Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 06-04-2012, 09:11 PM

Outhouse, it simply doesn't matter how many of your chosen 'authority figures' you may cite.
My views are so radically different from yours, and from those whom you would be inclined to cite, that they are beyond your present ability to even conceive of.
This is not being stated as an insult, but as a simple fact of that distance that separates our views on the Scriptural texts, on actual history, and on how the world operates.

Will Wiley · 06-04-2012, 09:16 PM

Paul's earthly man, from Romans chapter 5

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

This death must be on earth because it is only on earth that "anyone" or "someone", could die.
This is why I say Pauls theology required an earthly man to die on earth.

aa5874 · 06-04-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Those scriptures are not fact.

no, but it is a fact they deified a poor peasant jew, even it is a MJ. thats who they deified.

quit playing run around the statement.

theres no use debating you if you act like aa

Again, you are an INVENTOR. You Discredit the NT and simultaneously use the same NT for the history of your Jesus.

You BELIEVE the Bible contains the Fundamental history of your Jesus.

You sound like fundamentalists--they Believe the Bible is fundamentally true.

Fundamentalists claim Jesus did exist.

What do HJers claim???? I want people to hear what you "sound" like when you answer the question.

Kapyong · 06-04-2012, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

This death must be on earth because it is only on earth that "anyone" or "someone", could die.
This is why I say Pauls theology required an earthly man to die on earth.

Why can't a heavenly being die in a heaven?

K.

Will Wiley · 06-04-2012, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

This death must be on earth because it is only on earth that "anyone" or "someone", could die.
This is why I say Pauls theology required an earthly man to die on earth.

Why can't a heavenly being die in a heaven?

K.

Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.

These deaths are on earth. And leading on from that.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this... Christ died for us.

outhouse · 06-05-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

sources please

Theories of the Historical Jesus

Jesus Dynasty

LOL you can do better then tabor

and for what its worth, ive heard from tabor himself claiming jesus was poor.

EarlDoherty · 06-05-2012, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Paul's earthly man, from Romans chapter 5

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

This death must be on earth because it is only on earth that "anyone" or "someone", could die.
This is why I say Pauls theology required an earthly man to die on earth.

You certainly are ignorant of ancient cosmology and the activities of divine figures in the heavenly spheres. Your comment is the rankest naivete, though it's common among unthinking apologists. Are all those mystery cult myths about "dying and rising human men"? When Osiris dies at the hands of Set and has his body reassembled by Isis with a refashioned penis to father Horus, is this a myth about historical human people and historical events? When Mithras slays a bull and its blood fertilizes the earth, is this an historical bull?

Why not check with GakuseiDon to see how Plutarch speaks of the death of Osiris in the region below the moon? (Oh, wait...Don tends to be as literal-minded as you are.)

And Paul doesn't say that "anyone" or "someone" died for sinners. Those words refer to the people in his analogy who would or would not die for someone else. Just because he makes an analogy involving human people does not mean that the Christ he is comparing them to has to be human as well. That's simple logic.

Why don't you get a life and go off and do something you're better fitted for, instead of wasting our time here.

(Sorry, but my patience for certain type of people on this board is limited, and gets more limited as the years pass but the supply of such ignorant and closed-minded time-wasters never seems to dry up.)

Earl Doherty

outhouse · 06-05-2012, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Why don't you get a life and go off and do something you're better fitted for, instead of wasting our time here.

why dont you get a real scholarship?

Quote:

You certainly are ignorant of ancient cosmology and the activities of divine figures in the heavenly spheres. Your comment is the rankest naivete, though it's common among unthinking apologists. Are all those mystery cult myths about "dying and rising human men"? When Osiris dies at the hands of Set and has his body reassembled by Isis with a refashioned penis to father Horus, is this a myth about historical human people and historical events? When Mithras slays a bull and its blood fertilizes the earth, is this an historical bull?

Why not check with GakuseiDon to see how Plutarch speaks of the death of Osiris in the region below the moon? (Oh, wait...Don tends to be as literal-minded as you are.)

and these cults are all part of judaism? because much of the mythology of this legend is within judaism including the resurrection.

Egyptians worshipped the sun, did hebrews ever worship the sun as a primary deity??

and yes the bulls had historicity as they were real and were food.

arnoldo · 06-05-2012, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...
why would romans deify a pesant, poverty stricken jew

Please stop repeating this. It's not based on fact.

The Romans did not deify a peasant, poverty stricken Jew. They accepted as a deity someone who descended from heaven, went through a human drama, died on a cross, and ROSE FROM THE DEAD. That's who they thought they were worshipping.

