storytime

But the parables were meant to deceive the multitude [the outsiders], because, it was not meant[predistined] that they be included in the kingdom of heaven.

aa5874

You are required to show that there was an HJ who could have believed he would resurrect. Your assumption or imagination of an HJ just won't do.

People can make theories on information presented not on imagination.

How do you expect to put forward your belief without any sources? You are wasting my time.

I have provided the sources for my position. Did I not show you the passages from the NT?

Did not Jesus teach his disciples that he would be killed and be raised on the third day. Is not that stupid?

Jesus in the very NT was killed, and was buried and the disciples went into hiding. That should have been the end of the stupid story.


How do you intend to do that without providing any sources?

What you say appears to be erroneous. Did I not show you the sources? Why are you repeating the same erroneous statement?

Is not stupid for a man to claim he would resurrect on the third day?

Did he not realise that within 72 of his death that his sect would be destroyed and the disciples would have to remain in hiding for a very long time.

Please tell me how in the world could the disciples claim Jesus was resurrected when they ran away since Jesus was arrested and were in hiding when his body vanished?


It is precislely because of analysis why it can be claimed that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

What the so-called Jesus believed about his resurrection was irrelevant. If Jesus was human and claimed he would be raised in three days, then he is going to be deemed a fraud after 72 hrs and his disciples would have to remain in hiding.


When did HJ exist? You are just making stuff up.

Once HJ did not exist then what you imagine was not possible.

So, haven't you read the Jesus stories? Please tell me what happened after the disciples went into hiding, and the body of Jesus had disappeared?

Was it humanly possible for Jesus to resurrect?



So, have YOU not read the GOSPELS, the GOOD NEWS? If Jesus was human and he died, was buried and his body disappeared, and the disciples were in hiding what good news did the disciples have about Jesus?

The HJ appears senseless if he did not resurrect. There would be no Gospel, no good news.

What did they add when they were in hiding and his body had vanished? You must not forget that when the burial site was visited that Jesus' body had already disappeared.


I am arguing that the HJ is a most senseless proposition. I have provided the statement of Jesus as found in the NT where he taught his disciples that he would be killed and be raised on the third day.


This teaching only make sense if Jesus was believed to be a God or had supernatural powers.

So, do YOU not know what bible verses are? Do you not interpret bible verses? Your response is irrational.

You have not poked one single hole in my argument. But it will be shown that you have no sources for your imagination.

You MUST provide sources for your claims otherwise you are just wasting time.

Now, you seem not to understand that there MAY BE two fundamental postion with any argument.

1. The HJ is a most senseless proposition.

2. The HJ is NOT a most senseless proposition.

Which ever position you support you must provide sources. I have provided sources. You have not.

You get it, now.

Did Joseph Smith claim he would die and resurrect on the third day? I am dealing specifically with a most dumb claim by Jesus in the NT. The Jesus story is just too stupid to be true.


Why don't you read the NT to find out what the authors claimed happened? All the accusations against Jesus were dropped. Pilate found no fault with Jesus.

You are constantly making your own history using your imagination as a corroborative source.

Why do you think that what you imagine has any merit? It is recorded that Pilate found no fault with Jesus. Just read the NT. Don't make stuff up.


So what you ask? The HJ is a most irrational proposition. That's what!

Who passed out of history 2000 years ago? You have not even began to provide one single historical non-apologetic source for your claims. Your imagination is useless until you get credible sources to support your belief.

The HJ is senseless from any angle. No matter where I start, the outcome is the same.

Why are you asking me for sources when you are making statements about Marcion without refering to any sources? And even so you contradict yourself.

It is just absurd and illogical to claim that Marcion's Jesus was a real physical illusion. There is no such thing as a real physical illusion.

"Real" is the complete opposite of "illusion"

Marcion was right. Jesus was only believed to be human, but he was a Phantom.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

David_M

No I'm not reuired to show that because I am not making a positive claim I an questioning the claims you are making, you just don't understand where the burden of proof lies. YOU are the one making a claim based on certain "facts" and interpretations that YOU put forward, all that is needed from those arguing against you is to point out how you facts and interpretations may be wrong.

