|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,372 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,372 Likes: 1 |
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W. no, yes, yes, no Genesis 6:13-22 Genesis 7:13-16 I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds??? Still curious. L.W.
"Always go straight forward, and if you meet the devil, cut him in two and go between the pieces." (William Sturgis, clipper ship captain, 1830s.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489 |
For the earliest Christians, the driving force that led to the rapid growth of the early church and Christianity itself…against staggering odds…wasn’t anything in the Hebrew Scriptures. It wasn’t even anything in the Bible either, since the Bible…as we know it…didn’t even exist until the 4th century. For the first nearly 300 years or so, the driving force of Christianity was an event ~ the resurrection of Jesus.
The resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. It was then. And it is now.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859 |
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W. no, yes, yes, no Genesis 6:13-22 Genesis 7:13-16 I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds??? Still curious. L.W. You sound silly. Read the story.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,372 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,372 Likes: 1 |
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W. no, yes, yes, no Genesis 6:13-22 Genesis 7:13-16 I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds??? Still curious. L.W. You sound silly. Read the story. Ringman, I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas. (I have.) Obviously you have no curiosity about strange events and phenomena . I've met a lot of people over the years who have no curiosity about much of anything in life. They just muddle on through in ignorance of anything going on around them. As they say, "Ignorance is bliss."  L.W.
"Always go straight forward, and if you meet the devil, cut him in two and go between the pieces." (William Sturgis, clipper ship captain, 1830s.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859 |
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W. no, yes, yes, no Genesis 6:13-22 Genesis 7:13-16 I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds??? Still curious. L.W. You sound silly. Read the story. Ringman, I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas. (I have.) Obviously you have no curiosity about strange events and phenomena . I've met a lot of people over the years who have no curiosity about much of anything in life. They just muddle on through in ignorance of anything going on around them. As they say, "Ignorance is bliss." L.W. I was responding to your lack of information about who was on the boat. Your assumption you are the only ocean guy is just as silly as your other post.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,372 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,372 Likes: 1 |
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W. no, yes, yes, no Genesis 6:13-22 Genesis 7:13-16 I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds??? Still curious. L.W. You sound silly. Read the story. Ringman, I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas. (I have.) Obviously you have no curiosity about strange events and phenomena . I've met a lot of people over the years who have no curiosity about much of anything in life. They just muddle on through in ignorance of anything going on around them. As they say, "Ignorance is bliss." L.W. I was responding to your lack of information about who was on the boat. Your assumption you are the only ocean guy is just as silly as your other post. Ahhh Ringman, there you go, making nonsensical and baseless statements which is not unusual in your case. I never assumed that I was the only person here who has been out on the ocean and I did not allude to that in any way, shape, or form. I wrote "I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas." . I know there are not only retired sailors who are members here, but also some of the fishermen here go out onto the oceans to deep sea fish. It might behoove you to make your insults a bit more cogent.  L.W.
"Always go straight forward, and if you meet the devil, cut him in two and go between the pieces." (William Sturgis, clipper ship captain, 1830s.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,077 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,077 Likes: 2 |
For the earliest Christians, the driving force that led to the rapid growth of the early church and Christianity itself…against staggering odds…wasn’t anything in the Hebrew Scriptures. It wasn’t even anything in the Bible either, since the Bible…as we know it…didn’t even exist until the 4th century. For the first nearly 300 years or so, the driving force of Christianity was an event ~ the resurrection of Jesus.
The resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. It was then. And it is now. You are seriously out of your depth in this discussion You would make a good Southern Baptist but I'm seriously doubting you would have fit in with the early church. The theologian you like the best was run off by the real Christians, barely escaping with his life. Please swim back to the shallow end where you belong.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489 |
You are seriously out of your depth in this discussion. That's laughable coming from you, spouting your wacky Hebrew Roots Movement psychobabble that clearly nobody here who professes Christian beliefs agrees with. I'm seriously doubting you would have fit in with the early church. I doubt that you would have either, but you would have fit right in with the Judaizers that Peter and James clearly spoke out against (as well as Paul), the same Judaizers that continued to insist upon something that Jesus Himself clearly spoke out against. Not only do you deny Pauls teachings, you also clearly deny the teachings of Peter when they don’t jive with your already established position and agenda; just as you clearly deny the teachings of James when they don’t jive with your already established position and agenda; and just as you clearly deny the teachings of Jesus Himself when they don’t jive with your already established position and agenda. You also clearly deny the very well established history of not only the earliest Christians, but also that of the early church and Christianity itself before Constantine. You do have one big thing in common with the most vocal atheists here though: NONE of y’all are on a ‘truth’ quest; that’s crystal clear.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,680 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,680 Likes: 3 |
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/b6/d8/98b6d863a5f722b551cd8e1440bd2bd4.jpg) Z
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,973
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,973 |
You also clearly deny the very well established history of not only the earliest Christians, but also that of the early church and Christianity itself before Constantine. Early Christianity was a hodge-podge with over 30 major sect, over 100 gospels, with very different view on Jesus. These ranged from him being fully man to fully God, and everything in between. One sect even believed he was fully man until he spoke his last words as in Mark, at which point Jesus entered the mans body and then he died. Others believed he didn't even have an earthly body. What people saw was an aviator or an illusion. The earliest Christians were nothing like you imagine.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros? He is one of those who gets upset and lashes out like a child whenever his beliefs are questioned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros? Just drooling, mouth breathing dumbfuuck idiots. The ones that earn it...... Just look in the mirror and let loose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... What you fail to grasp is that there is no real evidence that anything happened, that it's not just another one of the embellished tales told by the ancients, written by people who had no interest in critical inquiry, where the purpose of the writers was to promote the faith, build a religion. What we have written decades after the described events, contradictory as it is, doesn't establish anything. And the fantastic claim of the son of God coming to life and ascending into Heaven needs more than contradictory accounts to support it. The fact is, we have no means of determining what really happened, and there is no reason to believe in fantastic claims because somebody wrote it two thousand years ago. Your little dummy spit tough guy act shows just how immature you are. And you too, base your argument solely on unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory....and proceed to proclaim the belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, is unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory. Go suck start a Glock and prove once and for all to us there's no Heaven and Hell. No, I base my argument on the fact that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a God and the miracles and wonders that ancient people believed in and wrote about. That without evidence, there is no reason to be convinced in the truth of these stories. If a God presents themselves openly and honestly, there would be no more atheists or agnostics, no more debate or dispute. That has yet to happen, and I won't be living in anticipation of it happening.
