|
||||||||
Getting to Heaven |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#201 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Quote:
And yet it's not clear that the early Christians thought that Jesus was born divine or to fulfill prophecy. It seems they may have had the idea of 'exaltation,' that God elevated Jesus' status in his lifetime.
It's not clear that Jesus thought he was the son of God. In some quotes he shows God as superior. He calls himself the son of Man. I don't think the NT is a bad book just because we can't be certain of events in early history. There is the same problem of writing about any event. Let's say photos of 9/11 were destroyed, and all the journalism about it. A historian would set out to re-construct 9/11 based on people who knew eyewitnesses. It wouldn't be perfect, no. But we would have some reasonable version of 9/11. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#202 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Quote:
No, I'm a realist. "Positive thinking", mood making and specialness isn't really my thing. Also I don't think we should confuse the idea of faith with blind faith.
Both grandiosity and being humble have the same source which is the human ego. By being more special or less special we separate ourselves out from each other and God. Specialness applied to anyone or anything is a quality of ego mind and egoistic thinking. Clearly, we can't live as humans without ego since to be human is to have an ego, but it can be countered in thought and action. Work on the ego and its eventual demise is not going to be a great concern to anyone with a spiritual intent and kind of goes with the territory. |
|
|
|
|
|
#203 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,273
|
Quote:
Sorry, you're going to have explain, because that just sounded like new-age buzzword jargon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#204 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
Your imagination. Deal with it.
![]() That was not what people thought in the years after Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
#205 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Quote:
Speaking of new age buzzwords, this 'Jesus did not exist' stuff is new age mumbo jumbo.
That was not what people thought in the years after Jesus. But never mind, bolly. Maybe try and articulate an answer to my question that you're so desperate to avoid for no other reason than it discredits your point. LOL! Next you'll be insisting that Shakespeare's "Richard II" is factually accurate. It isn't. But why let minor details get in the way of belief, huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
#206 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
|
Quote:
o Wise One, i cave in to your obviously superior learning.
Quote:
Yes, Luke and Matthew must have read Mark, but I prefer what Bart Ehrman points out about the idea that all the Gospel accounts go back to Mark.
He says that nothing could be further from the truth. Huge portions of their Gospels are independent of Mark. Mark and Luke had quite different portrayals of the crucified Jesus. The Gospel of John is independent of the others, the maverick Gospel. There is no reason to think Luke was lying when referring to earlier writings he read. There are other reasons for thinking there was a Q. And that it was made up of the sayings of Jesus, primarily. Goodacre and Ehrman are apparently friends though, and write positively about each other even where they disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
#207 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Is there life on Mars
Posts: 5,365
|
Quote:
Let's not rehearse all the contrasting arguments - there would not be enough interest on this forum. My purpose was just to establish that the existence of Q is not a done deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#208 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
Let's not rehearse all the contrasting arguments - there would not be enough interest on this forum. My purpose was just to establish that the existence of Q is not a done deal. So not a done deal that everything can be traced back to Mark. |
|
|
|
|
|
#209 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
I've had to look up Q source and unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't all Christians have to believe such a source existed. Isn't the only other option that they made the gospels up from imagination ?
Anyway, many Christians would probably accept the oral tradition from which Jesus' reputation arose. Only those who want to delve more deeply into it, would care about the earlier writings. |
|
|
|
|
|
#210 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
|
Quote:
I've had to look up Q source and unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't all Christians have to believe such a source existed. Isn't the only other option that they made the gospels up from imagination ?
It is normally used specifically in the context of the Synoptic accounts and to explain that material common to Matthew and Luke that is missing from Mark. In a similar way, material unique to Matthew is called the 'M' tradition and that unique to Luke 'L'. So it has a pretty specific meaning in synoptic scholarship. It is used as a possible explanation for a specific perceived problem - not as a coverall for anything and everything that may have predated the synoptics. Now, it is true that many scholastic theories assumed that there were not other widely available accounts in the early period. But then along came the Gospel of Thomas. If Q were to have existed, it is normally assumed to be a collection of sayings without narrative - a bit like Thomas. But Thomas is not 'Q' and Thomas hasn't decided the issue, though there are definitely parallel teachings in Thomas and the Synoptics. |
|
|
|
|
|
#211 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
Jesus was a physician coming from a lower class family? Not likely at that time. But he may have been very astute and using methods that we have yet to discover on science.
Quote:
A miracle is when god makes the impossible, possible. When god brakes to laws of nature.
Quote:
But, if you believe in god, then you must believe god created those laws. Why would any intelligent deity create a univerese whos laws inhibit the operation of that same deity???
Quote:
There's also the ''jesus the magician'' theory, that he was a conjurer, similar to simon magus mentioned in Acts, but it's not really plausible .........
I'm more inclined to believe the theory that Jesus is/was an alien. Makes more sense to me, and yes, I am being totally sincere with that statement. Quote:
u object to god, not because he exists, but, because some of his rules are slightly inconvenient ?
Quote:
I agree that it's not plausible if you look at how Jesus' personality is portrayed. If he did not really heal anyone, and was just using magic tricks, they he was just a prankster and out for his own ego.
Quote:
Yet that wasn't his personality throughout the gospels. His personality comes across as genuine and humble (does not credit himself). He seemed very sincere about the coming of the kingdom. Whether right or not about that.
Quote:
That was not what people thought in the years after Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#212 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
=Flash525;85050053]Even today, some people are able to pick up skills with very little effort, so the idea that a man named Jesus was a quick study in medicine isn't all that shocking a possibility to me.
