The long awaited KRKEY VS YAHWEH debate..

[Skeptical Greg]

Just trying to kick this off..


krkey has selected Yahweh as his first opponent and wishes to begin by defending the veracity of: ( in his words )


a.) the resurrection of Jesus


If krkey feels I have misrepresented his claim, I request he address the issue in another thread, and I will edit this post to reflect any changes as directed.

All other posters please grab a chair and post any observations and comments here:

Beer in here!! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29170)

As the challenger, krkey will begin by making an opening ( relevant) statement and a maximum of 10 points, to which Yaweh will then reply..

Beleth ( who claims experience that has not been disputed ) has volunteered to judge, and I move that he be accepted as such.

[Yahweh]

Wow, this "debate" is rather slow paced...

I'll start by saying anything, anything at all:

(Under the assumption Jesus actually existed, under the assumption the Crucifixion occurred as written in the Bible) There are no supernatural explanations, it is perfectly possible to survive 3 days of torture. In the days where all the Biblical "stuff" is set to occur, torture was an artform designed to pro-long suffering. The Vietcong were familiar with this.

It is also concievable that Jesus did survive. For virtually any given scenario where somebody has died, there is another person who survived "against all odds" (I still dont recommend hurling yourself over Niagra Falls).

To describe the resurrection of Jesus Christ in terms of God is to describe exactly nothing. To say Jesus was in fact dead, then rose from the dead is wishful thinking.

[krkey]

Yahweh I wished you would have waited a bit for me, I am still preparing my opening point. I had seriously not planned on starting this to monday but I will try to post a bit earlier. Until then, why don't you simply do what I am doing and prepare a longer opening, if you so desire.

[krkey]

Diogenes, you have stated my correct position, or my correctly my position is that the best explanation for the start of Christianity is the resurrection.

I am afraid Yahweh and I had a misunderstanding about the format of this debate, the format I had emailed him was a thus.

a.) we both get an opening statement to make our argument, this can be as long as we so desire
b.) after the opening statements we each essentially get ten threads apiece to further drive in our arguments, rebut the other side or make new arguments.
c.) after the ten rounds of threads we make our closing statements.

I had not planned on starting this till monday, truth be told I am still typing my opening statement. If Yahweh so desires he could rewrite his opening statement or come to a total different position, I will not object.

I simply ask everyone to be patient, and that patience will be rewarded with a worthy debate

[Yahweh]

An opening point due on Monday (seeing as today would be Wednesday)... I think you are taking this too seriously. I recommend you divvy up into smaller bits and pieces, or build a website of some sort.

Myself on the other hand, I would be happy to give the "burden the debate" over to Yahzi, or a much more productive and "fair" form debate would be (as suggested previously) a big "post and respond" thread. The system has been working quite well for a while (if your position is valid, you wont be overwhelmed by 20:1 skeptics to believers ratio), its open to many more viewpoints than the 2 between ourselves, and quite frankly, I dont have the patience the necessary to "care", I would actually find it a much more appropriate use of my time to <s>compose love sonnets to Luciana</s> enjoy myself in the way I have done on the board in the past 4000+ posts (welcome to the wonderful world of Social Fora).

Believe me, if you do happen to compose something rather lengthy, I'll take upon myself to respond to it (I have responded to quite a few of the lengthier posts).

But please, if you must do anything, enjoy yourself here.

[Skeptical Greg]

I'll revive this on Monday, If Yaweh cares to wait that long..

Meanwhile I suggest that all participate in the forums as usual..

Particularly krkey..

Look over some other topics, and participate as the occasion moves you..

We have had some great discussions in the past regarding the veracity of the Jesus tales, and had substantail representation from both sides..

Krkey, Your recent ...the best explanation for the start of Christianity is the resurrection.
But this assumes that the resurrection took place.. And if it didn't, it couldn't have caused the start of Christianity..

If you change your statement to:

..... the best explanation for the start of Christianity is the belief in the resurrection.

We have a substantially different issue..
I pointed out earlier, that the latter form may not garner a lot of opposition here, as it is somewhat more subjective.
It would appear that all of the major players in the early years of Christianity did believe in the resurrection, but can it be established that they had rational reason to do so. i.e. Did it really happen?

That said, I believe you need to affirm exactly what it is you intend to defend, and see if you still have any takers..

Planning this debate was based on your statement that you would: ( your words )

defend a.) the resurrection of Jesus

[krkey]

I can accept that addendum Diogenes. In the end no matter how well I do in the end it is up to the person to accept the apostles were truthful and correct about what happened on easter sunday.

Yahweh if you do not want to continue farther then I can understand, I am on my last semester in college and the work load is light for me, light enough that I have full time to devote to a debate. Just let me know

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by krkey
Yahweh if you do not want to continue farther then I can understand, I am on my last semester in college and the work load is light for me, light enough that I have full time to devote to a debate. Just let me know

Unfortunately, as a Junior in highschool, I've only written 1 or 3 original speeches required to be 8 - 10 minutes in length, must be memorized by Oct. 30, and must be humorous for one class, 2 rough drafts of 2 other speeches for another class, 5 other classes that need attending to, a Chess Club to participate in, I'm wrapped up from the times of 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM... yeah, I have little time at all to devote to debate.

Oh well, plenty of other people here will be happy to take my place, possibly TriadBoy, Yahzi, Diogenes, and plenty of others.

[TruthSeeker]

Wow, Yahweh, that's alot of work.

I don't remember being that busy in high school.

Good luck.

[krkey]

Thats fair Yahweh. Dude you make me feel old, I am a 25 year old college senior. Lets see about another person. Your high school career remind me of mine, I was captian of the academic team and the JROTC. Best of luck

[Yahzi]

Well, as a concession to the forum at large, if you choose to debate me, I'll actually forgo my usual habit of flaming my opponent when they say something so blindingly stupid it makes me see stars.

See, that's exactly the sort of thing I won't be doing.

Just make a thread called "Krkey and Yahzi," and I'll be happy to respond. I'd prefer not to debate NDEs though, because they bore me silly. Given that actual live people see Elvis, I just can't get worked up over what dying people think they see.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by krkey
In the end no matter how well I do in the end it is up to the person to accept the apostles were truthful and correct about what happened on easter sunday.


Greetings my friend.
This statement is rather presumptuous is it not? I may be reading your intent of this statement in the wrong way. But it seems you are saying regardless if you are “defeated” in debate and fail to prove your case/debate what you believe is still fact ( and I respect you believe that) and the flaw is in others including the one who just ‘defeated” you and they are “lost” and “blind”?

Is this not a bit like a fighter talking it up in the weeks leading up to the fight as to how great and powerful he is and after the bight or even right before he declares that if he loses, gets his ‘ass kicked” he is still the best fighter and the other is inferior?

Be well my friend.

[krkey]

I have to wonder about the competance of any man who compares NDE's which have been the subject of several scientific studies, which have all stated that it is medical unexplainable to "elvis sightings"

You misunderstand my point on this one Pahansiri, you might want to read the Ludemann-Craig debate (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801021758/qid=1066952198/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/103-7480318-0158206?v=glance&s=books) Craig clearly won this debate. His opponent, Ludemann admitted that Jesus existed, He was crucified and killed, and that the apostles sincerely believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. Ludemann explained it as multiple hallucination and offered no explanation for the Conversion of Paul, James or the why didnt the Sanhedrin simply retrive the body. That is why I said there always an out.


Well Yahzi You know my position on the best explanation for Christianity, what is yours ( I do insist you defend an alternative position, fair is fair). I suggest we kick this off on monday or tuesday

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by krkey


You misunderstand my point on this one Pahansiri, you might want to read the Ludemann-Craig debate (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801021758/qid=1066952198/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/103-7480318-0158206?v=glance&s=books) Craig clearly won this debate. His opponent, Ludemann admitted that Jesus existed, He was crucified and killed, and that the apostles sincerely believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. Ludemann explained it as multiple hallucination and offered no explanation for the Conversion of Paul, James or the why didnt the Sanhedrin simply retrive the body. That is why I said there always an out.




Greetings krkey.

I am not sure at all what that has to do with post?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by krkey
Ludemann admitted that Jesus existed, He was crucified and killed, and that the apostles sincerely believed they saw the resurrected Jesus.

Ludemann must've been drunk

offered no explanation for the Conversion of Paul

Paul was a gnostic who doesn't know anything about the Jesus of the Gospels. His Jesus was the familiar dying god-man - who is 'awakened' spiritually. Doesn't it interest you that the first story of Jesus (Pauls writings) are so drastically different then the Gospel stories?

Read this debate:

http://www.ffrf.org/debates/barker_horner.html

In it, Barker shows Paul referring to a spiritual Jesus. Which follows exactly with my studies. Barker doesn't say it - but it seems clear to me - Paul was gnostic.

[krkey]

Triadboy I have this thing for using nonscholars and Dan Barker is among the worst incompetants to ever walk the face of the earth.

I decided to simply cut and past an argument from a earlier debate rebutal I had wrote.

