The Ressurection

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Jatom, May 14, 2004.

  1. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Hey, I'm back!


    Jatom,

    Let me get this straight.

    We have two almost completely different genealogies.
    You say this is normal for the culture?
    They can be linear or veer off into siblings, could be based on honor, patronage, or kinship and purity.
    Does this mean that genealgy, which by the way it would not be as genealogies must contain related older genes, could be constructed to prove almost anyhting?
    These are not genealogies.

    ge·ne·al·o·gy
    1 : an account of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or from older forms
    2 : regular descent of a person, family, or group of organisms from a progenitor or older form : [size=-1]PEDIGREE[/size]
    3 : the study of family pedigrees


    It seems you are saying that Matthew put this thing together to deceive the Jewish people.

    Anyone could have been the promised Messiah, blood lines mean nothing by your logic. All Joseph had to do was adopt anyone and the "genealogy" would point back to the royal line.
    James Akin and a few other Bible dudes are the only "experts" I can find that state that "genealogies" follow this twisty turny path, but be that as it may let's assume you are right.
    Go here:
    http://www.awitness.org/history_compare/chronology_genealogy_contradictions.html

    and the link at the bottom:
    http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/gen.html

    Now the counter arguement to what you say:
    go here:
    http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/genmatt.html

    "As well, it makes no sense to say Jesus was Joseph's adopted son to make the connection, since a king's genealogy was always based on a physical connection and since the promise was through David's "seed", that is, through his physical descendants. Read any of the Judean king's genealogies in the OT and you will never find an adopted son inheriting the throne of Judah. It was always a blood relation. "

    "Since it is claimed that Jesus was the product of a miracle birth we have to ask ourselves: Why does God make the mistake of inspiring Matthew to write a genealogy which is useless? How can an omniscient being do this? It is argued by some that Joseph is used merely to establish a "legal" connection to David, since Jesus was his legally adopted son. What precedent do those who claim this have? Do they have chapter and verse to back this up? No, they don't, so their argument falls: It's speculation based on circular reasoning, pure and simple.
    This is just another example of the desperate lengths to which Fundamentalists will go to salvage the obvious errors made here. It is mere speculation which has no basis in fact. I challenge any Christian to find one adopted son who inherited David's throne in Judah, just one. I won't be holding my breath waiting."

    Go check it out, there's more!
    But let's cut to the end:

    "Conclusion
    So what do we have here? We have a "genealogy" of Jesus which is based on a man who was not even related to him, Joseph. We have two kings included in this genealogy who were cursed by God and told that none of their descendants would sit on David's throne, thus disqualifying Joseph, or any of his sons, adopted or otherwise, from sitting thereupon. We have Matthew, under Holy Ghost "inspiration," telling us that there were exactly 42 generations (3 sets of 14) in this genealogy when we know full well there were more; and I haven't even gone into the differences between the genealogy of Matthew and that of Luke's. One has to wonder:

    How can Jesus be Israel's Messiah and sit on David's throne when some of his alleged ancestors are said to have been cursed by God and told that none of their "seed" would sit and prosper on Israel's throne?
    Why would an omniscient God inspire a writer to include a genealogy which is totally useless in proving that Jesus is David's son?
    If Matthew was a Jew, then why did he even bother to include his genealogy, when he was supposed to know, being a Jew, that David's son was to be a physical descendant and not an adopted son who had cursed kings in his lineage?
    Why does Matthew's genealogy have 42 (14x14x14) names when we know that there were more which he didn't write in, including Jehoiakim, another cursed king?
    And finally, why are there two contradictory genealogies of Jesus?
    These are serious questions and if the people who claim to having the answers to them can only quibble about such things as "legal adoption" and names that are dropped because of misbehaviour, then it doesn't bode well for divine inspiration, does it? In fact, it doesn't bode well for anything concerning Jesus and his allged connection to David.
    The only honest conclusion one can come to is that this so-called "generation of Jesus Christ" is no such thing. This makes divine inspiration impossible if "God", who is alleged to have inspired it, is said to be omniscient. If Matthew was writing his gospel for Jews, as it is often claimed, then it's no wonder so many Jews, who know their Scriptures, rejected Jesus as Israel's Messiah."
     
  2. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    What a startling conclusion!!!

