• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Getting to Heaven
<<
<
9 of 18
>>
>
noodkleopatra
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“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.”

You've tried the 9/11 analogy and it simply does not work. It's baffling as to why you think it does. Talk about 'false comparisons' (or metaphors as you called them)!!
noodkleopatra
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by MrQuike:
“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.”

Sorry, you're going to have explain, because that just sounded like new-age buzzword jargon.
MrQuike
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by noodkleopatra:
“Sorry, you're going to have explain, because that just sounded like new-age buzzword jargon.”

Your imagination. Deal with it.
bollywood
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by MrQuike:
“Your imagination. Deal with it. ”

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.
noodkleopatra
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“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.”

Specific people did.

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?
droogiefret
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by spiney2:
“o Wise One, i cave in to your obviously superior learning.”

I get lucky once in a while - I am not as widely read as you - but there are a few areas I dive deep. We're cool I hope.

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“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.”

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.
belly button
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by droogiefret:
“
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.”

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 ?
bollywood
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by droogiefret:
“
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.”

That's why I said probably. And why I prefer Ehrman's conclusion, that is well documented as to how Luke differs from Mark, how John differs from the other gospels, and the likelihood that Luke did read from earlier works.

So not a done deal that everything can be traced back to Mark.
bollywood
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by belly button:
“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's not only Christians who think Q existed. The scholar I quoted is an agnostic atheist.

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.
droogiefret
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by belly button:
“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 ?”

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.
Flash525
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“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.”

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.

Originally Posted by Fairyprincess0:
“A miracle is when god makes the impossible, possible. When god brakes to laws of nature.”

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.

Originally Posted by Fairyprincess0:
“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???”

We have rules here in the UK that are broken all the time. How many DVLA workers occasionally jump red lights or drive over the speed limit? How many people within the entertainment industry download (illegally) music, tv series and films?

Originally Posted by spiney2:
“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 .........”

So, you're suggesting that Jesus and Merlin were the same person? Hmm..

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.

Originally Posted by spiney2:
“u object to god, not because he exists, but, because some of his rules are slightly inconvenient ?”

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.

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“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.”

You're suggesting that Jesus was actually the Norse God Loki? I'm down with that!

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“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.”

Except if Jesus was a prankster, he'd want people to believe him to be genuine and humble, would he not?

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“That was not what people thought in the years after Jesus.”

...or so we're led to believe!!
bollywood
04-01-2017
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 will

Quote:
“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.
spiney2
04-01-2017
Yeah droogiefret, we're fine, just my ill advised attempt at sarcasm. I'll try again. Happy Christmas, ho ho ho ........
spiney2
04-01-2017
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 ........
spiney2
04-01-2017
Jesus The Prankster. A bit too Ken Kesey for me ............
spiney2
04-01-2017
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 .......
spiney2
04-01-2017
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 ........
IvanIV
04-01-2017
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.
Flash525
04-01-2017
@spiney2, you know you can edit your posts, don't you? Save consecutive comments. Merely making you aware if you weren't already...

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“So you think physicians in the time of Jesus had a way to cure blindness?”

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.

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Free will”

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.

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Quite the opposite, as I see it. That his presentation was genuine from all accounts.”

Well I suppose historically Jesus came before Merlin, so yeah, I'll grant you that!

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Like a time traveler.”

No, like an alien, from outer space. Except in this instance, E.T. didn't want to phone home.

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Seemed to help organize society.”

Societies had formed long before Jesus came around. Doesn't look like he was needed. Societies have formed (without religion) since too.
belly button
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by droogiefret:
“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.”

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.
fastzombie
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“So you don't think it's possible that people being healed by Jesus due to their belief in healing, could be biology?”

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.
droogiefret
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by belly button:
“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.”

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
belly button
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by droogiefret:
“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
bollywood
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by fastzombie:
“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.”

I think that maybe in 2120 we will know a bit about healing via the mind.
bollywood
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Flash525:
“@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.”

No we don't know that Jesus healed a blind person, only his reputation for healing

Jesus never forced anyone to follow him.

Looked to me like Jesus was needed.
<<
<
9 of 18
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map