Your views on the apostles coming to a belief in a spiritual resurrection are flawed for two major reasons.
a.) There was no belief among the Jews about the idea of a spiritual resurrection. For example read the following verses
1.) Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
2.) Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
3.) Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
These following verses all come from the time of Jesus
4.) 4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.
5.) 1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.
6.) Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.
7.) 2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.
8.) Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.
b.) These verses easily demonstrate the Jewish view of resurrection from the dead. It was always a physical occurrence. The Pharisees even debated as to whether the resurected dead would still wear their burial cloths, thus there are no good historical reasons to believe that the apostles or Paul( who was a Pharisee) would have believed in a spiritual resurrection. It was simply an idea that had no meaning to a Jew.
c.) The verses you use to postulate an original spiritual view shall be listed below and properly explained.
1.) 1st Corinthian 15:42- 49 -42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man isj from heaven. 48As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we willk also bear the image of the man of heaven
2.) Ist Peter 3:18 –19 18For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison
I shall begin with Corinthians. The spiritual body that is being discussed is the resurrected body. The resurrected body is a physical body, but a physical body with spiritual significance. ( an analogy would be the Bible, it is clearly physical, but to many it has spiritual value) Verse 47 discusses Adam, which is clearly a physical creation. Pagans did not believe in a bodily resurrection. To them that idea was simply obscene. That is why the pagans in 1st Cor 15:12 were saying, “there is no resurrection from the dead” because they did not believe in bodily resurections. They already had a belief in a spiritual resurrection so this question simply would not have come up had Paul been preaching a spiritual resurrection. Verse 20 “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died.” This verse discusses the idea that Christ had been bodily resurrected from the dead and then others shall be resurrected from the dead. This is clearly referring to the Jewish view of resurrection, a good example of this can be found in John 11:23-24 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 4Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Verse 15:22 of 1st Corinthian –“for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” It refers to the death of Adam, which was clearly a physical event .
In verse 44 Paul use of the word soma twice, proving that he intended for the Corinthians to understand the resurrected body to be physical. The word simply has no other meaning ( Soma in Biblical Theology by Robert Gundry) A proper exploration of the word soma and its use in Greek will be explored below. (the high lighted word is where soma is used)
MT 6:22-25 "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; 23but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.i 25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink,j or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
MT 27:58-59 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth
MK 14:8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial.
LK 23:52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus
JN 2:20-21 The Jews then said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21But he was speaking of the temple of his body.
And now lets have a little from Paul and Jude
1st Co. 6:13 "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,"e and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1st Co 6:16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The two shall be one flesh
2nd Co 4:10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies
Gal 6:17 From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body.
Jude 1:9 But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slande against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
There simply is no compelling reason to accept the notion that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection. It went against the Jewish world view, the view of the Pharisees, is not the proper reading of the text and lastly his word soma has no meaning besides that of physical. The best view of what Paul is trying to say is this “ The resurrected body will be physical, but have spiritual aspects.”

You can also read this by a scholar (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html)

Triadboy, please tell me where you are getting your scholarly claims? I have never, ever seen anyone say Paul was Gnostic( who was a opponent of the Gnostics) or Mark was a Gnostic( possibly the Secret Gospel of Mark preserved completely and originally on a 18th century copy. And if you believe that...) document. I am going to be so very disappointed with you if is some nonsense like Archyra S.

[krkey]

I also just asked a Jewish friend of mine, according to her there is no such thing as a belief in a spiritual resurrection among Jews.

Let me repost a few reasons why the copy cat thesis is as dead as the dodo in current scholarship.

a.) The differences between the pagan deity in question and Jesus are vast and the similarities are few.

b.) Among the alleged similarities are only a superficial similarity, for example Horus'( or Osiris) resurrection was done by I believe his wife , sewning him back together. The resurrection of Dionysus was symbolic, it was meant to represent seasonal changes.

c.) Jewish culture was extremely hostile to Paganism. For example one can witness the reaction to Pontius Pilate placing pagan symbols on Jewish coins within circulation, and the fact Roman legions did not display their pagan banners in Judea. Also to be considered is the fact Romans would even execute their own troops for entering into Jewish Temple area, which shows again extreme Jewish hostility toward Paganism and the cause of 2nd Judean revolt was attempting to build a pagan temple to Zeus in Jerusalem.

d.) Biblical command did not allow for association with Paganism and pagans.

d.) Jewish Culture already had two negative enocunters with Paganism. The Seleucids and the Romans. This alone would have made them hostile toward these Pagan ideas

e.) what do you think caused the Maccebean wars?

f.) Jewish culture already had a dim view of Egyptian Gods, because of the historicial belief of enslavement of Jews by Egyptians.

g.) how would the apostles have come to this Paganism in the first place, do you seriously believe that they had a copy of the Egyptian book of the dead on them?

h.) odd, all this Pagan influences in Judea, yet it never left any archaelogical remains from the 1st century BC- 1st century AD. You might just think it never existed in there.

Well folks, now I have another job. Email New testament Scholar Gerd Ludemann and inform him that triadboy from randi.com thinks he was drunk and is basically incompetant. I am sure he will immediatelly change his position because of this prestigious person correcting him.

[krkey]

Lastly, might I recommend that you take your books, which you obviously stole from Rhett Butler's library ( or was it Jefferson's, perhaps Paine) and as soon as possible put them on ebay. Take the money from that and as soon as possible buy something from the twentieth century and if it is so possible perhaps the later part. Might want to start here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310254515/qid=1066957496/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&n=507846)

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by krkey
I also just asked a Jewish friend of mine, according to her there is no such thing as a belief in a spiritual resurrection among Jews.

Let me repost a few reasons why the copy cat thesis is as dead as the dodo in current scholarship.

Saying that it's dead as the dodo in modern scholarship is a grotesque exaggeration. It certainly is among the scholars representing the Christian bias. Let me see If I can give my side on the reasons why you think It's invalid.

Originally posted by krkey
a.) The differences between the pagan deity in question and Jesus are vast and the similarities are few.

Dead, dead wrong. The similarities go much deeper than you care to give credit for. For instance, one of Dionysus' miracles was turning water into wine, sound familiar? Dionysus also commanded his followers to drink wine and eat bread as symbolic of his blood and body respectfully. Osiris not died and was ressurected, but ascended to heaven and had the capability to grant followers eternal life. Obviously there are many more, if you want to read further, pick up a copy of Earl Doherty's book "The Jesus Puzzle."

Originally posted krkey
b.) Among the alleged similarities are only a superficial similarity, for example Horus'( or Osiris) resurrection was done by I believe his wife , sewning him back together. The resurrection of Dionysus was symbolic, it was meant to represent seasonal changes.

This argument is unsubstantiated because you omit the strikingly close similiarities and put up the superficial ones as refutation of the whole thing.

Originally posted by krkey
c.) Jewish culture was extremely hostile to Paganism. For example one can witness the reaction to Pontius Pilate placing pagan symbols on Jewish coins within circulation, and the fact Roman legions did not display their pagan banners in Judea. Also to be considered is the fact Romans would even execute their own troops for entering into Jewish Temple area, which shows again extreme Jewish hostility toward Paganism and the cause of 2nd Judean revolt was attempting to build a pagan temple to Zeus in Jerusalem.

This argument loses it's weight once one considers the fact that almost all of the Christians throughout the first 350 years of Christian history were non-Jewish.

Originally posted by krkey
f.) Jewish culture already had a dim view of Egyptian Gods, because of the historicial belief of enslavement of Jews by Egyptians.

Which the Egyptians have no record of, at least not one of which I'm aware.

Originally posted by krkey
g.) how would the apostles have come to this Paganism in the first place, do you seriously believe that they had a copy of the Egyptian book of the dead on them?

There were lost of religious traditions that flourished in the Mediteranian area during early Christian history. That's most likely why Christianity wasn't a unified movement until Roma Persecution ended and the Catholic and Orthidox chruches were established.

Originally posted by krkey
h.) odd, all this Pagan influences in Judea, yet it never left any archaelogical remains from the 1st century BC- 1st century AD. You might just think it never existed in there.

Mnay of the archaelogical remains are right in the bible, even in the old testament. The Judaic Satan, for instance, was an adaptation of the Zoaroastrian Ahirman. Most of the early Christian practices (Baptism, Eucharist) came directly from paganism.

[krkey]

Time for me to bury these points once again( and I thought the posters in this forum did not believe in Resurrections. They constantly hope dead ideas in scholarships will do that)

Saying that it's dead as the dodo in modern scholarship is a grotesque exaggeration. It certainly is among the scholars representing the Christian bias. Let me see If I can give my side on the reasons why you think It's invalid.



Actually the scholars that hold these views are both Christians and atheist. Ludemann and Crossan, both atheist do not hold this theory. And finally for the first time in my life I found a use for Christ Mythers. They dont even use that theory

which version of Osiris has this, the stories of him are hopelessly contradictory

This argument loses it's weight once one considers the fact that almost all of the Christians throughout the first 350 years of Christian history were non-Jewish.
and this argument loses it forces when we remember that the NT books were composed, with the exception of John, by 70 AD

Which the Egyptians have no record of, at least not one of which I'm aware.

The historicial belief of the Jews is all that matters on this.

Mnay of the archaelogical remains are right in the bible, even in the old testament. The Judaic Satan, for instance, was an adaptation of the Zoaroastrian Ahirman. Most of the early Christian practices (Baptism, Eucharist) came directly from paganism there has been no remains of pagan practices found within Israel from at least one hundred BC to 100 years after Christ. Actually a lot of the ideas you mention already existed before Jesus, check the noncanocials from the Qumran time

Sorry not enough, the theory is still dead as the dodo. Atheists scholars would tell you that just as quickly as Christians. I need a source for Dionysus, that claim has been floating around the web, but no source has ever been provided. I know it is in Randel Helm's book who wrote the Gospels, but he didn't provide a source either. I would be extremely cautious with the use of Doherty, its better to use scholars, in any subject you so research

[triadboy]

Originally posted by krkey
There was no belief among the Jews about the idea of a spiritual resurrection.

That was a big post for nothing! I never said the Jews believed in spiritual resurrection. I said Paul did.

