Sign in to follow this  
Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Christian Threats of Damnation

Recommended Posts

 

 

Before I lose this link -- Hindus also have faith.

 

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefreethinker/2019/11/hindu-god-gets-his-day-in-court-and-wins-his-temple-battle/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=895

 

 

It's worth a look, to see that Hindu faith also has consequences.  It is not as though Christian faith existed, as the only thing of it's kind.

 

:whist:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Pete said:

I am not interested in a new religion. Consequences religions just seem to control freaks.

 

 

In the ignorance of my youth, I thought that Eastern religion was more spiritual than Western religion.  Now, I see that it is only different.

 

:sigh2:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Same here. I thought it more liberal and then I saw them burn a young girl alive because she went to church. I hate some religious people.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Pete said:

Same here. I thought it more liberal and then I saw them burn a young girl alive because she went to church. I hate some religious people.

 

 

For me, the real eye opener was the Buddhist thugs of Burma.  I don''t know how they square communal murder with Dharma.  Somehow, they manage.  It's a thing of great sadness.  When the religion becomes more important, than what the religion teaches.

 

I don't know if you remember.  Before the Chinese invaded Tibet and became the bad guys -- the Buddhist monks had quite the reputation for banditry and cruelty.  

 

In India, political Hinduism has a stink all it's own.  No surprises there.  Theocracy always produces bad things.

 

I'm going to add China to the list.  The State religion is Communism.  This is why they persecute members of other religions.  The State religion of China can't abide competition.  

 

:sigh2:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Pete said:

There is no evidence in Jewish history that Jesus existed. It is hard to say whether he did or not. The original Mark's gospel did not say he was resurrected and said the body was not there. They had to add a bit extra to include a resurrection. Then the synoptic gospels copied and elaborated on that one. 

There are people going around who think Robin hood and vampires existed but they were invented.  Just because a 2,000 year old book says something that doesn't make it credible history or evidence. Did Jesus exist  I don't know. Did he do the things told about him and again I don't know  So why you think quoting this book enlarges on the debate, again  I don't know.

Strange you want to debate religion in a no religion section, but I am sure you will

😴😴😴. Our very own religious spin doctor.

 

Ever hear of the Roman historian Tacitus, or the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus? Most scholars, even non-Christian ones are convinced Jesus existed. There's no Jewish records that deny his existence either.

Not all gospels are the same,  Only John's gospel mentions the 'woman at the well', but the omission from the other gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen. Mark just didn't cover what happened after the crucifixion.

Its fine that you don't believe it, my only point was that fulfilled prophecy is considered evidence to Christians, even though you disregard it.. And the "Threat of Christian Damnation" is a nonreligious topic? Hmm  

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/10/2019 at 2:51 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

If we are going to pretend that these stories are history -- does that include the zombies walking around Jerusalem?  The zombies that no historian thought worth mentioning?  Just a normal day in Jerusalem?

 

The Romans took full credit for the destruction of the Temple.  Their version is different.

 

The Gospels couldn't agree with each other.  Was it one angel in the tomb?  Or two?  It depends which Gospel.

 

The Gospel writers tried to harmonize their fictions, with the Hebrew Scriptures.  Harmonizing with history -- or each other --  was beyond them. 

 

 

Historians didn't know the people who resurrected, so why would they write about people they didn't recognize? The event was only relevant to those who knew and witnessed the resurrected ones.

Rome should have taken credit for destroying the Temple, because they did it. Jesus just said it would be torn down (Not one stone a top another), so how do the versions conflict?

 

None of the gospels conflict, There were 2 angels at the tomb.  Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb.

 

Yes, the gospel writers went to extreme measures to 'harmonize' their gospels with Hebrew scriptures, even to the extent of arranging their leader be crucified :)... Please

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Historians didn't know the people who resurrected, so why would they write about people they didn't recognize? The event was only relevant to those who knew and witnessed the resurrected ones.

Rome should have taken credit for destroying the Temple, because they did it. Jesus just said it would be torn down (Not one stone a top another), so how do the versions conflict?

 

None of the gospels conflict, There were 2 angels at the tomb.  Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb.

