Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 08-20-2012, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I'm just wondering what it was that a preacher who gets crucified had to have said or done to get his followers to believe that he was resurrected and or that resurrection to have 'stuck'. Maryrdom isn't enough. We have to know what the group believed about the leader, I would think.

JW:
What his followers believed verses what else launched him to Mazel dumb is a big difference. You appear to be blissfully unaware that the original Gospel narrative, the one all others are based on, "Mark", has a primary theme that the disciples did not believe in the resurrection.

The reason your question is not getting much response is because it is so far beneath the standards of this Forum. I'll give you a hint. "Mark" did not become kosher until it added a treif ending. Does that help you understand what made Christianity a commercial success?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

TedM · 08-20-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I'm just wondering what it was that a preacher who gets crucified had to have said or done to get his followers to believe that he was resurrected and or that resurrection to have 'stuck'. Maryrdom isn't enough. We have to know what the group believed about the leader, I would think.

JW:
What his followers believed verses what else launched him to Mazel dumb is a big difference. You appear to be blissfully unaware that the original Gospel narrative, the one all others are based on, "Mark", has a primary theme that the disciples did not believe in the resurrection.

I am aware that the book reports that the disciples didn't UNDERSTAND the concept of resurrection, and that the implication is that they were not expecting a resurrection of Jesus. You are assuming that also means they did not believe in his resurrection. You seem to WANT this to be the case--as a way to discredit the idea of early believing disciples. You are intentionally, it would seem, ignoring the obvous: In the short version it is strongly implied that the disciples, and Peter, saw the risen Christ:

Quote:

But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘ He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

The implication is that when the disciples finally saw Jesus they understood what he had been telling them, and they believed. It didn't matter whether the women told anybody or when they might have finally done so. The prophecy was made. It had to have been fulfilled Joe.

Quote:

The reason your question is not getting much response is because it is so far beneath the standards of this Forum.

Arrogance galore. The truth is that those who don't respond have decided they don't like to speculate outside of their realm of comfort on what is actually a question that most curious, reasonable, and open-minded people would find quite interesting to consider.

aa5874 · 08-20-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

How do we know the 'secrets' given to the disciples aa?

Secrets??? What Secrets did the PRESUMED Jesus give to his disciples??? The disciples were supposed to meet Jesus in Galilee after he was Resurrected.

Mark 14

Quote:

28 But after I have risen I will go before you into Galilee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..... Obviously because they REMEMBERED them at a later date and repeated Jesus' words. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they had become believers and understood at a later date. (if GMark was a historical work--don't get sidetracked on that issue)...

They did??? When did that happen??? It is NOT obvious at all that any disciple of the supposed Jesus remembered anything.

What you claim is from YOUR IMAGINATION. In gMark, Jesus was Abandoned or DENIED by his supposed disciples.

The disciples figured NOTHING in gMark.

In gMark, Peter remembered to DENY that he ever knew Jesus and the disciples Abandoned Jesus when he was arrested.

Don't you Remember??

Mark 14:50 KJV

Quote:

And they all forsook him, and fled .

Mark 14.71 KJV

Quote:

71But he began to curse and to swear , saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak .

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No matter if we PRESUME Jesus did exist the story just does NOT make much sense because the very Resurrection destroys the claim that Jesus really died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Come on. Resurrection REQUIRES death. It's the very opposite of what you are saying.

Oh no!!! A Resurrection is fiction.

Please, tell us how in the world can it be shown that Jesus died if he was actually alive and was with the Disciples COOKING and EATING Fish as stated in stated in John 21??

It is horribly illogical that a living person is proof of death.

If Jesus was human then it was a BIG LIE that he Resurrected.

Jesus if he did LIVE SURVIVED the Crucifixion.

Jesus if he did LIVE could NOT have died.

Please, in "The Life of Flavius Josephus" where the THREE Crucified were taken down from their Crosses it is claimed ONE SURVIVED and Two DIED.

See the "Life of Flavius Josephus.

Quote:

I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance...........Titus........... immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

TedM · 08-20-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

How do we know the 'secrets' given to the disciples aa?

Secrets??? What Secrets did the PRESUMED Jesus give to his disciples??? The disciples were supposed to meet Jesus in Galilee after he was Resurrected.

You just stole from what I posted, even though it is not relevant to the topic. Relax and take a deep breath aa.

The 'secret' given to them was his private revelation on several occasions of his upcoming death and resurrection.

Quote:

They did??? When did that happen??? It is NOT obvious at all that any disciple of the supposed Jesus remembered anything.

As I said before the writer, if writing history, had to have found out the private information from a DISCIPLE. That disciple remembered things that Jesus had privately shared because he would have had to pass that information along to GMark in order for GMark to pass it along to us.