    Since you cant reconcile how Jesus could be considered Josephs biological Son (and therefore not technically 'his seed') you then suggest its 'honest' to dismiss Jesus as having lived.
    The scriptures a fabrication and nothing else to be trustworthy.

    Wow.. doesnt take a whole lot to have you running to that finish line!!

    I think you and Jatom have come a long way though.. basically its now down to the question of the word 'Seed' and how Jesus could be said to be a physical descendant.

    Otherwise there seems to be agreement and sense out of everything else here.
     
  3. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Hey Brock,

    Everything after the last web site listing, includeing the last paragraph, that is in quotes, is from that web site. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


    As far as jumping to conclusions, I hope I'm not doing that. This geneaology thing is just a small example of evidence that much of the bible is misunderstood, or can be used to draw whatever conclusion you are looking for, in my and many others' opinion.
    This stuff takes serious research and debate to reach the truth. We can see from just this one example how many different rationals can be brought to bear.

    I'll say again, I do not question anyone's faith or belief in what ever they want to believe in, but statements of fact and historical proof must be backed up.

    I had not heard the deal about adoption etc. before and I thought that the J-man might have a point. So I searched for several hours for a counter arguement because it did not sound right to me. I think I found a reasonable answer to his view.

    I am not saying that this geneaology thing is the only evidence that something is strange. The case builds and I feel that overwhelmingly, much is amiss.

    You are free to believe anything you want. In fact I have considered stopping this post as I sometimes feel I am attacking peoples' belief systems. I enjoy being taken to task and then trying to get out of a tight situation, I feel it sharpens the mind and leads to truth. However, this thread takes alot of time so if it is bothering people just say the word!
     
  4. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok.. yes.. I had thought that was your conclusion and now I realise that was the authors.
    No worries.

    I think you have brought up a legitimate concern and you have dealt with it responsibly and with patience,

    If only more critics had as much class as you did with this topic Meagain.

    Doesnt bother me to see it go on as long as it continues enlightening and answering questions as it has.

    This thread has been FAR different because everyone has been willing to honestly examine the facts and accept explanations that deserve acceptance.
     
  5. Jatom

    Jatom Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have two almost completely different genealogies.

    Yes I agree, they are different.

    Does this mean that genealgy, which by the way it would not be as genealogies must contain related older genes, could be constructed to prove almost anyhting?

    I'm not sure how a genealogy could be constructed to prove “anything” or how one could even assume that. Notice in the case of a linear or segmented genealogy, whats recorded are different aspects of the genealogy. Some emphasize noteworthy ancestors, while others list more than just one member of a generation, but they all trace the person's lineage--just different aspects written for a specific purpose. In a court case, the prosecutor only presents evidence that is relevant to the case, non-relevant evidence is left out. If it's a murder case, then the prosecutor only presents evidence that is relevant—it's organized and presented for a specific purpose, and the presented evidence is only relevant to that specific purpose. Matthew emphasizes Jesus' royalty while Luke his humanity.

    These are not genealogies – ok...call them what ever you like then!

    It seems you are saying that Matthew put this thing together to deceive the Jewish people

    Whether or not he put this together to deceive the Jewish mind is a question of whether or not Christ was the promised messiah, and if Matthew himself, 'knew better'. If Christ was not the Messiah, and Matthew 'knew better', his actions carried out through to their logical conclusion, would give your assertion strong affirmation, but such a argument would be hard or even impossible to prove. No, as already stated, I believe Matthew was simply pointing out that Jesus line lead to David. This is no more deceptive than our prosecutor only presenting evidence relative to the case at hand.

    Anyone could have been the promised Messiah, blood lines mean nothing by your logic

    Yes if the only prophecy about the promised Messiah was that he would be a descendant of David, in which case there would be many Messiahs even if blood lines 'meant something'! But since this is not case, this statement isn't even relevant.