You have presented your views on information recorded in the NT, that is all.

I don't need sources because I'm not putting forward a belief, I'm questioning the basis of YOUR belief. Your continued inability to give substantive answers to questions put to you, and your repetition of the same points again and again amply demonstrate that it is you who are time wasting here.

Until you realize that personal incredulity is not the basis for a theory, which is all that you have, and start giving proper answers to questions put to you its seems pointless to continue.

You are not providing sources, you are pointing to some religious writings an saying you can't think why someone might have said such a thing.

You think its stupid because you cannot accept that people can make outrageous claims while truly believing in their veracity. The fact that reality demonstrates that people do make such claims is a real problem from your argument.

You also have not established in ANY way that this claim was not a later attribution or change in meaning, if it your entire argument is dead in the water.

Putting that aside, if Jesus thought he would be resurrected because the voices in his head told him so then no, its not stupid for him to make that claim.

I'm using exactly the same text that you are, the NT. If they are not good enough for me why are they good enough for you?


The NT is not a reputable source for any discussion about Jesus, its propaganda written decades after his death and redacted and changed multiple times.

Not if he personally believes this to be true it is not a stupid act for him. Let's say you fervently support a sports team and are convinced they will win the championship this year, claiming such may seem stupid to others who do not believe as you do but to you it is not a stupid claim to make.

Only if he didn't think it would happen, if he thought it would realy happen then its entirely logical he would make such a claim (whether he truly thoight he would be resurrected of knew a follower would remove the body to make it seem he was resurrected is a different discussion).

To counter this argument you need to show that humans cannot be delusional and/or cannot make grandiose claims that have no basis in reality.

Because after 3 days it was reported that his body had vanished from a closed tomb, the disciples come out of hiding and take this as immediate confirmation that Jesus was right and he had indeed be ressurected.

Doesn't mean it happened, only that people thought it had happened.

Your analysis is fatally flawed because it ignores human nature, history is replete with leaders making grandiose claims and followers making up stuff to confirm how great their leader was. Why is this example different.

No its not irrelevant what Jesus actually believed would happen would be the driving motivation for any claims he made, its the only thing that is relevant. Your personal incredulity is what is not relevant.

Within living memory there have been examples of people claiming resurrection into a new life and then killing themselves (Heaven's gate Cult being an example) so don't try claiming that people don't make such statements.

Who knows, actually reliable sources are remarkably silent on the Jesus of the NT which means that he may indeed be a fabrication deawn in part from one or more Jewish religious teacher's of the time.

Circular argument if ever I saw one. If what I imagine is possble then an HJ could quite easily be true (only considering the interpretations of NT text that you have used).

Of course I've read them, in brief what is claimed is that Jesus was seen by a variable number of people and spent some time (accounts are contradictory on the period) with his disciples before ascending to heaven.


No, not without supernatural intervention which doesn't happen. But again I will repeat the simple point that it is what Jesus thought would happen after his death that governs all his pre-death statements on the subject, not what was claimed happened after his death.

The Good News is not limited to one 3 day period, I suspect that your comprehension of the Gospels is rather limited. The Good News would have been that, as he claimed, Jesus had been resurrected.

If Jesus claimed he would be resuurected because that's what he believed would happen after his body disappeared it would be illogical to assume that his followers would not immediately point to this as being a confirmation of

Of course if the claim that the body had disappeared never got started that would have caused problems but again that is an irrelevance when talking about why Jesus might make claims about what would happen after his death.

True, but this post-death event is pretty meaningless when considering why Jesus may have made certain pre-death claims.

You keep repeating this as if it was some sort of counter-point. What is your actual point about this other than that Jesus's body disappeared. Nowhere in the Gospel's does Jesus intimate that there would be witnesses to the actual moment of ressurection, only that it would occur after 3 days.

Or that Jesus believed that he was a true prophet sent from God and would be resurrected, as we have other examples of humans claiming that this would happen do you accept that this is a valid alternative.