Quote:

If Jesus was human then it was a BIG LIE that he Resurrected.

It is very hostile for you to categorize it as a BIG LIE, because you are damning the writer and assuming he is being intentionally disingenuous by stating something that you personally don't believe happened. You seem to be assuming that the writer REALLY KNEW something other than what he wrote. We don't know if he did or not, right?

What evidence do you have that the writer really knew that Jesus had not been resurrected? What physical evidence do you have aa? If you don't have any, you cannot be considered CREDIBLE in your categorization of him. We MUST MUST MUST MUST have CREDIBLE SOURCES from antiquity!!

Get it?

Why not call it a 'mistaken claim'? Or a 'fictional belief'?

And, of course, it may have been a BIG TRUTH, that you simply are unwilling or unable to believe.

Toto · 08-20-2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... Now I'll address your concern about Pilate:

The portrayals are short, and it is two peoples opinions. To begin with that isn't much to go on. I could do a deep analysis, but I don't want to bother. I'll point out two things that are consistent with Pilate's portrayal in the Gospels:

1. Pilate, according to Josephus DID cave in to the peoples wishes, especially when pushed--as was the case with the ensigns. This entirely consistent with the gospel portrayals. The fact is that the people could have killed Pilate if they had so desired and he probably knew it. What did he care about this Jesus, who seemed to be not much of a threat? Let them do what they want..

2. Philo portrays a Pilate who was not concerned with following the law to the letter--again this is entirely consistent with crucifying a man who was basically innocent:

Quote:

if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty

So, Pilate caved to strong demands by the Jewish, and he wasn't particularly concerned with following the Roman law. Sounds a lot like the gospel story, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. The gospel version of Pilate is aloof, disinterested, but not vicious or corrupt. He actually gave Jesus a trial and almost exonerated him.

If you think that the gospel Pilate is compatible with the Josephus or Philo accounts, you are the only one who thinks so.

aa5874 · 08-21-2012, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You just stole from what I posted, even though it is not relevant to the topic. Relax and take a deep breath aa.

The 'secret' given to them was his private revelation on several occasions of his upcoming death and resurrection.

I just showed that the disciples did NOT even understand what Jesus was talking about.

Have you forgotten so soon???

Sinaiticus Mark

Quote:

31 For he taught his disciples and said to them that the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he has been killed he will rise after three days.

32 But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

They did??? When did that happen??? It is NOT obvious at all that any disciple of the supposed Jesus remembered anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...As I said before the writer, if writing history, had to have found out the private information from a DISCIPLE. That disciple remembered things that Jesus had privately shared because he would have had to pass that information along to GMark in order for GMark to pass it along to us.

You are so illogical. Your reasonning is hopeless. The claims about the resurrection does NOT need any actual human being.

Again, a resurrection means Jesus must actually die.

An actually dead Jesus cannot resurrect.

If Jesus did LIVE it would mean he RECOVERED BEFORE he died.

You MUST show that you can reason.

The claim of the Resurrection EXPOSED the NT as a PACK of LIES.

If it is ASSUMED Jesus was a man he did NOT die FOR OUR SINS.

Jesus NEVER DIED if he was actually SEEN ALIVE.
IT is a BIG LIE that Jesus died for OUR SINS.

Jesus RECOVERED from the Crucifixion if it is assumed he did Exist.

Mark 16:6 KJV

Quote:

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted : Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he is risen ; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Jesus was human then it was a BIG LIE that he Resurrected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It is very hostile for you to categorize it as a BIG LIE, because you are damning the writer and assuming he is being intentionally disingenuous by stating something that you personally don't believe happened. You seem to be assuming that the writer REALLY KNEW something other than what he wrote. We don't know if he did or not, right?

Please, "If one ACCEPTS the Premise that Jesus was a preacher" then the claim that the Preacher resurrected is a BIG LIE.

Jesus would have RECOVERED BEFORE he Died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...What evidence do you have that the writer really knew that Jesus had not been resurrected? What physical evidence do you have aa? If you don't have any, you cannot be considered CREDIBLE in your categorization of him. We MUST MUST MUST MUST have CREDIBLE SOURCES from antiquity!!...

What EVIDENCE do you have to "ACCEPT the premise that Jesus was a preacher and was crucified???

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...Why not call it a 'mistaken claim'? Or a 'fictional belief'?

And, of course, it may have been a BIG TRUTH, that you simply are unwilling or unable to believe.

TedM you cannot tell me what to write. OK.

If we accept the premise that Jesus was a preacher and was crucified then the claim that he Resurrected was a BIG LIE.

Once a human being is dead--they remain dead.

