Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Vdubs]

Why are you so different here then? do you 'truly' believe, the dead can rise up after 96 hours? not asking about faith, if you think you are skeptical cynical etc, nothing shows me that you are glass half full person more like glass overflowing person (atleast by your posts here). Rigor Mortis sets in after 9 hours, it's irreversible, when in physical world, even god(s) will be subjected to the laws of physics and biology.

You ignore the Gospels, which state that Jesus was raised bodily. Jesus says it himself. He eats, he has wounds on his body, and he says he has not yet ascended.

That Jesus truly resurrected from death is THE reason we are Christians and celebrate his birth, death, and have hope.

 

[Total Power]

That Jesus truly resurrected from death is THE reason we are Christians and celebrate his birth, death, and have hope.

You have fallen victim to organized religion, the 'concept' of ressurerction the way you think of it has been developed over the centuries. The first person to have reported (through vision apparently) ressurection was Paul. He clearly stated there are 2 bodies earthly bodies and celestial bodies.

Why should we automatically assume that Paul was talking about physically raised corpses when he tell us Jesus spiritually "appeared?"

He explicitly denies this is the case in 1 Cor 15:36 where he calls the Corinthians "fools" for believing that the resurrection will involve physical bodies and goes on to explain instead that "what is raised" are "spiritual/heavenly" bodies - 1 Cor 15:40-44 and that we have a new "heavenly dwelling" awaiting in case our earthly body gets destroyed - 2 Cor 5:1-4.


Paul thought Jesus was raised/exalted straight to heaven and given a new spiritual body. He did not believe a formerly dead corpse came back to life



But lets fast forward to Mark around 70 AD. He was the first to introduce empty tomb but no appearance to report. He does predict though Jesus will be seen in Galilee. The thing ends in 16:8 when women leave and tell no one.

Then fast forwars again, To Matthew 80 AD. He had women tell disciples which contradicts Mark and then he has some lady grab Jesus' feet but also has an appearance in Galilee but sheds some doubt though on Matthew 28:17 . Matthew also adds earthquake some angles coming down from heaven, zombie apocaplyse to spice it up.

Then Luke around 90 AD. Has women immediately tell disciples . Jesus is seen in Jerusalem not Galilee though. He does appear to a couple of blokes in Emmus road who doesnt recognise him first. Jesus then vanishes and all of a sudden appears in front of the disciples. Now Jesus no heavily body but just like us, eats fish, talks to disciples etc.

The last one is John around 110 AD. Jesus can then walk through walls, appears in front of mary magdalene, 11 disciples this time, directly.

etc etc

As you can see the legend/myth grew over time.Paul nowhere corroborates an empty tomb or anything like what other Gospel writers stated in their resurrection story. This silence is striking since Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that there was "a resurrection of the dead" - 1 Cor 15:12-13 and explain "with what type of body do they come?" - v. 35. It's significant that he doesn't mention the empty tomb, people lying and touching his feet, discarded grave clothes, his disciples eating fish with Jesus or them watching his physical body fly to heaven (hello Mohammed) because those things would surely have helped to strengthen his argument!

That's how myths work, you have been duped.

 

[Vdubs]

You have fallen victim to organized religion, the 'concept' of ressurerction the way you think of it has been developed over the centuries. The first person to have reported (through vision apparently) ressurection was Paul. He clearly stated there are 2 bodies earthly bodies and celestial bodies.

Why should we automatically assume that Paul was talking about physically raised corpses when he tell us Jesus spiritually "appeared?"

He explicitly denies this is the case in 1 Cor 15:36 where he calls the Corinthians "fools" for believing that the resurrection will involve physical bodies and goes on to explain instead that "what is raised" are "spiritual/heavenly" bodies - 1 Cor 15:40-44 and that we have a new "heavenly dwelling" awaiting in case our earthly body gets destroyed - 2 Cor 5:1-4.


Paul thought Jesus was raised/exalted straight to heaven and given a new spiritual body. He did not believe a formerly dead corpse came back to life



But lets fast forward to Mark around 70 AD. He was the first to introduce empty tomb but no appearance to report. He does predict though Jesus will be seen in Galilee. The thing ends in 16:8 when women leave and tell no one.

Then fast forwars again, To Matthew 80 AD. He had women tell disciples which contradicts Mark and then he has some lady grab Jesus' feet but also has an appearance in Galilee but sheds some doubt though on Matthew 28:17 . Matthew also adds earthquake some angles coming down from heaven, zombie apocaplyse to spice it up.

Then Luke around 90 AD. Has women immediately tell disciples . Jesus is seen in Jerusalem not Galilee though. He does appear to a couple of blokes in Emmus road who doesnt recognise him first. Jesus then vanishes and all of a sudden appears in front of the disciples. Now Jesus no heavily body but just like us, eats fish, talks to disciples etc.