 

Yes, the gospel writers went to extreme measures to 'harmonize' their gospels with Hebrew scriptures, even to the extent of arranging their leader be crucified :)... Please

 

 

 

So, the tombs opened and the dead walked among the living.  Just a normal day in Jerusalem.  Nothing for an outsider to notice.  The Roman field agents saw nothing.  The historians neither saw nor heard anything interesting.  Conversation in the markets was normal.  Move along.  Nothing happening here.  Move along.     :sigh2:  Do your ears hear what your mouth is saying?     :birgits_giggle:  This is the big proof of the Gospels?  Nobody noticed?

 

:boredom:

 

 

There must have been a lot of people not paying attention.  Jesus himself -- followed by all those huge crowds......  The Romans needed to pay Judas -- just to point him out.

 

:boredom:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Historians didn't know the people who resurrected, so why would they write about people they didn't recognize? The event was only relevant to those who knew and witnessed the resurrected ones.

Rome should have taken credit for destroying the Temple, because they did it. Jesus just said it would be torn down (Not one stone a top another), so how do the versions conflict?

 

None of the gospels conflict, There were 2 angels at the tomb.  Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb.

 

Yes, the gospel writers went to extreme measures to 'harmonize' their gospels with Hebrew scriptures, even to the extent of arranging their leader be crucified :)... Please

 


 

 

 

A lot of people were crucified.  It was what the Romans did.  It was their thing.     :boredom:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Ever hear of the Roman historian Tacitus, or the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus? Most scholars, even non-Christian ones are convinced Jesus existed. There's no Jewish records that deny his existence either.

Not all gospels are the same,  Only John's gospel mentions the 'woman at the well', but the omission from the other gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen. Mark just didn't cover what happened after the crucifixion.

Its fine that you don't believe it, my only point was that fulfilled prophecy is considered evidence to Christians, even though you disregard it.. And the "Threat of Christian Damnation" is a nonreligious topic? Hmm  

And it has been proved Josephus and Tacitus to be doctored entries.  As for your talk on Religion, people are free to talk about why they don't believe in a none religious forum but preaching it is religious. That is religious. 

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Historians didn't know the people who resurrected, so why would they write about people they didn't recognize? The event was only relevant to those who knew and witnessed the resurrected ones.

Rome should have taken credit for destroying the Temple, because they did it. Jesus just said it would be torn down (Not one stone a top another), so how do the versions conflict?

 

None of the gospels conflict, There were 2 angels at the tomb.  Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb.

 

Yes, the gospel writers went to extreme measures to 'harmonize' their gospels with Hebrew scriptures, even to the extent of arranging their leader be crucified :)... Please

 


 

So basically your saying only those who believe it happened saw some zombies and none other than bible writers record this. Crazy stuff. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Pete said:

So basically your saying only those who believe it happened saw some zombies and none other than bible writers record this. Crazy stuff. 

 

 

 

There is nothing new about the gossip mills.  Even now, people report encounters with aliens -- sightings of Elvis -- The Lochness Monster -- Big Foot  -- etc.  Does anybody get excited?  Does the world launch investigations?  No.  without some reason to take them seriously, they are dismissed out of hand -- as silly stories.  Antiquity does not lend credibility.  Even less so, when the people who might have reported those stories, were silent.

 

Zombies in Jerusalem -- and nobody noticed?  The Romans were watching for anything out of the ordinary.  I think this qualifies.  

 

:whist:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Zombies in Jerusalem -- and nobody noticed?  The Romans were watching for anything out of the ordinary.  I think this qualifies.

 

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:52&53).

They weren't zombies in appearance, they were simply people formally known by those they appeared to. In other words, the Baker Joe would appear to those who knew him when he was alive, so his re-appearance was a witness to the resurrective power of Christ. A Roman would have just seen another Jew walking down the street with no clue. This miracle was foretold by Christ in John 5:25-28, it served as a living testimony of his resurrection and his promise that there is life beyond the grave.. Consider that if a dead relative personally appeared to you as evidence and confirmation of life after death, would your first concern be that no reporter witnessed it, or that no historian recorded it? The miracle was only meant for you, just as the biblical miracle was only meant to establish the faith of believers.