I have never, ever seen anyone say Paul was Gnostic( who was a opponent of the Gnostics)

He is ONLY an opponent in the 'Pastoral' letters which are known forgeries. He is known by gnostics as The Great Gnostic for a reason.

or Mark was a Gnostic( possibly the Secret Gospel of Mark preserved completely and originally on a 18th century copy. And if you believe that...) document.

I believe YOUR church father Clement was the first to mention the secret gospel. [It definitely would explain the strange, strange appearance of a boy dressed only in linen. (weird!)]

If you understand Mystery Religions - you know the outer mystery is the dying god-man story - the inner mystery is where the student is initiated into the realization that we all are god - and he is 'awakened'. Xianity believes the outer mystery is history! High-larious!

These Mystery Religions were around long before Jebus. Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra - these were all mystery religions that required this secret rite of passage.

I don't think a person called Mark is gnostic (although he may have been) I think the basis for the story is gnostic. Don't forget - Mark ends at 16:8. The story is just a little different if you stop there.

[krkey]

it also should be mentioned that the apostles and Paul were all Jews, who most certainly would have found Paganism to be noxious. As I said earlier, I would be extremely cautious with using Doherty ( or any other Christ Myther, none of them seem to have a relevant degree in the subject of the NT). While the readers may dislike the person who wrote this article (http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html) properly describes the minimum neccesary to be a Biblical scholar. Nonscholars such as Well's, Doherty, Archarya S or Maccoby should not be used in any way. A person would be far better of using such notable scholars as Wright, Guthrie, Bruce, Crossan and Ludemann to start with. I would personally start with Bruce's New Testament history (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385025335/qid=1066961624/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-4716593-0696821?v=glance&n=507846) Its couldnt hurt a believer or nonbeliever, it is a brilliant well written history of this pivotal time period.

[krkey]

I asked for your source earlier traidboy. I found some stuff on Paul being a Gnostic, I certainly hope you are not using theosophy to make your claims. You seem to misunderstand why I posted all that about Judaism not having a belief in spiritual resurrection. I also included a Greek word study which indicates why Pauls view of the resurrection body of Christ couldn't be anything but physical.

In light of Paul at least being a Jew ( and almost certainly a Pharisee) the burden of proof is clearly upon any person suggesting he held such a notion. It is no different then someone claiming a Muslim did not believe Mohammed was a Prophet from God, it so clearly goes against the grain of the established theological view that it should not be believed without extraordinary evidence.

You might want to be a bit more cautious with asserting the pastorals are forgeries. Church authorities all agreed Paul wrote them without contest. If there had been some doubt, it would have been a situation similiar to the authorship of John. The main reasons for alleging the pastorals are forgeries is that they use words known epistles of paul did not use. However, by the nature of them, they would have had to use new words, because they introduced new topics. Thus that argument is weak. The other argument, that their was no church during the lifetime of Paul is also questionable to say the least. Needless to say, not all scholars are convinced on the forgery charge. Nor am I.

Actually all you have is a copy of an alleged letter by Clement from the 18th century. Its use should be done with caution. As for the boy in Mark I will remind you that often times ancient as a signature in documents people introduced themself in some way. That boy in Mark is most likely mark signing it. I will also remind you that scholars who do believe secret mark existed suggest that Secret Mark believe it to be based upon the synoptics and John, not the other way around. Also it should be dated to the third century .So your ancient mark is worthless.

Campenhausen [Tradition and Life in the Church, 61, 71] supposes that Mark wished to show by the women's silence that the disciples themselves had nothing to do with the tomb being empty.

Vernon Robbins supposes that the ending is a form of missionary call: "Now it is up to you to spread the Good News of the Gospel

This is from Witherington-"Mark's Gospel as it stands end with an unusual word, a conjunction, that does not appear as the last word in any work, with the possible exception of a work of Plotinus. It would be a very unusual word to end a work on; it amounts to ending a work in "because" or "for." There are sentences and paragraphs that end with this word (inlcuding John 13:13) but to end an entire work thusly is otherwise unverified, except for Plotinus, and that may also have lost an ending!"

So in no way is the ending of Mark 16:8 a problem for Christianity

You might want to read my response on why Paul was teaching a Physical body and actually attempt to rebut it.

I am beginning to see what you are using for scholarship. Would you please confirm my suspiscion by tell me what book you have used.

[krkey]

Well folks I am going to have to call this a night, my campus's computer lab is closing in 15 minutes. When I get back, I want to see Triadboys evidence that Paul believed in a Spiritual resurrection.( the burden of proof is upon him on this one) He might wish to employ a word study similiar to the one I did with "soma". I am also interested in his scholarly sources, as I have asked him a few times for it and he has yet to reply. I also asked him for a current classical historian who defends the copy cat thesis. I will await these things till tomorrow

[triadboy]

I'm sorry to have to put such a large writing on this thread, but I wanted to get this point across. This is from the Dan Barker debate. This is Dan talking here. (the link is above). He captures some of the mistranslations that corrupt the bible. (Remember the OT 'young woman' becoming a NT "virgin")

************************************************** *
Here's Paul's recitation, all right? Now, remember that when Paul is writing this to the Corinthians, his agenda is for himself. He's trying to establish that he is one of the in-crowd too. Not just Peter, not just James, but "Me, too. I have apostolic authority." That's why he's giving it to these people in Corinth, this newly formed church. Here's the hymn :


"Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures,
and was buried.
"And he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures
and he appeared to Cephas," which is Peter,
"and then to the twelve."


(I thought there were only eleven there. But anyway.)

************************************
[i]editorial: What Dan means here is there were
only 11 after Judas bit the big one...but I guess
Paul didn't know that
*************************************

"Afterward, he appeared to more than 500 brethren, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
"Afterward he appeared to James,
and then to all the missionaries." (Or to all the apostles.)

"Last of all, as to one untimely born,
he appeared also to me."


Paul is saying, "Hey, you can trust me. Jesus has appeared to me, too, not just to the early ones."

Now, notice this. This is very simple. Very stark. We don't have any earthquakes, we don't have any eclipses or astronomical events, we don't have any angels, we don't have any women telling stories, we don't have any of these fantastic embellishments. We just have a simple recognition of what the early Christians believed. Paul is passing this on, from what other people believed.

There's three words I want you to look at in this hymn, in this legendary-style hymn that Paul is quoting.

The first word is the word "buried." The word there is "etaphe," which is from the Greek word for "taphos," which just means "burial." It does not mean "tomb," it does not mean "sepulchre." The word for tomb is "mnema," and sepulchre is "mnemeion," (if I pronounced it correctly). It's just a place of burial. And if Jesus was truly crucified by the Roman authorities, it was their practice in those days to throw the decayed corpses of the crucified people into a common grave.

Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply talking about a man who died. Just like when Moses died, in Deuteronomy, he was thrown in a grave -- nobody knows where the grave was, somewhere in Moab -- yet Moses was seen resurrected bodily from the dead. Did you know that? But nobody assumes that therefore there must have been an empty tomb of Moses. Remember in Matthew 17, when Peter goes up into the mountain with Jesus, James, and John, and Jesus is transfigured, and suddenly, who does he see? Moses and Elijah. There he is. Are we to assume that there is an empty tomb of Moses because Peter saw Moses up there? Of course we don't assume that.

Paul did not have a belief in an empty tomb, and he doesn't say that he did. Now, if you think he did, you're committing a historical no-no here. What you are doing is you're committing a kind of "Back To The Future" kind of historical analysis. You think you know what is in Paul's mind because you know what the later Gospel writers in the 80s and 90s, you think you know what they said about a bodily resurrection, so you are imposing that, back in time, on to Paul's mind because you think you know better. Paul was just kind of simple, but you know what he really meant. But the earliest Christians didn't mention any of these exaggerated bodily things.

The second word I want you to look at is the word "raised." He said "he was buried. And he was raised on the third day." That's not the word "resurrected." The word resurrected is "anastasis [noun]," or "anistimi [verb]." The word that Paul used here for "raised" is the word "egeiro" -- "egergetai." That is the word that is used throughout the New Testament for the word "to wake up," to "awaken." Remember when the disciples were on this boat and there was a storm and Jesus was asleep down below? They were scared, and they went down below and they woke him up? [Matthew 8:25] They used that word "egeiro": They "woke him up." "Jesus, help, help!" And all through the New Testament we find this word "egeiro" being used not for a bodily resurrection, but for a spiritual awakening, or for just waking up.

In Romans, Paul said, "Now it is high time to awaken out of sleep." [Romans 13:11] "Egeiro."

In Ephesians. We think Paul might have written Ephesians, we don't know for sure. This is really interesting. Paul is giving a whole bunch of advice to Christians, okay? Do this, do this, avoid this, don't do that, do this, here's how to live, and right in the middle of this advice, daily advice, he says, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." [Ephesians 5:14] What's the word that he uses? "Egeiro." Can you command a living, breathing person to rise from the dead? Of course Paul doesn't think that that word has anything to do with a bodily resurrection.

The third word I want you to see in this phrase is the word "appear" or "seen," depending on the translation. That word is "ophthe." Paul uses the word "ophthe" five different times -- or was it four, I forget exactly, but he uses that word, one, two, three -- four times, and he was the last one. This is from the Greek word "horao" which is used for both physical vision and of a vision, to "have a vision." In fact, Paul had a lot of visions in the bible, and he uses that same word. When the Macedonian guy came to him and said, "Please come preach to us," [Acts 16:9] it wasn't in a bodily form -- it was a "vision," the same word. When Ananias . . . when he had a vision of Ananias [Acts 9:12], the same word. He didn't see Ananias physically. He used that word, that he had had a "vision" of Ananias.

