OT: The resurrection

[Rip Rokken]

It IS amazing how eager people are to accept The DaVinci Code as truth. The question then is: isn't it also just as amazing how eager people are to accept the Bible as truth?

Why should anyone believe the rantings of Dan Brown or James Cameron? Why should anyone believe the rantings of Paul or the Apostles?

Maybe James Cameron should make Revelations into a movie...? We finally have the CGI capabilities to make it possible now

Total coincidence -- I was at Walgreens over the weekend and found a little pocket book countering the assertions in "The DaVinci Code", and bought it for a dollar. A nice little read! I haven't actually seen the film yet, and may rent it this week so I can understand more about it.

James Cameron definitely has the film chops to create a movie of grand enough scope, but I wouldn't turn him loose on something like this... Too many Biblical films by unbelievers have only shown that they don't understand the subject matter. I remember starting to watch the Jeremy Sisto "Jesus" miniseries and taking it back to Blockbuster after only watching 30 minutes -- it was that off. I've heard mixed things about the Turner network Biblical films, but haven't watched any of them.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Josephus:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

This has been argued as a forgery - that a Jewish man would never write this. There's a lot of debate on the authenticity of this and I have to say that while there's reasonable doubt - I'm not buying it as evidence one way or another.

I'm surprised that no one has responded to this. I guess I have to!

I suppose what gets me about this is that it's rather matter-of-fact. It might as well be this:
There was this really smart dude named Jesus, if you could call him a dude. He did some pretty wild stuff and made buds with all kinds of people. He was like the great, great, great whatever grandson of this other dude King David. These other really bad dudes didn't think so and totally messed with him. He came back a couple days later 'cause that's what they thought he'd do - and this like totally blew people away and then he just took off, man. A lot of people still think he's a pretty wild dude.



Anyway, the argument is that this is non-canonical contemporary evidence of Jesus. Let's suppose for a moment that it is indeed a true and accurate account - that it's the "other" side of the story - or maybe even something like Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story. Isn't it considerably cavalier - maybe even grossly offhand compared to the Christian tradition?

So I have to ask: Has Christian tradition carried the cross just as Jesus did and asked of others or has it filled him with nothing but hot gas in order to wage war and fill bank accounts?

[Marc S]

Wheels Of Fyre
I'm surprised that no one has responded to this. I guess I have to!

I suppose what gets me about this is that it's rather matter-of-fact. It might as well be this:
There was this really smart dude named Jesus, if you could call him a dude. He did some pretty wild stuff and made buds with all kinds of people. He was like the great, great, great whatever grandson of this other dude King David. These other really bad dudes didn't think so and totally messed with him. He came back a couple days later 'cause that's what they thought he'd do - and this like totally blew people away and then he just took off, man. A lot of people still think he's a pretty wild dude.

Anyway, the argument is that this is non-canonical contemporary evidence of Jesus. Let's suppose for a moment that it is indeed a true and accurate account - that it's the "other" side of the story - or maybe even something like Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story. Isn't it considerably cavalier - maybe even grossly offhand compared to the Christian tradition?

So I have to ask: Has Christian tradition carried the cross just as Jesus did and asked of others or has it filled him with nothing but hot gas in order to wage war and fill bank accounts

Very interesting. I'm not really surprised the lack of response on this subject - you'll never get any cohesive common sense that goes basically beyond 'just cos'.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Wheels Of Fyre
I'm surprised that no one has responded to this. I guess I have to!

I suppose what gets me about this is that it's rather matter-of-fact. It might as well be this:
There was this really smart dude named Jesus, if you could call him a dude. He did some pretty wild stuff and made buds with all kinds of people. He was like the great, great, great whatever grandson of this other dude King David. These other really bad dudes didn't think so and totally messed with him. He came back a couple days later 'cause that's what they thought he'd do - and this like totally blew people away and then he just took off, man. A lot of people still think he's a pretty wild dude.

Anyway, the argument is that this is non-canonical contemporary evidence of Jesus. Let's suppose for a moment that it is indeed a true and accurate account - that it's the "other" side of the story - or maybe even something like Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story. Isn't it considerably cavalier - maybe even grossly offhand compared to the Christian tradition?

So I have to ask: Has Christian tradition carried the cross just as Jesus did and asked of others or has it filled him with nothing but hot gas in order to wage war and fill bank accounts

Very interesting. I'm not really surprised the lack of response on this subject - you'll never get any cohesive common sense that goes basically beyond 'just cos'.