The last one is John around 110 AD. Jesus can then walk through walls, appears in front of mary magdalene, 11 disciples this time, directly.

etc etc

As you can see the legend/myth grew over time.Paul nowhere corroborates an empty tomb or anything like what other Gospel writers stated in their resurrection story. This silence is striking since Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that there was "a resurrection of the dead" - 1 Cor 15:12-13 and explain "with what type of body do they come?" - v. 35. It's significant that he doesn't mention the empty tomb, people lying and touching his feet, discarded grave clothes, his disciples eating fish with Jesus or them watching his physical body fly to heaven (hello Mohammed) because those things would surely have helped to strengthen his argument!

That's how myths work, you have been duped.

Very compelling.
Plenty of full-time Bible scholars, unlike us, despite your excellent research, believe the resurrection is real, that Jesus reappeared to several women first- which is interesting in that era of how women were treated, and the fact that there are minor inconsistencies in these stories is for me , and many, more evidence that something really did happen. We are relying on reports after the event.
Maybe you are correct that many of us want to believe it, otherwise the whole of 2000 + years of Christianity is a farce. I can not believe the latter, aside from my own personal experiences.

 

[Total Power]

Very compelling.
Plenty of full-time Bible scholars, unlike us, despite your excellent research, believe the resurrection is real, that Jesus reappeared to several women first- which is interesting in that era of how women were treated, and the fact that there are minor inconsistencies in these stories is for me , and many, more evidence that something really did happen. We are relying on reports after the event.
Maybe you are correct that many of us want to believe it, otherwise the whole of 2000 + years of Christianity is a farce. I can not believe the latter, aside from my own personal experiences.

Which historians believe the resurrerction is real? i dont mean theologians, historians who aren't christian apologists, please do name them.

I have quoted the bible, i have quoted nothing outside the Bible, Paul mentions nothing about a physical resurrection or any eyewitness, neither did Mark. It's full of contradictions. Your faith is on extremely shaky grounds, 'because others said so' it's never an argument.

 

[M Malice]

Very compelling.
Plenty of full-time Bible scholars, unlike us, despite your excellent research, believe the resurrection is real, that Jesus reappeared to several women first- which is interesting in that era of how women were treated, and the fact that there are minor inconsistencies in these stories is for me , and many, more evidence that something really did happen. We are relying on reports after the event.
Maybe you are correct that many of us want to believe it, otherwise the whole of 2000 + years of Christianity is a farce. I can not believe the latter, aside from my own personal experiences.

You have finally nailed it Vdubs.

 

[Saint]

You have fallen victim to organized religion, the 'concept' of ressurerction the way you think of it has been developed over the centuries. The first person to have reported (through vision apparently) ressurection was Paul. He clearly stated there are 2 bodies earthly bodies and celestial bodies.

Why should we automatically assume that Paul was talking about physically raised corpses when he tell us Jesus spiritually "appeared?"

Jesues isn't the first resurrection story, just the most popular one, adopted by Christian and Muslim faiths, but rejected by the Jewish faith from which the other two arose.

Other deities pre-dating Jesus were resurrections. Osiris being the most popular or well-documented case. And of course on the other side of Persia, reincarnation in the Hindu faith has been around for thousands of years before Jesus. There's also many examples in Aztec/Incan/Mayan myths.

It's no surprise that faiths across the world have independently come up with resurrection or reincarnations as a way of hinting at an eternal spirit and existence of an afterlife. It's a natural phenomenon to press on believers and easily believed for a lack of contradictory evidence particularly for those 2,000 years go.

I'm not surprised there haven't been any recent resurrections/reincarnations which have become mainstream, but there have been lots of claims, just as I'm sure there were thousands of claims back in Jesus' day.

 

[Total Power]

Jesues isn't the first resurrection story, just the most popular one, adopted by Christian and Muslim faiths, but rejected by the Jewish faith from which the other two arose.

Other deities pre-dating Jesus were resurrections. Osiris being the most popular or well-documented case. And of course on the other side of Persia, reincarnation in the Hindu faith has been around for thousands of years before Jesus. There's also many examples in Aztec/Incan/Mayan myths.

It's no surprise that faiths across the world have independently come up with resurrection or reincarnations as a way of hinting at an eternal spirit and existence of an afterlife. It's a natural phenomenon to press on believers and easily believed for a lack of contradictory evidence particularly for those 2,000 years go.

I'm not surprised there haven't been any recent resurrections/reincarnations which have become mainstream, but there have been lots of claims, just as I'm sure there were thousands of claims back in Jesus' day.