Your impoverished peasant is just a modern attempt to find a real person behind this mythical story. But no one worshiped that peasant as a god (except maybe for some 20th century Marxists.)

FWIW, the issue of the poverty of Jesus is allegedly an issue which Celsus used against the followers of Jesus. In defense of this accusation Origen wrote the following;

Quote:

For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God." Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.

For birth is an aid towards an individual's becoming famous, and distinguished, and talked about; viz., when a man's parents happen to be in a position of rank and influence, and are possessed of wealth, and are able to spend it upon the education of their son, and when the country of one's birth is great and illustrious; but when a man having all these things against him is able, notwithstanding these hindrances, to make himself known, and to produce an impression on those who hear of him, and to become distinguished and visible to the whole world, which speaks of him as it did not do before, how can we help admiring such a nature as being both noble in itself, and devoting itself to great deeds, and possessing a courage which is not by any means to be despised? And if one were to examine more fully the history of such an individual, why should he not seek to know in what manner, after being reared up in frugality and poverty, and without receiving any complete education, and without having studied systems and opinions by means of which he might have acquired confidence to associate with multitudes, and play the demagogue, and attract to himself many hearers, he nevertheless devoted himself to the teaching of new opinions, introducing among men a doctrine which not only subverted the customs of the Jews, while preserving due respect for their prophets, but which especially overturned the established observances of the Greeks regarding the Divinity?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

Bart Ehram also presents an interesting hypothesis that due to Jesus being portrayed negatively as a “lowly day-laborer” (tektwn/carpenter) in Mark 6:3 Jesus’s status was changed in Matthew 13:55 to being a carpenters son.

outhouse · 06-05-2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop repeating this. It's not based on fact.

The Romans did not deify a peasant, poverty stricken Jew. They accepted as a deity someone who descended from heaven, went through a human drama, died on a cross, and ROSE FROM THE DEAD. That's who they thought they were worshipping.

Your impoverished peasant is just a modern attempt to find a real person behind this mythical story. But no one worshiped that peasant as a god (except maybe for some 20th century Marxists.)

FWIW, the issue of the poverty of Jesus is allegedly an issue which Celsus used against the followers of Jesus. In defense of this accusation Origen wrote the following;

Quote:

For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God." Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.

For birth is an aid towards an individual's becoming famous, and distinguished, and talked about; viz., when a man's parents happen to be in a position of rank and influence, and are possessed of wealth, and are able to spend it upon the education of their son, and when the country of one's birth is great and illustrious; but when a man having all these things against him is able, notwithstanding these hindrances, to make himself known, and to produce an impression on those who hear of him, and to become distinguished and visible to the whole world, which speaks of him as it did not do before, how can we help admiring such a nature as being both noble in itself, and devoting itself to great deeds, and possessing a courage which is not by any means to be despised? And if one were to examine more fully the history of such an individual, why should he not seek to know in what manner, after being reared up in frugality and poverty, and without receiving any complete education, and without having studied systems and opinions by means of which he might have acquired confidence to associate with multitudes, and play the demagogue, and attract to himself many hearers, he nevertheless devoted himself to the teaching of new opinions, introducing among men a doctrine which not only subverted the customs of the Jews, while preserving due respect for their prophets, but which especially overturned the established observances of the Greeks regarding the Divinity?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

Bart Ehram also presents an interesting hypothesis that due to Jesus being portrayed negatively as a “lowly day-laborer” (tektwn/carpenter) in Mark 6:3 Jesus’s status was changed in Matthew 13:55 to being a carpenters son.

not only that but carpenter was a later mistranslation

had he been a carpenter, the label would have read tekton "of wood"

of course since there is no wood little wood in Nazareth and mostly rock, and many of jesus parables speak more of a stoneworker then one of wood.

Its pretty obvious to those with half a education on the subject

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

06-04-2012, 09:11 PM	#401
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Outhouse, it simply doesn't matter how many of your chosen 'authority figures' you may cite. My views are so radically different from yours, and from those whom you would be inclined to cite, that they are beyond your present ability to even conceive of. This is not being stated as an insult, but as a simple fact of that distance that separates our views on the Scriptural texts, on actual history, and on how the world operates.

06-04-2012, 09:16 PM	#402
Will Wiley Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wanganui Posts: 697	Paul's earthly man, from Romans chapter 5 6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. This death must be on earth because it is only on earth that "anyone" or "someone", could die. This is why I say Pauls theology required an earthly man to die on earth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.