Christianity

[CloseTheBlastDo]

heh - that's funny.

 

'cos I hate it when people use the word 'understand' when they should use the word 'believe'...

 

...drives me nuts!!

[Rainer511]

Concerning Part I

Really nice, for this I even consulted a Greek Professor for assistance in looking at the verses you quoted, and he even gave you merits for looking at it intelligibly. In fact, the Swoon Theory as it's called is "very ingenious" as far as J. N. D. Anderson is concerned. He says however, "But it won't stand up to investigation."

 

What makes me think the tomb was visited 'several' times...?

 

Notice in the scripture that you quoted it also says, "...which came with him from Galilee...". After having the Greek Professor look at it he said that the "followed after" was really more of a "followed with". It wasn't to imply a different time but just to imply that they followed him. So really the only "visit" was with the body's actual placement in the tomb.

 

Basically, people were free to walk to and from the tomb as they pleased.

Matt. 27:66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

They were definately NOT free to walk to and from the tomb. By Roman law if anyone broke this seal by moving the stone they would have been put to death.

 

THe above line is repeated nearly identically in Matthew and Mark. I have chosen to quote the Luke reference, however, because in this version, the centurion interestingly states 'certainly this was a righteous man'. If the centurion did believe this, it is natural to assume the centurion would not have believed he deserved to be killed.

 

It is funny that you would quote Luke because in Matthew he says, "Surely he was the Son of God!" which to me would be more persuasive than saying a righteous man, but still your point stands.

 

John 19

34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

 

E. Le Camus

To prove it the better, the centurion pierced Him with his lance, and the corpse made no motion. From the wound caem forth a mixture of water and of blood, which revealed a rapid decomposition of the vital elements. Bleeding, they say, is fatal in syncope. Here it has not killed Him Who is already dead. For the circumstanes in which it occurred to prove that Jesus had ceased to live some memoments before. And it does not occur to the most intelligent of His enemies, such as the chief priests, to cast a doubt on the reality of His death. All that they fear is fraud on the part of the disciples, who may remove the body, but not on the part of Jesus Whom they have seen expire.

 

Says it all ^_^

If it's in doubt whether pilate called to the same centurion which said Jesus was a 'righteous' man, take into consideration that just a few verses earlier, the believing centurion was also refered to as 'THE centurion', and there are no other centurions mentioned. I think it's very safe to conclude it was indeed the same centurion.

 

Yes that is very interesting that is says the centurion. Even so the fact that when pierced blood and water came forth should be evidence enough to prove his death.

 

Pilate had at least doubts as to whether Jesus was actually dead. (He hadn't actually spent that long on the cross - only several hours. The gospels differ as to the exact amount of time, but certainly no longer than half a day. Some people survived crucificion for DAYS before finally dying. THat was the point - it was a VERY slow, painful, terrible death)

 

The point was not a slow, painful, and terrible death. The point was humiliation-your being hung naked in front of many people as they mock and laugh at you.

 

E. Le Camus

Jesus, before His crucifixion, had already suffered much, both in body and soul. He had passed through the anticipation of His death in Gethsemane. He had undergone the frightful pain of a Roman scourging, which left deep scars on the back of the sufferer, and which is almost equivalent to capital punishment. Then they had pierced His hands and feet with nails. The small amount of strength which he might still have had left had been worn away by the six hours of frightful suffering which he had already passed through. Consumed with thirst and completely exhausted, He had at last breathed out His soul in that last cry recorded by the evangelists. Again, a Roman soldier had pierced His heart with a spear. With no food or drink, with no one to dress His wounds or alleviate His suffering in any way, He had passed a whole day and two nights in the cave which He was laid. And yet, on the morning of the third day behold Him reappearing, active and radiant!

 

My question is after all that what are the chances of him being alive? Of course he died more quickly than most people who were sentenced to crucifixion.

 

The next verse does refer to Jesus' body being wound in linen with the spices. I guess it's natural to assume the spices refered to are the ones Nicodemus bought - but no-where does it say these are 'traditionally' used when preparing the dead.

 

John 19

39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.

40 Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

 

The fact of it is, these were embalming spices. Why would he bring embalming spices to heal someone-if he wasn't dead.

 

Merrill C. Tenney

In preparing a body for burial according to Jewish custom, it was usually washed and straightened, and then bandaged tightly from the armpits to the ankles in strips of linen about a foot wide. Aromatic spices often of a gummy consistency, were placed between the wrappings or folds. They served partially as a preservative and partially as a cement to glue the cloth wrappings into a solid covering...

 

So what your telling me is, that after applying these herbs that somehow attended to his condition, he wrapped this half-living body according to Jewish customs(as mentioned above)? Or are we ignoring that part of scripture, or the fact that there were witnesses to these events other than for Nicodemus? I would also like to know exactly what you think the aloe and myrrh helped cure him of.

 

Concerning Part II

 

If I were to believe ANY text which had SOME kind of historical authenticity, AND mentioned divine occurances - I would quite literally have to believe in practically every single religion on this planet.