My responses are entirely rational, we are arguing about interpretation an motivation, you are the person making irrational claims of certitude based on am interpretation and some incredulity.

I have poked a huge hole in your argument, the simple and demonstrable fact that humans make claims because they personally believe them to be true (not matter how improbable that claim is) is a huge problem for your proposition that you have not even started to address.

In fact you seem incapable of addressing it.

So must you, we are both using the NT, and all I need are the passages that you quoted, demonstrate that my interpretation of why these claims might made can be ruled out and I will accept your proposition.

Binary thinking of the worst sort. Still missing how debate like this works don't you. Let's make this really simple for you.

YOU - 1. The HJ is a most senseless proposition.
ME - The arguments you use for this are insufficient, answer the counter points if you want people to accept it.

I am arguing against your proposition having sufficient support, not arguing that "The HJ is NOT a most senseless proposition."

Right back at you.


No, but he claimed to have met an angel who "gave" him the book of Mormon - I though you would have realised this was similar in scope but not the same in detail.

Marshall Applewhite claimed that he would die and be resurrected (though he gave no time period) so there is a much closer parrellel.

You have just demonstrated that you have not read the NT, it is you who are making things up here.

Mark 15 KJV

Pilate may have found no fault but he acted at the behest of the Chief priests and to content the people (who were acting upon the urgings of those priests).

Which is exactly what I claimed, so unless you want to argue that the groups bolded above were not part of the Jewish power structure you should admit that you were completely wrong.


Because its exactly what is said in Mark, it was the Priests (a Jewish power bloc as I said) who pushed for the execution of Jesus.

Provide support for the proposition that goes beyond personal incredulity and a lack of knowledge of the Gospels.

Ok so to be accurate its "just about 2000 years ago according to the period that Pilate was actually governor".

My sources are the NT, which is exactly the same fucking source that you have been using. So this applies to you "Your imagination is useless until you get credible sources to support your belief".

I'll say it again - and argument from personal incredulity does not cut it, step up and answer you critics and provide rigorous responses or admit defeat.


I'm asking you for sources because I think you are spouting crap, once again you are making a contested claim so YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A SOURCE.

You really are grasping at straws here. And stop quote mining me - I made no claim about a "real physical illusion".

From Wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

You obviously have no understanding of Marcionism, the belief was that Jesus was real in that he could be seen, heard and touched. All that the term "physical illusion" refers to is that he was a spirit clothed in flesh so could not actually die.

kcdad

"The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia"

What did it mean to be "Greek"? Obviously not be born there. So why presume it means you speak Greek? Greek means Gentile, that is, non-Jewish. (In the exact same way the Amish call non-Amish "English".)

The New Testament was written in Greek... or was it? (Only the oldest saved texts are written in Greek. There are no originals) Why translate some of what Jesus said and not other things? Why retain certain Aramaic phrases in the oldest manuscripts? Who was the New Testament written for? Jews? Arabs? or Romans and Greeks?

kcdad

Because God has preordained since the beginning of time, from before page 1 of Genesis, that most of his creation would be sent to hell. That is just the kind of guy he is. Everything is exactly the way God has always wanted it to be. He is infallible, inerrant, omnipotent and... oh yeah... a great manager.

Prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.

No Robots

Wrong. The fact is that the multitude is incapable of comprehending naked spiritual truth; so, for them, spiritual truth is couched in parables. It is then up to the elect to discern the spiritual truth that lies within the parables. There is no deception here.

No Robots

Why are not all people governed by reason? It is simply the way things are. What benefit is there in saying that all are governed by reason, when that is clearly not the case? What benefit is there in trying to force everyone to be reasonable? Isn't it best just to acknowledge that there are those who are governed by reason, and those who are not? And isn't it best then to let each group go about its business according to its own inclinations?

aa5874

As I have already written there may be two fundamental arguments for a proposition. One for the proposition and the other against the proposition.

Essentially, one proposes "A" and another proposes "NOT A", it is therefore illogical and blantantly absurd that the person who proposes "NOT A" does not have any obligationto provide any facts.

