There is a difference between being critical with Christianity, which I support, and being hatefully paranoid about it (cough cough).As a former youth pastor at two churches, who once faithfully followed after [what he thought as] Jesus, I am hardly hateful or paranoid about Christianity. If I were so, I would hardly be spending so much time conversing with theists as I do.
Either way, I've read it seems like too much on the cultural milieu of the NT, textual criticism, source-crit, alternative theories, authorship, etc. etc. etc.Good for you. Um, so, why do you stand by what modern scholars reject concerning the authorship of many of the epistles?
Soooo, that is how I know when you deny everything in the NT when it comes to authorship besides I'm guessing 7 of Paul's epistles, ignorantly stand by that Paul knew almost nothing about Jesus, and that these Jews believed in a spiritual resurrection (oxymoron), you are driven by something more than a sincere search for the truth. And you, nsfl boy, should watch the insults and tone.Insults and tone are being watched, scrutinized, even. I'm also glad that you maintain your lovely tone in the midst of your psychic powers. I would probably get cocky if I could read minds.
By the way, I'm responding to you out of tact, but I know pseudo-sceptics who are willing to take any issue overboard like yourself won't listen for anything I have to say, just try to find something wrong with it.You are indeed quite so tactful. I'm just a lowly "pseudo-sceptic" trying to get by. I'm so glad that you really listened to what I had to say.
If there was no suffering, no hardship, then what the hell is the purpose of Christianity's heavenly afterlife?This is like watching a poor trapped animal struggle in a clamp. You are presupposing that there is a heavenly afterlife in order to explain the hardships of this life (and deal with them).
Why must he do this? And all-good does not equal cuddly cushy creator of some candy land where everything is always sunny. Like I said, we could never know, but evil and suffering could have it's purpose, and that purpose in itself could be for the better.Um, if God exists, and is all-good, then God makes the best of all possible worlds. It's called a logical necessity, by definition of "all-good".
Once again, we all gotta die sometime, why is it evil how each of us goes?So your God is not omnipotent, then? We "gotta" die? So you don't think it's evil to be raped and buried alive (as Jessica Lunsford was), compared to dying in your sleep next to your wife at 100 years old? So God is "off the hook" for sitting on Its heavenly thumb while she screamed in pain and tried to crawl out of the grave, slowly suffocating?
I know this will be hard for you, but read carefully through my examples.Hooked on phonics worked for me!
Just to let you know, you are so arrogant and mocking that people might not notice your questionable claims of Jesus. They will hopefully be turned off by your ignorant mentality.I bet you would hate that, wouldn't you? I'm sure they wouldn't notice if you were arrogant and mocking, or disregard your writing because of it, now would they?
I don't need lessons from someone subpar like you on textual criticism and manuscript evidence.Um, well you did ask me to substantiate the claim that it is reasonable to argue that early Christians didn't accept a bodily resurrection. You asked, and received. ;) Sorry it was "subpar".
Your rude comments about the Christian worldview and its perspective are proving nothing. All they prove is that you are an arrogant ignorant pompous atheist claiming to have all the answers but really just being clueless. I am allowed to make that sweeping statement about you because of your sweeping view on the claims of the Bible and we Christian and Jews cartoonish existence.Ah, so "tit for tat"? I thought it was "turn the other cheek"? Maybe you aren't as familiar with your great Jesus as I am. Besides, I'm sure the readers of the thread would find my "insults and tone" a bit different in quality and character than yours.
I stand by my opinion that you are intellectually dishonest and you have a hateful attitude.Well, they do say that opinions are like assholes. You happen to possess one of each, it appears, but only be one of the two.
You will respond to this I'm sure. I am going to try very hard to let you make all the claims you want, but I do not want to debate with someone who is so unyielding from questionable positions. I will try very hard not to waste any more of my life on this.Well, keep fighting the good fight. Try very hard. Pray.
Harmonization is a common historical tool, use it for the resurrection accounts you biggot.First, it's "bigot" you silly moron. Second, be careful what you wish for, silly wabbit...
Dan Barker has already invented the wheel, so why should I reinvent it? From his article, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" we see the parallel passages from the gospels (and Acts) laid out so as to show us the impossible task of harmonization of the resurrection stories.
What time did the women visit the tomb?Tag, you're it, Lurchling.
* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
* Mark: No (16:13[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at that first appearance?
* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
* Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
________________
Technorati tags: Apologetics, Christianity