    As well, it makes no sense to say Jesus was Joseph's adopted son to make the connection, since a king's genealogy was always based on a physical connection and since the promise was through David's "seed", that is, through his physical descendants

    Yes, David's “seed” or descendant. Which would also include those who are descendants not by genes. For example, If a wife was widowed without receiving a child she was to marry one of his brothers, and their first child was to carry the name of the widow's deceased husband (Deu 25:5-6) eventhough he wasn't 'genetically his son—the first son wasn't even considered the living husband's child (Gen 38:9) eventhough genetically he was. In extreme cases the childless widowed wife, or daughter of parents with no son's, could marry anyone within the tribe (in Mary + Joseph's case, apparently the house of David) in which case the husband would legally be a son of the his wife's father, and receive his inheritances (see earlier noted Num 27:1-11 and also 36:1-12) With this in mind note what Eusebius says in Church History, quoting Julius Africanus (early AD 200s):
    Names in the families of Israel were reckoned either according to nature [physical parentage] or law; by nature in the case of genuine offspring; by law when another man fathered children in the name of a brother who had died childless.

    Read any of the Judean king's genealogies in the OT and you will never find an adopted son inheriting the throne of Judah



    The author seems a bit confused here. NOT EVEN CHRIST inherited the temporal, physical throne of Judah, and I know of no Christian that claims this. He seems unaware of the antitypical nature of prophesy, and the ancients typological application of it.

    Since it is claimed that Jesus was the product of a miracle birth we have to ask ourselves: Why does God make the mistake of inspiring Matthew to write a genealogy which is useless?

    Or why does the author beg the question?

    It is argued by some that Joseph is used merely to establish a "legal" connection to David, since Jesus was his legally adopted son. What precedent do those who claim this have? Do they have chapter and verse to back this up?

    While I don't believe that Joseph is used merely to establish a “legal” connection to David, as it would appear that Marry was from the house of David as well, I did back up the legal issues with the verses mentioned above.

    So what do we have here? We have a "genealogy" of Jesus which is based on a man who was not even related to him, Joseph

    The category of being “related” by physical means is only one side of picture. One does not have to be physically related, as already mentioned one could also be legally “related” as well.
     
  6. Jatom

    Jatom Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...continued​
    We have two kings included in this genealogy who were cursed by God and told that none of their descendants would sit on David's throne, thus disqualifying Joseph, or any of his sons, adopted or otherwise, from sitting thereupon.


    The article both Alsharad and I mentioned answered this question. Did you read it? I'll quote only part of the answer(for the sake of space) here (for the rest take a look at the link we mentioned):


    I personally am not convinced this 'Jeconiah' problem EVEN EXISTS, and here's why:
    • I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME. The context of the passage seems to limit the scope to just his immediate descendants:
      1. The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"-yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future;
      2. the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context;
      3. the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam.
      4. Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate descendants of Jeconiah?).
      So, if the prophecy of Jeconiah is NOT to be extended past his immediate descendants, as I have just argued, then Jim's problem evaporates.
    • EVEN IF the passage IS a longer-range prediction, the line THROUGH Jeconiah only comes to Joseph and not to Mary. The gene-stream stops physically at Joseph through the virgin birth. Therefore, Jeconiah, who is only mentioned in Matthew (the legal line to Joseph) doesn't 'pass on the blood'.


    • Now the issue about Shealtiel and Zerubbabel I find intriguing. The argument Jim makes here is that THEY are descendants of the 'bad Jeconiah' and THEY show up in BOTH the legal AND the physical lineage's of Jesus. And, if the prophecy in Jeremiah is taken to mean a long-range restriction (which I do NOT believe is the case, see above), then we clearly have a problem in the Lukan, physical/gene-stream lineage of Jesus.




      But let me ask an impertinent question here. Why do we believe the S+Z (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) of the two lineage's are THE SAME PEOPLE? Think about it:
      1. They have different parents
      2. They have different children.
      3. They are descended from different sons of David.
      4. Their chronological placements on a time line could differ by as much as a CENTURY! (depending on how the omissions in Matthew are accounted for, and on what the average age of child-bearing was.)
      THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON ARE THEIR NAMES!

      This can hardly be a strong argument for their identity:
      1. Zerubbabel was a common name from the early Persian period (539-331bc.), as shown by cuneiform inscriptions from Babylonia (see ZPEB , V. 1057)
      2. The genealogies themselves have numerous names that repeat WITHIN the genealogy (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah) without being the same individuals; These names could also be common names.
      3. The names in the genealogies are standard, common, everyday names. We have NUMEROUS people named Levi, Amos, Nahum, etc. in the OT accounts. There is just NO REASON to associate the S+Z of Luke with the S+Z of Matthew. (And even the pattern of S-followed-by-Z doesn't carry much weight--families often honored prominent people this way.)
      What this means is that the S+Z of Matthew are the S+Z of Jeremiah, and that the S+Z of Luke (whose genes DO reach to Jesus) are a different set, descended from Nathan and not through Solomon-thru-Jeconiah.
    These are serious questions and if the people who claim to having the answers to them can only quibble about such things as "legal adoption" and names that are dropped because of misbehaviour, then it doesn't bode well for divine inspiration, does it?