And in Matthew 17, when Peter went up the mountain and saw Moses, what's the word that was used? "Ophthe." Moses "appeared" to Peter. [Matthew 17:3] Now, do we think that Moses bodily appeared to Peter? Did Moses bodily resurrect from the dead before Jesus had died for our sins? You have to believe that if you use these words consistently. Of course, I don't think most Christians believe that Moses bodily resurrected from the dead before that time -- maybe you do. But in any event, we can see that they are talking about a visionary experience here. And in First Corinthians 15, Jesus "appeared" to Peter and to James using that same word: "ophthe."

Now, we know, Paul tacks himself at the end here, and he said Jesus "ophthe" to Peter, he "ophthe" to James, he "appeared" to these others, and he "appeared" to me. We all know that Jesus did not physically appear to Paul. Paul said he did. He was blinded. He was knocked off his horse. He was in the habit of hearing voices and seeing lights in the sky. The people that were with Paul didn't see anyone. The people that were with Paul didn't hear anyone. Well, it depends on which account you take. In one account the men did hear the voice [Acts 9:7], and in another account they didn't [Acts 22:9] -- there's a biblical contradiction. They didn't hear or see anyone. So, what kind of a "physical" appearance is this? In fact, this was after Jesus' ascension. What was Jesus doing? Did he ascend up above the clouds for a while, and his body hung around, and he came back down and said, "Hi, Paul. I want you to know I'm still hanging around." Do you really think there was a physical, spatially limited body of Jesus hanging up there, coming down to Paul? No, I don't think most Christians today believe that.

The fact that Paul says that Jesus "ophthe" to him, and it was not a physical appearance, gives us a clue that he does not intend us to believe that the other appearances to these others were also physical. They were "spiritual" experiences, what they believed to be spiritual experiences.

And, to nail this thing shut, just a few verses later, Paul is talking about the Resurrection, right? He's explaining what the Resurrection means, and he says, in I Corinthians 15:50, "Now, I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." So, how could he be talking about a physical resurrection and turn right around and say "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He obviously intends this to mean that Jesus resurrected, but in a spiritual way, not physically, not bodily.

So, the first Resurrection account that we have has no empty tomb, no physical appearances. That's as close as we can get to the views of the early church. We see later, though, an evolution of Christian thought.

Now, I don't know how much weight historians should give to an argument from silence. There's a big debate about that. Just because somebody doesn't say something doesn't mean it didn't happen, right? But I do know that Mike really likes the argument from silence. He used it three times tonight. He used it to try to date the Gospels earlier by mentioning the things that were not said in the Gospels. He used it to try to criticize what criticisms might have been said and weren't said. So, Mike does like the argument from silence, and he uses it a lot. So, if he's going to use it, I'm going to use it as well. The absence of competing stories, for example, is another one of your arguments from silence.

Paul, we know, never claimed to have met Jesus, not before he died. He didn't meet the physical Jesus after the Resurrection. In fact, one of the ways we know this for sure is that if Paul had met Jesus and known him, he would have said something about him. Yet never does Paul quote a single Gospel saying of Jesus, anywhere in all of his writings -- and his writings were first. Never does Paul make reference to any of the miracles of Jesus that appeared in the Gospels. And Paul supposedly hung around with these people, and talked to them. And Paul talked about a lot of the same issues and would have benefited from quoting Jesus, for example, on divorce -- Paul talked about divorce a lot, and Paul said there should be no divorce. He forgot to take into account the fact that Jesus did allow for some divorce, in some case. He contradicted Jesus.

So, Paul seemed to be pretty ignorant. I know this is an argument from silence, but wouldn't it have been good evidence if Paul had said something? Mike is telling us that we have good evidence. It would have been good evidence if Paul had told us a few things about this man that he supposedly had met physically.
*************************************************

[Keneke]

For someone who said he would only do a one-on-one debate, krkey's really responding to a lot of people.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by krkey
I have to wonder about the competance of any man who compares NDE's which have been the subject of several scientific studies, which have all stated that it is medical unexplainable to "elvis sightings"

Nice. We're off to a good start. The debate hasn't even started yet, and you've already dismissed my arguments with an ad hominen. Or perhaps it's only "poisoning the well."

Well Yahzi You know my position on the best explanation for Christianity, what is yours ( I do insist you defend an alternative position, fair is fair). I suggest we kick this off on monday or tuesday
Your defense of Christianity rests on NDEs? Are you serious?

I think you should make the opening post. When dealing with Christians, it is never save to assume anything about their beliefs. If what you want to argue is that NDEs prove Christianity, then feel free. It will be a pretty short argument, though.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by krkey
Lastly, might I recommend that you take your books, which you obviously stole from Rhett Butler's library ( or was it Jefferson's, perhaps Paine) and as soon as possible put them on ebay. Take the money from that and as soon as possible buy something from the twentieth century and if it is so possible perhaps the later part. Might want to start here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310254515/qid=1066957496/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&n=507846)

Uhhh... There goes anything in the ( your ) Bible as a point of referrence...:rolleyes:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by krkey
Would you please confirm my suspiscion by tell me what book you have used.

I read The Jesus Mysteries, which confirmed (to me) what I suspected all along. The traditional claptrap coming from the church fathers was Christianity was a shining idea that began with Jesus - passed to Paul (through his epiphany) - and again passed to the apostles, who wrote the Gospels - and that Gnosticism was an evil idea that sprang from traditional christianity. (This ALWAYS seemed strange to me).

Jesus left nothing in writing and there is little to prove he actually existed - except the Gospels.

The Gospels, (conservatively dated from 70-100) are too late for an apostle to write (thus the frantic attempt to date them as early as possible) and besides it's 2nd century tradition that assigns an author to them.

Paul never speaks of the physical Jesus. Paul was Gnostic.

It was Christianity that sprang from Gnosticism. The myth was there - and then a faction began to believe it as history - due to Mark placing it in a specific location and time.

[Gregor]

Ladies and gentlemen

If you didn't know already that KrKey is not limited by the truth in his posts herein, let me clue you in. Here is one of his quotes:


"Ludemann and Crossan, both atheist . . . "

Crossan was a Catholic monk (for 20 years I think), and is still a self-professed, strong Christian.

KrKey, who is less than 1/2 cocked in his evidence, posts many things that are not accurate. So, take his postings with a large chunck of salt.

[triadboy]

What krkey might not realize is - many of the people in this forum have been where he is now in his thinking. He is 25 years old....I have underwear 25 years old.

Krkey seems to be struggling with his beliefs - because, as many of us know, it's hard to believe and defend fairy tales.

I hope eventually he hits on that one thing that sets off the alarms in his head. It happened to many of us.

[Skeptical Greg]

Boy are we different!

I never keep underwear longer than 20 years...

What I find funny in retrospect, is that I still believed in God but decided that God didn't believe in me, and wasn't sure what I could do about it...

I was still attending church out of habit, and one Sunday during the Holiday Season, the pastor was talking about giving and sharing with those less fortunate ( prior to passing around the plate ), when my irony meter exploded; because there must have been about $10,000 dollars worth of Poinsettas stacked all over the choir loft in the shape of a 50 ft. tall Christmas tree... ( I guess they were going to be distributed as salad after the new year...:rolleyes: ...)

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Diogenes
( I guess they were going to be distributed as salad after the new year...:rolleyes: ...) According to various sources, poinsettia is not poisonous, if that's what you're getting at.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Diogenes

What I find funny in retrospect, is that I still believed in God but decided that God didn't believe in me, and wasn't sure what I could do about it...




This is exactly how my struggles started. It seemed sort of self-centred but I didn't understand why God was so good to some people and not to me. I felt like my prayers were often answered with the exact opposite of what I had asked for as if God were mocking me. Fairly soon, I had these notions that there were people God liked and people he didn't like. My fellow Christians said that while he loved us all, some of us were paying for the sins of our ancestors, others had demons, others were being used as examples or as prods for charity from others....It didn't take long to let it all go after that.

Oh, and, Diogenes and Triadboy, please get some new underwear. YUCK

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Kullervo
According to various sources, poinsettia is not poisonous, if that's what you're getting at.


Actually, my point was that perhaps there was some plan to put all that wasted money to some use later on.. Of course there was no such plan, thus the sarcasm...


It is also my understanding that poinsettias are not poisonous...

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Gregor
So, take his postings with a large chunck of salt.

Or is an excellent troll. If he turns out to be a troll, I will be in amazement at his skill and will buy him a beer.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Keneke


Or is an excellent troll. If he turns out to be a troll, I will be in amazement at his skill and will buy him a beer.


We need a poll... Even as a troll, I think he stinks..

[krkey]

Gregor, do you actually read anything? I have to wonder... Now have you got any real evidence for a Josephan connection with Acts, my response in the other thread is awaiting you.

In the debate between Crossan and Craig, Craig got Crossan to admit that he was an atheist. So yes Crossan is an atheist.

Geez

I will be back later to deal with Barker's barking.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by krkey
Gregor, do you actually read anything? I have to wonder... Now have you got any real evidence for a Josephan connection with Acts, my response in the other thread is awaiting you.
Well, that sounds a bit like an Arguement from Ignorance, those get you nowhere... unless you actually have proof that I am not the Biblical Yahweh...

In the debate between Crossan and Craig, Craig got Crossan to admit that he was an atheist. So yes Crossan is an atheist.
Dont be so sure Crossan's atheism was the absolute truth...

Just an article of "debate" gone wrong... Wrongful Imprisonment (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Newsome.htm)... (of course, one might say he had a wrongful release... welcome to the wonderful world of debate and quibbling).