 

The historical authenticity is greater than that of any other work of antiquity, and I thought I had made that clear earlier. If you want I can post a chart listing many other works of antiquity with the dates of their writing and the earliest copies we have for comparison, but I doubt that will be needed. So in any case, the bible has a lot more than SOME historical authenticity. And you have yet to list any historical anomalies that argue the bible's historical authenticity.

 

I know I'm going to get the usual "The Bible is more conclusive and has more historical backing than any other religious text ... blah blah blah".

Seriously - save that kind of talk for people who are easiely mislead...

 

I would love to hear your reasoning on why you think the historical authenticity of a document is only for the easily misled.

 

Until you've explain why you can dismiss all these instances of miraculous events, I don't feel particularly inclined or required to go any further into my explinations as to why I don't believe the instances mentioned in the Bible.

 

Although I see the point your making, I don't feel particularly inclined or required to refute Morman beliefs in a forum designated to discuss Christianity. Not only would it be off topic but you are very obviously dodging my question. What do you think Jesus believed about himself, your explaination for Jesus' Miracles, and what of the remarkable fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies?

 

You can use other historical sources to back up the existance of a person called Jesus Christ.

And that many many people believed he came back from the dead. And believed in all the other 'miracles' he performed...

 

Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus)

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly...

 

The Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus is probably better used to prove the existence of Jesus rather than his Miracles, but I wanted to make note that he said Jesus was one "who wrought surprising feats".

 

As far as historical backings for his Miracles I will have to get back to you on that. And I don't really see your point on saying that the Gospels had little information concerning his accension, because I would agree, they didn't say much. As far as the controversy over the location of his accension, I will again get back to you on that.

 

On another note however there are still some things that are left unfinished in previous posts.

 

When Mary Magdalen saw the empty tomb and ran to tell about it, no one believed her except Peter who didn't really believe himself until he saw the empty tomb. If they had been nursing Jesus back to health for the past three days then why would Jesus' absence from the tomb be such a surprise to the disciples?

 

Out of curiosity could you tell me one of these historical anomalies?

 

Also you have yet to reveal to me the evidence that you were going to gather concerning the alteration of the Gospels. I don't have much time to post with school and all, so I wont be able to comment as much as I'd like.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Rainer551,

 

Before I retort, I must commend you with the most dignified and gratious reply from anybody I have been 'debating' yet on these forums. Especially concerning christianity.

Even though I was getting rather vicious at times, you have stood your ground without venom. In that sense, you have certainly bettered me.

 

For that - I congratulate and admire you.

Even though I do plan a full rebuttle of your points, I am going to be careful to try and extend to you the same curtosey that you have entended me.

 

After having the Greek Professor look at it he said that the "followed after" was really more of a "followed with". It wasn't to imply a different time but just to imply that they followed him. So really the only "visit" was with the body's actual placement in the tomb.

 

I'm sorry -I just don't buy that at all.

...read the verses again...

 

Luke 23:

--------

53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

 

Notice two things. First, the fact that verse 53 implies Joseph prepared the body ALONE (no-one is mentioned helping him - it said HE wrapped it in linen)

 

Verse 54 says the DAY of preperation passed.

 

THEN it says in 55 that the women from Galiee 'followed after'...

 

Maybe the women of Galilee just walked really slowly from the cross or something - 'cos actually they turned up AFTER the day of preperation!

 

And more on this point of Joseph preparing the body ALONE:

 

Matthew 28:

-----------

59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

 

It says Mary Magdalene and the 'other' Mary (Mother of Jesus) were 'around', but again, it sounds like Jospeh alone prepared the body.

 

Mark 15:

--------

45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was

 

hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

 

Again - both Mary's only witnessed that finally prepared body. It was only Joseph who actually prepared it - and it doesn't say whether either or both Mary's were watching during.

..and PLEASE note the TOTAL lack of reference to ANY guards or other authority figures in ANY of these verses!!

 

...I will leave the appropiate verses from John till later. (That's when it starts to get REALLY interesting!)

 

They were definately NOT free to walk to and fro from the tomb. By roman law if anyone broke this seal by moving the stone they would have been put to death.

 

If you are talking about sometime during the second day and onwards - then you would be right.

 

BUT - please read back a few verses from Matt 27:66.

 

You will see that the seal was only set AFTER the 'day of preperation'.

During that day of preperation, there is no mention of ANY checks or watch.

THAT is why the pharisees were so eager - as soon as they realised the situation - to GET guards there and SEAL the tomb. Because they realised it would be VERY easy to take the body out and away from the tomb is someone wanted to.

If this was NOT the case, why were they so worried in the first place?

 

...of course the pharasiees were only worried about a 'dead' body disappearing. THey didn't even consider the other possibilities...

 

blood and water

 

It was definelty water and not some other clear liquid which would simply appear like water? (THere are lots of liquids flowing around the human body). Did John verify it was water in same way?! Of course - the gospels aren't anywhere near detailed enough to say for sure.

Even if he had - how would he have verified this?

