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.
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 can thank Emperor Constantine and pure chance that you're not worshiping Krishna right now.
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.
Come on - you know better than that. Isn't the whole thrust of the story that Jesus -and the disciples - could have been saved if it was part of God's plan - but it wasn't.
Math 26. 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
So ok, it wasn't part of God's plan that this missionary would convert these people. But couldn't he have made sure he never got there, or lost the desire to do this, like he hardened Pharaoh's heart or turned Saul?
You are looking for excuses and the only one that really works is - if there is a god, it doesn't interfere with human affairs, and we are as on our own as effectively as if there was no god.
That is the lesson of this event as well as the Church should mind it's own damn' business and not trying to find small print loopholes in the guarantees in the Gospels so you don't have to pay up when a claim is presented.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-26-2018 at 01:06 AM..
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.
I'm not quite sure that it's well. I see a lot of empty pews. I see the Catholic sex scandals. I see the blurring of the line between church and state. I see religious extremism.
I'm not quite sure that it's well. I see a lot of empty pews. I see the Catholic sex scandals. I see the blurring of the line between church and state. I see religious extremism.
BapFun might also consider that, from, the first, religious doubt and question has been under pressure from religion and never more implacable, ruthless and self -Righteous persecution right up to the present day, hour and minute than at the hands of the Abrahamic religions.
And yet, here we are, still here, 2,000 years later and starting to witness unto the emptying of the Pews, as you observe.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
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.
Jesus was recognized to be God from the very beginning of the Church and is stated to be so both in the Gospels and by Paul. Paul wrote Philippians sometime during the period between the middle 50's and the early 60's. In Phil. 2:5-8 he writes that Jesus existed in the form of God and that he took the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of man. This is similar to what John later wrote in John 1:1,14. But what Paul wrote in Philippians he surely believed soon after his Damascus Road experience which was no more than a year or two after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. And that Jesus was resurrected was stated in a very early creed or tradition that Paul received probably from Peter and James when he went to visit them three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18). A tradition that he later referred to in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Neither Jesus' resurrection or his divinity are later inventions or legends.
Quote:
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.
I didn't say that non-fundamentalist historians believed that Jesus is God. I said that they believe that Jesus existed historically in response to your suggestion that there may not have even been an historical Jesus.
Quote:
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.
No, Irenaeus did not choose the names for the gospels. The four canonical gospels were all written during the first century and very probably were circulating as a corpus by the early 2nd century which was long before the pseudepigraphal Gospel of Peter which was rejected by the church. If the names that are attached to the canonical gospels were a later occurrence there would likely have been competing traditions regarding the authorship of the four gospels because by that time there would have been a wide distribution of manuscripts and there was no one centralized authorized authority over all the churches who could have directed what the gospels were to be called.
As for Matthew, I've already stated that despite being an apostle, he had been a tax collector. Tax collectors were hated by the Jews. And therefore, it would have made more sense for the church to have chosen a different name for the gospel in order to lend authority to that gospel unless Matthew actually was the writer.
And no, tradition does not place Mark c. 70 AD. That date is the opinion of many modern scholars. But there are also scholars who date it much earlier. No one knows the exact date for the writing of the gospels, but a very good argument can be made for a date around the early 60's.
The content of the gospels prior to the 4th century isn't relevant to the issue of who wrote the gospels. And even if your argument that Irenaeus chose the names of the four gospels was true, which it isn't, Irenaeus died c. AD 202 which is early 3rd century and therefore prior to Codex Sinaticus.
Quote:
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.
No, I have not told you or anyone else why people should NOT believe that Jesus was divine. Why would I do that when I believe that he was?
As for Psalm 91, the psalmist was convinced that there is security in trusting in God and he encouraged himself that he would be delivered from the attacks of those who would harm him. And it is true that for as long as God wants a person to remain alive that no one will be able to remove that person from this life. But there comes a time when God says that a person's time on this earth is up. And when that time comes he will die by whatever means. Now for the umpteenth time, Jesus never promised his disciples that they would be protected from death. You have been shown both in Matthew 24:19 and John 16:2 that Jesus said that his disciples would be killed. A fact you continue to simply ignore because it is an inconvenient fact which puts the lie to your argument.
I was thinking that the missionary got done in because he kept on disobeying God. He made how many attempts to land on that island and got driven away? That was God telling him not to go there. Then finally God said; "For you disobedience, I will let you suffer the consequence!"
The Quran teaches us not to force our will on others? Really? It seems at odds with news reports coming out of some parts of the world. Would you be so kind as to show us where it teaches this?
P.S. I puzzle over why missionaries were so hell bent on spreading "The word". Wasn't it accepted that if someone did not know about the
'word of God' they would not go to hell? So why in heaven's name tell them?
