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.
I really feel like I should pull one of Mike's infamous "We're done here" but I will pursue this a little further in an attempt to get Mike off this track he finds himself on pumping a hand trolley in circles and try to get him onto my train of thought.
Mike, what I believe is irrelevant to the issue. Mark 16:9-20 is but one small piece of a much larger puzzle made up of a thousand facts that when assembled form an empty picture--that is, that a Jesus if he lived was a mere mortal who fancied himself the son of God and the messiah. I could not deal with the entire topic in one thread but I have dealt with in numerous threads in the past which you have read and commented on. You are aware of my position. There are innumerable things that should tip Christians off that Jesus is imaginary or just a mortal man if he actually lived--no historical references, gospels written by anonymous individuals 50-100 years after this Jesus character supposedly lived, God's complete inability to preserve the autographs unless there WERE no originals, the shady way in which the Christian faith was piece-me aled together over several centuries, etc.
John Chau knew none of this. He was filled with zeal for someone who couldn't protect him like he believed Jesus would. You can take the approach he knew Jesus wouldn't protect him but he wanted to convert the tribe anyway--in which case the guy was suicidal. He chose arrows on a beach of martyrdom glory the way other suicidal guys chose death by cop. The larger point is that NOBODY ever got pulled out of harms way by Jesus. You'd do well to reread Psalm 91:5-7 because it makes an identical claim to the one Jesus supposedly made in Mark 16:
Translated: "arrows may fly right at you but they will not touch you because you have trusted in God for refuge."
John Chau knew his Bible inside and out. He knew of this promise made to him and relied on it for protection and that's likely why he was brave enough to go to that island. As reality proved once again Chau was a fool to rely on a promise made by the Bible. So I ask once again
Where was Jesus when John Chau needed this promise to be true?
You made a claim that the death of John Chau proves that Jesus is imaginary. The claim is ridicuous. Again, for the third time I think, Jesus never promised that his disciples would come to no harm. According to two verses which I have shown you, he stated that there would be those who would kill his disciples. And that puts the lie to your claim that Jesus promised that his disciples would be protected from death. Your argument is false, despite your refusal to acknowledge that fact.
No historical references to the existence of Jesus? Actual historians, whether they themselves are believers, consider the Gospels themselves to be the best historical sources for the existence of Jesus. Historians more or less evaluate the historical worth of the New Testament documents as they do any other ancient historic work.
The gospels being anonymous? In a formal sense that is true since the names of the writers don't appear in the text. However, every single extant gospel manuscript contains as the heading - 'According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.' There is absolutely no reason to assume that those headings weren't on the earliest manuscripts which are no longer extant. If those headings weren't added until sometime in the second century then why are there no competing traditions regarding who wrote the gospels? Without exception, it's 'According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.' And why, if the church wanted to give an air of authority to the gospels by using the names of the apostles would they then use the name of Luke who was not an apostle and who at one time deserted Paul on one of his missionary journeys? Or why use the name of Mark when they could have used the name of Peter from who Mark is said to have got his information for his gospel account? If the church wanted to lend authority to the gospel it would have made more sense to call the Gospel of Mark the Gospel of Peter. But they didn't. And why use Matthew's name? Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were hated by the Jews. If Matthew was in fact not the author of the Gospel to which his name is attached it would have made more sense to use the name of someone else such as Barnabas for example. The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have the ring of authenticity to them. And the early church was in a much better position to know who the gospel writers were than modern day scholars who disregard the statements of the early church on the matter.
''After this Jesus character supposedly lived?'' Almost every scholar who engages in Jesus studies acknowledges that Jesus lived and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate.
Historian Paula Fredriksen states;
''We have facts. Facts about Jesus and facts about the movement that formed after his crucifixion.''
''The single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely crucifixion.''
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, pp. 7, 8
Fredriksen does not believe that Jesus performed miracles, but that he performed deeds which his contemporaries viewed as miracles. She therefore is not an apologist for Jesus. But she acknowledges his historical existence as does practically every other trained scholar on the planet who is involved in Jesus Studies.
Bart Ehrman on the historical existence of Jesus;
''Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.''
Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth p. 12
The idea of mythicists that an historical Jesus never existed is not validated by the evidence that historians regard as valid.
Again, Jesus made no promise that those who witness in his name would be protected from death. You've been shown from Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2 that he in fact stated that there would be those disciples who would be killed for his name. And if you can't get that through your head then I don't know what else to tell you.