 

And this still ignores Pilate's doubt over whether Jesus was actually dead. (The actual word used is 'marvelled'). If it was THIS obvious Jesus was dead, why would he 'marvel' at this?

 

The point was not a slow, painful, and terrible death. The point was humiliation-your being hung naked in front of many people as they mock and laugh at you.

 

Humiliation was definelty part of it - for sure. But it was ALSO purposefully slow and painful. It was the worst possible execution method the Roman empire delt out. It warned anybody quite clearly what happenned if you disobeyed.

This is simply fact - and I'm surprised were even discussing this...

 

My question is after all that what are the chances of him being alive? Of course he died more quickly than most people who were sentenced to crucifixion.

 

You want stories of people who have survived EXTREME torment and torture?! There are HUNDREADS upon HUNDREADS of them!

 

Many just as extreme and what Jesus went through. And many that I would actually consider worse...

 

Read indepth about ANY war. I would look some up for you, but I need to spare some time to keep answering you, continue my biblical analysis and look up evidence of gospel alterations!! So I'll have to leave that up to you to investigate...

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to demean what happenned to Jesus on that cross. I never want to have to go through ANYTHING like that in my life!

But to call it 'unsurviveable' - well - I call that the mother of all assumptions!

 

40 Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

 

.....oooooooooooo. VERY interesting...

If you read the King James version, verse 40 has the section I have in bold TOTALLY OMMITED!!

Whichever version your reading, that section has been added.

 

I'd check with someone as to why that was added, and what reason they thought they had to add that section...

 

AND you need to double-check what the 'traditional burial customs' is referring to. IS IT referring to the fact you wrap the body up 'with spices', or is it referring to aloes and myrrh BEING TRADITIONAL SPICES USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

There is a VERY important difference here. SO you need to be VERY sure what that last part of that verse actually means...

 

So what your telling me is, that after applying these herbs that somehow attended to condition, he wrapped this half-living body according to Jewish customs(as mentioned above)? Or are we ignoring that part of scripture, or the fact that there were witnesses to these events other than for Nicodemus? I would also like to know exactly what you think the aloe and myrrh helped cure him of.

 

OK - this is it. Things are about to get REALLY interesting now!

Refresh your memory of the verses which describe Joseph preparing the body of Jesus.

 

Matthew, Mark and Luke ALL agree on this 'fact':

 

* Jospeh prepared the body.

 

Mark and Luke agree on these 'facts':

 

* Mary madgelene and Mary mother of Jesus were 'around' - but did not nessesarily view the preperation.

* It is specifically stated that they saw the 'prepared body'

 

OK - now let's see what John has to say...

 

37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

 

Every time I read these few verses, it simply AMAZES me the amount of clues that are literally BURSTING out of them!!

 

Verse 37 is still describing Jesus' death.

Verse 38 describes Joseph asking for the body. It's interesting he's a SECRET follower of Christ, but still in line with the other gospels...

 

...but then Verse 39 hits us like a bombshell! Nicodemous! He visited Jesus BY NIGHT Why by night? To get a better view of whatever he was doing?! I think a far more logical conclusion is that he did not want to be seen doing whatever he was doing...

And again - this FULLY disputes the idea that there was anybody 'checking' who was coming to and from the body of Jesus. Or if there were, they were seriously incompetent...

 

Not only this - but John says that Nicodemous AND Jospeh prepared Jesus' body! And no mention of either Mary!

 

..huh? This isn't just a case of a slight difference between the gospels - this is practically a different story!!

 

One thing is for sure - get any idea out of your head that there was a big crowd around witnessing this preperation. It was conducted in a VERY low key fashion. ANd the gospels vary DRASTICALLY on what actually happenned - including who was there, and who did the preparing.

 

I would expect things like aloes and myrhh to be used in assisting a man back to health who has been bought to the very brink of death... Again - get rid of any idea that Jesus COULD NOT have been attended to. A whole night and SOME part of the next day went by before a watch was set on the tomb.

 

Also remember - I'm not saying the aloes and myrrh magically cured Jesus. WHat they could very well CLEARLY show, though, is the INTENT of Nicodemous to heal. Whether the aloes and myrrh actually did the trick, or combined with any other possiblities - I couldn't say...

 

As far as John saying that Jospeh and Nicodemous 'prepared the body'.

 

Yeah - sure they did.

 

And John was actually there - right?

Surely he didn't just take their word, or someone else's word for it...?

 

The historical authenticity is greater than that of any other work of antiquity, and I thought I had made that clear earlier. If you want I can post a chart listing many other works of antiquity with the dates of their writing and the earliest copies we have for comparison, but I doubt that will be needed. So in any case, the bible has a lot more than SOME historical authenticity. And you have yet to list any historical anomalies that argue the bible's historical authenticity.

 

I'm interested in your definition 'historical authenticity'. Are you saying that the Bible has that much more historical backing than the Koran? Than the Gita?

 

...are you saying Mohammed did NOT write the Koran for example? Exactly how is the Koran not as historically backed? Please explain yourself...