So God killed him? That is interesting and a bit frightening. Why are religious beliefs so creepy? I am sure there are parents using this right now to keep their children from doing stupid things.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Come on - you know better than that. Isn't the whole thrust of the story that Jesus -and the disciples - could have been saved if it was part of God's plan - but it wasn't.
Math 26. 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
So ok, it wasn't part of God's plan that this missionary would convert these people. But couldn't he have made sure he never got there, or lost the desire to do this, like he hardened Pharaoh's heart or turned Saul?
You are looking for excuses and the only one that really works is - if there is a god, it doesn't interfere with human affairs, and we are as on our own as effectively as if there was no god.
That is the lesson of this event as well as the Church should mind it's own damn' business and not trying to find small print loopholes in the guarantees in the Gospels so you don't have to pay up when a claim is presented.
I know better than what? My statement was clear. Jesus never promised that his disciples would be protected from death and in fact said that they would be killed as stated in Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2.
I don't look for excuses. And I certainly don't believe that God doesn't interfere with human affairs when there is a need to. However, that doesn't mean that He micro manages every decision and action of a person. People have volition and make decisions and do things every day which God does not interfere with.
You refer to God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh's heart was already hard. God simply brought out what was already there and intensified it by introducing the events spoken of in the text. As for Paul, he had a zeal for God and honestly thought he was doing the right thing by persecuting the Christians. When Jesus revealed Himself to Paul on the Damascus Road, he realized that he had been wrong and became a believer. In neither case did God pull strings on a puppet to make Pharaoh or Paul do as they did. He knew how they would respond or react to their circumstances.
Now, I have no intention of spending the day going back and forth with you and Thrillobyte. I don't care whether or not either of you believe what Christianity teaches, or what is written in the Bible. I have addressed Thrillobyte's claim that, to quote the title of the thread, ''Dead Missionary Proves Beyond Shadow of Doubt Jesus is Imaginary.'' It does not.
I know better than what? My statement was clear. Jesus never promised that his disciples would be protected from death and in fact said that they would be killed as stated in Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2.
I don't look for excuses. And I certainly don't believe that God doesn't interfere with human affairs when there is a need to. However, that doesn't mean that He micro manages every decision and action of a person. People have volition and make decisions and do things every day which God does not interfere with.
You refer to God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh's heart was already hard. God simply brought out what was already there and intensified it by introducing the events spoken of in the text. As for Paul, he had a zeal for God and honestly thought he was doing the right thing by persecuting the Christians. When Jesus revealed Himself to Paul on the Damascus Road, he realized that he had been wrong and became a believer. In neither case did God pull strings on a puppet to make Pharaoh or Paul do as they did. He knew how they would respond or react to their circumstances.
Now, I have no intention of spending the day going back and forth with you and Thrillobyte. I don't care whether or not either of you believe what Christianity teaches, or what is written in the Bible. I have addressed Thrillobyte's claim that, to quote the title of the thread, ''Dead Missionary Proves Beyond Shadow of Doubt Jesus is Imaginary.'' It does not.
Where does it state that Pharoah’s heart was already hard?...
Where does it state that Pharoah’s heart was already hard?...
In Exodus 3:19 God told Moses at the burning bush that He knew that the king of Egypt would not permit the Israelites to go except under compulsion. He knew of Pharaoh's negative volition - his hardness of heart. When God then brought about the plagues, they served to further harden his heart. In some of the passages, God is said to harden Pharaoh's heart. In other passages, such as Exodus 8:32, Pharaoh is said to harden his own heart.
I guess its about that time. Look I know for a fact God is real and so are his devils. I could tell you about my judgment. I could tell you how that lead to me being one of Gods chosen. I could tell you how coffee has been reheated in my cup just sitting on the table or while I hole it. I could tell you about the visions. And the varies Devils that have spoken with me since becoming Chosen.
But in the end since you did not see the vision. or there for my judgment and being chosen. You are in fact taking it on faith despite i tell you no lie. All those things are true about what i have experienced as a God Chosen.
Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, and other various well know Prophets all have one thing in common. They empowered a evil best. Moses gave you a law of slavery and a guide to murder in the end. If you do not believe it than read the law and there judgments Starting at Exodus chapter 20. It goes on for a few chapters.
So now that i know for a fact Devils have great power and Magic i must point this out to. Just because one becomes a prophet does not mean they are a prophet for God. All famous prophets of old fell for the Lessons of Devils best and empowered great evils as holy. Yes even Jesus for he taught his perfection in those commandments made him holy. But empowering evil is never holy.
A god came to him in the form of a flame. Than gave him the sign of the serpent in the power of his staff! Jesus said it was holy when it is not! Religious books are the mark of the beast. Unless you see why they are evil you are fallen. You see why those things are fallen you are not fallen. Its that simple. All religions! all of them are fallen. Jesus said the holy Ghost was holy. But she is the ***** of revelations! He left you to assume she was a man.
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.
Jesus Was and is a false messiah.