Gotta keep trying!

[conversationpc]

Wheels Of Fyre
I'm surprised that no one has responded to this. I guess I have to!

I suppose what gets me about this is that it's rather matter-of-fact. It might as well be this:
There was this really smart dude named Jesus, if you could call him a dude. He did some pretty wild stuff and made buds with all kinds of people. He was like the great, great, great whatever grandson of this other dude King David. These other really bad dudes didn't think so and totally messed with him. He came back a couple days later 'cause that's what they thought he'd do - and this like totally blew people away and then he just took off, man. A lot of people still think he's a pretty wild dude.

Anyway, the argument is that this is non-canonical contemporary evidence of Jesus. Let's suppose for a moment that it is indeed a true and accurate account - that it's the "other" side of the story - or maybe even something like Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story. Isn't it considerably cavalier - maybe even grossly offhand compared to the Christian tradition?

So I have to ask: Has Christian tradition carried the cross just as Jesus did and asked of others or has it filled him with nothing but hot gas in order to wage war and fill bank accounts

Very interesting. I'm not really surprised the lack of response on this subject - you'll never get any cohesive common sense that goes basically beyond 'just cos'.

Has tradition filled Jesus with "hot gas"? Sure. Has scripture? No.

[Indyjoe]

Josephus:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

This has been argued as a forgery - that a Jewish man would never write this. There's a lot of debate on the authenticity of this and I have to say that while there's reasonable doubt - I'm not buying it as evidence one way or another.

I'm surprised that no one has responded to this. I guess I have to!

I suppose what gets me about this is that it's rather matter-of-fact. It might as well be this:
There was this really smart dude named Jesus, if you could call him a dude. He did some pretty wild stuff and made buds with all kinds of people. He was like the great, great, great whatever grandson of this other dude King David. These other really bad dudes didn't think so and totally messed with him. He came back a couple days later 'cause that's what they thought he'd do - and this like totally blew people away and then he just took off, man. A lot of people still think he's a pretty wild dude.



Anyway, the argument is that this is non-canonical contemporary evidence of Jesus. Let's suppose for a moment that it is indeed a true and accurate account - that it's the "other" side of the story - or maybe even something like Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story. Isn't it considerably cavalier - maybe even grossly offhand compared to the Christian tradition?

So I have to ask: Has Christian tradition carried the cross just as Jesus did and asked of others or has it filled him with nothing but hot gas in order to wage war and fill bank accounts?

I have tried to respond to this and when I did MR went down for several days!! Then I was going to respond to you on your website, but didn't know if you logged in regularly!

Anyway, what's to respond to? I have not read Josephus to argue this, but I was not aware that he believed Jesus was the Messiah. I will find out more about that. My giving you the names was not really going to the argument that HE is Messiah(I believe HE is) but rather to show that HE did in fact exist and that there are writings outside Scripture to support that. My understanding of the people I listed for you was that they were Roman and Jewish sources not Christian sources. These were people opposed to Christianity, but they wrote about Christ.

~Wendy

[conversationpc]

Anyway, what's to respond to? I have not read Josephus to argue this, but I was not aware that he believed Jesus was the Messiah. I will find out more about that.

I recently read somewhere that scholars believe the bit about the Messiah was interpolated in Josephus' writings. I'll have to try to dig that up if I can find it but it makes sense since Josephus was not a believer.

[Indyjoe]

Anyway, what's to respond to? I have not read Josephus to argue this, but I was not aware that he believed Jesus was the Messiah. I will find out more about that.

I recently read somewhere that scholars believe the bit about the Messiah was interpolated in Josephus' writings. I'll have to try to dig that up if I can find it but it makes sense since Josephus was not a believer.

That would be interesting. Thanks for looking for that.

~Wendy

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Wheels Of Fyre
I'm surprised that no one has responded to this. I guess I have to!

I suppose what gets me about this is that it's rather matter-of-fact. It might as well be this:
There was this really smart dude named Jesus, if you could call him a dude. He did some pretty wild stuff and made buds with all kinds of people. He was like the great, great, great whatever grandson of this other dude King David. These other really bad dudes didn't think so and totally messed with him. He came back a couple days later 'cause that's what they thought he'd do - and this like totally blew people away and then he just took off, man. A lot of people still think he's a pretty wild dude.

