Chili

I know and that is all they need to know, and all the church wants them to know is that hither and thither they go, and will send them West again each time they go and so give them a good chance to get lost all on their own.

The point is that Catholicism is not about righteousness by any stretch of the imagination, and they do this to make sure that they do not flag filthy rags when they encounter Peter on their own.

sotto voce

Like Elijah, and Elisha. There was no exclusivity about this. Miracles were necessary, if only to fulfil prophecy.

His death was never regarded as miraculous. Dying is very easy, y'know. Everyone does it. It was Jesus' resurrection that was regarded as miraculous! It was the resurrection that in his case, meant that the crucifixion signified atonement. Lazarus was raised to life, but nobody thought that this meant that Lazarus was the Lamb of God; that the sins of the world were taken away when or because he died.

Not there, either. The 'miracle' about Islam is that anyone gets away with claiming to believe it. But there is a conspiracy of silence, because Jesus seems to have been right when he said that people would find his offer of atonement more than they wanted. Hence the distortions of Origen, Clement, Irenaeus et al. The empire selected a minute handful of authors who sneakily substituted atonement for the required, existing doctrine of placation of gods via imperial priests, while still calling it Christian. Because people found atonement more than they wanted. It's a 'miracle' that anyone gets away with claiming to believe the Vatican, too.

Chili

Atonement is at-one-ment between two opposites such as our right and left wherein the entire slate he wrote upon is the sacrificial lamb they crucified, . . . and he just walked away from it.

Adam

Since it is you saying it, there's no point in refuting it.

outhouse

Not in the beginning


nothing miraculous about a spiritual resurrection in judaism, blown out of porportion in hellenistic god-fearers mythology



oral traditions often have simple explanations and grow in time


I find it fictional


Much of Joshuas healing can be explained away as a healer doing his job and once deified, it gets blown out of porportion.

outhouse

if you cannot refute it

man up and say so


it is what it is, and Origen flat states my case for me

stephan huller

Tertullian on Marcion's docetism:

sotto voce

Don't be fooled. A phoney will try to make himself look genuine by criticism of another phoney. Especially if genuine people have already identified that other as phoney.

Sheshbazzar

'Jesus died on a cross' isn't a statement about any of the mythological horse shit that latter got tacked on.

As I recall John Winford, it has been your position and view, one that you have stated hundreds of times here, that Jesus was a real man whom was crucified by the Romans for being a tax resistor and causing a riot in the Temple.
And that all of the mythology was added on latter.

Is that not your view John Winford? That a MAN commonly known and identifed by the name 'Jesus' died on a cross'?

This statement as written has nothing to do with any mythical baggage that may have got added on latter.
No half man half god is even implied unless YOU choose to put it there to obfuscate.

Be honest and straightforward John Winford. Do you or do you not believe and accept the premise that a MAN commonly known and identified as 'Jesus' died on a cross?

Sheshbazzar

If you study the Bible and its maths and measurement systems intensively you will discover that the basic maths being employed are actually Sumerian and date back over 6000 years.

The Hebrews adopted those ancient maths and encoded them in their religious texts.
The Bible's memorable stories were created to serve as durable mnemonic devices.
The NT stories are a continuation and extension of that system and practice.

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew.