Post: #26

(11-01-2016 02:48 PM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Still doesn't change the fact that accounts of Jesus are pretty much vague.

Yeah, more or less. The gospels and the Pauline letters provide almost all our information, and they're not exactly easy to use as historical sources.

Post: #27

(10-31-2016 07:07 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(10-30-2016 09:11 PM)Bluto Wrote:  The idea of Mary being raped by a centurion is most likely plausible if you don't believe. Almost all Jewish men were married back then(this was reported as Josephs second marriage) and rape was severely punished within the Jewish community. Only a man of authority that was above Jewish law could get away with raping a young woman and not be officially punished. A Roman Centurion would fit this bill. On the other hand would a young woman gain clemency from her Jewish community due to being raped by a Centurion?

I think it more plausible that Joseph was Jesus' father than any of the rape scenarios. The "ben Pandira" legend only appears in the second century onward, so it's likely not reliable history.

To answer your question, my inclination is probably that she wouldn't be forgiven.

I tend to agree with you in that she would most likely not gain clemency from her community, so in my mind the idea of Mary being a rape victim is remote.

Post: #28

What has hating on the Bible added on anyone's life? Every single liberty you enjoy, you owe to Christian principles and liberty.
The summary of the matter is this:
What if you died and you found out the Bible was right afterall? Or if you died and found that it was all a fucking lie, how would it have reduced the quality of the life you just spent?

I believe in The Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible.
I believe every last word of the Bible and pray the Lord help me attain to righteousness in His eyes. Amen and Amen

Post: #29

(11-01-2016 04:28 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I'm not interested in arguing theology with you, but I will discuss history and the text with you.

The Masoretic Text and the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) are pretty damn close in most cases. Where they differ is where the DSS follow the Samaritan Pentateuch, not the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text is not the Hebrew Bible put together in the 7th century. The Hebrew Bible was codified far earlier, probably towards the end of the 1st century AD (I'm agnostic about Yavneh, personally).

About early Christian conversions, not even close. Most of the Jews did not convert automatically to Christianity, go read the Book of Acts or the Pauline Epistles. It's pretty obvious that even by the end of 1st century, there were a lot more Jews than Christians. The Birkat haManim, which condemns heretics, dates from the 1st century, and strongly indicates a strong anti-Christian slant in Judaism. Add that to the casting out of the Christians from the synagogues, alluded to in John, and you have good reason to believe that the majority of the Jews in the Roman Empire remained Jewish and did not convert to Christianity.

Judaism remained the only officially tolerated religion until the 4th century. Jewish belief and practice had a large number of adherents, to the extent that they fought the Bar Kochba Revolt in the 130s against Hadrian's plans for Jerusalem (which he rebuilt as Aelina Capitolina in the 120s/130s).

There's no "Jewish conspiracy" in New Testament scholarship or Hebrew Bible. Both fields were founded, believe it or not, by Protestants.

I agree that many stalwarts remained but much of their numbers dwindled after the Bar Kochba revolt (which was the last stand) due to (I'll admit) the increasing christian-ization but also because it was another huge blow to the theology of people that focus more on a kingdom of this world.

I disagree about the consensus knowledge of the Masoretes and their text, which is well known to be compiled, edited, and finalized for modern usage in the 7th-10th centuries AD. They referred back to (as I said, apropos Jamnia reference) to the 2nd century text, a time which was also post-Christ regarding the movement and accounts of this person, a time in which they were defensive and "on the run" so to speak. I didn't say there was any conspiracy in scholarship, I detailed that the Hebrew Bible of the Masoretes (used by modern Jews and protestants) is far less reliable than the Septuagint, for the many reasons already mentioned.

Post: #30

(11-02-2016 11:02 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  I agree that many stalwarts remained but much of their numbers dwindled after the Bar Kochba revolt (which was the last stand) due to (I'll admit) the increasing christian-ization but also because it was another huge blow to the theology of people that focus more on a kingdom of this world.

No, that's not true either. There were several Jewish anti-Roman revolts after the Bar Kochba Revolt, plus Justinian and later Byzantine emperors felt the need to persecute the Jews.

Quote:I disagree about the consensus knowledge of the Masoretes and their text, which is well known to be compiled, edited, and finalized for modern usage in the 7th-10th centuries AD. They referred back to (as I said, apropos Jamnia reference) to the 2nd century text, a time which was also post-Christ regarding the movement and accounts of this person, a time in which they were defensive and "on the run" so to speak. I didn't say there was any conspiracy in scholarship, I detailed that the Hebrew Bible of the Masoretes (used by modern Jews and protestants) is far less reliable than the Septuagint, for the many reasons already mentioned.

The Masoretic Text is considered superior by every textual critic alive today. It matches better with the Dead Sea Scrolls than the Septuagint. The earliest text we have is from the 10th century. That doesn't mean it was compiled then. The earliest complete copies of the gospels are from the 4th century. They were clearly written far earlier.

If the LXX is so superior, why does every textual critic, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Protestant, agnostic, or atheist, hold that the Masoretic Text is more faithful to what the original Hebrew text said than LXX?

Post: #31

I don't disagree but you're making an overall assertion that's missing the point. There are FAR more points on which Jews and Christians have "no problem" with each other just story-wise and pure volume; that is, not many passages or interpretations are in dispute. BUT, the ones that are in fact in dispute (such as almah and parthenos), my suggestion is that common sense shows us that the more genuine is the Septuagint, for the myriad reasons already mentioned. That's the crux of this issue. Put another way, there is no occasion to disagree about Job, Elijah, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus etc --- probably 99% of it. But when it comes to who the Christ is, from a purely secular point of view even, the odds are that if the Septuagint said something such as parthenos, it is correct, and the Masoretic Text isn't. Again, for obvious reasons.

Post: #32

Occam's razor.

There's really no evidence that there was a virgin birth besides the Bible. There's not really evidence anyone has ever been raised from the dead, or that it'd be scientifically possible.

That doesn't deny faith, it reinforces it.

It was the last step in my "fall" from Christianity. I still like the story. I suppose in a way I'm still a "Christian", in that my entire family and most of my best friends are devout Christians, and I'd go to church here and there. I think it represents some incredible metaphors for life (life from death, strength from weakness, etc, etc). I would love to believe the story. But it doesn't make sense to.

Post: #33

I just cant accept that a historical Jesus ever existed.

Post: #34

You can accept that he walked on water, turned water into wine, cured lepers and the blind, cast out a legion of demons, and resurrected the dead, but immaculate conception is where you draw the line?

Post: #35

[align=justify]

(11-03-2016 01:15 PM)heavy Wrote:  Occam's razor.

There's not really evidence anyone has ever been raised from the dead, or that it'd be scientifically possible.

As far as I understand, he arose from the dead in a subtle body to appear. The subtle body can be seen as a physical one.

Post: #36

(11-03-2016 08:50 PM)Alpharius Wrote:  You can accept that he walked on water, turned water into wine, cured lepers and the blind, cast out a legion of demons, and resurrected the dead, but immaculate conception is where you draw the line?

Coming from a protestetant perspective yes. I'm very much a beliver in the miracles, lessons, and messianic message of Jesus.

It's more of a response to Catholism and its obsessive reverence of the holy mother that has me sratching my head. There are many other things I could question as well coming from Catholic doctrine that makes no sense. Mary's really secondary to the whole story of Jesus and beyond being his mother really doesn't contribute to his ministry in anyway.

I was hoping to get some well thought out responses on my original question which I thankfully got.

I'm thinking of starting another antagonitic thread titled, "The King James Bible is no better than the original and later translations of the bible." I'll wait until after the election.

Post: #37

(11-04-2016 01:47 AM)Filbert Wrote:  [align=justify]

(11-03-2016 01:15 PM)heavy Wrote:  Occam's razor.

There's not really evidence anyone has ever been raised from the dead, or that it'd be scientifically possible.

As far as I understand, he arose from the dead in a subtle body to appear. The subtle body can be seen as a physical one.

Yes, etheric body can sometimes be seen as a physical body. When physical body dies, your awareness transits to this etheric body first for a short time, until this body dies.
I think Jesus maybe made this body visible to others, he didn't resurrect it (impossible).

Also there is one thing interesting about Jesus. It is said that he rose from the dead after 3 days of being dead. There are few accounts of this and they slightly differ (draw your conclusions), but in one account there is this particular interesting thing. When they see him, he says "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father."

I think he meant literally don't touch, because he showed himself in his etheric body. That is why there were no wounds, he appeared different and such. When he ascended to heaven, that was moment when his etheric body died and continued his living in other realms.

Post: #38

^ A couple things:

1. The resurrected body is a real, physical body. It may have many other attributes that are up for speculation, but it is tangible as evidenced by the gospel accounts.
2. He rose on the 3rd day, not after 3 days, which was the case with Lazarus, showing that he was corruptible. Obviously those are both important points in Judaism and as a result, Christianity.
3. There were wounds.

Post: #39

There are many interesting things about this, all talk about when Jesus first showed and how his appearance differed then his official "reintroduction" to his students, where they touched him.
Also interesting is how he could made himself unrecognizable for some, hinting to his siddhi's.

Post: #40

(11-03-2016 01:23 PM)Meat Head Wrote:  I just cant accept that a historical Jesus ever existed.

Almost every (there are two who deny it) scholar of the New Testament, early Christianity, and classics on the Earth supports that a historical Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Why can't you accept that a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the Romans existed?

Post: #41

^Kenneth Humphries.

Post: #42

(11-09-2016 03:20 AM)Meat Head Wrote:  ^Kenneth Humphries.

Do you have a useful argument to make or are you just going to post one liners?

Post: #43

(11-07-2016 05:38 PM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Also interesting is how he could made himself unrecognizable for some, hinting to his siddhi's.

One of the siddhis is the ability to make oneself invisible, even being in a physical body.

Post: #44

(11-09-2016 03:20 AM)Meat Head Wrote:  ^Kenneth Humphries.

Kenneth Humphries doesn't have a PhD, can't read relevant languages, has no published academic work, and believes that the ONLY reason academics hold to a historical Jesus is a vast conspiracy theory. Additionally, the vast majority of his "parallels" were demolished in the later half of the 20th century.

There are two mythicists with academic credentials: Robert Price and Richard Carrier.

Post: #45

Every religion has a fundamental mystery that cannot be rationally explained and for which no explanation is given.

Moses talked to a burning bush and heard God's voice.

Jesus - the immaculate conception. It has been scientifically proven that occasionally a woman can self impregnate from two eggs, except the child is always female.

Mohammad - his uncle spontaneously knew that Mohammad was a prophet and began preaching for him.

Post: #46

(11-10-2016 01:56 AM)Filbert Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 05:38 PM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Also interesting is how he could made himself unrecognizable for some, hinting to his siddhi's.

One of the siddhis is the ability to make oneself invisible, even being in a physical body.

I don't think he made himself invisible, but only unrecognizable. Why I think that is that I came across these phenomenon when I read about Gurdjieff. He could put on "masks". It is described how his students were in one room and Gurdjieff played tricks on them where he would walk into the room and no one would recognize him. Then he would go out and go back in and it was him. I was told that this is one of these powers.

Post: #47

(11-14-2016 04:13 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  [quote='Filbert' pid='1441580' dateline='1478761013']
[quote='sterling_archer' pid='1436282' dateline='1478558282']


put on "masks". It was told that this is one of these powers.

I agree it could be changing form, not invisibility. Both are possible.

Post: #48

(10-31-2016 11:43 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  To be fair gents, whether Mary was or wasn't a virgin is really a pointless debate in the grander scheme of Christianity. I still believe that Jesus is God and do my best to follow his guidance.

I guess i'll have to take this one up to faith. Thanks for some good reading everyone!

"Take this one up to faith"= actively disengage any rational thought processes.

Come on man, you are debating a virgin birth? If Mary was a whore, you still consider Jesus as your god?

(11-02-2016 10:09 AM)El Padrone Wrote:  What has hating on the Bible added on anyone's life? Every single liberty you enjoy, you owe to Christian principles and liberty.
The summary of the matter is this:
What if you died and you found out the Bible was right afterall? Or if you died and found that it was all a fucking lie, how would it have reduced the quality of the life you just spent?

I believe in The Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible.
I believe every last word of the Bible and pray the Lord help me attain to righteousness in His eyes. Amen and Amen

Every single liberty I enjoy is because of Christianity?

Every single liberty I enjoy is because the founding fathers created a system of checks and balances.

Let's use some intelligence instead of an undying faith to someone who may or may not have existed.

Post: #49

(11-18-2016 12:52 AM)wi30 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 11:43 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  To be fair gents, whether Mary was or wasn't a virgin is really a pointless debate in the grander scheme of Christianity. I still believe that Jesus is God and do my best to follow his guidance.

I guess i'll have to take this one up to faith. Thanks for some good reading everyone!

"Take this one up to faith"= actively disengage any rational thought processes.

Come on man, you are debating a virgin birth? If Mary was a whore, you still consider Jesus as your god?

If you read my previous posts, I wrote that if Mary was a whore that it makes Jesus being the son of God a much more powerful statement. In that God, in all of his infinite glory and power, chose his only son to be brought into this world as a peasant wood worker born from a loose woman. That's a heck of a God and adds credibility to the promise of redemption in the afterlife.

In the grand scheme of things, her fidelity or lack thereof is ultimately pointless when compared against the redemptive promise, moral lessons, and sacrifice Jesus made.

This inquiry was made in the hopes of sparking a debate to uncover more information on the subject which it thankfully accomplished.
Do you have something useful to contribute or just useless jeering?

Post: #50

Can you accept the Resurrection? If so, what is substantially different with that breaking of the laws of science and nature with a Virgin Birth?