Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 08-20-2013, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The core Christian value is that the Jesus did away with the need to follow the Law for salvation.

Funny how the Jamesian Jerusalemites were unaware of this.

Yes but Paul was.

That's the point. The fellas who were supposed to know Jesus didn't get the message, but the fella who didn't know him did. Yet some wise sparks wanna believe that Paul learned stuff from them. Jokers.

TedM · 08-20-2013, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

The 2nd Temple stood for roughly 600 years, so while I guess it isn't a huge coincidence it is 'by chance' unlikely that it would be destroyed within 40 years of anything.

Are you trying to go Baysian on us? What makes that probability meaningful?

Not saying it is. It's all part of the Baysian equation though.

Quote:

Most other observers think that the effort to rebuild the Temple would be more likely to trigger war in the Middle East.

If you didn't know these basic facts...

I know some of these things but don't know why you are posting them. They are irrelevant to my points, which are to state the facts. One can ALWAYS come up with reasons to not see the forest for the trees, if there is one.

Quote:

I'm sure I could find someone

THEN DO IT, DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT IT

http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2520

and
http://www.jrtalks.com/john/john2v12to25.html

Quote:

What Jesus raised up was a new temple - a spiritual house made of living stones.

It's a common Christian theme.

TedM · 08-20-2013, 06:42 AM

Was thinking some this morning about this temple and the temple 'incident'.
It seems very UNLIKELY that Hellenistic Jews would have created the Jesus in the temple incident, since Jesus was protesting desecration much like a Zealot (ie anti-Hellenistic) Jew would. Add to that the strong focus by Jesus and the early movement on the poor (the early movement I think actually was called 'the poor') and the idea of Hellenistic Jewish origins to Christianity seems impossible. Why would they champion a story that makes them look bad?

TedM · 08-20-2013, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The core Christian value is that the Jesus did away with the need to follow the Law for salvation.

Funny how the Jamesian Jerusalemites were unaware of this.

Yes but Paul was.

That's the point. The fellas who were supposed to know Jesus didn't get the message, but the fella who didn't know him did. Yet some wise sparks wanna believe that Paul learned stuff from them. Jokers.

This is absurd. 'the message' 'stuff'.. .it's all nonsense from you..what you seem to have trouble with is the idea that Paul saw a very broad implication to the resurrection. The Jerusalem folks seemed to not have as broad a view. It in no way means they didn't think Jesus had been resurrected though. This is basic stuff. Too busy to bother with it any more today though..

spin · 08-20-2013, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The core Christian value is that the Jesus did away with the need to follow the Law for salvation.

Funny how the Jamesian Jerusalemites were unaware of this.

Yes but Paul was.

That's the point. The fellas who were supposed to know Jesus didn't get the message, but the fella who didn't know him did. Yet some wise sparks wanna believe that Paul learned stuff from them. Jokers.

This is absurd.

When you make an assertion like that, you are supposed to follow it with some reasoning, not this palaver:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

'the message' 'stuff'.. .it's all nonsense from you..what you seem to have trouble with is the idea that Paul saw a very broad implication to the resurrection.

Whatever that means, it may be so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The Jerusalem folks seemed to not have as broad a view.

You have no indications of their views on the resurrection. You're just making things up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It in no way means they didn't think Jesus had been resurrected though.

There is no evidence that they did. We normally work from evidence. You don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This is basic stuff.

Well, if it is, demonstrate it rather than assert it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Too busy to bother with it any more today though..

Whatever, but do send TedM back.

JoeWallack · 08-20-2013, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It occurs to me that it is rather extraordinary that Christianity began within 50 years of the Jewish Temple destruction. Mankind's most dominant religion began, and it claims to have replaced the need for the Jewish Temple. The Jewish people revered their temple as the most Holy place to worship their God, and yet it is destroyed physically within 50 years of the religion that claims it was replaced spiritually.

Coincidence?

JW:
I've got another option. An anti-Semitic lie made up to try and hide the real Christian History of more innocent Jews of blessed memory dying as a result of being murdered in the name of Jesus than of natural causes in the last 2,000 years.

Christianity could not be "dominant" because every country that Jesus supposedly knew abandoned Christianity. It's actually must easier to prove that Christianity is supernatural but the bad kind. Revelation says that Satan will have 1/3 of the world population as followers. Check out the current world population stats to see who makes up 1/3.

Your post is offensive Ted suggesting the option that there is a supernatural reason for "The Jews" catastrophe and divine replacement. Instead of promoting fiction you should be more concerned with the real and terrible history of your Christian religion.

Joseph

TedM · 08-20-2013, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This is basic stuff.

Well, if it is, demonstrate it rather than assert it.

I already did. On the other thread. You know, the one that you ignored in favor of nitpicking. Don't bother though because I know you don't care much for common sense reasoning.

TedM · 08-20-2013, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It occurs to me that it is rather extraordinary that Christianity began within 50 years of the Jewish Temple destruction. Mankind's most dominant religion began, and it claims to have replaced the need for the Jewish Temple. The Jewish people revered their temple as the most Holy place to worship their God, and yet it is destroyed physically within 50 years of the religion that claims it was replaced spiritually.

Coincidence?

JW:
I've got another option. An anti-Semitic lie made up to try and hide the real Christian History of more innocent Jews of blessed memory dying as a result of being murdered in the name of Jesus than of natural causes in the last 2,000 years.