 

I would love to hear your reasoning on why you think the historical authenticity of a document is only for the easily misled.

 

No - with respect my exact words were:

 

I know I'm going to get the usual "The Bible is more conclusive and has more historical backing than any other religious text ... blah blah blah".

Seriously - save that kind of talk for people who are easiely misled...

 

I'm not doubting the Bible has (SOME) historical authenticity. I'm SERIOUSLY doubting that it has SO much more historical authenticity than other religious works, that suddenly I should believe ALL of the 'miraculous' and 'out of the ordinary' things I read in one, and then ignore ALL the 'miraculous' and 'out of the ordinary' things I read in another...

 

THAT is how I am not easiely 'misled'...

 

And I don't really see your point on saying that the Gospels had little information concerning his accension, because I would agree, they didn't say much. As far as the controversy over the location of his accension, I will again get back to you on that.

 

Lack of detail and inconsistencies have EVERYTHING to do with it...

...if <shock - horror> it didn't actually happen!

 

..any reports of a man flying up into the sky made independantly from any other source around that time and area?

 

 

Also you have yet to reveal to me the evidence that you were going to gather concerning the alteration of the Gospels.

 

Sorry man - I've barely got time to reply to these points.

I'll get round to it when I can. I do want to back up my claims.

 

But please remember - like I said at the very beginning of Part I - these are not central to my beliefs. If you could prove without doubt they had not been altered ONCE from their original writing - well - I WOULD be a little bit surprised to be honest.

 

BUT - understand - all the important points I've made directly from gospel scripture would not be altered one iota.

 

...I only made the statement in the first place because I was tired of hearing any old Bible verse branded around for all kinds of unrelated discussions - and the words treated as infallible...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I forgot one part of your last post:

 

Although I see the point your making, I don't feel particularly inclined or required to refute Morman beliefs in a forum designated to discuss Christianity. Not only would it be off topic but you are very obviously dodging my question. What do you think Jesus believed about himself, your explaination for Jesus' Miracles, and what of the remarkable fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies?

 

 

Well - Mormons would claim to be Christians. But anyway - I understand your point, but I don't think you are giving full credit to mine.

 

You ask me a question: 'explaination for Jesus' Miracles'?

 

I ask you back a retorical question - 'explination for the 'miracles' recorded in early Mormon history? Explination for the thousands upon thousands of miracles recorded by any religion or denomination all over the world throughout any time in history you care to name...?

 

 

As far as what I think Jesus thought of himself?

It's a very interesting question.

Let me preface my answer by describing what I believe about him:

 

...I believe he was one of the greatest mortal men who ever lived. His beliefs were ahead of his time - and that got him into trouble.

I believe he was also one of the purist and 'greatest' men in a moral sense. But - combined with acute intelligence and charisma.

 

He was also involved in one of the greatest stories of mankind. The story of the man who apparently died and came back to life.

 

Did he think he was actually the Son of God? I don't believe he did in the early parts of his ministry. I think many of the 'sayings' of Jesus have been romantisised in the telling of them after the fact. The gospels were written decades after the events - this is undisputed by any quarter.

 

You ever tried to remember conversations of speaches made decades ago? Most people on these forums can't even try - their not even that old!!

Would you be sure you heard that speech at THIS time and at THAT place? ANd those EXACT words..?

 

i.e. would you be 100% sure when Jesus did actually start to call himself 'the Son of God...?'. Maybe you would almost assume he called himself that from the start -and credit him for saying certain things FAR earlier than he actually did...

 

Are you sure you would not embellish facts? Or just plain forget some?

 

...could you even recall what you heard directly - as opposed to what you heard from other people?!

 

But in any case - as events built up around him, belief in at least his semi-divinity may have grown. And if Jesus had any doubts up to his 'death' and 'ressurection', I'm sure he had little doubt afterwards. This was probably when the assertion REALLY gained momentum...

 

But Son of God, or no Son of God - he would have known he was still mortal - and perfectly killable (for good this time!) by the Romans...

 

...which meant a sharp exit out of Isreal. In fact he needed to get as far away from his home as possible...

[Homuncul]

Humiliation was definelty part of it - for sure. But it was ALSO purposefully slow and painful. It was the worst possible execution method the Roman empire delt out. It warned anybody quite clearly what happenned if you disobeyed.

 

I don't quite agree here. The reason for the that is that roman crusifiction was different. One method was to nail a person. The second was to bind him to the cross. Remember all those pictures of Jesus hung with 2 criminals where he's nailed and they are bound. Remember Spartacus! The point here is that death through spiking is simplier. A person is probable to go unconscious because of the blood loss and die in sleep while the other would suffer the terrible death of hunger, thirst, and rot for around 3 days. In my opinion Jesus was spared in that way. He did not suffer much on the cross.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

heh - that's funny.

 

'cos I hate it when people use the word 'understand' when they should use the word 'believe'...

 

...drives me nuts!!

can be used in both ways...somewhat. I just thought understand was more appropriate.

