JC found dead

[nota]

Originally posted by kang


Can someone confirm what nota said above? That there are no first person accounts of the resurrection? I always thought that those books were written in the first person. Yes, I read the bible, a long, long time ago, but I don’t remember these details.

If so, I find it astounding that people believe a second hand account of an event from a biased person. It’s like one of David Koresh’s followers giving an account of what another one of his followers claimed they saw.

luke was a scribe for saul/paul not there or a follower of christ at that time wrote about 35 or more years after the fact
and copied big chunks of mat and mark word for word

''E. P. Sanders says it's fairly clear Paul was unaware of the four Gospels, and the authors of the Gospels didn't know of Paul's letters.''

mark and mat one copied the others work
neathor were apostles and who first is a big debate

''Mark, not an apostle himself, was an associate of the apostle Paul for a short time, but the gospel bearing his name is (to some minds) based on the preaching of Peter. It's generally assumed to have been the first gospel written, coming in right before Matthew at about 65 AD.''

''The author of Matthew is traditionally held to be the tax collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9, sometimes referred to as Levi. However, Matthew borrows heavily from the Gospel of Mark. It's hard to believe someone who was in close contact with Jesus would have had to rely on secondary sources. Since this gospel has the most quotations from the Old Testament, sometimes going to ridiculous lengths to try to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, it's assumed that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. There is suspicion that it might have been originally written in Hebrew, although only Greek texts have ever been found. Scholars differ on the composition date, but most agree on roughly 65 - 70 AD with a few placing at as late as 100 - 134 AD.''

''Matthew, Mark and Luke are termed the Synoptic Gospels, so called because they generally agree on the details and timeline of Jesus' life, sometimes even using the same words to describe the same events. Because of this similarity, quite a few scholars posit that there was a previous collection of Jesus' sayings and works which all three gospel writers relied on when compiling their histories. This collection, as yet just a theoretical construct, has been given the name "Q" (short for Quelle, German for "source").''

''The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.''

''The book [G of john] likely dates from about 100 AD, the last of the books to be written. If this dating is accurate, John would have been very old. Barclay posits that it was probably a group writing remembrances ''


''The Revelation is often called the Revelation of Saint John. Tradition says this is the same as the author of the fourth gospel, but that seems implausible. The style of the Greek is different, and while the gospel author avoids mentioning his own name in order to focus attention on Jesus, the author of Revelation mentions his own name repeatedly. He doesn't call himself an apostle, as would be his right, but merely a prophet. Exactly who the author was is open to conjecture. There is no real consensus, except that he was apparently a Jewish writer, writing in Greek to the Jewish believers after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most critics put the date at about 95 - 100 AD.''



quotes from
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

[stuartj]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Why should he?

Besides, if you're not willing to consider my answers, why should I bother??? My responses weren't excuses. That web site is beating up on a straw-man. The points that it's trying refute are never put forth as being parts of Christianity.

Are you saying that the notion that we can pray to God, and that He will answer our prayers- is never put forward as a central tenat of Christianity?

[jluetjen]

Sanders argued that the traditional Christian argument that Paul was arguing against Rabbinic legalism was a misunderstanding of both Judaism and Paul's thought, especially as it assumed a level of individualism that was not present, and disregarded any notions of group benefit or collective privilege. Rather, the difference was in how a person becomes one of the People of God. Sanders termed the Jewish belief "covenantal nomism": one was in due to God's covenant with Abraham, and one stayed in by keeping the Law. Sanders argued that Paul's belief was one of participationist eschatology: the only way to become one of the People of God was through faith in Christ ("dying to Christ") and the old covenant was no longer sufficient. But, once in, appropriate behaviour was required, based on the Jewish Law, but not necessarily keeping all aspects of it. Both patterns required the grace of God for election (admission), and the behaviour of the individual, supported by God's grace. The dividing line, therefore, was Paul's insistence on faith in Christ as the only way to election.

Sanders' next major book was Jesus and Judaism, published in 1985. In this he argued that Jesus began as a follower of John the Baptist and was a prophet of the restoration of Israel. Sanders saw Jesus as creating an eschatological Jewish movement through his appointment of the Apostles and through his preaching and actions. After his execution (the trigger for which was Jesus overthrowing the tables in the temple court of Herod's Temple, thereby challenging the political authorities who then sought his death) his followers continued his movement, expecting his return to restore Israel, part of which was Gentiles worshiping the God of Israel. Sanders could find no substantial points of opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees, especially as Jesus did not transgress any part of the law. He argues that Jesus did not oppose or reject the Jewish law and that the disciples continued to keep it, as is shown by their continued worship in the Temple (e.g. Acts 3.1; 21.23-26). Sanders also argues that Jesus' sayings did not entirely determine Early Christian behaviour and attitude, as is shown by Paul's discussion of divorce (1 Cor. 7.10-16), who quotes Jesus' sayings and then gives his own independent rules.

Judaism: Practice and Belief was published in 1992 and examined the actual practices of Judaism. Sanders argued that there was a "Common Judaism", that is, beliefs and practices common to all Jews, regardless of which party they belonged to. After the reign of Salome Alexandra, the Pharisees were a small but very respected party which had a varying amount of influence within Judaism. The main source of power however was with the rulers and especially the aristocratic priesthood (Sadducees). Sanders argues that the evidence indicates that the Pharisees did not dictate policy to any of these groups or individuals.