Edited by Dan56

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:52&53).

They weren't zombies in appearance, they were simply people formally known by those they appeared to. In other words, the Baker Joe would appear to those who knew him when he was alive, so his re-appearance was a witness to the resurrective power of Christ. A Roman would have just seen another Jew walking down the street with no clue. This miracle was foretold by Christ in John 5:25-28, it served as a living testimony of his resurrection and his promise that there is life beyond the grave.. Consider that if a dead relative personally appeared to you as evidence and confirmation of life after death, would your first concern be that no reporter witnessed it, or that no historian recorded it? The miracle was only meant for you, just as the biblical miracle was only meant to establish the faith of believers.

 

 

 

:thumbd:     :boredom:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:52&53).

They weren't zombies in appearance, they were simply people formally known by those they appeared to. In other words, the Baker Joe would appear to those who knew him when he was alive, so his re-appearance was a witness to the resurrective power of Christ. A Roman would have just seen another Jew walking down the street with no clue. This miracle was foretold by Christ in John 5:25-28, it served as a living testimony of his resurrection and his promise that there is life beyond the grave.. Consider that if a dead relative personally appeared to you as evidence and confirmation of life after death, would your first concern be that no reporter witnessed it, or that no historian recorded it? The miracle was only meant for you, just as the biblical miracle was only meant to establish the faith of believers.

 

Not really the case, was it...? By that time, according to scripture, Jesus was more or less "Israel's most wanted" and had been tried and put to death in a very public spectacle. So having him walk around after that execution would have been a bit of a big deal (that reporters, law enforcers and historians definitely would have noticed)...

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Not really the case, was it...? By that time, according to scripture, Jesus was more or less "Israel's most wanted" and had been tried and put to death in a very public spectacle. So having him walk around after that execution would have been a bit of a big deal (that reporters, law enforcers and historians definitely would have noticed)...

 

 

In the Gospels, during the ministry period, huge crowds followed Jesus around.  All the time.  Everywhere.  That is why the Romans had to hire Judas.  Just to point Jesus out to them.

 

The same thing with that public execution.  As you say -- Everybody saw it.

 

Everybody knew who Jesus was.  Nobody knew who Jesus was.  That is some awful, inconsistent fiction.

 

:birgits_giggle:

 

 

Nobody noticed all the dead people walking around -- in their shrouds.

 

:birgits_giggle:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post

Outside of the bible there is no record of this. So I guess even the Jews did notice dead walking or indeed the darkness.

There is a lot of this hype and traumatizing in the bible. 

Jesus talking to the 5000 for example. This was pre megaphone days. The most I have spoken too was 200 without a megaphone and even then there were people who did not here me and Jesus is then recorded as feeding them all. I just don't see it myself

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post

It's just hype and drama. If your saying Jesus was the son of god  and he was killed you can't just say that was it. I know lets say the dead walked, the sky darkened and the temple curtains tore and oh! Let's also say he rose again. There that will grab their attentions and is fitting a god. Don't worry what the Jews in Jerusalem say, they are all dead in 74 ad. because Rome killed them all.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thought.  Dan has said he doesn't believe in miracles after christ.  That being the case, surely it must be acknowledged that compiling a set of stories correctly at every turn, that cutting away some, and that combining them in a way that no meaning is lost or gained would require a miracle, especially considering all the inconsistencies remaining.... I agree with dan.  There have been no miracles since christ.  I add, of course...there haven't been any.

 

A group of people with agendas meets.  They compile their mythology into a codified 'perfect' book, and DON'T backstab, betray, or propogate their own ideas?  Hogwash.  Yet this 'incorrupted' book, which has been changed despite the recitation of the lie to the contrary, is the basis of all christian belief?  Is the only 'proof'?  I wont bother rehashing the forgeries of tacitus except to say if its true it shouldnt need deception to defend it.

Share this post


Link to post

Yet, that contradicts the bible. Paul had a man brought back life after he fell out of the window and Peter healed people.  

Are we saying some parts are true and not others or is Dan saying it's all true.

Not that I really want to know.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this