 

I looked at it this way...I dont believe in darwinism for example but that doesnt mean I hate it.

 

but then again...if I didnt understand darwinism...that wouldnt necessarily lead me to hating it either.

 

bah proved myself wrong. you get the idea though.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I looked at it this way...I dont believe in darwinism for example but that doesnt mean I hate it.

 

That's just it XERXES. I don't hate the Bible - at all.

 

What I dislike (I don't think I ever used the word hate in relation to my feelings on the Bible btw...) is when people use and quote the Bible innaprropiately and inconsisently...

 

And use it as an exuse to remain ignorant to other sources of 'proof'.

 

I don't quite agree here. The reason for the that is that roman crusifiction was different. One method was to nail a person. The second was to bind him to the cross. Remember all those pictures of Jesus hung with 2 criminals where he's nailed and they are bound. Remember Spartacus! The point here is that death through spiking is simplier. A person is probable to go unconscious because of the blood loss and die in sleep while the other would suffer the terrible death of hunger, thirst, and rot for around 3 days. In my opinion Jesus was spared in that way. He did not suffer much on the cross.

 

Yes - that's a very good point H.

 

..although I wouldn't go as far as to say he didn't 'suffer much on the cross.'

Maybe relatively speaking to other crucifixions though - sure. I accept that...

[vegietto]

I don't hate the Bible - at all.

i agree i don't hate the bible either i just don't believe some of the things in their i mean some i do but some of it is very hard to believe it, i mean it could have happened but i need proof. I find it hard to believe cause i still think some people did stretch the truth some, some told the truth but i think some didin't.

[Homuncul]

i agree i don't hate the bible either i just don't believe some of the things in their i mean some i do but some of it is very hard to believe it, i mean it could have happened but i need proof. I find it hard to believe cause i still think some people did stretch the truth some, some told the truth but i think some didin't.

 

This is what I will always argue about. How can you desire justification for 1 of your beliefs, and not for others? If you find something easy to believe then why do you find something else hard to? Faith and knowledge are not similar things. Why it is always mixed?

[lukeskywalker1]

Remember this (hope it hasnt been said) but the 4 gospels were written by 4 different people, who saw different things, in 4 different perspectives. They wrote what they saw. So if they werent there for one event, how could they write about it? Plus, its not there to give a super detailed amazing description of of his life, but to give you the basic idea (how he was born, where, what happend, his baptism, his temptation, his teaching, his miracles, his persecution, his death, his resurrection) all fit into about 30-40 pages. It wasnt written to earn a special award, or to be a best seller, nor do i think the original authors had any clue at all, that you and me would be reading it today. It was written to tell people about christ, notice, mathew was for the jews, john for gentiles...etc. Who cares if they lack simple detail?

 

 

About christs pain, (sorry if this was posted) but anyways, he might have went unconsious on the cross, but theres more than that... before that (as you probably know) (i posted this in a thread i made like 4 months ago, but heres what i said):

 

1) He was beaten, not just a normal beating though. The men who beat him put on knuckled fists, the minimum ammount of men beating someone was six, so they beat him with knuckled fists! Imagine, being beaten by six or more men with knuckled fists! That would hurt a lot!

 

Mathew 26:67- Then the people there spat in Jesus's face and beat him with their fists. Others slapped him.

 

2) Then they whipped him. Just a normal whip hurts, but this was way worse, they put metal at the end of it. They whipped his back, shoulders, and legs. This kind of whipping caused blood to just pour down him. By the time they are done, the skin was just hanging off of him, and blood was pouring out. People could see his organs inside. Thats not what any paintings of him show carrying the cross huh?

 

Mathew 27:26- Then he set Barabbas free. But Jesus was beaten with whips and handed over to the soldiers to be crucified.

 

3) They put a crown of thorns on him, and put a red robe on him. Then they beat him with a stick on his head.

 

Mathew 27:28-30 They took off his clothes and put a red robe on him. Using thorny branches, they made a crown, put it on his head, and put a stick in his right hand. Then the soldiers bowed before Jesus and made fun of him, saying "Hail, King of the Jews!" They spat on Jesus. Then they took his stick and began to beat him on the head.

 

4) Then they crucified him. They took big nails, and nailed them through his hands, and feet to the cross. Imagine two huge nails going straight through your hands and feet! Then he got thirsty, and they gave him venegar to drink. Then when he died, one of the soldiers stuck a spear through his side, and blood and water came out. So he was dead.

[vegietto]

This is what I will always argue about. How can you desire justification for 1 of your beliefs, and not for others? If you find something easy to believe then why do you find something else hard to? Faith and knowledge are not similar things. Why it is always mixed?

i have faith but not in parting water and raining for 40 days and 40 nights. I mean knowledge is hard to come by. But i do better alot of the bibile.

