JEST2ASK

To Goldenroad while at first I was happy that you had posed an interesting question to spur what I thought was a chance for an exchange of ideas / opinions etc ... I am somewhat disappointed because I know see it as disingenuous (IMO) it was a asseration merely cloaked as a question.

The fact you never returned to this thread and have posted elsewhere and the general message of your other posts IMO confirm my conclusion ... Oh well no big deal ...

To Thomas II I find it mildly amusing that you also did something similair ...
you responded to my post answering Goldenroad with again what I thought was a geniune question ... yet when I attempted to engage you; you focused only on the the portion of scripture quoted ... with no interest/ effort to include other issues (views raised) ...

What this really points out to me is that even when seemingly open-ended questions or hypothetical examples are given your minds are shut and no real discourse is possible. Again no problem ...

I would like to know what others think about my impression regarding the last gospel (John) and many other late canonical writtings (e.g 1-John, 2 - John, 1 - Peter , 2 - Peter etc).

These later writtings even if they were (which I highly doubt) written by geniune Apostles (eye-witnesses) are somewhat problematic as they appear to be written after the appearance of information by less authorative writters being widely circulated (e.g. Paul, Luke et-al) and they also seem to be in response to fairly wide spread diverse theology from established communities...

In a forum titled Biblical Criticism & History on a board sponsered by Non-believers one would think you would get believers able & willing to discuss more than what is included in the biblical text and viewed through the pre-suppostion of if not inerrancy, the that those writtings are a factual representaion of history. Not merely the philosophical / theology attempts of mere humans to explain their experiences.

It is so limiting to me to try and make reality fit into a nice little box, by excluding all those other pieces / questions.


Sorry If this is rambling and without a real point other than I am somewhat bugged (frustrated) by Questions posed with underlaying agendas that make them not questions but veiled claims (unsupported- IMO) ...

Thomas II

I'm sorry. I did not mean to ignore you.
But what is the argument I should have debated with you?

rlogan

Absolutely. I felt the same way about the Terminator. Definitely dead.

post tenebras lux

Shouldn't that question be directed at muslims? Isn't that what they claim Jesus did? :huh:They seem rather unconvincing to me. Care to tell me how long the average roman criminal took to die after being crucified?And I don't understand how anyone can find it believeable that the romans would allow a convicted criminal to be taken down (and given the honour of a burial) instead of being allowed to hang on the cross until his flesh rotted off his bones.

Oh, and I also don't understand how no evidence (outside of the gospels) exists for either the alleged eclipse or the earthquake, nevermind the general mayhem that would have resulted from all those dead guys getting up and walking around Jerusalem. :huh:

premjan

Muslims don't claim Jesus faked but that Allah changed the face of another man to look like Jesus.

post tenebras lux

Do they say who the other man was? And what had he done to deserve such a fate (whether one considers such a fate to be noble or ignoble)?

premjan

The man who went into the tomb to check (not sure whether he is mentioned as having come out).

rlogan

Woody Allen.

Self explanatory.

post tenebras lux

:huh:

Do you mean that Jesus took on the other man's appearance and that Jesus entered the tomb 'to check'? Cos the 'another man' was already dead, wasn't he?

By the way, the islamic version does seem (to me, at least) to be making Jesus out to be less than honest: or do muslims claim that Jesus went around telling everyone that he actually wasn't crucified (but that God had performed a miracle by putting someone else there to die) afterwards?

premjan

Basically Muhammad made it out as though God confused the onlookers, through an act of disguise, as he wouldn't deliberately cause violation of laws of nature - maybe Muhammad didn't want to be put under pressure to perform miracles.