Anyway, the argument is that this is non-canonical contemporary evidence of Jesus. Let's suppose for a moment that it is indeed a true and accurate account - that it's the "other" side of the story - or maybe even something like Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story. Isn't it considerably cavalier - maybe even grossly offhand compared to the Christian tradition?

So I have to ask: Has Christian tradition carried the cross just as Jesus did and asked of others or has it filled him with nothing but hot gas in order to wage war and fill bank accounts

Very interesting. I'm not really surprised the lack of response on this subject - you'll never get any cohesive common sense that goes basically beyond 'just cos'.

Has tradition filled Jesus with "hot gas"? Sure. Has scripture? No.

Agreed.

Scripture is subject to interpretation. It can be read literally or figuratively. Either way will lead to some rather intriguing questions.

If you think I'm full of it just listen to these guys:
http://www.tkc.edu/debate/

Both of them are seeking profit in their beliefs. So I have to ask: Is belief validated by the number of books sold? By the position on a best seller list? By whether or not a movie is made about it?

It seems to me that peddling one's beliefs for profit - in any capacity - is NOT carrying the cross. Even for an atheist!

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Josephus:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

This has been argued as a forgery - that a Jewish man would never write this. There's a lot of debate on the authenticity of this and I have to say that while there's reasonable doubt - I'm not buying it as evidence one way or another.

I'm surprised that no one has responded to this. I guess I have to!

I suppose what gets me about this is that it's rather matter-of-fact. It might as well be this:
There was this really smart dude named Jesus, if you could call him a dude. He did some pretty wild stuff and made buds with all kinds of people. He was like the great, great, great whatever grandson of this other dude King David. These other really bad dudes didn't think so and totally messed with him. He came back a couple days later 'cause that's what they thought he'd do - and this like totally blew people away and then he just took off, man. A lot of people still think he's a pretty wild dude.



Anyway, the argument is that this is non-canonical contemporary evidence of Jesus. Let's suppose for a moment that it is indeed a true and accurate account - that it's the "other" side of the story - or maybe even something like Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story. Isn't it considerably cavalier - maybe even grossly offhand compared to the Christian tradition?

So I have to ask: Has Christian tradition carried the cross just as Jesus did and asked of others or has it filled him with nothing but hot gas in order to wage war and fill bank accounts?

I have tried to respond to this and when I did MR went down for several days!! Then I was going to respond to you on your website, but didn't know if you logged in regularly!

Anyway, what's to respond to? I have not read Josephus to argue this, but I was not aware that he believed Jesus was the Messiah. I will find out more about that. My giving you the names was not really going to the argument that HE is Messiah(I believe HE is) but rather to show that HE did in fact exist and that there are writings outside Scripture to support that. My understanding of the people I listed for you was that they were Roman and Jewish sources not Christian sources. These were people opposed to Christianity, but they wrote about Christ.

~Wendy

As I read it Josephus isn't stating his belief. He's more like reporting in a very matter-of-fact manner much like the news is reported.

I think you also have to consider that the term "Messiah" carries a much different meaning today than it did back then. I don't want to get into a war of words but the "fundamental" definition of Messiah is "anointed one" or someone according to Israelite prophets (especially Isaiah) the ruler whom God would send to restore Israel and begin a glorious age of peace and righteousness - a descendant of King David. It doesn't imply anything at all what is understood today as being synonymous with Jesus. Jesus is supposed to be "God in the flesh" whereas the fundamental, ancient understanding is more simply "the ruler whom God would send". For Josephus to report that Jesus was the Messiah in no way implies that he was what tradition teaches us to believe today.

The line from JOURNEY's song Mother, Father: "I'm your seventh son" is another way of referencing "Messiah". Ultimately, a Messiah is someone who "saves" or has the ability to lead others out of harm or some other trauma. It doesn't necessarily mean "one who walks on water and raises the dead" which is generally how it's understood today.

BTW: I do check out my forum daily so feel free to jump in!

[Indyjoe]

As I read it Josephus isn't stating his belief. He's more like reporting in a very matter-of-fact manner much like the news is reported.

BTW: I do check out my forum daily so feel free to jump in!

