Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Gary]

It's in the citation you just replied to.

"Further, the selective use of Sheol in the Joseph Narrative is particularly notable. Jacob twice envisages sorrowful descent there, on hearing of Joseph's death and on fearing Benjamin's harm. But, many years later, after his family has been happily reunited, Jacob's death is mentioned repeatedly and in different ways, but 'Sheol is conspicuously absent'.58 So arguably the righteous only envisage Sheol when they face unhappy and untimely death, which they interpret as divine punishment.59"

So what you are saying, then, is that Jacob did not see Sheol as a place of eternal punishment but as a temporary period of sorrow in this life. So this indicates that Sheol is not the literal Hell/place of eternal punishment of traditional Christianity. Therefore a literal Hell/place of eternal punishment is nonexistent in the first approximately 2/3 of the OT as I previously stated.

[Gary]

Again, I have no idea what this has to do with the post you're replying to. There are plenty of rational atheists and agnostics on TWeb (Carrikature, lao tzu, Outis, Chrs, sylas, Boxing Pythagoras, and a number of others I can't remember at the moment) that I believe have a relatively decent grasp on the Bible and Christianity (as far as my interactions with them have gone anyways). They're certainly a lot more rational and adequately informed than you (though that doesn't appear to be saying much).

Could you point me to a statement/comment by Boxing P. in which he states his position on the Resurrection and why he either does or does not believe in the historicity of this event? Maybe I can learn something from him.

[DesertBerean]

Calling me a fundamentalist means one of two things. 1) I uphold the universal truths about the Bible and its message without any qualifications on the veracity. I plead guilty! Or, 2) I uphold an extreme view of the Bible that twists the universal truths of the Scriptures (hate people of color, kill all abortionists, hate sinner as well as sin itself, insist salvation is by work and not by grace, etc). I plead innocent.

Gary, does either meaning apply to your accusation?

Gary, I bring you back to this because I fail to see any answer to my question. Your response would be much appreciated and would perhaps clear up the confusion of the use of the word here.

[Adrift]

"Further, the selective use of Sheol in the Joseph Narrative is particularly notable. Jacob twice envisages sorrowful descent there, on hearing of Joseph's death and on fearing Benjamin's harm. But, many years later, after his family has been happily reunited, Jacob's death is mentioned repeatedly and in different ways, but 'Sheol is conspicuously absent'.58 So arguably the righteous only envisage Sheol when they face unhappy and untimely death, which they interpret as divine punishment.59"

So what you are saying, then, is that Jacob did not see Sheol as a place of eternal punishment but as a temporary period of sorrow in this life. So this indicates that Sheol is not the literal Hell/place of eternal punishment of traditional Christianity. Therefore a literal Hell/place of eternal punishment is nonexistent in the first approximately 2/3 of the OT as I previously stated.

Like talking to a brick wall.

Could you point me to a statement/comment by Boxing P. in which he states his position on the Resurrection and why he either does or does not believe in the historicity of this event? Maybe I can learn something from him.

No.

[Gary]

Gary, I bring you back to this because I fail to see any answer to my question. Your response would be much appreciated and would perhaps clear up the confusion of the use of the word here.

Neither. That is not my definition (nor that of our general culture) for religious fundamentalism.

religious fundamentalism: a supernatural-based belief system in which there is only one view of truth allowed. All contrary beliefs are not only viewed as wrong but evil and must be opposed and, if possible, eliminated. The efforts to oppose and eliminate opposing views may or may not involve physical violence, depending on the fundamentalist group in question.

[DesertBerean]

Neither. That is not my definition (nor that of our general culture) for religious fundamentalism.

religious fundamentalism: a supernatural-based belief system in which there is only one view of truth allowed. All contrary beliefs are not only viewed as wrong but evil and must be opposed and, if possible, eliminated. The efforts to oppose and eliminate opposing views may or may not involve physical violence, depending on the fundamentalist group in question.

Mighty violent belief system. Also one which I don't subscribe to.

[Gary]

Like talking to a brick wall.



No.

Could someone else kindly point me to a comment by Boxing P. on the Resurrection or even on the truth claims of Christianity?

[Gary]

Mighty violent belief system. Also one which I don't subscribe to.

Violence doesn't have to be physical. Threatening someone with punishment for not loving you is a form of violence.