Agreed, despite Vdubs trying to claim it sets Jesus 'apart' from any other spiritual leader. A false claim based on ignorance in history and other similar mythologies.

The most recent one (as i have posted in this thread) was Sai Baba in India some 20 years ago, who prophesized resurrection and was witnessed by 100's of followers after his death. I have posted eyewitness and testimonials of that. If this was 1500 years ago and it was Christian, he's guaranteed to be a son of god or a prophet.

 

[Roylion]

and many, more evidence that something really did happen.

What's the evidence though?

 

[Total Power]

What's the evidence though?

William Lane Craig.

 

[Vdubs]

Alisha Horan, say her name MF, say her name, Alisha Horan!

Do sons pay for their fathers' sins?
Senior has paid for his and continues to do so.

 

[Vdubs]

Jesues isn't the first resurrection story, just the most popular one, adopted by Christian and Muslim faiths, but rejected by the Jewish faith from which the other two arose.

Other deities pre-dating Jesus were resurrections. Osiris being the most popular or well-documented case. And of course on the other side of Persia, reincarnation in the Hindu faith has been around for thousands of years before Jesus. There's also many examples in Aztec/Incan/Mayan myths.

It's no surprise that faiths across the world have independently come up with resurrection or reincarnations as a way of hinting at an eternal spirit and existence of an afterlife. It's a natural phenomenon to press on believers and easily believed for a lack of contradictory evidence particularly for those 2,000 years go.

I'm not surprised there haven't been any recent resurrections/reincarnations which have become mainstream, but there have been lots of claims, just as I'm sure there were thousands of claims back in Jesus' day.

Maybe.
Why is the Jesus one so special then?
Why not these other everyday resurrections?
Why is there Christianity?
Even if Christianity is waning, many fads come and go over a generation or 2, not this one- 2000+ years now.
We don't read of billions of people worldwide following these other resurrected ones?
Too many efforts looking to discredit what Jesus did, let alone admit He existed. These other flimsy noname claims do not dissuade faith at all
It is easier to try to disprove Him than to prove it all happened it would appear, yet billions still do believe it.

 

[Total Power]

Maybe.
Why is the Jesus one so special then?
Why not these other everyday resurrections?
Why is there Christianity?
Even if Christianity is waning, many fads come and go over a generation or 2, not this one- 2000+ years now.
We don't read of billions of people worldwide following these other resurrected ones?
Too many efforts looking to discredit what Jesus did, let alone admit He existed. These other flimsy noname claims do not dissuade faith at all
It is easier to try to disprove Him than to prove it all happened it would appear, yet billions still do believe it.

'Because others have converted in numbers' is the worst argument ever time and time again you have done it, you haven't defended the scriptures and this is your only defense. Constantine's Conversion had huge ramifications for Christianity. Making it the religion of an empire meant that it was spread to all corners of the Empire. Jesus is not special, neither is Mohammed. And Christianity was spread due to later Empire building, the Spanish brought Christianity to South America for example and then of course the British. If it wasn't for colonialism, Christianity would be different.

Similarly Islam was spread by sword too, they came to Egypt destoyed one of the richest cultures in the world and turned people into Muslims. Got little to do with 'Allah being real' and everything to do with Empire building. If it wasn't for the empires we would not be having this discussion right now. Mohammed was an out and out violent destructive horny con artist, but 1.6 billion people believe he isn't. That what your popularity argument is boiling down to.

Many other religions forbid preaching for example. Popularity got nothing to do with the actual scriptures, we had this argument before. AFL is not popular outside of Australia, does it matter to you/me? Doees it make the AFL worse than soccer/cricket?

Secondly, the development of the concept of 'saviour', this was cunningly developed as i described above over 'time'. I posted Paul (the only apprently first hand account of christ, through 'dreams') never mentioned anything about physical resurrerction, yet Christians believe it's the case!

This is one reason why Deism (Or Dei-ish beliefs) don't catch on widely, because there's no reason to build a belief system around a God who doesn't really involve himself in Human affairs. People were crying out for such an 'interventionist' god at that time. Look at India, around that time, Krishna became god too and if India was a colonailist all of Asia would have been Hindu then. But this wasn't the case, Buddhism was driven was out of India cause again, it had 'no saviour' concept.

That aspect of Christianity would be really important in its spread among poor (meek) people. Paganism really emphasizes the King and the Hero: why does the stableboy care about such gods? Why should a fisherman bother to give offerings to Aeolus and Poseidon if he can still get killed in the tempests or earthquakes caused by his impious neighbour?