I propose that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition, some other person may argue against my proposal and are in favor of the proposal that the HJ is NOT a most SENSELESS proposition.

Both sides must produce sources to support their proposal.

If you are arguing against my proposal you must produce some credible information or source of antiquity. If you propose that there was an actual human HJ, then you MUST provide the source of antiquity that clearly show that there was indeed an HJ.

Jesus was human because it says so in the Bible is an extremely weak argument since the very same Bible claimed he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

You are most obviously putting forward a belief. You believe my proposition is wrong. Why are you denying your belief?

Where did you get that theory from? Personal incredulity?

Are you claiming that the NT is NOT a source for the Jesus stories?

My point is that no human, no real person, could be that stupid or irrational. The prediction of the third day resurrection is a clear indication that Jesus of the NT was believed to be divine or a supernatural entity.

People make outrageous claims, but I am yet to find a real human who taught his followers that he would be killed and be raised from the dead within three days.

Even if Jesus believed he was truly a God, and could resurrect, his beliefs became irrelevant 72 hours after his death.

If there was an HJ, I would expect that all we would have learnt about Jesus was that he was a false prophet, and a blasphemer, who lead people astray and was crucified or stoned to death for his sheer stupidity.

But, the NT claimed Jesus resurrected. Jesus was not human. Jesus the God/man would walked into a building shut tight. The disciples now have good news for the Jews.

Have not read the NT and the Church writings? The supposed first bishop of Rome, Peter, a disciple of Jesus was a witness to the post-resurrection Jesus.

And, if Jesus did not teach his disciples that he would be killed and raised from the dead in three days, then the NT is not credible. The HJ would be based on fiction.

It would still be SENSELESS to base the HJ on fiction or writings with no credibility.

What source can show that Jesus had a real human head? In the NT, Jesus had a GOD/MAN head and he could change heads. He transfigured and part of his head, maybe his whole head, shone like the sun.

What head did Jesus have after he transfigured?



So, you are admitting that I have presented sources for my position.


So, why do you use the NT in your discussion?

Now, this is like claiming that Homer is NOT reputable for Achilles.

Please indicate the reputable sources for Jesus. I suggest Marcion.


But, regardless of how stupid fans are, you may hardly ever hear anyone claim that they will ciome back to life within three days. No-one may not even bother to attend their funeral.

How can a fake resurrection of Jesus be a different discussion? Based on the NT, Jesus claimed he would resurrect on the third day.

Do you have any evidence that the resurrection of Jesus was faked, if you do then then the HJ will no longer be a most senseless proposition, a character based on fiction.

But, the problem is that the NT and the Church writers wrote that Jesus did TRULY resurrect.

Jesus was divine in REALITY.

How can the disciples claim Jesus resurrected when they don't know where his body is located?

Perhaps the Sanhedrin had moved the body. If the claimed Jesus resurerected, then the Sanhedrin would have known the disciples were liars.

And if the disciples faked the resurrection, then would die for a lie.

The HJ, from any angle, is SENSELESS.

But, real people are smart. You would notice that there is no three day expiration for their resurrection.


You mean there was a religous teacher who TAUGHT that he would raised from the dead after three days and actually did rise?

If you let you imagination run wild, then you may begin to believe whatever you imagine is true.

And that is part of the Good News. Now, if Jesus was just human, the post resurrection story is just fiction. Jesus is just fiction or belief.l


You have not one hole in my proposition at all. You have not been able to dispute that the claim by Jesus was utterly stupid and that there would have been no Gospel story without the resurrection.

The claim of a three day resurrection by an human only Jesus would have destroyed the Gospel story.

The Gospels only make sense if Jesus was divine or supernatural.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition. HJ could not resurrect. HJ would have destroyed the Good NEWS, the disciples would not be able to come out of hiding.

arnoldo

Marcion was wrong. Tertullian writes;

Toto

Quoting Tertullian to show that Marcion was wrong - that's about as productive a use of your time as trying to show aa5874 how wrong he is.