    I for one admit that there are some serious questions, and any honest Christian will as well. But none of these questions 1) infringe upon the essentials of Christianity and 2) Go without their solutions. And many question do require much honest and objective research.​


    The only honest conclusion one can come to is that this so-called "generation of Jesus Christ" is no such thing. This makes divine inspiration impossible if "God", who is alleged to have inspired it, is said to be omniscient.


    Seeing as how the author hasn't even defined “divine inspiration” (Natural Inspiration, Partial Inspiration, Concept inspiration, Mechanical Inspiration, Dynamical, Plenary Inspiration, Verbal Plenary Inspiration...???) I see this as nothing more that a vague assertion. And I think this one 'problem' which has many solutions, is hardly enough to refute an entire doctrine.​
     
  7. Jatom

    Jatom Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    Meagain, BTW, I applaud your honest truth seeking, and hope that many of your questions, can and will be answered.
     
  8. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Yes, Israel's Law provided for the care of a widow through marriage to the deceased husband's brother (Deu 25:5,6). 38:8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
    38:9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
    Hitting that Christian Think Tank Again!?
    http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

    So, on and on,
    You are still argueing that we have two seperate lines, one from Joseph and one from Mary. And then you try to bring them together with all this stuff from the Christian Thinktank.

    We first must prove...yes I said prove, that we can follow the line of Mary, as we have already admitted that we have two diferent lines. Now proof means there is no doubt. If there is doubt, we have not proven anything.
    If I wish to win the lottery, I must prove that I have the winning number. If there is any doubt, I do not win.

    http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/genluke.html
    From the site listed:
    "Coming back to the reading of v. 23 of this chapter, the beginning of the genealogy, I offer the Greek text, followed by an English transliteration and then a literal translation from the IGNT (Scrivner's Interlinear Greek New Testament in the Online Bible v.8.0):


    [​IMG]

    23 And himself was Jesus about years old thirty beginning to be being as was supposed son of Joseph of Heli
    24 of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Jaanai of Joseph
    25 of Mattathiah of Amos of Nahum of Esli of Naggai


    Notice that Luke starts his genealogy by stating that Jesus began his ministry when he was beginning to be thirty and was believed, or supposed, to have been the son of Joseph, of Heli... yada yada yada. This clearly established the genealogy as being through Joseph, since Luke tells us that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli and so on. In other words, this genealogy is based on Joseph, despite the desperate wranglings of fundamentalists.

    As stated above, some maintain that Heli (v. 23) was not Joseph's father but was actually Mary's father, meaning that this was not Joseph's genealogy but Mary's. Unfortunately, neither the context nor the language will bear this out. Mary's name isn't even mentioned in the genealogy and we have no indication whatsoever, anywhere in the NT, that this Heli was Mary's father. Christians using this argument are grasping at straws.

    When Luke writes "the son (as was supposed) of Joseph," he goes on to state without a break, "of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi" and so son. The word "of" in the English translations is indicative of a genitive case in the Greek, which amounts to saying in English: " The son (as was supposed) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat and so on. Here are a few versions to compare with:


    23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, (KJV) 23 And Jesus himself, when he began to tea23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, (ASV)


    23 Now Jesus himself was about thrity years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of heli, (NIV)

    23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli, (Darby)

    23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years: being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, (Douay Rhymes)

    23 And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, (J.P. Green Sr. Literal Translation)

    23 And, Jesus himself, was, when he began, about thirty years of age, being the son, as was supposed-of Joseph, of Heli: (Rothham)

    23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, (Revised Webster)

    23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, 24 the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, (Young's Lietral Tranlsation)

    23 And Jesus at this time was about thirty years old, beime was about thirty years old, being the son (as it seemed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 The son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, (Bible in Basic English)

    23 And He--Jesus--when He began His ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (it was supposed) of Joseph, son of Heli, 24 son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, (Weymouth NT)