You made a claim that the death of John Chau proves that Jesus is imaginary. The claim is ridicuous. Again, for the third time I think, Jesus never promised that his disciples would come to no harm. According to two verses which I have shown you, he stated that there would be those who would kill his disciples. And that puts the lie to your claim that Jesus promised that his disciples would be protected from death. Your argument is false, despite your refusal to acknowledge that fact.
No historical references to the existence of Jesus? Actual historians, whether they themselves are believers, consider the Gospels themselves to be the best historical sources for the existence of Jesus. Historians more or less evaluate the historical worth of the New Testament documents as they do any other ancient historic work.
The gospels being anonymous? In a formal sense that is true since the names of the writers don't appear in the text. However, every single extant gospel manuscript contains as the heading - 'According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.' There is absolutely no reason to assume that those headings weren't on the earliest manuscripts which are no longer extant. If those headings weren't added until sometime in the second century then why are there no competing traditions regarding who wrote the gospels? Without exception, it's 'According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.' And why, if the church wanted to give an air of authority to the gospels by using the names of the apostles would they then use the name of Luke who was not an apostle and who at one time deserted Paul on one of his missionary journeys? Or why use the name of Mark when they could have used the name of Peter from who Mark is said to have got his information for his gospel account? If the church wanted to lend authority to the gospel it would have made more sense to call the Gospel of Mark the Gospel of Peter. But they didn't. And why use Matthew's name? Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were hated by the Jews. If Matthew was in fact not the author of the Gospel to which his name is attached it would have made more sense to use the name of someone else such as Barnabas for example. The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have the ring of authenticity to them. And the early church was in a much better position to know who the gospel writers were than modern day scholars who disregard the statements of the early church on the matter.
''After this Jesus character supposedly lived?'' Almost every scholar who engages in Jesus studies acknowledges that Jesus lived and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate.
Historian Paula Fredriksen states;
''We have facts. Facts about Jesus and facts about the movement that formed after his crucifixion.''
''The single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely crucifixion.''
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, pp. 7, 8
Fredriksen does not believe that Jesus performed miracles, but that he performed deeds which his contemporaries viewed as miracles. She therefore is not an apologist for Jesus. But she acknowledges his historical existence as does practically every other trained scholar on the planet who is involved in Jesus Studies.
Bart Ehrman on the historical existence of Jesus;
''Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.''
Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth p. 12
The idea of mythicists that an historical Jesus never existed is not validated by the evidence that historians regard as valid.
Again, Jesus made no promise that those who witness in his name would be protected from death. You've been shown from Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2 that he in fact stated that there would be those disciples who would be killed for his name. And if you can't get that through your head then I don't know what else to tell you.
Very good. But I think you are missing the idea behind the topic. Many who would agree with you that Jesus was Crucified by the Roman governor (which I credit myself - though counter arguments are possible) would say that it is the resurrection as proof that Jesus was a divine being and is, thus, still around and is looking after his faithful is what is the question of the topic.
That this particular faithful was not looked after arguably debunks is a very particular and graphic way, this claim that Jesus - at least a still living Jesus who can deliver on the promises made to his faithful in prayer.
Matthew promises that Faith will enable the Believer to send a mountain to test a theory that it wouldn't clear the Marianos trench, but when it seems it's put to the test, Jesus/God can't even deflect an arrow,
Bear this in mind dudes, when US Govt votes to cut the NASA budged for sending rocket -powered nukes to deflect Asteroid Terminator off course on the grounds that a National Day of prayer will send the thing back where it came from.
Very good. But I think you are missing the idea behind the topic. Many who would agree with you that Jesus was Crucified by the Roman governor (which I credit myself - though counter arguments are possible) would say that it is the resurrection as proof that Jesus was a divine being and is, thus, still around and is looking after his faithful is what is the question of the topic.
That this particular faithful was not looked after arguably debunks is a very particular and graphic way, this claim that Jesus - at least a still living Jesus who can deliver on the promises made to his faithful in prayer.
Matthew promises that Faith will enable the Believer to send a mountain to test a theory that it wouldn't clear the Marianos trench, but when it seems it's put to the test, Jesus/God can't even deflect an arrow,
Bear this in mind dudes, when US Govt votes to cut the NASA budged for sending rocket -powered nukes to deflect Asteroid Terminator off course on the grounds that a National Day of prayer will send the thing back where it came from.
I have addressed the comment made in the title of the thread that the ''Dead Missionary proves beyond [a] shadow of [a] doubt Jesus is Imaginary.'' It does not prove any such thing.