Sanders also argues that more comparative studies are needed, with wider examinations between the New Testament, ancient history and all the available ancient sources. Speaking at a conference organised in his honour, he argued "They are not all that easy, but they are an awful lot of fun."

(Wikipedia)

'Sounds like an interesting guy, but he seems to have a strong vested interest in overturning the "conventional wisdom", even going to lengths to do it. Like all of us (scholars and otherwise), he's hardly the final word and most likely should be considered within the wider context of his field of study. I'm not throwing his ideas out wholesale, nor accepting them as gospel. I'd just be cautious running him out as the final word -- he's not the only historian or theologen on the block.

[IROC]

Originally posted by jluetjen
The points that it's trying refute are never put forth as being parts of Christianity.

Except that the bible claims (in more than one location) that prayers will be answered. That sounds like a "part of Christianity" to me. I personally know *alot* of Christians who believe this to be true.

The question then becomes, "why are prayers not answered if the bible says they will be"?

[Flatbutt1]

I give you guys major props. How in the world it is possible for you all to endlessly, repeatedly have this argument is testimony to your convictions.

A useless argument IMHO, but hey a couple of dozen threads about the same thing can't be wrong.

Whew

[kang]

Originally posted by Z-man
The key to understanding Christianity can be boiled down to one word: faith. If there were "hard evidence" as you require, there would be no need to have faith in Christ. So it is a paradox to seek evidence for something that requires faith.

-Z-man.

OK, I’ve heard this “faith” thing before. There is no hard evidence, so you believe because of faith. Since there is no evidence, there is no logical reason to believe. You believe based on faith. You believe because you want to believe. Since there is no logical reason to believe, it would seem that we can conclude that it is illogical to believe. Believing something on faith alone seems very, very illogical to me.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by IROC
Except that the bible claims (in more than one location) that prayers will be answered. That sounds like a "part of Christianity" to me. I personally know *alot* of Christians who believe this to be true.

The question then becomes, "why are prayers not answered if the bible says they will be"?

Who said that the answer is always going to be "yes"? The central premise of that site was that the Bible teaches that people will get what the pray for, and that is not in the Bible. It's kind of like the old Rolling Stones song, "You can't always get what you want... Sometimes you'll get what you need". And in some cases the answer to your prayer will be that your time is up, and it's time to rest from your efforts in our current existance.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

He's also (apparently) been found in a dog's ass:

http://bitsandpieces1.blogspot.com/2006/09/jesus-image-found-in-dogs-butt.html



Hey, if god made all things, then there should be divine beauty in all his creations - including a dog's ass, right? Therefore this should be offensive to nobody, lest they be insecure in their faith.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
He's also (apparently) been found in a dog's ass:



Hey, if god made all things, then there should be divine beauty in all his creations - including a dog's ass, right? Therefore this should be offensive to nobody, lest they be insecure in their faith.

Thats just the Dog's Bollocks....

Stuart

[stuartj]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Who said that the answer is always going to be "yes"?

Well, Jesus did, didnt he in Matthew 21:21 and numerous other verses?

Could be yes, no or maybe if you have cancer.

Is apparently always "no" if you are an amputee.

Why?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by IROC
While I think I essentially agree with what you are saying, they are many people who feel that god listens to and answers their prayers (after all, the bible says that he will). There is no evidence that this occurs. The most logical reason why this does not occur is that there is no god. Either that or the bible is incorrect in that respect (that prayers will be answered).

With all due respect, let me offer a counterpoint. I don't know if you have children or not, but let's assume you do just for argument.

Your child comes in and asks you for a new Ferrari. He pleads with you every day for months and months for this Ferrari. He REALLY wants it. You say no. Do you exist?

Just as a child does not get everything that they want (like candy for breakfast), humans do not get everything they pray for. God has a plan and knows what is best for you. When you really delve into prayer, the idea is not that you ask for a specific thing (God, please give me this job I want). You ask that God's will be done since you know in advance that God's will is what is best for your life. That may mean you get the job and it may mean that you don't. If you don't get the job, you have faith that God has something bigger and better in store for you.

Oh, and about the amputee website...testing God never works.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad


Oh, and about the amputee website...testing God never works.

Why's that, I wonder.

[Nathans_Dad]

Because like it or not, Stuart, God is behind the wheel...not you.

[stuartj]

I know Im not behind the wheel Rick.

But you seem to think your invisible friend is driving.

One of us is wrong.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by stuartj
One of us is wrong.

For once, I cannot argue with you.

[nota]

there is no wheel and nobody driving
that invisable cosmic car
in fact there is no car

[Porsche-O-Phile]

There is no spoon.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
For once, I cannot argue with you.

You might have gotten to this thread a little late, Rick. For faith based assertions, see page 4.

regards

[Nathans_Dad]

Oh, I read it all. Nothing there that you haven't posted before. I've hashed through it with you in the past and came to the same conclusion then.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Oh, I read it all. Nothing there that you haven't posted before. I've hashed through it with you in the past and came to the same conclusion then.

Mmm. Trouble is....to wade into a thread like this with the simple and simplistic assertion that "God is behind the wheel" pretty much underlines the point many are making here.

Moreover, in what has been a very even and reasoned discussion on a topic that often boils over, it could be contsrued as attempt to throw a little hand grenade. Trolling, I think its called.