[DesertBerean]

Well, you accused me of being a fundamentalist. I asked for clarification twice and now that I have your view, allow me to make a couple of observations based on my own vast experiences in life:

Fundamentalist used to mean someone who followed the discipline of Bible first before any other authority in life for their faith. Then it came to mean someone who twisted some part of the faith out of proportion. Now, based on what I've seen in the last few years, it's become an epiphet for someone one doesn't agree with.

After 9/11, someone on a discussion forum I was a member of said it was fundamentalism that caused it, period. Didn't matter who did it. I replied, in short, that Christian fundamentalism was not the same as Muslim fundamentalism at the core. We are required to love our enemies and turn the other cheek and live in peace with others as much as possible. Obviously we were discussing a different concept than what it appears to be these days.

Soooooo.....telling me I'm a fundamentalist doesn't mean much to me anymore.

[Gary]

Well, you accused me of being a fundamentalist. I asked for clarification twice and now that I have your view, allow me to make a couple of observations based on my own vast experiences in life:

Fundamentalist used to mean someone who followed the discipline of Bible first before any other authority in life for their faith. Then it came to mean someone who twisted some part of the faith out of proportion. Now, based on what I've seen in the last few years, it's become an epiphet for someone one doesn't agree with.

After 9/11, someone on a discussion forum I was a member of said it was fundamentalism that caused it, period. Didn't matter who did it. I replied, in short, that Christian fundamentalism was not the same as Muslim fundamentalism at the core. We are required to love our enemies and turn the other cheek and live in peace with others as much as possible. Obviously we were discussing a different concept than what it appears to be these days.

Soooooo.....telling me I'm a fundamentalist doesn't mean much to me anymore.

Muslim fundamentalism is about four hundred years behind Christian fundamentalism, that is all. And the only reason Christian fundamentalism is nicer today than it was in the past is that it is no longer the majority in the religion. Moderates and liberal now make up the vast majority of Christian denominations. If fundamentalists were to be back in control, the United States would be a Christian theocracy with strict laws against pre-marital sex and homosexuality, public dress codes for men and women, and harsh penalties for any form of blasphemy...only a hop, skip, and a jump from killing persons just because they belong to "sinful, wicked religions or no religion".

[DesertBerean]

But we're talking about right now. Calling me a fundamentalist is meaningless, especially when I perceive you have your own idea about it yourself.

[Gary]

But we're talking about right now. Calling me a fundamentalist is meaningless, especially when I perceive you have your own idea about it yourself.

Then I wouldn't get worked up over it.

[DesertBerean]

But I have to address it...you're making some strange observations about the way fundamentalists treat evidence and lack of it.

A fundamentalist demands evidence?

A fundamentalist very definitely believes in evidence. For instance, regarding the Exodus story. The fundamentalist would say that even if no evidence has been found to confirm this ancient story, the evidence exists: It just hasn't been uncovered yet.

And that is why there is a Creation Museum. Fundamentalists will "find" evidence to prove their position even if that "evidence" is laughed at by every major science organization on the planet.

I... am going to let you re-read your own words and hope you see what I see. That's not demanding evidence. That's believing the evidence is there DESPITE THE lack thereof.

[Gary]

Back to the topic of the thread: the Empty Tomb is most likely not historical.

...and the greatest piece of evidence for this claim is that Christians forgot the location of the most important event ever to occur on planet earth until the mother of Emperor Constantine "found it" in the fourth century. I'm not sure how she found it, but I can tell you how she found the actual cross of Jesus: several crosses were waved over a dead corpse. The "true" cross caused the dead corpse to revive...

Very scientific...

Anywho... here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the alleged site of Jesus' tomb, found by Constantine's mother, whose location Catholics and Orthodox believe had been known to "the locals" ever since the date of the crucifixion of Jesus in circa 33 AD...but without evidence to prove this claim:

"This site has been continuously recognized since the 4th century as the place where Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead. Whether it is the actual place, however, has been hotly debated. It cannot be determined that Christians during the first three centuries could or did preserve an authentic tradition as to where these events occurred. Members of the Christian church in Jerusalem fled to Pella about ad 66, and Jerusalem was destroyed in ad 70. Wars, destruction, and confusion during the following centuries possibly prevented preservation of exact information."

Source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Holy-Sepulchre

Gary: Even if every single Christian abandoned the city for Pella in 66 AD, if the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were accompanied by all the incredible miraculous (magical) events that the Gospels claim, every Jew in Jerusalem would have known the location of this place...but alas... everyone forgot about it within decades...

NOT believable.

[Meh Gerbil]

Gary, if you don't come and tell Trout and I more about your deconversion in our forum I'm going to be sad.