Again, Jesus never made a promise that his disciples would be protected from harm or death. Whether or not God delivers a particular person, (such as this person who was killed by the arrow) from physical death has no bearing on whether he could have done so. Apparently I need to repeat once again that the text - (Matthew 24:9; John 16:2) states that Jesus in fact said that his disciples would be killed for his name.
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."
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.
You made a claim that the death of John Chau proves that Jesus is imaginary. The claim is ridicuous. Again, for the third time I think, Jesus never promised that his disciples would come to no harm. According to two verses which I have shown you, he stated that there would be those who would kill his disciples. And that puts the lie to your claim that Jesus promised that his disciples would be protected from death. Your argument is false, despite your refusal to acknowledge that fact.
No historical references to the existence of Jesus? Actual historians, whether they themselves are believers, consider the Gospels themselves to be the best historical sources for the existence of Jesus. Historians more or less evaluate the historical worth of the New Testament documents as they do any other ancient historic work.
The gospels being anonymous? In a formal sense that is true since the names of the writers don't appear in the text. However, every single extant gospel manuscript contains as the heading - 'According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.' There is absolutely no reason to assume that those headings weren't on the earliest manuscripts which are no longer extant. If those headings weren't added until sometime in the second century then why are there no competing traditions regarding who wrote the gospels? Without exception, it's 'According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.' And why, if the church wanted to give an air of authority to the gospels by using the names of the apostles would they then use the name of Luke who was not an apostle and who at one time deserted Paul on one of his missionary journeys? Or why use the name of Mark when they could have used the name of Peter from who Mark is said to have got his information for his gospel account? If the church wanted to lend authority to the gospel it would have made more sense to call the Gospel of Mark the Gospel of Peter. But they didn't. And why use Matthew's name? Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were hated by the Jews. If Matthew was in fact not the author of the Gospel to which his name is attached it would have made more sense to use the name of someone else such as Barnabas for example. The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have the ring of authenticity to them. And the early church was in a much better position to know who the gospel writers were than modern day scholars who disregard the statements of the early church on the matter.
''After this Jesus character supposedly lived?'' Almost every scholar who engages in Jesus studies acknowledges that Jesus lived and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate.
Historian Paula Fredriksen states;
''We have facts. Facts about Jesus and facts about the movement that formed after his crucifixion.''
''The single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely crucifixion.''
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, pp. 7, 8
Fredriksen does not believe that Jesus performed miracles, but that he performed deeds which his contemporaries viewed as miracles. She therefore is not an apologist for Jesus. But she acknowledges his historical existence as does practically every other trained scholar on the planet who is involved in Jesus Studies.
Bart Ehrman on the historical existence of Jesus;
''Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.''
Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth p. 12
The idea of mythicists that an historical Jesus never existed is not validated by the evidence that historians regard as valid.
Again, Jesus made no promise that those who witness in his name would be protected from death. You've been shown from Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2 that he in fact stated that there would be those disciples who would be killed for his name. And if you can't get that through your head then I don't know what else to tell you.
Here are some brief replies to your salient points, Mike:
1. I've stated often and you've ignored often that I side with many historians and theologians like Bart Ehrman who you use as a reference that a Jesus might very well have existed but he was not divine. He was a mere mortal who was crucified and that was the end of him. For decades after his death rumors and myths began to circulate that he was a mighty man of works and then at some point he was made into a deity.
2. Historians who are not fundamentalist do NOT accept the gospels as proof of Jesus' divinity. If you want to argue they're proof he lived, well okay. The argument can swing both ways depending on which historian/theologian we trot out.
3. Irenaeus chose the names for the gospels and he chose those names which he felt would give the gospels the greatest credibility. We know of a gospel of Peter.
Irenaeus knew of the gospel of Peter since historians place it at the middle of the 2nd Century so it's obvious why Irenaeus didn't choose Peter's name. Matthew obviously was an apostle. John was an apostle--perfect candidates. But we still have the problem of dating. Tradition places Mark circa 70 CE but no manuscripts exist before the 4th Century when the Codex Sinaiticus emerges. It's the only thing we have that shows us precisely what was in the gospels. If you know of something dated earlier that proves conclusively how Mark gospel looked in 70 CE please tell us.
4. You've told us quite a bit about why we should NOT believe Jesus was divine. Why not comment on the promise Jesus made in Psalm 91 that essentially promises the same thing as Mark 18:9-20. You were oddly silent on that one.
Quote:
Surely he will save you
from the fowler’s snare
and from the deadly pestilence.
4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
5 You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.
7 A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
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.
No, it's not. The very incident that prompted this thread demonstrates that parts of it are not well at all.
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.
Whistling past the graveyard.
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.