[Gregor]

If the W. Lane Craig question was "unless you believe like me, then you're an aetheist" and Crossan said "Then, I guess I'm an aetheist" - I might believe it.

But if you read any of Crossan's books, you would certainly disagree.

And big deal if he had said - "I spent 25 years researching this stuff and came out an aetheist in the past 3 years." Gee, that's a telling conclusion, don't ya think, troll.

* * * * *

And, folks, since we're speculating on his origins, it seems we have a William Craig wannabe, here.

Craig spends alot of his time debating publicly as a strict, conservative apologist. He spends alot of his time honing rhetorical arguments, and is reputed to be a very strong debater. But like many, he is reputed to make a number of knowingly fallacious argument to distract the public - items to get applause but that really ignore the issues.

Krkey probably saw Wild Willy and pictures himself a master-debater in the making. [careful there, son you'll go blind].

Take a look at this analysis of a debate, one of several Craig does periodically.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=147

[Gregor]

And I posted plenty of argument on L/A - Josephus connection, only to be responded by "not good enough for me."

[krkey]

I suspect we have a few Price wanta be's in here.

[B]First to Gregor-why dont you quit whining and offer me a rock solid piece of evidence for a Josephan-Acts connection. Something as rock solid as the Mark-Lukan connection I posted . You seem to complaining just as much as does Price. To qoute Crossan-"God did not exist during the Jurassic Age."Very odd Christian view if you ask me. In response to what Dan Barker Wrote.

Before I can respond to what Barker wrote I need to go first into the Jewish WorldView to see how Jews viewed the resurrection. Some quotes, from both canonical and noncanonical resources should help with this quest.

1.) Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
2.) Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about : and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
3.) Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
These following verses all come from the time of Jesus
4.) 4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.
5.) 1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.
6.) Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.
7.) 2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.
8.) Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.

These verses show the Jewish view of the afterlife always involved an eventually belief in a bodily resurrection. Jews simply had no other belief. Below I will go into Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and use the Greek to properly understand what he was saying. Paul uses the word “soma” frequently throughout his letters.
The definition of soma- the mass of anything, usually a corporeal tissue, human animal or plant, though it can also refer to a heavenly body; the church is said to be like a (human) body.

Soma always refers to a physical entity and I will show how Paul’s use of this in Corinthians confirms this pattern. Everytime the word “body” appears the word soma is used
6:13 -"Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food," and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
6:16-Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The two shall be one flesh."
6:18-20 Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19Or do you not know that your body is a templef of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.
7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
7:34-and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband.
9:27-but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.
10:16-17 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread
11:24- and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is forg you. Do this in remembrance of me."
11:27- Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord
11:29- For all who eat and drinkh without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves
12:12-20 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot would say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear would say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many members, yet one body
12:22-On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable
12:24-25 whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, 25that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another.
12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it
13:3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,a but do not have love, I gain nothing

As can be seen by the verses above it is clear that Paul uses the word soma to refer to always refer to something physical. This is important to understand because it is from the fifteen chapter that it is claimed that he taught a spiritual resurrection. The first important verse in this shall be evaluated below
15:12- Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead . This verse lets us know immediately that Paul is teaching a physical resurrection, had he been teaching a spiritual resurrection the objection of no resurrection would never have had occurred. Pagans already had a belief in a spiritual resurrection.
15:20- But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. Paul here is clearly refering to the Jewish concept of the end of days resurrection of all people.( see John 11 and what Martha says)
15:21-22- For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. The reference to Adam clearly refers to a physical being
15:35-38 - But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. Again the word for body in this passage is “soma”. As can be seen from above it always refers to something physical. Paul goes own to answer the question he asked above in 15:42-44 - So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Verse 44 uses the word soma and now that it has been seen that the word has no other meaning then something physical its meaning should be apparent. A human starts of with a purely physical body which has normal human problems, old age, disease etc. At the resurrection, the new body will be physical but with spiritual attributes, it will not age, get diseased etc. It will be a perfect, physical, imperishable body.

As can be seen by this:
a.) There is no Jewish belief period for a spiritual resurrection for either the apostles or Paul to come to believe.
b.) Paul from the use of the word soma clearly believed that the resurrected body will be Physical. Thus he believed in the physical resurrection of Christ
c.) Barker is simply wrong in his claim that the original Christian belief was that of a
Spiritual resurrection, he is wrong historically and linguistically

Now for the rest of Barker’s and Triadboy’s nonsense.
a.) This is Dan talking here. (the link is above). He captures some of the mistranslations that corrupt the bible. (Remember the OT 'young woman' becoming a NT "virgin,) I will inform linguists that Triadboy has corrected them on the use of the Hebrew word “almah”. I have just been informed and the answer was a complete shock. Among ancient Jewish a young women who was not married was automatically considered a virgin. So while the word “almah” simply means young women any Jew would have read it as a women who was a virgin. They also informed me that the Greek translator of the Septuagint, who realized Greeks did not automatically assume a young women was a virgin and choose to use the word “parthenos “ , which in Greek always means virginity. So that Greek readers might correctly understand what is going on.

b.) What Dan means here is there were only 11 after Judas bit the big one...but I guess
Paul didn't know that. If triadboy or Barker knew half about the bible that they pretended to know they would have realized that 1st Corinthians was written in early AD 50. Then they would have flipped back to the first chapter of Acts and found out that Matthias was choosen to replace Judas soon after his death. So by the time 1st Corinthians was written, Mattias was a long established 12th apostle.
b.) Paul is saying, "Hey, you can trust me. Jesus has appeared to me, too, not just to the early ones."

Now, notice this. This is very simple. Very stark. We don't have any earthquakes, we don't have any eclipses or astronomical events, we don't have any angels, we don't have any women telling stories, we don't have any of these fantastic embellishments. We just have a simple recognition of what the early Christians believed. Paul is passing this on, from what other people believed. There was no need for him to make any other point. He simply needs to assert that Jesus appeared to him. How would mentioning any of the rest of the story help his case? It wouldn’t because it was irrelevant and a waste or precious and valuable paper. I will simply take this as a typical Barker bait and switch tactics.
c.) The first word is the word "buried." The word there is "etaphe," which is from the Greek word for "taphos," which just means "burial." It does not mean "tomb," it does not mean "sepulchre." The word for tomb is "mnema," and sepulchre is "mnemeion," (if I pronounced it correctly). It's just a place of burial. And if Jesus was truly crucified by the Roman authorities, it was their practice in those days to throw the decayed corpses of the crucified people into a common grave. Perhaps it should be pointed out to dear old Dan that etaphe is a verb. Mnema is a noun. What Dan is trying to say is that Paul should have wrote essentially the Greek equivalent of “Jesus was tomb” which is simply bad Greek or English for that matter. Apparently someone forgot to inform Dan that letters are high context documents and that any Corinthians who had read “he was buried” would have understood it to refer to the empty tomb. It also needs to be asked, if it does refer to a disgraceful burial, why even mention it?
d.)
Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply talking about a man who died. Just like when Moses died, in Deuteronomy, he was thrown in a grave -- nobody knows where the grave was, somewhere in Moab -- yet Moses was seen resurrected bodily from the dead. Did you know that? But nobody assumes that therefore there must have been an empty tomb of Moses. Remember in Matthew 17, when Peter goes up into the mountain with Jesus, James, and John, and Jesus is transfigured, and suddenly, who does he see? Moses and Elijah. There he is. Are we to assume that there is an empty tomb of Moses because Peter saw Moses up there? Of course we don't assume that. Is Dan really this dense on ancient history? When Moses died, because he was a great leader he would have at the very least have been given a splendid funeral and probably a tomb. That’s how ancient cultures honored it’s dead. I also challenge Dan to find on time in the OT, noncanonicals, or the NT that says Moses and Elijah are resurrected( ie exist in a glorious, perfect physical body)

Paul did not have a belief in an empty tomb, and he doesn't say that he did. Now, if you think he did, you're committing a historical no-no here. What you are doing is you're committing a kind of "Back To The Future" kind of historical analysis. You think you know what is in Paul's mind because you know what the later Gospel writers in the 80s and 90s, you think you know what they said about a bodily resurrection, so you are imposing that, back in time, on to Paul's mind because you think you know better. Paul was just kind of simple, but you know what he really meant. But the earliest Christians didn't mention any of these exaggerated bodily things To answer this twaddle from Dan I will simply paste my argument on why Luke should be dated no later then 62AD. Acts does not contain any of the following information.
a.) Fire of Rome
b.) Death of Paul
c.) Death of Peter
d.) Death of Judas
e.) First Persecutions of Nero
f.) Fall of Jerusalem
g.) it shows no knowledge of Paul's writings. This is best explained by the fact they were not yet in circulation, thus requiring an earlier date for luke. Paul's writings were used in the Didache, dated to 100Ad. If Luke is some a similiar time period, why no use of these writings?

yet another argument for an older date. The main issue of acts is the relationship between Jews, Jewish Persecutuions and Early Christians. It had a neutral approach to the Romans. This all applies to a pre Judean Revolt scenario( yet another thing not recorded in acts, I wonder why?) had it been written after the fall of Jerusalem, the Christian-Jew controversy would have been none existant and the focus would have been on the now Roman persections. To answer his next “bark” I will simply mention again why Bible scholars, regardless of religious views accept the existance of the empty tomb .
a.) the use of women witnesses in a first century Judean setting. This is the equivalent of using blacks as witnesses in the 1930 southern USA
b.) The use of Joseph of Arimethea, a member of the Sanhedrin that had executed Jesus is almost certainly true. There is no apologetic need to make this man up and the town of Arimethea has no prophetic value( ie if they were making it up they would certainly used a different town)
c.) Pauls testimony implies an empty tomb. Compare the Christian saying in 1st Co 15:3-5 with Acts 13:28-31 and Mark 15:36-16:7
d.) Tombs of these nature have been discovered in Israel before
e.) The earliest account in Mark is not colored by legend. As further evidence of the antiquity of this account it does not mention the name of Caiphas, it simply says the High Priest( think what you would think if I said the president)
f.) the polemic of Matthew 28:11-15 implies the tomb and also implies it was empty
g.) There is no known counter tradition