Last edited by DBT; 04/13/24.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859 |
Ahhh Ringman, there you go, making nonsensical and baseless statements which is not unusual in your case. I never assumed that I was the only person here who has been out on the ocean and I did not allude to that in any way, shape, or form. I wrote "I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas." . I know there are not only retired sailors who are members here, but also some of the fishermen here go out onto the oceans to deep sea fish. It might behoove you to make your insults a bit more cogent. L.W. Leanwolf, I am very sorry offend you. I try to act here just as I would if we were face to face. I was once hired as a consultant and had lunch with the superintendent where I told him I have trouble with tact. He told me I still have trouble with it, so I must have inadvertently said something inappropriate to him. Again, I am sorry.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 1,906
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 1,906 |
You can question my beliefs all you want and it won't change a thing. Your beliefs or non-beliefs have zero bearing on my or anyone's life, beyond you and those like you being an occasional reminder of exactly how not to be. You are at least a little bit useful for that. Maybe that's the reason God put you here to begin with, by attempting to tear down believers you only serve to strengthen their resolve.
I do sort of wonder, though, that if you and you alone are infact in control of your own faculties, why the beliefs of complete strangers upset you so dramatically that you feel compelled to be personally threatened by those beliefs. Seems to be a common theme among the Godless. Someone should pray for you. Unfortunately I'm not a good enough Christian to even care. Have a wonderful night, or day, or whatever it is down there on that chithole continent of yours.
I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children may live in peace. ~~ Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
You can question my beliefs all you want and it won't change a thing. Your beliefs or non-beliefs have zero bearing on my or anyone's life, beyond you and those like you being an occasional reminder of exactly how not to be. You are at least a little bit useful for that. Maybe that's the reason God put you here to begin with, by attempting to tear down believers you only serve to strengthen their resolve.
I do sort of wonder, though, that if you and you alone are infact in control of your own faculties, why the beliefs of complete strangers upset you so dramatically that you feel compelled to be personally threatened by those beliefs. Seems to be a common theme among the Godless. Someone should pray for you. Unfortunately I'm not a good enough Christian to even care. Have a wonderful night, or day, or whatever it is down there on that chithole continent of yours. It shouldn't be a matter of who believes this or who believes that, but what is true and factual regardless of what any of us may believe. But whatever you may want to believe regardless of whether it's true or factual or not is your own business
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,761
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,761 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros? Just drooling, mouth breathing dumbfuuck idiots. The ones that earn it...... Such a exemplary Christian like attitude is gonna prevent your elevator from making it to the top floor. Say your prayers you shameful feral varmit! Lol
For those without thumbs, it's s Garden fookin Island, not Hawaii
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,107
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,107 |
It's interesting to note how much your concept of God differs from that of they hard core Young Earth Creationist, and Flood believers. I went to church regular as a young man, and I always wondered how the sheep herders and goat herders described what they saw while out in the field. Now, in my mind, they were un-educated and had little experience in the world except out in the fields, by themselves a lot. So they had to describe things in a way that made sense to them. The ones that wrote about it later, might have described what they were told in a completely different way, and not got everything correct. But there has been a lot things dug up, that show carvings in stone of things coming to earth, that most people have still never seen. Those old ruins have a lot of things that make you think "how in the hell did that come about". I try to put it all together, and make my own sense out of it. miles
Look out for number 1, don't step in number 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 1,906
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 1,906 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros? Just drooling, mouth breathing dumbfuuck idiots. The ones that earn it...... Such a exemplary Christian like attitude is gonna prevent your elevator from making it to the top floor. Say your prayers you shameful feral varmit! Lol Humans are sinners by their very nature, since the moment they enter this world and remain so their entire lives. Being a saved true believer doesn't make you a non-sinner, just a forgiven one. Your implications suggest that acts are what get you into Heaven, but that's not how it works.
I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children may live in peace. ~~ Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,973
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,973 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros? Just drooling, mouth breathing dumbfuuck idiots. The ones that earn it...... Such a exemplary Christian like attitude is gonna prevent your elevator from making it to the top floor. Say your prayers you shameful feral varmit! Lol Humans are sinners by their very nature, since the moment they enter this world and remain so their entire lives. Being a saved true believer doesn't make you a non-sinner, just a forgiven one. Your implications suggest that acts are what get you into Heaven, but that's not how it works. That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
581 members (10Glocks, 160user, 1Longbow, 1beaver_shooter, 12344mag, 10ring1, 62 invisible),
2,158
guests, and
1,239
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,031
Posts18,481,876
Members73,959
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
