*Zaccheus* on 30/1/2004 at 00:03
Quote:
Originally posted by Stitch666 Also, you kept true to form and didn't answer GBM's question.
GBM asked me if I would accept anything the 'madman' said and how I'd tell the two apart.
Skronk on 30/1/2004 at 00:05
Didn't read the whole thead. Will not read the whole thread.
There is no god. Jesus was an ordinary man (if he existed at all) and died an ordinary man and did not rise from the dead and did not fucking feed 10,000 people or whatever with a few loaves of bread and did not walk on water and did not turn said water into wine and DIDN'T FUCKING HEAL PETER'S EAR.
I will not elucidate or respond to replies to my overly blunt post. Or maybe I will, who knows? Not god, surely.
Gingerbread Man on 30/1/2004 at 00:05
I most certainly did not ask anyone how you'd tell them apart.
For starters, I wouldn't assume you were arrogant enough to believe that you had the capacity or the right to decide which was the madman and which was the prophet.
Uncia on 30/1/2004 at 00:13
So God is someone who sits above us, doesn't talk to us, says "mysterious are my ways" when your life goes to the crapper, creates a world where everything seems to be constructed in a way that would suggest his only guide to humanity is wrong, does nothing to prove he exists, gives us a thinking mind so we can reason and deduce, but if all of his effors succeed and we don't believe in him when we die, we get punished and sent to a burning inferno for an eternity?
God is an asshole.
*Zaccheus* on 30/1/2004 at 00:15
GBM - when I said 'how you would tell the two apart' I did not mean how to tell 'mad' people from 'normal' people, but rather how anyone could tell the difference between what came from God and what did not, which seemed to be what you were really getting at.
Uncia - he does talk to us, he has sent a guide whom plenty of people follow, and he is interested in us.
Anyway, 12:30am - bedtime.
:)
GayleSaver on 30/1/2004 at 00:20
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* BTW, there are jewish rabbies who have accepted Jesus as the messiah simply because of their studies of the Old Testament.
With all due respect, *Zaccheus*, where are you going?
Convict on 30/1/2004 at 00:20
I'd like to start with the reliability of transmission arguement first if I may.
New Testament - earliest gospel account from a harmony by Tatian (170 AD). Earliest New Testament - Codex Sinaiticus (350 AD), next Codex Vaticanus.
Reliability of what was written in:
Gospel of John - shows knowledge of the geography and locations, topography, and some sites’ architecture of southern Palestine (as evidenced by archaeology). The date of writing is believed to be pre-AD 70 due to (including) the pre-war context and that the p52 fragment is from Eygypt (traditional place of composition is Asia Minor).
Therefore the author was in the correct location and most likely the correct time period (ie Jesus' life) and wrote in a historical context. However this does not back up the claim of miracles occurring (ie he could have lied).
I began some work on the gospel of Luke and the author shows some knowledge of sites etc and people, e.g. Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (which was originally used against its authenticity until archaeology showed it true).
Regarding whether the authors of the NT lied I would suggest that after Jesus was executed like/with a criminal the apostles were dispirited and went fishing etc but later turned this around and began preaching Jesus risen and then mostly were martyred.
2 comments with this - the dispirited bit and going fishing I'm getting from the NT and the martyrdom I'm not sure what sources back it up (I'm not aware of any claims that most of the apostles weren't martyred though). The 2nd point is that they could be crazy but I wonder if that many could be crazy and do/say/write the same stuff (also Luke was a doctor).
Stitch666 on 30/1/2004 at 00:32
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* he
does talk to us, he
has sent a guide whom plenty of people follow, and he
is interested in us.
You've really given me a lot to think about now.
*Zaccheus* on 30/1/2004 at 00:32
Quote:
Originally posted by GayleSaver With all due respect, *Zaccheus*, where are you going?
Ok, one last post before bed time.
:)
Are you offended by that statement?
Christianity
is deeply rooted in judaism.
We believe Jesus to be the messiah, the one who was predicted in (what we call) the old testament. He came first and foremost to the jewish people (his people). The early christians only had the old testament. That was their bible. From it they deduced that Jesus was indeed the promised saviour. All I'm saying is that this is still happening. I mean, why shouldn't it.
GayleSaver on 30/1/2004 at 00:35
Offensive? Indeed I do. The biggest, most aggressive Messianic Jewish organization is a pawn of Christians. More abstractly, I don't wish to see us fade into oblivion, and I can assure you that will not happen in your lifetime.
Say now that I am alone in that opinion, and I will show you it is the root of modern Judaism, and the heart of the Jewish nationality. Where would you go from there?
Quote:
Originally posted by Agent Monkeysee Yes I can say I definitely have felt anger without some form of hatred unless you're counting some kind of hatred of an abstraction such as inconsistent thinking or crappy circumstances or something.
Romeo would not have died for Juliet were he not angry. :)