To qoute secular historian Michael Grant- whatever the differences in the text, it is certain that the tomb was empty. These are the reasons, NT scholars, regardless of theological views accept the tomb was empty( and by default existed)

The second word I want you to look at is the word "raised." He said "he was buried. And he was raised on the third day." That's not the word "resurrected." The word resurrected is "anastasis [noun]," or "anistimi [verb]." The word that Paul used here for "raised" is the word "egeiro" -- "egergetai." That is the word that is used throughout the New Testament for the word "to wake up," to "awaken." Remember when the disciples were on this boat and there was a storm and Jesus was asleep down below? They were scared, and they went down below and they woke him up? [Matthew 8:25] They used that word "egeiro": They "woke him up." "Jesus, help, help!" And all through the New Testament we find this word "egeiro" being used not for a bodily resurrection, but for a spiritual awakening, or for just waking up. I will simply have to dismiss this as more Barker dishonesty, this time he is trying to play on the ignorance of his audience. Also, perhaps Danny forgot to mention the fact Paul uses the word anastasis here ( Rom 1:4, 6:5 and Phil 3:10)
e.) The word aninstimi also means to rise up or awaken. When using these words context determines meaning and they are The interchangeable The author of 1st Peter does this exact same thing .
1st Peter- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. For the resurrection here Peter uses anastasis. 1st Peter- 3:21- And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you--not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here he used the word egeiro.
f.) And in Matthew 17, when Peter went up the mountain and saw Moses, what's the word that was used? "Ophthe." Moses "appeared" to Peter. [Matthew 17:3] Now, do we think that Moses bodily appeared to Peter? Did Moses bodily resurrect from the dead before Jesus had died for our sins? You have to believe that if you use these words consistently. Of course, I don't think most Christians believe that Moses bodily resurrected from the dead before that time -- maybe you do. But in any event, we can see that they are talking about a visionary experience here. And in First Corinthians 15, Jesus "appeared" to Peter and to James using that same word: "ophthe.". The word opthe is a verb, it means to see or have a vision or see something thus you most determine it overall meaning from the context around it. So it could be used with something physical or none. So from reading the rest of the NT, and from the fact I have already shown Paul did not teach a spiritual resurrection it should now be properly understood. In the case with Peter and James it refers to a physical appearance. In the case with Paul it refers to the road of Damacus.
g.) The fact that Paul says that Jesus "ophthe" to him, and it was not a physical appearance, gives us a clue that he does not intend us to believe that the other appearances to these others were also physical. They were "spiritual" experiences, what they believed to be spiritual experiences. The fact that Paul used a verb is rather irrelevant. I guess Barker forgot to analyze the rest of the passage and the use of the word soma in it.
h.) And, to nail this thing shut, just a few verses later, Paul is talking about the Resurrection, right? He's explaining what the Resurrection means, and he says, in I Corinthians 15:50, "Now, I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." So, how could he be talking about a physical resurrection and turn right around and say "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He obviously intends this to mean that Jesus resurrected, but in a spiritual way, not physically, not bodily. And to prove the last bit of Barkers incompetence perhaps someone should have informed that “flesh and blood” is a Aramaic idiom referring to weakness, not to flesh. Had he wished to indicate flesh he would have done it the same way the author of Luke did- 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have
I.) Paul talked about a lot of the same issues and would have benefited from quoting Jesus, for example, on divorce -- Paul talked about divorce a lot, and Paul said there should be no divorce. He forgot to take into account the fact that Jesus did allow for some divorce, in some case. He contradicted Jesus. Perhaps someone should have told Barker this little social factor. The adultery clause was an understood exception already, no need to spell it out Instone-Brewer -Ancient Near Eastern marriage covenants were usually oral, but some were written, and only under certain circumstances (a large dowry, unusual stipulations). Otherwise there were certain stipulations that were obvious and were seldom written out. Sexual faithfulness is one example of an unwritten stipulation that seldom appears in written marriage covenants; yet since all ANE law codes prescribed the death penalty for adultery, it was obviously something that was highly valued.
J.) So, Paul seemed to be pretty ignorant. I know this is an argument from silence, but wouldn't it have been good evidence if Paul had said something? Mike is telling us that we have good evidence. It would have been good evidence if Paul had told us a few things about this man that he supposedly had met physically. Proof perfect right her on why Barker sells nothing but skeptical snake oil
a.) first he does now events from the life of Jesus. He knows his brother James (Galations 1:19, John 7, Mark 6.3) He knows about the last supper ( 1st Co 10:14-22 and 11:27-30) and the apostles, the empty tomb and the resurrection ( 1st Co 15). See also Romans 6:23 , 10:9-10 versus John 3:16.
b.) The next question is why should Paul have had to mention it in the first places in his epistles. He already told the story once. The only reasons he should have to repeat himself are:
1.) A point was forgotten ( unlike in a oral based society)
2.) A argument over a point occurred
3.) He needed to repeat himself
Final death nail in this argument is from the type of writing Paul was employing, which is that of an epistle. It assumes a high background knowledge among it readers, unlike the synoptics, John and Acts which are middle context documents.
An example of a high context statement
a.) The Challenger exploded. The person hearing this statement is assumed to know that this event happened in 1986, in Florida, to a space shuttle, during the launch because of ice on the o-rings
An example of middle context statement
a.) The Challenger exploded in 1986 during launch- This statement offers more information, but still the reader needs to fill in the relevant facts of the cause of the explosion.
An example of low context statement
The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on January 28th, 1986, during the Reagan administration, while in take off. It killed all the astronauts and was caused by ice on the o-rings. This statement has little need for background knowledge within the reader.
Well folks that the end of that. Again you might prefer to use bible scholarship then the ranting of the village idiot.

[krkey]

Folks I was going to stick around and try to do something productive in here. But I can see that this is simply a waste of time as the infidels in here are at best a little better then Young Earth Creationist, they denigrate and refuse to use scholarship that doesnt support their pet historical views.( Before anyone says anything about me I have said again and again I have no problem with Atheist bible scholars) And just as YECs have their favorite nonscientist I can see the infidels have their favorite nonhistorians, who for whatever reason they believe are more qualified then real historians or bible scholars. All in all I refuse to muck in the mud of this intellectual nonsense anymore.

[triadboy]

krkey please learn to separate your responses from what you are responding to.

Originally posted by krkey
Before I can respond to what Barker wrote I need to go first into the Jewish WorldView to see how Jews viewed the resurrection.

It doesn't matter what they thought. What matters is what Paul thought.

****************
.
.
.
deletion of HUGE section of crap
.
.
.
No wonder you gave up pre-marital sex! You must have
been great at foreplay though, cause that's all you're
giving us.
****************

This verse lets us know immediately that Paul is teaching a physical resurrection,

As Barker points out, the word resurrection means 'awakening'

I will inform linguists that Triadboy has corrected them on the use of the Hebrew word “almah”. I have just been informed and the answer was a complete shock. Among ancient Jewish a young women who was not married was automatically considered a virgin.

And of course, you will inform them wrong. Who was the prophet speaking of when he referred to a 'young woman'? The Kings wife! I understand you feel funny about sex, but I think the King's wife was no virgin. Remember - "It's good to be King" (Mel Brooks)


If triadboy or Barker knew half about the bible that they pretended to know they would have realized that 1st Corinthians was written in early AD 50. Then they would have flipped back to the first chapter of Acts and found out that Matthias was choosen to replace Judas soon after his death.

If you used such venomous language and knew what you were talking about, I would think you were well-versed, but arrogant. But as it is now, you just appear to be an arrogant idiot.

Matthias was elected AFTER the resurrection. (I hope you are going to Bible school after college)

But wait!

Mt.28:16
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him."

Mk.16:14
"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."

Lk.24:33, 36
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together.... And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

So is Paul correct now? Were there twelve? That means Mark, Mathew and Luke are wrong. Nevermind the Gospels can't seem to agree WHO the twelve were. The point is - Paul is using the number 12 - (for all you coders) as a magic number.

Matthias was elected right before they began talking in tongues....which I'll bet you've done.

Pauls testimony implies an empty tomb.

Yes because in gnostic imagery. Jesus was born in the Cave of the Cosmos. He died in a cave and was cosmically released - spiritually - AWAKENED! It's called mythology.


To qoute secular historian Michael Grant- whatever the differences in the text, it is certain that the tomb was empty.

You're goofier than a bag of hair! I'm saying there was no tomb. I don't care if you quote Josh McDowell and the Pope. The story is Christian mythology!


He knows about the last supper

What is described is not a last supper, but a classic mystery religion celebration - hundreds of years old. If it was the last supper, there would be the specter of death in the air - but no! Paul goes on to talk about how women should not be in church 'uncovered' and men should not have long hair.

I still would love to hear your thoughts on the OT stories I've asked about. And try not to be so mean.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey
Folks I was going to stick around and try to do something productive in here. But I can see that this is simply a waste of time as the infidels in here are at best a little better then Young Earth Creationist, they denigrate and refuse to use scholarship that doesnt support their pet historical views.( Before anyone says anything about me I have said again and again I have no problem with Atheist bible scholars) And just as YECs have their favorite nonscientist I can see the infidels have their favorite nonhistorians, who for whatever reason they believe are more qualified then real historians or bible scholars. All in all I refuse to muck in the mud of this intellectual nonsense anymore. :id:
Don't let the screen door bump you on the backside, and good luck escaping the muck, since you seem to be dragging it about with you.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by krkey
All in all I refuse to muck in the mud of this intellectual nonsense anymore.
Feel free to muck around the cesspool of ignorance if all this intellectual nonsense is a bit much.

[Yahweh]

Triadboy, I am impressed with how much you know about the bible :clap:.

Ever consider writing called "Handling Apoligists"?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
:id:
Don't let the screen door bump you on the backside, and good luck escaping the muck, since you seem to be dragging it about with you.

Krkey has retreated to the intellectual bastion of the Reader's Digest Forums, and warned them to stay away from here..:D

I would normally hate to do this .....(says Krkey ) (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?14@113.FywnaDb2tPv.0@.efe9a79/4380)

I would normally hate to do this but I need to post a warning to all Christian in here. Do not go to the Randi forum. It is an absolute waste of time. The atheist in their have absolutely no use for any sort of scholarship, they degrade biblical and Classical scholars and they demand that you accept their nonscholars as relevant( Maccoby, Wells, Doherty, Barker to name a few as scholars) . They want you to accept some theories on the New Testament that have been dead for over 2 centuries. Lastly they are rude and at the best you are out numbered 20 to one. It is simply pointless

Two or three Athiests who actually know something about the Bible seem like 20.. I know the feeling...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Triadboy, I am impressed with how much you know about the bible :clap:.

Thanks Yahweh, I just wished I would have started at your age. I ignored religion till I was about 17 and then (early 70s) a bunch of xians tried to 'save' me - but it didn't take. So I ignored religion again until I was 35 and needed a Masters in the Air Force to further my career. I chose Humanities because that's always been extremely easy for me. (Music, Art, Literature, Philosophy) I decided to immerse myself into the religion courses to see what I could find. I went from ignoring religion to atheism. The epiphany was load-lifting! To realize there is no Satan, no hell, no god, no heaven - was mind boggling! I wrote my thesis on Christianity - which now seems tame, but at the time, I had several xians tell me I would get cancer because of it!


Ever consider writing called "Handling Apoligists"?

To handle apologists, you need to know the material better than they do. The only thing they have is the Bible - so they quote crap to you from it - as if that means anything. If you can resist thumping them in the head - you quote crap right back to them. Try to use their weapon back on themselves.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Krkey has retreated to the intellectual bastion of the Reader's Digest Forums, and warned them to stay away from here..:D


Did I miss something? I thought krkey was terribly rude the minute he showed up! His initial statement "OK I'm here to do battle - here are the groundrules." is just plain weird. Where's the "Hi everyone"? I just didn't feel warm and fuzzy with him.

[TruthSeeker]

And a response krkey received on the RD forum:

krkey, why do people demand proof of God instead of proving themselves worthy of God? of course, the only way to be worthy of God is accepting Christ as one's Savior. God bless.

Thanks to all who participated in the krkey-related threads. I learned a great deal!

[Yahweh]

I'm sorry if Mr. Krkey felt overwhelmed by the 2 or 3 bible-reading Atheists here, I'm sorry we're not all Biblical scholars...

Oh well, perhaps if he sticked around for a little while longer, we could plant the seeds of doubt in his head, make him start thinking rationally... then we atheists could eat another ex-Christian soul bwahahahaha!!! VENDYOKUS ENDALA, WEH AH DEN SOL!

[TruthSeeker]

This is a fascinating discussion of Mr. Krkey's adventures with us. I don't think he likes the Randi posters very much.

http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@126.myChaDAgt6M.2@.efe9a79/4385

Yahweh is that you over there?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Yahweh is that you over there?

:D

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I'm sorry if Mr. Krkey felt overwhelmed by the 2 or 3 bible-reading Atheists here, I'm sorry we're not all Biblical scholars...

Oh well, perhaps if he sticked around for a little while longer, we could plant the seeds of doubt in his head, make him start thinking rationally... then we atheists could eat another ex-Christian soul bwahahahaha!!! VENDYOKUS ENDALA, WEH AH DEN SOL!

Notice he ignored my requests for him to reveal his beliefs on the OT stories. In essense, the NT is only as good as its foundation - the OT. The OT is an albatross of blatent myths and incorrect bias pseudo-history. Once you get a Christian to admit he believes in talking snakes - which the entire bible is base on - then it's easy to see how they can believe:

God impregnated a virgin. Then sent himself down to earth to be born of that virgin. He did this so he could sacrifice Himself for all mankind - to atone for the sin Adam and Eve initiated by eating forbidden fruit, which God set up and knew would happen, but LET happen anyway.

So by letting Himself be crucified - and then 'bodily' resurrected back up into Himself - mankind has a bridge to God - Jesus. And we know all this is true because the 'tomb was empty' (At least in these four Gospels).

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by triadboy


Notice he ignored my requests for him to reveal his beliefs on the OT stories. In essense, the NT is only as good as its foundation - the OT. The OT is an albatross of blatent myths and incorrect bias pseudo-history. Once you get a Christian to admit he believes in talking snakes - which the entire bible is base on - then it's easy to see how they can believe:

God impregnated a virgin. Then sent himself down to earth to be born of that virgin. He did this so he could sacrifice Himself for all mankind - to atone for the sin Adam and Eve initiated by eating forbidden fruit, which God set up and knew would happen, but LET happen anyway.

So by letting Himself be crucified - and then 'bodily' resurrected back up into Himself - mankind has a bridge to God - Jesus. And we know all this is true because the 'tomb was empty' (At least in these four Gospels).

You are making my head hurt trying to follow this twisted logic. This so clearly demonstrates the bizarre belief system. You should post it over at RD.

[Yahweh]

I forgot to congratulate you on your 666th post, triadboy...

HAPPY 666^th POST, TRIADBOY!

:j2: :bcake: :j2:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I forgot to congratulate you on your 666th post, triadboy...


I was The Antichrist for a post and you didn't tell me?! :roll:

Thanks Yahweh!

[TruthSeeker]

oh no!

Our dear Yahweh is going to HELL!

so says bornagain over at RD:


bornagain2 Sat 10/25/03, 8:43:53

yahweh, u r willing to risk eternity for a false science that does not know how life started? it makes sense to you to have infinite matter and energy vs an infinite God? God by definition and logic is infinite. matter and energy without a creator defies definition and logic just like big bang without God and evilution.

[LawnOven]

Haha. oh my dog, he used "evilution", how cute. :D

[TruthSeeker]

Just in case my previous quote leads anyone to doubt bornagain2's reasoning or intelligence, I post this other gem:

bornagain2 Sat 10/25/03, 8:47:14


yahweh, no legal or medical scholar has proven the resurrection false. if false, how and why did the bible get written, a best seller and has the most believers.



How can our Yahweh ever recover from such an intellectual argument?

[arcticpenguin]

if false, how and why did the bible get written, a best seller and has the most believers
I'm personally leaning towards the 'million monkeys' hypothesis.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I'm personally leaning towards the 'million monkeys' hypothesis.

I could be wrong, but I don't think they had typewriters back then. I guess god inspired the monkeys to write it by hand. Wow...further proof of the amazing powers of God. ;)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker


I could be wrong, but I don't think they had typewriters back then. I guess god inspired the monkeys to write it by hand. Wow...further proof of the amazing powers of God. ;)
I guess it depends on whether you think I was addressing the "how and why the Bible got written" part or the "most believers" bit.

[triadboy]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bornagain2 Sat 10/25/03, 8:47:14

yahweh, no legal or medical scholar has proven the resurrection false. if false, how and why did the bible get written, a best seller and has the most believers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This person needs an adjustment:

If Islam is false how did the Koran get written? And it's the fastest growing religion.

If Mormanism is false how did The Book of Mormon get written? Within the last couple of centuries! With REAL eyewitnesses, who actually signed the book!

If Hinduism is false, how did the Vedas get written. It's one of the oldest religions. It was going strong when Abraham was just a tent stain.

Why would a legal or medical scholar care about a resurrection? The only people who care are the people frightened enough to believe it.

[TruthSeeker]

Triadboy...I implore you to post to her. (I have made her a female for some reason.)...This is her latest. It almost gave me a stroke.

diogenes and yahweh, do u have any explanations why so many miracles are recorded in the bible and how did Moses come up with 1. man made in Our Image 2. a talking serpent. 3. what caused the world wide flood, 316

[triadboy]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Triadboy...I implore you to post to her. (I have made her a female for some reason.)...This is her latest. It almost gave me a stroke.


Impore, huh?

[TruthSeeker]

well....I need to make my supplications to someone, now that God is out of the picture.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by triadboy
This person needs an adjustment:

If Islam is false how did the Koran get written? And it's the fastest growing religion.

If Mormanism is false how did The Book of Mormon get written? Within the last couple of centuries! With REAL eyewitnesses, who actually signed the book!

If Hinduism is false, how did the Vedas get written. It's one of the oldest religions. It was going strong when Abraham was just a tent stain.

Why would a legal or medical scholar care about a resurrection? The only people who care are the people frightened enough to believe it.

Dont worry, I copied and pasted it there, maybe they'll have an adjustment.

Yeah, I'm busying myself by being a naughty Yahweh and causing a ruckus on the RD boards. I can take care of the fundies on my own, and I think I'm doing a good job, but I'm lonely over there :(...