That is pretty much what I found out when I asked a Jewish teacher friend of mine since my last post. He believes that Josephus probably did say it, but it did not indicate his belief in HIM as Messiah for him. But this is a source outside Scripture to support the existence of Jesus.

Thanks for the welcome to the forum.

~Wendy

[Wheels Of Fyre]

As I read it Josephus isn't stating his belief. He's more like reporting in a very matter-of-fact manner much like the news is reported.

BTW: I do check out my forum daily so feel free to jump in!

That is pretty much what I found out when I asked a Jewish teacher friend of mine since my last post. He believes that Josephus probably did say it, but it did not indicate his belief in HIM as Messiah for him. But this is a source outside Scripture to support the existence of Jesus.

Thanks for the welcome to the forum.

~Wendy

It is a source but scholars disagree it's authenticity. In fact, scholars disagree about the origins of the Pentateuch, the gospels and many other books! So how much faith do we want to put in scholars? How high do we want to place them on pedestals?

Feh.

Again, I seek inspiration. Scholars don't inspire me.

What about other non-canonical Christian texts that have been suppressed? The Nag Hammadi library was buried during holy wars and discovered centuries later in 1945. It took from that time until now for it to be translated and "authorized" by scholars yet it's still considered heretical "'cos it ain't in the Bible".

What about the Infancy Gospels of Jesus? Ever read those? Most people think there are no records of Jesus as a child. Not so! The Infancy Gospels tell of Jesus as a child - and a VERY naughty one, too! He actually causes a little boy to drop dead because he ran by him and brushed his shoulder! Later, a little boy falls off a roof and dies. The villagers think, "Jesus is at it again!" Jesus claims innocence but they don't believe him so he raises the boy from the dead who then testifies to Jesus' innocence and then drops dead again.

Isn't this "evidence"? Why isn't it acknowledged? Because some scholars don't like it? Because the church has difficulty spinning it into a profitable sermon on Sunday?

There's lots of "evidence" out there but I'm back to the original argument that ultimately, it's a CHOICE to believe it or not.

[Indyjoe]

As I read it Josephus isn't stating his belief. He's more like reporting in a very matter-of-fact manner much like the news is reported.

BTW: I do check out my forum daily so feel free to jump in!

That is pretty much what I found out when I asked a Jewish teacher friend of mine since my last post. He believes that Josephus probably did say it, but it did not indicate his belief in HIM as Messiah for him. But this is a source outside Scripture to support the existence of Jesus.

Thanks for the welcome to the forum.

~Wendy

It is a source but scholars disagree it's authenticity. In fact, scholars disagree about the origins of the Pentateuch, the gospels and many other books! So how much faith do we want to put in scholars? How high do we want to place them on pedestals?

Feh.

Again, I seek inspiration. Scholars don't inspire me.

What about other non-canonical Christian texts that have been suppressed? The Nag Hammadi library was buried during holy wars and discovered centuries later in 1945. It took from that time until now for it to be translated and "authorized" by scholars yet it's still considered heretical "'cos it ain't in the Bible".

What about the Infancy Gospels of Jesus? Ever read those? Most people think there are no records of Jesus as a child. Not so! The Infancy Gospels tell of Jesus as a child - and a VERY naughty one, too! He actually causes a little boy to drop dead because he ran by him and brushed his shoulder! Later, a little boy falls off a roof and dies. The villagers think, "Jesus is at it again!" Jesus claims innocence but they don't believe him so he raises the boy from the dead who then testifies to Jesus' innocence and then drops dead again.

Isn't this "evidence"? Why isn't it acknowledged? Because some scholars don't like it? Because the church has difficulty spinning it into a profitable sermon on Sunday?

There's lots of "evidence" out there but I'm back to the original argument that ultimately, it's a CHOICE to believe it or not.

I believe in the canon of Scripture. To be honest with you I have only recently heard of those other writings. They are not in the canon of Scripture for a reason. To argue over what should have been included in the canon is a whole other debate. I don't believe it is because the church has difficulty spinning it!

What makes the sources you use to discredit Scripture more reliable than these "scholars"?

~Wendy

[Wheels Of Fyre]

As I read it Josephus isn't stating his belief. He's more like reporting in a very matter-of-fact manner much like the news is reported.

BTW: I do check out my forum daily so feel free to jump in!

