aa5874

Amazing indeed. The verse does NOT END at "thy mouth".

You seemed to have missed or ignored what comes after "thy mouth".

Romans 10:9 -
It must be believed that JESUS WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD.

kcdad

You are soooooo wrong. The ONLY thing historical about the Gospels and NT writings is that they exist and have existed for nearly 2000 years.
They are written accounts of something, NEVER intended to be histories or biographies... they are religious apologies. They are an argument as to WHO Jesus was.
(I think that it seems to you "needless" is a good indicator of your investment in this proposition.) Have you read Thomas and the other "heretical" writings?

Read the introduction to Luke's gospel and you will see Luke admitting that is why he wrote it.
"1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

I am joining in to the argument to make sure MY opinion gets debated.

kcdad

SO go ahead and break that down for me... I shall be saved if I.... I have to do something in order to be saved. What do I have to do? Belief something and say something. That is easy enough. People can believe anything they want to... we do all the time. Whatever makes us feel good. And say something??? Even easier.
IF YOU THINK... that Paul really meant it was that easy... you have no idea what The Bible, The Gospels and the Epistles are all about.

Jesus NEVER asked anyone (except Peter, and he asked him what OTHER people were saying about who he was) what anyone believed. AND he apparently told people NOT to talk about who did what to them when he "healed and cast out demons".

Try reading again... this time without your presuppositions and denials firmly locked in place.

kcdad

Are you saying I am not saved? OMG!!!!!!!!! I don't "believe" the right things????

Silly rabbit, beliefs win you nothing. Only what you DO counts.

Did you know that to be dead in Jewish culture meant to be forgotten? THAT was the eternal sentence of death. To be forgotten and never "alive" in anyone's thoughts. Why was it so important to have children in Jewish culture... for someone to carry on your name and memory... HONOR your parents!!!! #3 commandment... why? So your days will be long in the land... (even after you are dead for your children will honor you and keep your memory -spirit- alive.)

So, in that context, what could Paul mean by "Jesus raised from the dead"??? Do Americans not "resurrect" their dead Presidents and other heroes from time to time?

DO you think people were soooo stupid back then that if they truly believed a body was raised from the grave, they could explain why it wasn't still walking around the planet??? "He floated up into space..." is hardly a rational explanation for even the most ignorant, superstitious peoples. If Paul was SOOOOOO much a believer, how do you think he explained to himself a living eating and pooping human being raised from the dead in a physical body NOT BEING AROUND?

kcdad

The really sad thing is that an uneducated and illiterate culture being taught these things by a highly developed Imperial governmental body like say... The Roman Catholic Church... would buy into these beliefs and superstitions because the alternative was to be executed. So for 1500 years the Church crammed these irrational beliefs down people's throats and resisted all efforts to educate or enlighten anyone but themselves. They destroyed "heretical" writings and executed "witches, demons and heretics". They presented ICONS, pieces of the cross, body parts from the saints, the shroud of Turin etc which to these uneducated and illiterate people were PROOF. The Church taught these documents and icons were FROM GOD, LITERALLY! It wasn't until the Protestant reformation and the enlightenment that critical discussion of doctrine and dogma could occur. Then, it wasn't until the discovery of the scrolls at Qumran and Nag Hammadi that REAL Biblical scholarship could begin... so just 60 years ago, the first real investigations into the Biblical literature began.
So the Church has had 1500 years to create these delusions (and another 500 years to cement the "authority" of the Canon into the arguments) and reasonable man has had only 60 years with which to refute them.

Some go for the total "fabrication", "myth", "conspiracy" arguments, while other more reasonable voices seek to look at the origin of this great deception... on what is the deception based? The answer lies not in the events themselves, we are being deceived about what those events mean.

aa5874

You seem not to understand what was happening in antiquity. It would appear people believe things that seems stupid today.

Look at the Preface to "De Principiis" Now, you must understand what people of Antiquity believed about Jesus of the NT.

Now, people in Antiquity also believed that Jesus was a PHANTOM and those people thought the Church writers and their God/man Jesus were jokers, probably stupid, and they LAUGHED at them.

Examine First Apolgy 58 But, there are people today who have put forward a most irrational belief even after admitting that the NT does not appear credible, they claim Jesus of the NT was not mythical but really human, just that virtually everything in the NT about him is not true.

I can't stop laughing.

kcdad

The New Testament is certainly credible to one who has eyes to see. It isn't particularly accurate nor consistent, but that doesn't take away from it's credibility. I don't believe it (as a whole) to be true. I do believe it to be a representation of what some people believed to be true 2000 years ago. Just as reading the newspaper today doesn't mean anything in it is true, but that some people today believe it to be true.

One must read critically to understand what people were trying to communicate in their writing... there is no tone of voice or facial expression to help us understand. What do you believe about Barak Obama to be true based on what you have heard or read about him? What about our own messiah, George Washington?

....and why are you quoting Origen and Justin Martyr as authorities I should recognize?

aa5874

Who do you want me to quote? Obama?

I do not use my imagination, I must refer to sources of antiquity to try to understand what was thought of Jesus of the NT.

Origen and Justin Martyr did write about an entity they called Jesus who was born of a virgin, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

That is the precise reason I quote Origen and Justin Marty.

It would appear to me that you would like to discard the information about Jesus as found in the NT and Church writings and from imagination fabricate some other Jesus to your own liking which appears to be what the authors of the Gospels did.

Perhaps, the author of Mark did not like what the author of Matthew, so he re-wrote the Jesus story, then maybe the author of John did not like Matthew's or Mark' version, so he fabricated another Jesus, and then the author of gLuke perhaps decided to re-work gMatthew and gMark.

Now, today Jesus is being re-worked. Some people don't like what is in the NT and Church writings so they are going to fabricate a more politically-correct Jesus. This new Jesus will not teach his disciple that he will rise on the third day or that he will be sitting on the right hand of God.

kcdad

How about Marcus Borg or Jack Spong or Dominic Crossan or Bart Ehrman... ????
Someone who has read the most original texts in the original languages...
In the same way you would check with them on matters of medicine or geography?

Mark was written BEFORE Matthew.

aa5874

Are you implying that ORIGINALITY is directly related to VERACITY?


You DON'T have to be an expert in any field to examine the NT and Church writings as found in English or your preferred language.

Jurors do not have to be experts. And experts do not always agree even as translators.

PERHAPS. But, the Church writers claimed gMatthew was written first.

And, Justin Martyr, up to the middle of the 2nd century did not write any thing about Matthew or Mark, only the MEMOIRS OF THE APOSTLES, but he did say John wrote Revelations.

PERHAPS, gMatthew and gMark are all derivatives of the MEMOIRS of the APOSTLES as found in Justin Martyr's writings.