Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 01-01-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The problem with trying to compare the gospels with other historical events is that other historical events are well documented.

Let's compare Josephus Flavius with Jesus.

Josephus has writings attributed to him (Antiquities of the Jews, Jewish War), writings about him by his contemporaries, busts made of him, among other evidences. Jesus has none of these things.

OK. So, should we believe what is said about Josephus Flavius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

No contemporaries of Jesus wrote about him, Jesus himself didn't write anything, sayings of Jesus are only written some 40 - 70 years after his alleged death and there are no images of Jesus until about 300 years after his alleged death.

Yet, much that was written was derived from eyewitnesses. His influence far surpassed that of people like Josephus Flavius. We know more details about things that Jesus said and did than others like Josephus Flavius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Some things are just better evidenced than others. It's fallacious to claim that if the gospels are unreliable therefore everything is unreliable.

Better evidenced or that which you personally accept as better evidence.

aa5874 · 01-01-2009, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeekingKnowledge

So can circumcised people enter the kingdom of heaven, or not?...

Of course they can. Whether a person is circumcised does not determine whether a person can enter the kingdom of heaven, or heaven itself, and never did.

Can you name a single person that you know is in heaven or must go to heaven, circumcised or not? By the way, where is heaven?

Your information is bogus.

You have no idea who can actually go to heaven, who is in actually heaven, or if heaven is a real place?

sugarhitman · 01-02-2009, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The issue of Galatians related to the need to be circumcised. The early church in Jerusalem apparently continued to practice circumcision and that was not an issue so long as they reached out only to Jews. When Paul comes with Titus, the issue becomes front and center because Titus was not circumcised and some of the Jewish converts (or tares) insisted that circumcision was needed. The apostles and leaders of the church all agreed that circumcision was not necessary to salvation. Paul condemned those who then continued to teach that salvation required circumcision. John 3:16 is consistent with this.

I wasn't talking specifically about the circumcision issue in Acts 15 debate, I was talking about the more general problem of Gentile salvation being a point of contention, when, if conservative Christian assumptions are granted, such debate should not have existed. The first followers of Peter had criticized him for eating with Gentiles, and his response that God gave him a vision that Gentiles are to recieve salvation too (Acts 10 and 11).

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles should be saved as much as Jews, so why is the salvation of Gentiles such a point of contention, such a "new thing", within the church after Jesus died? Did they also have debates about whether Jesus claimed to be a man? How many other obvious truths did they "forget"?

or....could it be that the Gentile-loving Jesus we know in our 4 gospels today, wasn't quite the same story character originally?

Its call growing in knowledge and understanding which does not happen in a day. Later in the writings of the Apostles we see that they finally matured.

It wasn't so much a contention of Salvation for Gentiles....Some of the Apostles still had some of those Pharasic ways, and were acting like hypocrits by believing that Salvation is for the Gentiles but yet separated themselves.....you do err.

Roger Pearse · 01-02-2009, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeekingKnowledge

So can circumcised people enter the kingdom of heaven, or not? All the sudden I am on pins and needles.. LOL

I wonder how many atheists would complain that they weren't circumcised as children? Imagine going through that and then becoming an atheist as a teenager. No wonder Jewish atheists are so bitter. "Give me back my willy!", they cry.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

show_no_mercy · 01-02-2009, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yet, much that was written was derived from eyewitnesses. His influence far surpassed that of people like Josephus Flavius. We know more details about things that Jesus said and did than others like Josephus Flavius.

No, we don't. No eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus, that's just church tradition.

Roger Pearse · 01-02-2009, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yet, much that was written was derived from eyewitnesses. His influence far surpassed that of people like Josephus Flavius. We know more details about things that Jesus said and did than others like Josephus Flavius.

No, we don't. No eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus, that's just church tradition.

The idea that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus is merely a myth that some unwise atheists tell themselves (although I can't imagine why). There is no evidence of it, and it is contradicted by the historical record.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

show_no_mercy · 01-02-2009, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

No, we don't. No eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus, that's just church tradition.

The idea that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus is merely a myth that some unwise atheists tell themselves (although I can't imagine why). There is no evidence of it, and it is contradicted by the historical record.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Please name some eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus

Deus Ex · 01-02-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

No, we don't. No eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus, that's just church tradition.

The idea that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus is merely a myth that some unwise atheists tell themselves (although I can't imagine why). There is no evidence of it, and it is contradicted by the historical record.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Do tell.

Do you believe the canonical gospels were written or superintended by eye-witnesses?

PapaverDeum · 01-02-2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles may receive salvation just as much as Jews, right?

I am not so sure of that. What are we to make of what Jesus allegedly said to the Canaanite woman of Matthew 15 ?

Quote:

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

The bolding is mine. This statement of Matt 15 when read in context seems very clear and certain to me. The sense I get from it is "I have not been sent to any except those of the house of Israel." ? Am I not interpreting that properly ?

Later, as the woman begs Jesus, who intialliy tries to ignore her, Jesus relents and makes an exception because of the woman's faith, correct ? But what has this to do with v 24 ?

Could this be interpreted as, sure, Jesus goes ahead and cures the woman's daughter, but does that really nullify that Jesus came only for the Jews ? IOW, the message that he brings is intended only for the Jews.

Is it that those later verses that seem to say that the gospel is to be preached to the "whole world" are at variance with Matt 15 ?

Or is there some other explanation. Please suggest a reasonable explanation, or why does Matt in 15 refer to something else ? (By "reasonable explanation" I specifically mean no apologetics please. )

Is this one of those biblical contradictions that cannot be resolved ? (Save for the special pleadings of the Apologist ?)

show_no_mercy · 01-02-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The idea that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus is merely a myth that some unwise atheists tell themselves (although I can't imagine why). There is no evidence of it, and it is contradicted by the historical record.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Do tell.

Do you believe the canonical gospels were written or superintended by eye-witnesses?

Ironically (as in it relates to this thread) the only gospel that cites its source is "John"; the writing itself is anonymous, but the anon writer says that the information was obtained from the disciple that Jesus loved. A disciple who is strangely unnamed. But then again, the writer says that this beloved disciple is supposed to live forever until Jesus returns, severely damaging the credibility of this writer.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.