Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Christianbookworm]

Again, one does not get separated from God for eternity for only rejecting the gospel. The separation is a result of one's actions that were not good. Anytime one is a jerk will be judged.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You are a more moderate version of fundamentalist, but still a fundamentalist. Once again, by our society's definition: if you believe that your god is going to punish non-Christians for committing the thought crime of not "believing in him" or for not getting on their knees and begging him to be their Lord and Slave Master, you are most definitely a fundamentalist.

Feel free to show where I said such a thing.

[One Bad Pig]

Not as you suppose. The man Jesus died on the cross by His own volition. God cannot die. God the Father did not die on the cross. Jesus died, that is His soul, on the cross before He died physically (Isaiah 53:10, 12). On!y after He paid for the sins of the world did He by His own volition die physically.

You're reading poetry too literally. Death is the departure of the soul from the body (Gen. 35:18).

[Gary]

Again, one does not get separated from God for eternity for only rejecting the gospel. The separation is a result of one's actions that were not good. Anytime one is a jerk will be judged.

But Adam and Eve were (allegedly) born perfect. They were given a choice to pick good or evil. Why are the rest of us condemned to be evil? Does anyone today have a choice/ability to be perfect and therefore NOT need a savior?

[Apologiaphoenix]

They weren't made perfect. They were made good.

[psstein]

No. If the Gospel writers were trying to make prophecy history, they would first off not use texts that were traditionally not seen as Messianic.

Second, the ideal time to do this with prophecy would be with the resurrection accounts and yet this does not happen. Embellishments around the passion narratives take place in the Gospel of Peter.

Third, the fact a crucified man was even seen as Messianic after crucifixion needs to be explained.

There's some belief among critical scholars that Jesus was trying to fulfill messianic prophecies in the first place.

The Markan passion narrative is ancient, likely dating within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion. Peter is embellished. While the passion narratives have a plethora of OT references, they do have a very plausible historical core. See Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah for a much more detailed explanation.

[Gary]

They weren't made perfect. They were made good.

Nick: Do you believe that infants, toddlers, and young children can choose to be (perfectly) good and not sin for their entire lives? Is it possible to live a completely "good" life or will all humans eventually, inevitably sin?

[psstein]

That's the crucifixion account and not the resurrection account. Even still there are multiple theories on that one.

Try to pay attention to the actual argument made.

There are some scholars who accept the Johannine chronology over the Synoptic chronology. John P. Meier, a centrist Catholic (far from one of those boogeyman evangelicals) claims that Jesus was crucified in keeping with the Johannine account, not the Synoptic one.

I recently read an article (I can't remember by whom) that claimed John had a far more accurate sense of dates and places than any of the Synoptics.

[Gary]

Feel free to show where I said such a thing.

Then why don't you come out and clearly state your position???

Is ANY human being going to be punished by your god for the thought crime of refusing to believe in Jesus as his Lord and Savior?

[psstein]

Yes he did.

Sorry Gary, but if I was a fundamentalist, I would not be reading scholars, I would not be an OEC, I would hang my hat on inerrancy, and I would be anti-evolution.

I'm not.

For those who never heard, the judge of all the Earth will do right. I have my responsibility.

I thought "the Bible says so" and your personal testimony was all the evidence you needed!

The fundies have simply changed sides.

[Gary]

There's some belief among critical scholars that Jesus was trying to fulfill messianic prophecies in the first place.

The Markan passion narrative is ancient, likely dating within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion. Peter is embellished. While the passion narratives have a plethora of OT references, they do have a very plausible historical core. See Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah for a much more detailed explanation.

I agree with you 100%, Stein. I do believe that there is a core story about Jesus that is historical, but deciding what is historical and what is embellished is very difficult due to the long time span between the event and the stories being written down and the fact that the writers and sources are anonymous.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary. I say my position and you don't interact with it. You could also find my position elsewhere.

Why should I think you'll seriously interact with anything now?

[Darth Ovious]

It was magic sex: no touching and no peeking.

Didn't we go over this already? You already embarrassed yourself the last time with your lack of knowledge on biological science.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I also agree with much of what Stein said and sure, Jesus could have set out to fulfil many prophecies, though some he obviously couldn't.

[Darth Ovious]

I agree with you 100%, Stein. I do believe that there is a core story about Jesus that is historical, but deciding what is historical and what is embellished is very difficult due to the long time span between the event and the stories being written down and the fact that the writers and sources are anonymous.

The sources aren't anonymous in the sense that you think they are. The scrolls of the gospels would have had name tags on them to identify who the authors were. The name tags have just been lost over time so they are only anonymous to us. They were not anonymous to the people at the time. If the gospels were truly anonymous in the way you think they are then there would be multiple authors claimed to have written each gospel, however this is not the case. What we find is consistent attribution to the writers we know as Matthew, Luke, John and Mark. I would also like to point out that textual criticism has shown these authors to be the true authors of the gospels. So there is no anonymous about it from our point of view.