That BornAgain guy really isnt putting up much of a challenge, he's no fun. I hope his soul tastes good when skeptics eat it, otherwise its hardly worth it...

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Dont worry, I copied and pasted it there, maybe they'll have an adjustment.

Yeah, I'm busying myself by being a naughty Yahweh and causing a ruckus on the RD boards. I can take care of the fundies on my own, and I think I'm doing a good job, but I'm lonely over there :(...

That BornAgain guy really isnt putting up much of a challenge, he's no fun. I hope his soul tastes good when skeptics eat it, otherwise its hardly worth it...


I saw the cut and paste. I hope it's ok with Triadboy. I think you are doing a great job. Don't be lonely. I bet I'm not the only one cheering you on.

Bornagain is not a worthy opponent. However, he/she may be a fairly typical one. BornAgain will not be swayed by anything you say but somebody with a more open mind might be and that is the whole point.

I wish I knew more about Christianity so that I could join you but I'm afraid I'd just make it worse for you. Keep going Yahweh. I wish I had a cheerleader smilie

[Yahweh]

I have to say this publically...

Thank you for the kind thoughts, TruthSeeker, you are really super nice :)!

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I have to say this publically...

Thank you for the kind thoughts, TruthSeeker, you are really super nice :)!


Thanks!

You gave me three gifts today: 1) a very nice compliment; 2) the link to the annotated bible. What a great site; and 3) the image of Gap-Jesus dancing around in this season's hottest cargo pants :roll:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I saw the cut and paste. I hope it's ok with Triadboy.

Ok with me. I actually went there and posted something. When I went to enter it - a warning came up and said I used an illegal word. I read through and found I said "Balaams Ass" so I changed 'ass' to 'donkey'. It still said I had a bad word. I read it and reread it. Then finally hit "OK" to have the moderator look at it. Hope it goes through.

[triadboy]

I don't like the setup at that site. It's too confusing and I wrote a nice piece that apparently wasn't accepted because of an 'illegal word' - whatever that means.

How bout if Yahweh needs any biblical help - just ask, and you can cut and paste it over?

[Yahweh]

Triadboy, I dont know what the hell this says: Krkey garble (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?14@245.hyx8aL5ttXf.20@.efe9a79/4437)

Am I the only one on that board who knows how to format line breaks into his posts?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Triadboy, I dont know what the hell this says:

>>I have said that the resurrection remains the best explanation for the start of Christianity.

The Resurrection is the ONLY reason for Literal (historical) Xianity. He certainly wasn't the Messiah of the OT.

>>...due to the fact Muslims nations kill other religions, and Christian nations do not.

Christians love killing muslims dating back to the Crusades. They loved killing South American Indians also. Protestants kill Catholics and Catholics kill protestants

>>Also the fact muslims tend to have more children then Christians could be another factor

Catholics and Mormons

>>Actually if get an original copy of the book of Mormon you might notice that it originally said authored by Joseph Smith. And the list of witnesses was not nearly so long.

It's longer than the Xian bible

*****************
He's all over the place and obviously at a point in his life where these questions are haunting him. I don't think he believes the historicity of the OT (because he wouldn't answer my inquiry). He is really bent out of shape about the apostles. Never mind that the 2-3rd century church fathers massaged the apostle story to what we have now.

You may find it interesting to get him to detail the events around the days of the resurrection. He will mis-step there and you might be able to click a light on in his head for him.

[Gregor]

I think KrKey left because we saw through his game, as much as we pointed out his errors.

He is an acolyte of Turkel at Tektonics and William Lane Craig. Both gentlemen [I use the term loosely] are devotees of agressive, in -your-face debating on inerrancy, apologetics, and ultra-concervative Xianity. Craig is famous for debating non-theists on the "truth" of Xianity - focusing alot on the resurrection. Craig appears to combine the Josh McDowell appeal to emotion with some academic background.

I think young Mr. Krkey thought he could simply cut and paste some of the diatribes he's read from Craig and Turkel and come over here - not to convert us, though.

[Beleth]

Well darn. I was hoping that Krkey would have the guts to stick with this. Too bad he didn't. He was doing very well, from a pure debate standpoint.

Man, that "bornagain2" over on the RD board is just a kneejerk-a-minute laugh riot, isn't he?

[Skeptical Greg]

I can't believe krkey is still ranting over at RD about how badly he was treated here..

As if his audience over there ( JREF'rs notwithstanding ), bornagain2, cinnamon81 etc.. can actually understand the concept of skepticism..

His latest post..In all honesty my suprise in the Randi room was the use of nonscholarship. (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?14@199.pzjgaoQ4tNJ.0@.efe9a79/4595)

Wouldn't let me post as a response. In all honesty my suprise in the Randi room was the use of nonscholarship. I figured the people in the room would be better scholars than that. Triadboy used the irreputable Jesus Mysteries which is nonscholarship at its worst.( its an attempt to revive the long dead copy cat thesis. It is a throw away book, which essentially means the publisher knew it was trash, but printed it anyways to make a quick buck, or in this case pound.) I was simply horrified at the level of academic abuse atheist were using on ancient history. Their sources as whole were as reputable as Kent Hovind. Would you please mention what nonscholar I use? Yes it was a learning lesson. Infidels will use any pseudo historical nonsense and demand others for whatever reason to accept it too. So yes I learned a lot. One on one debate. Insist my opponent use proper authorities or not waste any time with them. I am soon going to get my Bachelors in history, so I think I know enough about the subject to know what is scholarship and what is nonsense. I am only saw one person in there, Gregor, who was using scholarshp. I walked away, nothing that can be done in a room full of cynics. I do think it was telling though, I kept on asking for any evidence of Maccoby's Well's or Doherty's education background which would suggest they have any competance. I kept asking why the use of nonscholars was preferable to the use of scholars. Somebody does not become a scholar by simply having a book written by them published. It is done by years of research on the subject, especially at the university level. No one answered the questions?.

[LFTKBS]

Oh, he's getting his bachelor's in history soon. Never mind, I guess I'm converting if he's got that kind of intellectual authority.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Beleth

Man, that "bornagain2" over on the RD board is just a kneejerk-a-minute laugh riot, isn't he?


I think I am falling in love with bornagain2. Please don't mock me. How can a girl resist such an intellectual powerhouse?

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I can't believe krkey is still ranting over at RD about how badly he was treated here..

As if his audience over there ( JREF'rs notwithstanding ), bornagain2, cinnamon81 etc.. can actually understand the concept of skepticism..

His latest post..In all honesty my suprise in the Randi room was the use of nonscholarship. (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?14@199.pzjgaoQ4tNJ.0@.efe9a79/4595)



Diogenes,

LOL at your response to him! :roll:

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm still trying to figure out how one uses non scholarship.:confused:

Would that be anything like reading and quoting the Bible without understanding it's origins?

[NoZed Avenger]

Perhaps when he gets his degree they can hand him a few paragraphs with that diploma. Sheesh.

I was looking forward to the actual debate -- too bad it self destructed before it began.

N/A

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker


Diogenes,

LOL at your response to him! :roll:

Glad you liked it..

If you notice, BA2 has responded to my post.. He(?) didn't get it... ( As I predicted... )

[TruthSeeker]

Diogenes, Beleth et al...

You are more patient with BornAgain2 than I would ever be.

For those deprived of my new love's deep thoughts and outstanding arguments, I present, the first ever BornAgain Tribute (real quotes from the genius ALL posted today, such is his prolific abundance):

for evolution theory to be true it must assume that the fundamental premise that life started by chance without God. the fact man dominates animals, has attributes that are closer to a living God like conscience, reasoning, morals, rational points to evolution as true? u r willing to face eternity on what science cannot answer? Is that smart or wise? man is complex with a brain, heart, dna, etc but his was by natural selection.

skeptic, in terms of brains, what is wiser. 1. the God of the bible who is infinite created all or 2. matter and energy were there infinitely, but not God science does not know how evilution started, but by chance it did. Believing in God of the bible you have faith, hope and love and a chance for heaven. No God means fate only, no hope and love yourself, including human intellect. 3. mathematically, what are the odds of an infinite God creating things versus luck twice hitting the jackpot. 316

By faith, u will see God, so what would u say to Him. He is not good because He allowed evil? I heard today that God provided free will so there would be a meaningful relationship, not a robotic one. God bless.

Please consider in the future two things 1. is dating c orrect 2. why would God need evolution? God bless you .

a closed or hardened heart will not accept the gospel. despite the miracles that Jesus Performed, He was still crucified and rejected. God bless.

1 Jesus was crucified, He had a chance to escape, but God sent Him here on earth as a sacrifice for the sins of man. the bible says God sent His only Son to be sacrificed where evilutionists say no big deal, another soul that did not survive, so what. 2. Jesus was killed by those that thot they had a better way, the only way or the right way. evilutionists kill in that 1. deny the existence of God 2. encourage any way is the right way 3, me first, u second and God is infinitely far away from their brains and heart.It is hard to demonstrate love on this site. the only way is not to resort to insults like non souls who imply if u use your brain, logic, reasoning, science, etc, God cannot exist. God bless.

Am I deeply humbled...are you deeply humbled?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Am I deeply humbled...are you deeply humbled?
I lost interest in dealing with BornAgain and Krkey, simply not worth my time.

I'll give BornAgain this, he's a nice fella, but oh so badly brainwashed... I hope highschool physics didnt overwhelm him, "I love god" just isnt an excuse for poor grades and shoddy comprehension of this sciencey stuff...

[Keneke]

Indeed, Yahweh, physics itself is simply a science built from the ground up and has nothing to do with the belief or disbelief of God.