offspring of Abraham, collectively, were never really comfortable with worshipping YHWH as the one true God. In fact, at one time there were only some 7000 worshipers of YHWH with the rest serving other gods +/- YHWH. Even Solomon in his later years practiced a form of "interfaith." The Bible itself says the Hebrews conquest was incomplete. The result proved a disaster for Israel.

"But they mingled with the nations And adopted their ways. 36 They kept serving their idols, And these became a snare to them.37 They would sacrifice their sons And their daughters to demons.38 They kept spilling innocent blood,The blood of their own sons and daughters Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Caʹnaan;And the land was polluted with bloodshed. 39 They became unclean by their works; They committed spiritual prostitution by their deeds."-Psalm 106:35-39

God promised Abraham that from his seed all the nations would be blessed. He didn't need 100% of the Hebrews to be on board although God did try. He really, really tried. Nevertheless he kept his promise to Abraham in the form of the Messiah.

It's a matter of Biblical record.
That's simply dismissing the argument made by referring to other gods, and then simply asserting that it's all true. That doesn't even come close to an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran View Post
People can disagree about these things, but there is need for animosity or snark.

People of faith have a right to their faith. People who disbelieve, have a right to disbelieve.

I don’t know which is worse: fundamentalists trying to force their interpretation of the Bible on the entire country, or fervent atheists to trying debunk others’ deeply held beliefs.

Neither are pleasant people.
I'm beginning to think that what is worse are Theist apologists trying to slap down atheists who are trying to correct the misinformation that Theism puts out by calling that 'animosity' and comparing them to religious fundamentalists. It is now a very popular apologetics trick and a very dirty one.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-27-2019 at 06:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2019, 05:45 AM
 
39,651 posts, read 11,061,143 times
Reputation: 5135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
The Bible narrative is that after the towel of Babel,...
Bath or hand?(Raffa)

Thanks to Jeff for the most serendipitious typo of the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
And here's another problem with christianity.

How many christian posters here over the years have said that the bible was not written by the hand of god. And yet, now you say it was.

If you guys can't get your own acts together, why should anyone believe you?
That's the 'batwing mind' yet again. It's the word of God when it suits them, but the mistakes of men when they need to explain away errors that they can no longer deny. Same old trick - God gets any credit going - man gets blames for everything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Despite being an atheist, I don't see how what you've posted here "proves beyond a shadow of doubt" anything.

But, similarly, in post #5 I would ask Silibran how that post leads one to firmly believe that Jesus was literally the son of god, committed all sorts of miracles, and then rise from the dead.
We shouldn't fall into the 'believe- or not' trap. The weight of evidence is what counts. So far, the evidence has all tended to refute - not everything in the Bible - true, but the Biblical propaganda take. The Eden and Flood may be totally mythical or it may be based on a real place and a real flood. But not the global flood of the Bible, but a local flood of some low-lying areas which would come out of it with some flood legends. That may or may not be true, but the archaeology and history is evidence against the Biblical global flood ever happening.

Jericho, Babylon and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem are real places and events, but the archaeology/history refutes the Bible claims. Jericho's walls were not collapsed by trumpets at the supposed time of the conquest. Babylon was not destroyed. Neither was the Assyrian army struck down. When the evidence that the Bible is not true piles up increasingly - now the Exodus looks impossible and the 'Conquest' didn't happen, and there are doubts now that Nazareth even existed in Jesus' time- what can any rational person do but to say that The Bible has lost any claim to be a believable book?

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-27-2019 at 06:33 AM.. Reason: cor..so much Grammarly work to do
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2019, 06:20 AM
 
39,651 posts, read 11,061,143 times
Reputation: 5135
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Seriously? That's the kind of tripe you garner from what Jesus taught? No wonder you come up with such weird ides as that Jesus never existed as a man and are unable to back them up. It's the kind of thing I see a lot from pseudo-intellectuals.
Tough talk but essentially correct. I get the argument- which isn't a new one. 'Even if the Bible isn't true in all its' claims...even if Jesus isn't as described in the Bible. His teachings are good and worth following'. It's pretty much 'we need religion, true or not'.

We don't. These teachings under examination turn out to be general humanist ethical teachings taken to absurd extremes or twisted to favour Christianity- like the 'Golden Rule' twisted to justify pestering people to convert them (1). Even if the Bible had come up with a few good ideas that we could use, or indeed some things that were sound at the time (like washing your hands after going to the bathroom (2) that in no way means that we have to be lumbered with the rest of the book.

I wouldn't call them 'Pseudo -intellectuals'. There are some smart thinkers, even intellectuals and scholars on both sides. And we can hold the insults and accusations that some try to use when they don't have a better argument (3). The fact is that the Theist side have to try to make lies look convincing, and all the atheist side has to do is tell the truth, pretty much. It's why middlebrows like myself can find it so easy to make a case - it makes itself, when one has seen all the arguments before .

(1) chapter, verse and explanation supplied upon request

(2) "use alcohol in moderation...eat right...we know those things are true, so all the rest must be true, too." ("Kissing Hank's ass")

(3) not to be confused (as some purposely try to do) with pointing out flaws and illogic in the Theist arguments, methodology and mindset, which they of course try to pretend is being insulting.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-27-2019 at 06:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2019, 06:27 AM
 
39,651 posts, read 11,061,143 times
Reputation: 5135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
A fair point, you can read my short version that way. But that is what the passages argue whether they advocated it or not.



6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he (Jesus) made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he (Jesus) humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Do you you think that is a human Jesus?



That will be Bible translations, I presume.



I have told you how you can check this for yourself. Until you do, you have busted nothing except your eggs.

Do the research yourself. Until then, do not claim victory like pseudo-intellectuals would.
All good stuff - but we do have a "Pauline"thread for this and it is getting away from the OT, never mind the argument for Canaanite origins of Hebrew religion. Just to say let's not hi-jack the topic when it isn't needed and thereby attract Mod's wrath.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-27-2019 at 06:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2019, 06:36 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,393 posts, read 7,728,692 times
Reputation: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
A fair point, you can read my short version that way. But that is what the passages argue whether they advocated it or not.



6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he (Jesus) made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he (Jesus) humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Do you you think that is a human Jesus?



That will be Bible translations, I presume.



I have told you how you can check this for yourself. Until you do, you have busted nothing except your eggs.

Do the research yourself. Until then, do not claim victory like pseudo-intellectuals would.
I'lllet my answers in the other thread stand for this, no need to continue here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2019, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,393 posts, read 7,728,692 times
Reputation: 1737
Actually, Trans, I don't argue that we need religion, St. John Nash works for me.

PS. Sorry about the "pseudo intellectual," when someone indicates that I am not qualified to challenge his assertions I tend to respond in kind. I'm not really a very good Quaker.

Last edited by nateswift; 07-27-2019 at 07:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2019, 06:56 AM
 
39,651 posts, read 11,061,143 times
Reputation: 5135
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Actually, Trans, I don't argue that we need religion, St. John Nash works for me
I was of course referring to that particular application of the argument- and we do find it time and again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top