 

 

Remember this (hope it hasnt been said) but the 4 gospels were written by 4 different people, who saw different things, in 4 different perspectives. They wrote what they saw. So if they werent there for one event, how could they write about it? Plus, its not there to give a super detailed amazing description of of his life, but to give you the basic idea (how he was born, where, what happend, his baptism, his temptation, his teaching, his miracles, his persecution, his death, his resurrection) all fit into about 30-40 pages. It wasnt written to earn a special award, or to be a best seller, nor do i think the original authors had any clue at all, that you and me would be reading it today. It was written to tell people about christ, notice, mathew was for the jews, john for gentiles...etc. Who cares if they lack simple detail?

 

i know but they could have heard about it and just wrote what they heard not giving the whole truth. i know it was written to tell us stuff about our religion but some i think they were completely honest about that is my opinion about that ok.

[Homuncul]

I'm still not convinced

 

1) He was beaten, not just a normal beating though. The men who beat him put on knuckled fists, the minimum ammount of men beating someone was six, so they beat him with knuckled fists! Imagine, being beaten by six or more men with knuckled fists! That would hurt a lot!

 

2) Then they whipped him. Just a normal whip hurts, but this was way worse, they put metal at the end of it. They whipped his back, shoulders, and legs. This kind of whipping caused blood to just pour down him. By the time they are done, the skin was just hanging off of him, and blood was pouring out. People could see his organs inside. Thats not what any paintings of him show carrying the cross huh?

 

3) They put a crown of thorns on him, and put a red robe on him. Then they beat him with a stick on his head.

 

4) Then they crucified him. They took big nails, and nailed them through his hands, and feet to the cross. Imagine two huge nails going straight through your hands and feet! Then he got thirsty, and they gave him venegar to drink. Then when he died, one of the soldiers stuck a spear through his side, and blood and water came out. So he was dead.

 

Analyzing this I would assume Jesus would be in shock after he was beaten with fists. Either way the whole process wasn't continous. He had times of "rest". In shock state the effect of suffering is not that sensible. Second thing I assume is that bigger pain substanciate the lesser. That should also be counted if we're talking about such an imaginary subject.

 

And now imagine a man is hanged under the burning sun (for the worst) suffering from unbearable and unstoppable hunger and thirst while he's beginning to rot on the cross, when muscles become numb and there is no bigger pain to substanciate than the terrible pain of the whole body. Taking something in portions is always easier (wouldn't want to call it an axiom of course). I assume the fittest man could only stand 3 days in such condictions. Even relatively speaking it was Jesus death wasn't that "hard" although it was ecomplished with neccessary artistism directed to the people supporting Christ

[lukeskywalker1]

i know but they could have heard about it and just wrote what they heard not giving the whole truth. i know it was written to tell us stuff about our religion but some i think they were completely honest about that is my opinion about that ok.

 

 

Why would they? there would be no motive other than to pursuade a church, one that just started, not to mention they died to defend the gospels they wrote

 

lets say its all false, what did they gain by lying, we already know they were poor, they gave all there money to the poor, they had nothing basically. Then they died for that gospel. Some life eh? look at paul, he was a leading member of the pharisees. He was extremly educated, and had everything going for him. Then he gave it all up for christ! He was on his way to arrest christians! Then right in the middle of the road a bright light came out, he went blind, then christ spoke to him, and told him what to do. there were plenty of people around him, they heard the voice! Ive said this before, it wasnt believed, but anyways, why would he make all of that up, then give everything up, basically starve, get arrested who knows how many times... for a lie? Then in the end he lost his own head for it! Why die for a lie?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

So if they werent there for one event, how could they write about it? ... (how he was born, where, what happend, his baptism, his temptation, his teaching, his miracles, his persecution, his death, his resurrection) all fit into about 30-40 pages.

 

Interesting... were these accounts written 'as they happened' or years after? If the latter, I would suggest that after many years of oral tradition, the final versions will find common ground in as much actual fact as agreed upon fact. I'm referring to the process of writing a previously oral story in general, not specifically the alleged history of J.C.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

It wasnt written to earn a special award, or to be a best seller, nor do i think the original authors had any clue at all, that you and me would be reading it today.

 

One has to consider that the pursuit of status and prestige is universal among homo sapiens sapiens. I challenge anyone to point to any contemporary figure, public or private, that is not driven by status/prestige. Also, it is very likely that they viewed the written account of Jesus to be a significant process. All four (actually there were more, but the various church officials, such as at the vatican, rejected some gospels... Thomas for instance) were written at a time when writing itself was not an easy process, nor was reading a widely held ability. I think their hopes were that this would last forever.

 

This is all assuming, of course, that the story of J. C. wasn't as mythological as the flood or parting of the Red Sea.

 

I wonder if thousands of years in our future, some archeaologist might not theorize that there existed a super human being that was a messiah to the 20th century and saved millions of people. His only weakness was in the lithic remains of his own world. He was found in a cornfield in Kansas and raised in a small town.... Smallville?