Jesus RECOVERED BEFORE he died if we accept the premise that Jesus was a preacher who was crucified and was seen ALIVE.

It is a BIG LIE that Jesus the preacher DIED for OUR SINS.

Please, examine an Exceprt from Against the Galileans.

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth....

TedM · 08-21-2012, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... Now I'll address your concern about Pilate:

The portrayals are short, and it is two peoples opinions. To begin with that isn't much to go on. I could do a deep analysis, but I don't want to bother. I'll point out two things that are consistent with Pilate's portrayal in the Gospels:

1. Pilate, according to Josephus DID cave in to the peoples wishes, especially when pushed--as was the case with the ensigns. This entirely consistent with the gospel portrayals. The fact is that the people could have killed Pilate if they had so desired and he probably knew it. What did he care about this Jesus, who seemed to be not much of a threat? Let them do what they want..

2. Philo portrays a Pilate who was not concerned with following the law to the letter--again this is entirely consistent with crucifying a man who was basically innocent:

Quote:

if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty

So, Pilate caved to strong demands by the Jewish, and he wasn't particularly concerned with following the Roman law. Sounds a lot like the gospel story, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. The gospel version of Pilate is aloof, disinterested, but not vicious or corrupt. He actually gave Jesus a trial and almost exonerated him.

If you think that the gospel Pilate is compatible with the Josephus or Philo accounts, you are the only one who thinks so.

The accounts we have from Josephus and Philo show Pilate as a man without scruples, who was all about himself. Whatever serves his best interests. That's what we see in GMark.

The corruption is found in the false conviction Toto. He didn't exonerate him. Despite having no good evidence he executed an innocent man. That's corrupt.

The 'aloofness' you describe is a naive characterization. The crowd was large during Passover. It was hostile. It was in short--potentially dangerous. Pilate had nothing to lose by caving in to their wishes. Just as he had done before, when the pressure got high enough, he caved in and did what was in Pilate's best interest. He gave into the will of the people to avoid a riot, which is similar to his cowardice as shown clearly by Philo and Josephus.

The overriding concern would have been his own safety. Second to that would have been to maintain peace with the crowd. Satisfying the crowd by crucifying Jesus was the easiest solution for Pilate to make, and it is consistent with the portrayal of a morally bankrupt coward as depicted by Philo and Josephus.

aa5874 · 08-21-2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

........The overriding concern would have been his own safety. Second to that would have been to maintain peace with the crowd. Satisfying the crowd by crucifying Jesus was the easiest solution for Pilate to make, and it is consistent with the portrayal of a morally bankrupt coward as depicted by Philo and Josephus.

Please, your post is nothing more than propaganda.

Based on Josephus, Pilate had Genocidal Tendencies. Pilate Ordered HIS SOLDIERS to KILL Jews who dis-obeyed his orders to disperse.

Please examine Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2.

Pilate confronted a crowd of TEN THOUSAND Jews and ordered his soldiers to surround and attack them with DAGGERS and many of the Jews were SLAIN and ran away WOUNDED.

Please examine Antiquities of the Jews 18.4.1

Pilate ORDERED his soldiers to KILL Samaritans that were going up to Mount Gerizzim.

Please examine Antiquities of the Jews 18.4.2

Pilate was ODERED to go ROME to answer the Charge of Genocide of the Samaritans.

Pilate was a Killing Machine.

Pilate had the Perfect opportunity to LEGALLY Massacre the Jews at the supposed trial of Jews in gMark.

TedM · 08-21-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Pilate had the Perfect opportunity to LEGALLY Massacre the Jews at the supposed trial of Jews in gMark.

He didn't have enough time to prepare and plot out as he had in those other examples aa. This was Passover--he had strong motivation to keep the peace. He was up against a wall and took the easy way out. He was a coward, as shown by the story of his sneaking the ensigns into the city.

Since you ignored my question on the other thread I'll ask it here: What apologetic sources claimed Paul was alive when GLuke was written? Can you back this up?

As for all your other comments, I don't have the time or energy. You win the endurance race.

Horatio Parker · 08-21-2012, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I would assume that in a situation of group conformity there are certain beliefs that the members hold in common. I would think the same would hold for those believing someone had been resurrected. People are not sheep. I don't hold as low an opinion of humanity as you seem to. Something more than a simple claim would have had to exist in order for such an extraordinary claim to have been believed by those that did not know Jesus. And if people became martyrs early on, I would think those subject to persecution would have required a lot more than a claim in order to retain their belief in the face of death. The degree of respect for their leader surely was a factor, for example.

How about all the good people who believed various miraculous religious tales, even unto martyrdom, throughout history? Did they have reasonable justification based on plausibility? More than a simple claim?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.