    23 Jésus avait environ trente ans lorsqu'il commença son ministère, étant, comme on le croyait, fils de Joseph, fils d'Héli, 24 fils de Matthat, fils de Lévi, fils de Melchi, fils de Jannaï, fils de Joseph, (Louis Segond, French)

    23 Et Jésus lui-même commençait d'avoir environ trente ans, étant, comme on l'estimait, fils de Joseph: d'Héli, (French Darby)


    Any version you care to verify will have the same basic translation, clearly giving the reader the impression that this was Joseph's genealogy. I have never personally come across a translation that didn't. Now I ask you: Why would all these translators give this rendering if this isn't what the Greek meant? And if so, then why do Fundamentalists quibble over the Greek text this way? Simple: They won't admit an error in the NT.

    Clearly, the evidence in this context says this genealogy is based on Joseph and not on Mary. It cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, the genealogy of Jesus through his mother, because genealogies were always based the father and that Mary is not even given a mention in this genealogy."


    So, yes I have read the stuff you directed me to. (This is MeAgain talking again) I see doubt, no conclusive fact. I do not see anywhere conclusive proof of a line of Mary. I don't even see a suggestion. What am I missing here?


    "But let me ask an impertinent question here. Why do we believe the S+Z (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) of the two lineage's are THE SAME PEOPLE? Think about it:
    1. They have different parents
    2. They have different children.
    3. They are descended from different sons of David.
    4. Their chronological placements on a time line could differ by as much as a CENTURY! (depending on how the omissions in Matthew are accounted for, and on what the average age of child-bearing was.)
    THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON ARE THEIR NAMES"


    I'm not even getting into this, maybe they inherited, or married someone, I can't believe you would say they are descended form different sons of David and offer that as a defense after your tortured explaination of JC's two different lines. And chronolgy? What about JC's genealogical chronography? I'm not even wasteing my time looking this up.


    I give up on this one, if you want to believe that we have one line through Joseph and one through Mary, fine. I never try to change anyone's belief system. When I have doubt, I entertain alternative solutions and keep an open mind, do what you will.



    ..."Even if I know something on the basis of best faith, that may be empty, hollow, and confused, while what I do not know on the best faith may be factual, true, and not otherwise. It is not proper for an intelligent person, safeguarding the truth, to come to the conclusion in this matter that such alone is true and whatever else is false." - the Buddha Dude
     
  9. J_Lazarus

    J_Lazarus Member

    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol - alot of controversies have been mentioned here. I will take a couple days to come up with a response and will post it when possible. Although the argument is somewhat outdated, its a good one and a long one, and so will require I spend some energy formulating my counter.

    - J Lazarus
     
  10. Alsharad

    Alsharad Member

    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that the analogy is flawed. Remember that the issue is whether there is a contradiction between Matthew and Luke. For there to be a contradiction, they have to not only differ, but be directly contradictory. For example, a blatant contradiction would be if they both preceded their respective geneaologies with "this is the linear genealogy of Christ and any geneaology which differs is in error." Then if they were not exact copies, we would have a contradiction. However, if they do not make the above claim and they differ we are left with the quandary we are dealing with. However, to show that it is not contradictory, we do not have to prove that Luke's geneaology is that of Mary's; all we have to do is show that it is *possible* for it to be Mary's.
    Statements are contradictory only if there is no possiblity of both statements being true at the same time and in the same respect. So if we can show that it is *possible* that the geneaology of Luke is Mary's, then there is no contradiction (logically). To prove that it is contradictory, though, one must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (note that it is not above ALL doubt, because there can always be irrational doubt) that both geneaologies cannot both be true. The burden of proof, in this case, lies on the shoulders of those who claim contradiction. You must prove beyond a resonable doubt that Luke's geneaology could not possibly be that of Mary.

    I am ready to move on too and I understand that the above quote is not yours, but I wanted to add a thought that I had. The author notes "It cannot be... because genealogies were always based the father..." Luke had a unique issue though. How should he handle the geneaolgy of someone who has no biological father? Also, please note the strong language used in "always." That is a pretty strong statement to make about an entire culture. All it takes is one geneaology to be through the mother to eliminate the "awlays." The author is begging the question. He assumes that this it is "always" the case and then when a possible variation occurs, he dismisses it because it would be a variation from what is "always" the case. Do you see the problem there?