[lukeskywalker1]

Originally posted by Homuncul

And now imagine a man is hanged under the burning sun (for the worst) suffering from unbearable and unstoppable hunger and thirst while he's beginning to rot on the cross, when muscles become numb and there is no bigger pain to substanciate than the terrible pain of the whole body. Taking something in portions is always easier (wouldn't want to call it an axiom of course). I assume the fittest man could only stand 3 days in such condictions. Even relatively speaking it was Jesus death wasn't that "hard" although it was ecomplished with neccessary artistism directed to the people supporting Christ

 

 

Of course he prolly had times of rest, he went on trial a whole lot. It started late a night, and im guessing it last till about noon the next day (he got hung around noon) i think. Thats my guess. Why dont you believe that stuff happend to him?

[vegietto]

i know but to be famous is something everybody wants to be, i mean everyone likes to be famous. I'm not saying that it is all false and i know they gave their life for that but don't u think some of them stretch the truth just alittle bit, don't u think they did alittle bit, i mean most of it is true but it is hard to beleieve.

[lukeskywalker1]

But whats the point of being famous if your dead? There deaths would have been in vaine.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

But whats the point of being famous if your dead?

 

It's the only proven method of living past death

 

Amount of fame = length of life after death

 

Shakespeare - still alive

Elvis - still alive

Jesus - still alive

 

Jimbob the red, best privy digger in Louisianna - died in 1902.

 

(assuming that any of these people were actually alive. Elvis is the only one I can vouch for.... saw him in concert.)

[Homuncul]

Of course he prolly had times of rest, he went on trial a whole lot. It started late a night, and im guessing it last till about noon the next day (he got hung around noon) i think. Thats my guess. Why dont you believe that stuff happend to him?

 

You mean why I believe Jesus had a relatively easy death comparing to what other alternatives crucifixion presented? Concerning that this data is in no way confirmed I just think that my opinion has more rights to exist than yours. Don't get me wrong but it is obvious for me that you try exaggerate some things to create a perfect vision of your favourite idol. Again, opinions are what we all are guilty of.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

...oh well.

 

I guess I have to wait for Rainer511 to post.

 

Until then I don't think I can hope to get a 'rational' argument directly debating my points back from the christians...

 

*taps fingers patiently...*

[Rainer511]

...oh well.

 

I guess I have to wait for Rainer511 to post.

 

Until then I don't think I can hope to get a 'rational' argument directly debating my points back from the christians...

 

*taps fingers patiently...*

 

There are a few points that I have made in which you seem to not be seeing. I can only imagine that there are points that I am probably not seeing that your making. I only started posting on this topic because I had a few days in a row in which I didn’t have to go to school, and now it is almost impossible to actively involve myself in a debate with you without compromising my either my studies or my social life. For these reasons I regret that I will resign from commenting further on this topic, at least temporarily if not indefinitely, including posts that I have yet to comment on. You have some good questions and on the same note I have some good answers. The reason I will not comment on posts prior to this is that if I do, no doubt someone will make comments on my own, then I will feel inclined to check this forum again, comment again, and the cycle continues. I hope that you will not see this as a lake of ability to answer your questions and refute your comments. I really do regret dropping out because there have been posts by those other than you on which I would like to comment on as well. If you like I could suggest some books on the subject of Apologetics.

 

More Than a Carpenter - Josh McDowell

The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel

The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict - Josh McDowell

 

More than a Carpenter is short and simple, 127 pages of reading. It briefly covers many topics, but it doesn't offer the amount of facts that I think you would like to find it very interesting. You won't find any evidence presented here for anything not relating to Christ. The Case for Christ is in my opinion a more enjoyable read and it offers more facts then you'll find in More Than a Carpenter. It's a 271 page read. Then you have The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict which is much longer with 742 pages. I haven't completely read through this myself but of what I've read it provides many more facts and it would be most likely more to your liking. You’ll probably cringe through the inerrancy of the Bible section though ^_^. One interesting fact about both of these authors is that they were both nonbelievers until they tried to disprove the Bible.

[lukeskywalker1]

One interesting fact about both of these authors is that they were both nonbelievers until they tried to disprove the Bible.

 

 

Lol, a lot of did that! Me, on the other hand, believed it (but didnt really think about it all) I just shruged it off, and said it was a waste of time, I had "other" things to do. Well, all of that changed eventually...

 

It's the only proven method of living past death

 

Amount of fame = length of life after death

 

Shakespeare - still alive

Elvis - still alive

Jesus - still alive

 

Jimbob the red, best privy digger in Louisianna - died in 1902.

 

(assuming that any of these people were actually alive. Elvis is the only one I can vouch for.... saw him in concert.)

 

Well, i was talking about paul, mathew, peter, john etc...

 

Anyways, they dont gain nothing out of it, if it is a lie, they died in vaine... its just not something I would do, unless i really, truly believed it... which i do...

 

 

You mean why I believe Jesus had a relatively easy death comparing to what other alternatives crucifixion presented? Concerning that this data is in no way confirmed I just think that my opinion has more rights to exist than yours. Don't get me wrong but it is obvious for me that you try exaggerate some things to create a perfect vision of your favourite idol. Again, opinions are what we all are guilty of.

 

No, i mean, do you believe that none of that happend to him? The beatings, wippings? I mean, he wasnt the only person in history to have this done to him, the romans did it to other prisoners, but i think they had big charges against them.