So you think physicians in the time of Jesus had a way to cure blindness?Quote:
A better question would be why someone/something (God) would create the ability for things to happen that need his interference to fix them in the first place. Seems kind of counterproductive.
Free willQuote:
So, you're suggesting that Jesus and Merlin were the same person? Hmm..
Quite the opposite, as I see it. That his presentation was genuine from all accounts. Quote:
I'm more inclined to believe the theory that Jesus is/was an alien. Makes more sense to me, and yes, I am being totally sincere with that statement.
Like a time traveler. Quote:
The rules are God aren't a mere inconvenience, they're a complete and utter mess; they're too vague for starters, and open to all sorts of interpretation.
Seemed to help organize society.Quote:
You're suggesting that Jesus was actually the Norse God Loki? I'm down with that!
The opposite again. The idea that he was a configuration based on another God is junk history.Quote:
Except if Jesus was a prankster, he'd want people to believe him to be genuine and humble, would he not?
Nothing about him that comes across as a prankster. When people are pranksters, their behavior ultimately betrays them by contradicting their words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#213 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Yeah droogiefret, we're fine, just my ill advised attempt at sarcasm. I'll try again. Happy Christmas, ho ho ho ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#214 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Answering flash 525, the rules ARE impossible to follow, given that human nature is supposedly ''fallen'', that's why ''salvation'' is required for EVERYONE, the standard theory as explained by st paul in Romans ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#215 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Jesus The Prankster. A bit too Ken Kesey for me ............
|
|
|
|
|
|
#216 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
As i understand it, the idea of jesus as ''2nd person in divine trinity'' was a theological development, after his crucifiction (& resurrection?), worked out after the events ........ Peter's outburst recorded in the gospels having been followed by a warning ''shush'' from jesus .......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#217 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Interestingly, after some of the stuff above, c.s. Lewis' ''sci fi'' novel, That Hideous Strength, has Merlin the magician resurrected in 1940s academic Oxford ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#218 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
|
You get a choice in the matter. Just like proxy baptised ancestors of Mormons are given a choice to enter a Kingdom of God via a private door of Joseph Smith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#219 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
@spiney2, you know you can edit your posts, don't you? Save consecutive comments. Merely making you aware if you weren't already... Quote:
So you think physicians in the time of Jesus had a way to cure blindness?
Quote:
Free will
Quote:
Quite the opposite, as I see it. That his presentation was genuine from all accounts.
Quote:
Like a time traveler.
Quote:
Seemed to help organize society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#220 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Is there life on Mars
Posts: 5,365
|
Quote:
Ordinarily Q is not used to indicate prior oral tradition.
It is normally used specifically in the context of the Synoptic accounts and to explain that material common to Matthew and Luke that is missing from Mark. In a similar way, material unique to Matthew is called the 'M' tradition and that unique to Luke 'L'. So it has a pretty specific meaning in synoptic scholarship. It is used as a possible explanation for a specific perceived problem - not as a coverall for anything and everything that may have predated the synoptics. Now, it is true that many scholastic theories assumed that there were not other widely available accounts in the early period. But then along came the Gospel of Thomas. If Q were to have existed, it is normally assumed to be a collection of sayings without narrative - a bit like Thomas. But Thomas is not 'Q' and Thomas hasn't decided the issue, though there are definitely parallel teachings in Thomas and the Synoptics. I didn't realise it was such a mystery, I presumed everyone thought it was because they all knew each other and that St Paul was the lynch pin. |
|
|
|
|
|
#221 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,464
|
Quote:
So you don't think it's possible that people being healed by Jesus due to their belief in healing, could be biology?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#222 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
|
Quote:
Thanks for that.
I didn't realise it was such a mystery, I presumed everyone thought it was because they all knew each other and that St Paul was the lynch pin. ![]() Anyway - I would recommend Mark Goodacre's 'The Synoptic Problem - A way through the maze'. It's pretty accessible and covers all the ground. (Bolly will recommend something else!!) edit: You can dip into Mark's companion site here |
|
|
|
|
|
#223 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Is there life on Mars
Posts: 5,365
|
Quote:
St Paul is a whole other ball game!!
![]() Anyway - I would recommend Mark Goodacre's 'The Synoptic Problem - A way through the maze'. It's pretty accessible and covers all the ground. (Bolly will recommend something else!!) edit: You can dip into Mark's companion site here I will try and skim read it when I get chance as the impact of the gospels on humans has been so profound that even as an atheist I feel I should have more knowledge of Christianity. Before your post, I hadn't even heard the term 'Synoptic Gospels'. I might get distracted by things of a more scientific bent, but I'll try
|
|
|
|
|
|
#224 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
Wouldn't there have to be some biological component to healing anyway? The view is that mind is a secondary quality of matter, and as matter is paramount this secondary quality should not have any way of altering or affecting the latter. I think that line's become very fuzzy in light of what we know now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#225 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
@spiney2, you know you can edit your posts, don't you? Save consecutive comments. Merely making you aware if you weren't already...
But we don't know that Jesus actually cured a blind person, do we? We have a story about that having happened, but for all we know, the blind man (if he even existed) merely had something (dirt?) in his eye. Then what's the point of intervention? That's going against free will. Furthermore, it isn't free will where illness is concerned. People don't choose to become ill. Well I suppose historically Jesus came before Merlin, so yeah, I'll grant you that! No, like an alien, from outer space. Except in this instance, E.T. didn't want to phone home. Societies had formed long before Jesus came around. Doesn't look like he was needed. Societies have formed (without religion) since too. Jesus never forced anyone to follow him. Looked to me like Jesus was needed. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:34.