Christianity could not be "dominant" because every country that Jesus supposedly knew abandoned Christianity. It's actually must easier to prove that Christianity is supernatural but the bad kind. Revelation says that Satan will have 1/3 of the world population as followers. Check out the current world population stats to see who makes up 1/3.

Your post is offensive Ted suggesting the option that there is a supernatural reason for "The Jews" catastrophe and divine replacement. Instead of promoting fiction you should be more concerned with the real and terrible history of your Christian religion.

Joseph

You're nuts if you are offended by my post. Seriously. And I'm not in the mood to drink chili's juice to try and understand what the hell you are saying here either..I"m observing, not preaching.

spin · 08-20-2013, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This is basic stuff.

Well, if it is, demonstrate it rather than assert it.

I already did. On the other thread. You know, the one that you ignored in favor of nitpicking. Don't bother though because I know you don't care much for common sense reasoning.

Wake up, faux TedM. That post was just chock full of assertion. And just so that you know how piss weak that post was, here it is:

[T2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Wow spin, you surely deserve your name, as that last post was a perfect example of how you hone in on requiring perfection in the meaning of words to such an extent that you end up discarding common sense and overlooking plain and obvious meaning.

First of all, whether Paul says the churches of Judea had the same faith or whether he says that OTHERS said [assertion:] they had the same faith is completely unimportant, yet you think it makes some kind of difference. What matters is what Paul was saying. [assertion:] He clearly was making a point that the faith WAS the same.

No content. Just assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Secondly, your distinction regarding his use of "church of God" between universal usage and local doesn't change the fact that this is the term he uses for CHRISTIANS, whether they be universal or localized. You seem to be implying that the usage in Galatians is an interpolation, the favorite escape plan for those that don't like what they find in a verse: just make it disappear. And 1 Cor 10:32 is almost definitely a universal usage. He mentions Jews (universal), Greeks (universal), and the "church of God." Local? Doubtful.

Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God

The act of giving offense is done where the person is. As those who are Jews and Greeks are those in the context of the Corinthians, so is the church of god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

[assertion:] Third, you minimize the context as I showed that the argument for persecuting Christians and then discovering his error through God's revelation [assertion:] is a lot more convincing than persecuting "messianists" who didn't believe in Jesus' resurrection from crucifixion.

You believe what you like. No content here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Lastly, you skipped right on by the KILLER evidence, repeating your claim about the messianists again:

Quote:

21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.”

How does this become a group that doesn't believe in Jesus' resurrection?

This killer lemon as you enunciate it doesn't make much sense. It is your job to show that the messianist assemblies in Judea are in fact groups of Jesus believers. You don't assume your conclusion and require others to provide evidence to the contrary.

Try your hardest to find Paul using the name Jesus with anyone other than those who he converted himself. You may believe whatever you like, but the rest of us need evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

In summary, ALL of the above is very strong evidence that your preference for a generic messianic group that knew nothing of claims for a resurrected crucified Jesus are total unfounded and are clearly contradicted by what Paul tells us in Galatians was the situation. It just doesn't fit spin.

Of course the implications are HUGE, but you seem very committed to not be willing to take the step and just accept them, favoring instead extreme atomistic focus on certain things and complete blindness to the most important things.

And think about it: what would be the need for Jewish 'Christians' who followed the law but didn't believe Jesus had been a resurrected Messiah? And Paul, for whom the resurrection meant EVERYTHING--even willing to give up his own life for it, not only was submissive to the group ("lest I had been running in vain"), but he didn't even bother to mention that those so-called 'Christians' didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected? It's ludicrous to think that Paul would have ignored a difference in opinion over the truth of Jesus' resurrection in favor of a discussion about eating meat and requiring circumcision or not. It is simply too much of a stretch to be taken seriously.

Time to get serious and take a stand spin...go where the evidence leads you.

This all sounds like sophomore debating when you have nothing to say.[/T2]
Bring the real TedM back.

spin · 08-20-2013, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
I've got another option. An anti-Semitic lie made up to try and hide the real Christian History of more innocent Jews of blessed memory dying as a result of being murdered in the name of Jesus than of natural causes in the last 2,000 years.

Christianity could not be "dominant" because every country that Jesus supposedly knew abandoned Christianity. It's actually must easier to prove that Christianity is supernatural but the bad kind. Revelation says that Satan will have 1/3 of the world population as followers. Check out the current world population stats to see who makes up 1/3.

Your post is offensive Ted suggesting the option that there is a supernatural reason for "The Jews" catastrophe and divine replacement. Instead of promoting fiction you should be more concerned with the real and terrible history of your Christian religion.

Joseph

You're nuts if....

Bring back the real TedM!

08-20-2013, 06:42 AM	#23
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Hellinistic origins fly in face of the story Was thinking some this morning about this temple and the temple 'incident'. It seems very UNLIKELY that Hellenistic Jews would have created the Jesus in the temple incident, since Jesus was protesting desecration much like a Zealot (ie anti-Hellenistic) Jew would. Add to that the strong focus by Jesus and the early movement on the poor (the early movement I think actually was called 'the poor') and the idea of Hellenistic Jewish origins to Christianity seems impossible. Why would they champion a story that makes them look bad?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.