[Homuncul]

No, i mean, do you believe that none of that happend to him? The beatings, wippings? I mean, he wasnt the only person in history to have this done to him, the romans did it to other prisoners, but i think they had big charges against them.

 

In that case I never argued my belief in whether Christ was tortured or not. It was probably so. All I'm pointing is that historically he probably was a mere "person who was crucifyed". And hasn't Christ had his big charge against him?

 

There were also many innocent people (like Christ, although we can only guess) crucifyed before and after him. And so historically the mortyred death of Christ wasn't that extraordinary. The other thing is how his follwers then interpreted it, powered by his teachings (I might add wonderful teachings if what is said in the Bible is for a bit correct). And the whole different thing is how it is interpreted today by you and others in a manner of exaggeration and adoration.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Rainer511,

 

Well - it's been a pleasure debating with you

 

I know that carrying on the debate properly would take up a lot of both of our time - so I understand...

 

I hope that you will not see this as a lake of ability to answer your questions and refute your comments.

 

I certainly don't. You have proven to me that your not one of the christians who regurgitates their teachings parrot-fashion. It is obvious to me you have thought about not only your beliefs themselves, but WHY you have the right to believe them.

I'm sure you would have MUCH more to bring to the table in this debate...

 

 

At the end of the day - I don't claim to know what ACTUALLY 100% for sure happenned in the life of Jesus Christ - I would never be so presumtuous over 'comparatively' so little evidence.

This is why - in the final analysis - I have always stated 'I believe' as opposed to 'I know'.

 

But I do have firm 'beliefs' - based on what I know of the nature of man and religion.

 

At the very least, I hope I have replaced your 'amusement' over my ideas - with at least some understanding of why I reach my viewpoint on things.

 

You have also given me a lot to think about. And I WILL try and read the books you have suggested to read. I'm sure I will find them interesting.

 

...and it's great to see a Christian willing to discuss matters of the Bible PROPERLY with a 'non-believer'. I hope other christians on these boards will follow your example in future...

[Kurgan]

See, it helps to realize that there are 30,000+ denominations of Christianity, and believe it or not, all of them do not believe the same things.

 

It is a spectrum, from ultra literalist fundamentalists on one end, to super duper liberals on the other (that you might not even recognize as Christian unless they insisted they were).

 

I'm somewhere in between. Understanding the history, I understand that doctrine developes. That's not to say what is true one day is not true the next, but we come to a deeper understanding of history, the world, and ourselves, and by extension of God (even if in the final analysis God can never be fully understood).

 

When people attack the Bible for its "mythology" I don't see it as an attack my faith. Why? Because I myself admit that parts of the bible contain mythology. I believe that when the stories were written they were written AS stories (granted, there is some history mixed in and some books are more historical than others). "Myths" in the sense that they were stories with meaning, meant to pass on values and knowledge through story-telling, not to give a literal account of science (in a pre-scientific culture).

 

Most of the stories were oral tradition, and the stories may have been adapted for each new generation to fit the problems and concerns of the day. Eventually (what with the Jews being scattered across the world and fearing the loss of their sacred history) the stories were written down in a more "final" form. Of course people argued over the "canon" (what books were considered inspired) for centuries. Nowadays the Catholic Church has one canon, the Protestant Churches another, the Orthodox Church, etc etc.

 

Of course the real story of Christianity is not found in the Bible, but in the history of the Church itself. The Bible is just one part (in my understanding) that stopped about the time the last book was written in the form we have today. The history of Christianity and Christian teaching continues today, and so to best understand it, we have to look at the history and what's happening today.

 

Otherwise we'll just read the Bible and assume everybody is still cutting up animals and burning their enemies villages and that sort of thing. Religion is a living entity, like a language, it grows and developes and is alive in people's everyday experiences.

 

Studying it from a historical perspective or studying the Bible is great sure, but there is a lot more in the other things I mentioned.

 

Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling.

 

About the only "proof" for an afterlife (assuming you discount all the sacred texts and people who've claimed to see miracles over the centuries of course) I can think of off hand is near death experiences.

 

But of course, critics will say there has to be an explanation for it like the use of drugs on the person as they're trying to revive them that cause hallucinations or a part of the brain that makes us feel happy as we're dying (why though? a malfunction?) or somthing like that.

 

I honestly don't know. I prefer to think there is something after death. If there is, that's great, if there isn't, I won't be around to wonder about it (which is too bad, even knowing that it wasn't there might be interesting, but that's a paradox).

 

Some people say that a loving God would not send people to hell, others say a loving God would have to allow a hell because the evil people do needs to be punished if it can't be punished in this life. I honestly can't answer that question. I guess my belief goes along with some more Catholic ideas (purgatory) and some liberal Muslim beliefs.. that eventually most people will be saved, through some sort of purification, even after death, and eventually will know peace, and not eternal punishment. This is my personal belief and interpretation, rather than an official teaching of any specific body, but that's just me.