    You candor is appreciated. Of course, this is the toughest issue actually. How reliable are the scriptures? If they are reliable, then we have some really big issues to tackle. The claims of the gospel are truly mind-blowing. And this is where the debate is really taking place now. If we can trust the scriptures historically, then we have eyewitness accounts of the most amazing event in all history. If we can't, the Christianity isn't worth being called a religion.

    And I am pretty sure that Buddha is wrong here. If we come to a conclusion on anything (even things of a spiritual nature) based on sound reasoning then it is foolishness for us to continue to, without any additional information, enterain any notions that contradict our conclusion. However, I would agree that faith alone is insufficient to objectively rule out any contradictory conclusions drawn by faith. Fortunately, we have logic and experience to guide us on our path to truth.
     
  11. cerridwen

    cerridwen in stitches

    Messages:
    18,126
    Likes Received:
    7
    I don't think that Resurection is a PROOF thing... it's part of the whole concept of believing in God and Immaculate Conception and the whole bit...
     
  12. Jatom

    Jatom Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL, you seem to be resurrecting all the dead threads! I think that the Resurrection is a belief "thing" that is often taken for granted. But Christianity just so happens to be a "religion" (I don't like using that word because of all the negative connotations that come with it) that holds to things such as objective truth and evidence, thus many of the claims are open to investigation as well. But you're correct, in end it is a "belief thing," but not just a mere intellectual belief thing, but a belief that extends beyond the intellect into the realm of the will and outward actions. You don't merely believe it, you believe it and you do something about it. Understand this, and you'll begin to understand just what faith is.
     
  13. Jatom

    Jatom Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, but I guess depending on how one defines "religion," it can be said to be the cause of many bad things as well as good.
    Or rather believing in the implications of the ressurrection (that it validates the Gospet message, for example) is a matter of faith. But the word faith is incorrectly thrown around a lot. The vast majority of the time when someone talks about "faith" it's not even close to being the saving faith of the Bible. Nevertheless, I hate the false dichotomy people tend to draw between faith and reason as if one is antithetical to the other. Reason pushed too far leads to irrationality, and reason by itself is nothing until it is first grounded in faith.

    Jesus says something like that in order to rebuke Thomas.

    She was one of the first. But why should that mean we need to learn more about her?
     
  14. FreakerSoup

    FreakerSoup Stranger

    Messages:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Whoa! This is a big thread. So...Uh...Keep up the good work!
     
  15. Nimrod's Apprentice

    Nimrod's Apprentice Member

    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    1
    Easter is just the Babylonian festival to Eastre, or Ishtar. Celebrating the Death of a god king of Babylonia Nimrod, who was idolized by his wife Ishtar into becoming the sun god. Then would be reborn every spring, in the equinox. Then his reborn son Tammuz, was said to be his spirit as well. The Father, and the Son became recognized as god kings. The little Tammuz liked rabbits, and Easter was a symbol of Fertility of his mother Ishtar. Hence the Egg and Rabbit theme carried on via the Roman Catholics, from Paganism.

    Then Tammuz died. Nimrod and Tammuz were both idolized as demi-gods, and then died and became the sun god. Then they robbed the gnostic idea of entheogenic sacrifice, and ego death and resurrection of the higher self.

    Not the death and resurrection of Jesus.
     
  16. HippieLngstckng

    HippieLngstckng Bringer of DOOM!!!

    Messages:
    1,440
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think we're missing a relevant theme, though - The necessity for the individual to sacrifice him/herself for the benefit of the whole, as well as for the welfare of their own Self. The Christ personified this goal for those who were willing to accept that the One to show them the way to salvation wasn't immersed in comforts of the flesh.

    The more we become attached to the the things of the world, the more it hurts us to leave it behind... The more we indulge in the things that give us pleasure, the more we hurt when we are without those things (even if those things happen to be people). But when we lessen someone else's suffering, we find the most important and relevant work there is in the world.

    But we all fail to perform... That's where our humbleness should come in. I think most would agree that they don't adhere to Christ's standards with the dedication He Himself did, and Christ humbled Himself before the Father... Merely a set of checks and balances so that Christians don't become so engrossed with looking behind them at their past successes that they stumble upon what tomorrow brings... :)

    Love always,
    The Redheaded Stepchild
     
  17. Nimrod's Apprentice

    Nimrod's Apprentice Member

    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    1

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice