Dead Missionary Proves Beyond Shadow of Doubt Jesus is Imaginary (soul, prophets)

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Does anybody notice that Mike555 makes these grand sweeping statements and tries to pass them off as historical fact when they're nothing more than his own personal biased opinions? I can't possibly list them, they are too numerous. Here are a few:

1.

Really, Mike????? The Christian Church was founded in 33 CE at Pentecost. The first Epistles didn't start appearing until 55 CE, 22 years later. So there's a 22 year gap between Jesus' supposed ascension and Galatians where we have absolutely nothing either in the Biblical record or the historic record about what people thought of Jesus. Upon which non-Biblical historic documents written by recognized historians of the day do you make this claim? If you can't name one feel free to say, "I don't have any. It's just my grand sweeping personal opinion."

As for the gospels show me in Mark where Jesus calls himself God, accepts worship as God, or acknowledges the worship of him as God from others? Quite the contrary Jesus' own family thought him insane as Mark states as early as 70 CE the ACCEPTED dating of Mark's gospel, not your biased 60 CE opinion:

There is a wide range of opinion among scholars concerning the dating of the four Gospels. The date of AD 70 is not the view of all scholars. And again, a very good case can be made for an early date in the early 60's.

And don't talk to me about bias. Everyone has some degree of bias. Absolute objectively doesn't exist.


I'm not the one who makes grand sweeping statements. The Gospels were written by the apostles and by men (Luke and Mark) who were close associates of the apostles. They were written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses who could check on the veracity of what was written in the Gospels. Luke specifically said that he investigated carefully and wrote down the things which were passed down by those who were eyewitnesses. Oral tradition preceded the setting down in writing of the Gospel material. And scholars recognize a number of early oral creeds such as the one I already mentioned - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which scholars believe Paul received from Peter some three years after his Damascus road encounter with Christ. That Jesus was believed to have been resurrected was a creed or tradition which existed from the beginning of the church. Paul then passed it on to the Corinthians

Show you where in Mark Jesus calls himself God? Sure. I'll show you in both Matthew and Mark where Jesus says that he is God. In both Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 when the high priest Caiaphas asked Jesus if he was the Christ, the Son of God/Son of the Blessed One, Jesus responded with a statement that Caiaphas understood full well as did any Jew at that time as Jesus claiming to be God.

Jesus' response was that he would be seen coming on/with the clouds of heaven. Now why is that a statement by Jesus that he is God? To understand why you have to know a bit about the significance of the phrase 'coming on the clouds' which first century Jews did.

It goes back to the fact that Baal who was the Canaanite storm god who 'rode the clouds.' As a polemic against the Canaanite belief concerning Baal, the Old Testament writers took the idea of the one who rides the clouds and applied it to Yahweh as in Psalm 104:3 and Isaiah 19:1. It wasn't Baal who rode the clouds, it was Yahweh. But in Daniel 7:13, the verse which Jesus quoted in his response to Caiaphas, it is the Son of Man who is coming with the clouds. It is the Son of Man who is the cloud rider, which Caiaphas understood as an expression of deity. In quoting Daniel 7:13 Jesus identified himself as God which caused Caiaphas in response to declare that Jesus had spoken blasphemy and deserving of death.

Jesus as the cloud rider:

“The Cloud Rider”
Throughout the Ugaritic texts, Baal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. No angel or lesser being bore the title. As such, everyone in Israel who heard this title associated it with a deity, not a man or an angel.

Part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). For a faithful Israelite, then, there was only one god who “rode” on the clouds: Yahweh.

Until we hit Daniel 7, that is. You know the scene, but you likely don’t know the full context, since Ugaritic provides that for us:

Read the rest of it: https://www.logos.com/ugaritic

God is insane! Brilliant!!

And this. Now watch---three, count 'em--THREE gospels in a row:







So you can see, Mike. Right up to Luke, the third gospel Jesus tells people NOT to refer to him as God, only firstly the Son of man and then the son of God, until finally the Jesus legend morphs itself into Jesus as God in the gospel of John, the last gospel. It's a gradual evolution over the four gospels of making Jesus from a son of man, Mary and Joseph--into son of God--and finally into God. So Jesus was NEVER thought to be God from the very beginning of the Church.

Jesus did not deny that he was God and the verses you quoted - Mark 10:18, Matthew 19:17, and Luke 18:19 are not such a denial. Jesus' reply to the man was simply designed to get him to think about what the implication was in calling Jesus good. That since only God is good, if Jesus is good then he is God.

2.

Really, Mike????? Upon which non-Biblical historic documents written by recognized historians of the day do you make this claim? Did Paul personally appear to you and tell you he believed Jesus was God from the Damascus road on? Can you find any supporting statements of this in Acts? Closest thing I can find in Acts is 9:20



If you can't name a secular historic source feel free to say, "I don't have any. It's just my grand sweeping personal opinion."

I make it based on the fact that the early church from the beginning understood Jesus to be God and that the deity of Jesus was not a legend that developed later. You were just shown that in both Matthew and Mark Jesus called himself God. Both Gospels are relating what Jesus said about himself at his trial.

Your insistence upon a secular historic source that says that Jesus is God ignores the fact that a secular source would never call Jesus God. Historians recognize that the Gospels themselves are the best historical sources about what the church believed about Jesus.

3.

Much like John Chau and Graham Staines and his two sons, Philip (aged 10) and Timothy (aged 6) encouraged themselves Jesus would deliver them from the attacks of those who would harm them, right? Or were the psalmist and John Chau and Staines merely using the Bible to delude themselves into believing God(Jesus) would deliver them from harm???????

We all saw what happened to them when they trusted Jesus to deliver them from the attacks of those who would harm them. Shot through with arrows and burnt to a crisp. That's what happens when you trust in an imaginary Biblical character to deliver you from the harm of others.

I've already gone over this with you. As long as God intends to keep someone alive on this earth He will protect that person from being killed. But when a person's time on this earth is up, then that person will die in some manner.

Your arguments are weak and have little weight to them. But we both know that you are going to continue to go 'Nuh uh' and I don't feel like spending any more time arguing with someone who has no intention of even trying to be objective.


But the fact of the matter is that 1. Jesus did refer to himself as God, 2. He never promised that his disciples would not be killed, 3. he clearly stated that his apostles would be killed as per Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2. That doesn't mean that they were all martyred, but that some of them would be.

And I will leave it at that.

[BaptistFundie]

Originally Posted by badlander

Christianity has in the past. Many times in the past, from the Earl of Orkney, the Jews in Spain in 1492 or what happened to the natives in the Americas, Africa and Australia. Force has been a tool in conversion if you are willing to read history. Not all the time but it has been there.

The simple fact that this guy has so much advanced technology and knowledge would make it an uneven challege.

I do agree with you that neither he should have gone nor should we rejoice. If he had turned around after the second warning and then been charged, convicted and jailed would have been the best outcome. Going on for his third attempt was illegal and immoral.

I wasn't alive at any of those events. Nor did I take place in them. TO be honest, many people would suggest that those events had nothing to do with Christianity, but instead blame the Catholic Church. Not that I'm saying the Catholic church isn't Christian...but that's what many would state.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Mike555

I've already gone over this with you. As long as God intends to keep someone alive on this earth He will protect that person from being killed. But when a person's time on this earth is up, then that person will die in some manner.

I'll go over the other stuff later because it's more of the same---biased opinion masquerading as fact.

But for now, there's no external evidence God ever supernaturally kept anybody alive until He decided they had to die. That's more subjective opining on your part.

Let's look at this one though:

John Chau: graduated from ORU in 2014. Fanatic for Jesus. Had little to no experience in the missionary field but for some reason latched onto the Sentinelese tribe with his obsessive nature and was determined to bring Jesus to them. The rest is pretty well known. The first time he approached them a young boy shot an arrow at his heart and it struck his Bible which he held to his chest. From his journal:

"I preached a bit to them starting in Genesis."

One of the tribe members "shot me with an arrow -- directly into my Bible which I was holding in front of my chest," Chau wrote, saying he broke off the arrow on page 453 of the book of Isaiah.

"I stumbled back and I recall yelling at the [tribe member] for shooting me."

He wrote that he ran away, with tribe members chasing him, and he "had to swim about a mile back to the boat at the mouth of the cove."

You'd think he learned his lesson at this point but being a fanatical Christian "stupid is as stupid does" and so he went back the following day:

Chau repeatedly came back to his faith in pursuing the tribe members.

"This is not a pointless thing," Chau wrote. "The eternal lives of this tribe is at hand."

No, their eternal lives were not at stake, John. They could have sailed into heaven on Paul's promise in Romans

Those who have never heard the Law of God, are judged according to the law that is written in their hearts.

They didn't need John Chau breaking Indian law and going there under cover of darkness to witness to them a second time when the natives made it perfectly clear the first time they didn't want him there.

So in sum, John Chau, Jesus fanatic, law breaker, not an ounce of brain for biology and the danger he posed to the people who could have died out from an epidemic he might have started (unless it wasn't part of God's will of course ) and God decides, "I've had enough of this idiot. I'm going to have the native kill him because he's going to give Jesus a bad reputation."

Too late, God.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

I took it that she didn't mean just the natives, but people all over the world who heard the story.
No one is hearing about this and thinking, "Wow, Christianity sure sounds like the way to go."

Thank you, of course that's what I meant. As far as the natives being impacted, they were too busy impacting him with an arrow.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

People laughed at the early apostles willingly dying for the name of Christ, as well. \
Yet....here we are 2000 years later and the church is alive and well.

That was a good come-back.

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_

Lots of Muslims have died and willingly die every day in the name of Allah
Lots of gullible people willingly died in Jonestown drinking poisoned Koolaid
Lots of Japanese willingly died for their Emperor who was a God on Earth
Lots of Germans willingly died for Adolph Hitler

Sorry, but having insane, brainwashed or gullible people willing to die for a person
or cause does not make that cause valid or true.

No, it never did, correct.

Same as the majority is not always correct. (I'm thinking of the Nicene Council.)

[usayit]

While I think John Chau was an idiot...

We really don't need a dedicated thread starting with such a negative tone in the religious subforum... boarder line trolling

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

I'm sorry, but where does Jesus promise ultimate physical protection when we go out
into the world and keep us from dying?
The reality is that all of our lives are brief quick blimps when compared to eternity.
Anyone who is taking some enjoyment in the fact that this man was murdered is disgusting, in my book.

I second the post, jeff.
We don't know anything in the big picture of this...how the ripples of this event go out
and effect one person or many...one way or another.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I'll go over the other stuff later because it's more of the same---biased opinion masquerading as fact.

But for now, there's no external evidence God ever supernaturally kept anybody alive until He decided they had to die. That's more subjective opining on your part.

Let's look at this one though:

John Chau: graduated from ORU in 2014. Fanatic for Jesus. Had little to no experience in the missionary field but for some reason latched onto the Sentinelese tribe with his obsessive nature and was determined to bring Jesus to them. The rest is pretty well known. The first time he approached them a young boy shot an arrow at his heart and it struck his Bible which he held to his chest. From his journal:



You'd think he learned his lesson at this point but being a fanatical Christian "stupid is as stupid does" and so he went back the following day:



No, their eternal lives were not at stake, John. They could have sailed into heaven on Paul's promise in Romans



They didn't need John Chau breaking Indian law and going there under cover of darkness to witness to them a second time when the natives made it perfectly clear the first time they didn't want him there.

So in sum, John Chau, Jesus fanatic, law breaker, not an ounce of brain for biology and the danger he posed to the people who could have died out from an epidemic he might have started (unless it wasn't part of God's will of course ) and God decides, "I've had enough of this idiot. I'm going to have the native kill him because he's going to give Jesus a bad reputation."

Too late, God.

Originally Posted by Mike555

...
But the fact of the matter is that 1. Jesus did refer to himself as God, 2. He never promised that his disciples would not be killed, 3. he clearly stated that his apostles would be killed as per Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2. That doesn't mean that they were all martyred, but that some of them would be.

And I will leave it at that.

Don't you Love the method, Thrillo? Ignore my refutation of his position and put in a 'no reply will be listened to' last line.

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

I second the post, jeff.
We don't know anything in the big picture of this...how the ripples of this event go out
and effect one person or many...one way or another.

Apart from already stiffing Jeff's argument (Jesus did promise -unless a specific 'This isn't the plan' was spelled out)., the blanket excuse "God knows what he is doing -it all makes sense to Him even if it makes no sense to us'. is just a get -out.

Here it's just an annoying evasion of obvious evidence, but when applied to the way the world is going, it's dangerous.

Originally Posted by usayit

While I think John Chau was an idiot...

We really don't need a dedicated thread starting with such a negative tone in the religious subforum... boarder line trolling

We have to. Otherwise the Christian History rewriters will make him out to be a Martyred hero, rather than an interfering asshat.

One of their favourite ploys is getting us to shut up and leave them a free field to peddle their propaganda. They are already out there, doing it. We don't fall for it. We mustn't.

The rule is, when we won the match, shake hands, buy them a drink and a box of band -aids. Before, don't give 'em an inch, or they claim not only a mile, but the whole freakin' race.

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

How does one "force" someone to listen to them and convert? They killed him -- he wasn't forcing them to do anything.

Don't be ridiculous. You think he was going there to sell them Ipads? He had ssome stupid idea that God would work a miracle for him - that was the promise; if he had Faith he could move mountains.

It wasn't God's promise that panned out. It was Darwins' law.

[badlander]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

I wasn't alive at any of those events. Nor did I take place in them. TO be honest, many people would suggest that those events had nothing to do with Christianity, but instead blame the Catholic Church. Not that I'm saying the Catholic church isn't Christian...but that's what many would state.

Then look at the Anglican Church in Canada. Or did real Christianity begin when you joined your church? You can't say that Christians don't do X and not count each time it did X.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

We have to. Otherwise the Christian History rewriters will make him out to be a Martyred hero, rather than an interfering asshat.

No thread on CD is going to having any impact on the wider christian community.