The reason why Abrahamic religions strike a chord was people is case of what i mentioned above, the big brother looking after me. This is why you are following Jesus too. Reality is not about popularity though, truth is often bitter. I have clearly demostrated in this thread how the concept of saviour evolved within Christianity (let alone other religions). It was ondemand. As i said Paul (the only first hand account of Christ) clearly wrote about no physical resurrerction , neither did Mark, that came 40 years after Paul, carefully crafted and often contradicted Paul and Mark.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Do sons pay for their fathers' sins?
Senior has paid for his and continues to do so.

How did the murderer pay for his crimes?

 

[Total Power]

Do sons pay for their fathers' sins?
Senior has paid for his and continues to do so.

Sons dont pay for this fathers sins, this is in the bible too! nek minit, you find a contrdiction in the bible and believe what you wish to believe , the bible has 2 different verses confirming sins cannot be inherited. You don't even believe in your own bible, always pick and choose what you wish to believe?

 

[Evolved1]

I hardly call myself religious, far from it.
Funny? - dry maybe. Peculiar? Of course. The only way to be.
Where do we come from, and why? You never wonder ?

Your posts here indicate that you are religious. One of the more bizarre angles I've seen Christianity take is to deny that it's a religion. If you look up standard dictionary definitions of the word, there's not a lot to be ashamed of for those who identify as a believers.

I spend lots of time wondering about where we came from and why. The god hypothesis has been falsified to my satisfaction so I look for other avenues to find answers. Science and philosophy provide deeper answers than anything offered by organised religion.

You have the tools at your disposal to perform critical evaluation of your beliefs through your education as a scientist. Root cause analysis is an easy way to cut through the bullshit.

Even a child can keep asking questions, right?

 

[Total Power]

Oxford defines religious as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity


No matter what i say to you about Jesus character was constructed and how Bible became bible will NOT change your mind Vdubs . This is the ultimate definition of religious indoctrination! It must be true cause others said so, it must be true cause you believe it to be true.

Start looking at the evidences and construct your opinion/faith based on that, then i won't be calling you a religious person. But the popularity argument is a just eggshells, i explained a 100 times why islam and christianity became popular and it got absolutely NOTHING to do with any evidence! it's a purely feel good factor that god died, got up when Paul said nothing of this kind. (the only first hand account of resurrection)

 

[Vdubs]

How did the murderer pay for his crimes?

You ought to check your posts before you start labelling people as murderers. No conviction. Why so? Because of his name? He stuffed up horrendously, as did she. He could easily have died as well.
He will pay for that for the rest of his life, as does anyone with a conscience.

 

[chelseacarlton]

You ought to check your posts before you start labelling people as murderers. No conviction. Why so? Because of his name? He stuffed up horrendously, as did she. He could easily have died as well.
He will pay for that for the rest of his life, as does anyone with a conscience.

She was 21 years old, he left her with the bag of heroin instead of the coke, he murdered her, he’s scum of the earth, I hope he dies a horrible painful death, slowly.....

 

[Cooldude]

If Christians wanna spin their BS and try to say they ain't a religion, then that means they technically don't qualify for religious freedom

Good, pay your taxes, no more bigotry hidden behind religious pretense, jail the pedos protected by the church

Honestly, religious freedom is a mistake, it's like giving complete immunity to grifters and conmen

 

[Vdubs]

She was 21 years old, he left her with the bag of heroin instead of the coke, he murdered her, he’s scum of the earth, I hope he dies a horrible painful death, slowly.....

they both took heroin, ecstasy, amphetamine.
anyway, this is not requiring further discussion; just another opportunity for selective anger

 

[Evolved1]

they both took heroin, ecstasy, amphetamine.
anyway, this is not requiring further discussion; just another opportunity for selective anger

I have sympathy towards Gaz.

From my limited knowledge of the subject, he seems like a man who battles mental demons.

 

[chelseacarlton]

they both took heroin, ecstasy, amphetamine.
anyway, this is not requiring further discussion; just another opportunity for selective anger

Lol
She unknowingly snorted up heroin thinking it was charlie, drugs bought by none other than Garry Ablett(I’m a good christian man) Snr.
Spin it anyway you want mate, he should’ve been put behind bars, how he isn’t is criminal in of itself.
Disgusting family the Abletts, filth!

 

[Vdubs]

Lol
She unknowingly snorted up heroin thinking it was charlie, drugs bought by none other than Garry Ablett(I’m a good christian man) Snr.
Spin it anyway you want mate, he should’ve been put behind bars, how he isn’t is criminal in of itself.
Disgusting family the Abletts, filth!

Anger management and forgiveness would not go astray here.

 

[Evolved1]

Anger management and forgiveness would not go astray here.

I have a question for your perusal. Do you think god would forgive the devil if the devil recognised the error of his ways?

 

[Vdubs]

I have a question for your perusal. Do you think god would forgive the devil if the devil recognised the error of his ways?

Yes. What's the catch?