That is pretty much what I found out when I asked a Jewish teacher friend of mine since my last post. He believes that Josephus probably did say it, but it did not indicate his belief in HIM as Messiah for him. But this is a source outside Scripture to support the existence of Jesus.

Thanks for the welcome to the forum.

~Wendy

It is a source but scholars disagree it's authenticity. In fact, scholars disagree about the origins of the Pentateuch, the gospels and many other books! So how much faith do we want to put in scholars? How high do we want to place them on pedestals?

Feh.

Again, I seek inspiration. Scholars don't inspire me.

What about other non-canonical Christian texts that have been suppressed? The Nag Hammadi library was buried during holy wars and discovered centuries later in 1945. It took from that time until now for it to be translated and "authorized" by scholars yet it's still considered heretical "'cos it ain't in the Bible".

What about the Infancy Gospels of Jesus? Ever read those? Most people think there are no records of Jesus as a child. Not so! The Infancy Gospels tell of Jesus as a child - and a VERY naughty one, too! He actually causes a little boy to drop dead because he ran by him and brushed his shoulder! Later, a little boy falls off a roof and dies. The villagers think, "Jesus is at it again!" Jesus claims innocence but they don't believe him so he raises the boy from the dead who then testifies to Jesus' innocence and then drops dead again.

Isn't this "evidence"? Why isn't it acknowledged? Because some scholars don't like it? Because the church has difficulty spinning it into a profitable sermon on Sunday?

There's lots of "evidence" out there but I'm back to the original argument that ultimately, it's a CHOICE to believe it or not.

I believe in the canon of Scripture. To be honest with you I have only recently heard of those other writings. They are not in the canon of Scripture for a reason. To argue over what should have been included in the canon is a whole other debate. I don't believe it is because the church has difficulty spinning it!

What makes the sources you use to discredit Scripture more reliable than these "scholars"?

~Wendy

First of all, "Scripture" isn't just the Bible. It's any sacred writing. So any writing that's dedicated to a deity is Scripture - even stuff outside the Bible. Yup - even Ancient Egyptian writings to their pagan Gods and Godesses.

What you're more accurately saying is that you believe in the Bible.

Secondly, the Infancy Gospels ARE Scripture no more or less than anything you've written here in dedication to Jesus and God is. Ultimately, the Bible is no more important than anything YOU say or write about Jesus and God.

Lastly, I haven't in any way tried to discredit the Bible or any other Scripture. I'm not in the least bit interested in arguing what's more reliable. That's a vain and futile argument.

[Indyjoe]

First of all, "Scripture" isn't just the Bible. It's any sacred writing. So any writing that's dedicated to a deity is Scripture - even stuff outside the Bible. Yup - even Ancient Egyptian writings to their pagan Gods and Godesses.

What you're more accurately saying is that you believe in the Bible.

That is what I am saying

Secondly, the Infancy Gospels ARE Scripture no more or less than anything you've written here in dedication to Jesus and God is. Ultimately, the Bible is no more important than anything YOU say or write about Jesus and God.

Disagree.

Lastly, I haven't in any way tried to discredit the Bible or any other Scripture. I'm not in the least bit interested in arguing what's more reliable. That's a vain and futile argument.

I apologize if I had that wrong. And I hope my posts to you did not come across snotty, because that is not how they were intended.

~Wendy

[Wheels Of Fyre]

First of all, "Scripture" isn't just the Bible. It's any sacred writing. So any writing that's dedicated to a deity is Scripture - even stuff outside the Bible. Yup - even Ancient Egyptian writings to their pagan Gods and Godesses.

What you're more accurately saying is that you believe in the Bible.

That is what I am saying

Secondly, the Infancy Gospels ARE Scripture no more or less than anything you've written here in dedication to Jesus and God is. Ultimately, the Bible is no more important than anything YOU say or write about Jesus and God.

Disagree.

Lastly, I haven't in any way tried to discredit the Bible or any other Scripture. I'm not in the least bit interested in arguing what's more reliable. That's a vain and futile argument.

I apologize if I had that wrong. And I hope my posts to you did not come across snotty, because that is not how they were intended.

~Wendy

You didn't have it wrong - I just wasn't very clear. Sorry!

Why do you disagree that what you say about God and Jesus is just as valuable as what the Bible says?

[ohsherrie]

Fyre,

I disagree with you on things regarding Journey and illegal immigration, but you're impressing me greatly in this thread.