Deity Existence - Page 71

Jikanu · 06-27-2009, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Vasu

He was a charismatic figure. There would be more people who believed that he had done them than those who didn't because of the way exaggerations add onto rumours like a rolling snowball. And to be fair, the Bible would've been written putting its best face on display.

And what would Jesus himself gain from this deciet? other than scourging, and being hung at the cross, which he DID forsee. True, if all went well he would be the most well known man in the world. but he wouldnt know that it would. and he wouldnt be able to experience it in life.

**Hraesvelg** · 06-27-2009, 05:34 PM

You do realize the New Testament was written well after the fact, correct? By members of the Christian sect? You don't think a little hero worship/cult of personality came into play? Just look at how the North Korean government speaks of Kim Jong Il.

Jikanu · 06-27-2009, 05:43 PM

Acctually, the Gospel of Matthew is attributed to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus's 12 Apostles. So it probably wasnt TOO Long after the fact. And please explain why a cult of personality would've come into play? oh, and also, please the dramatic turn in the Jewish Community between palm sunday to good friday?

**Ivramire** · 06-27-2009, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Hraesvelg

You do realize the New Testament was written well after the fact, correct? By members of the Christian sect? You don't think a little hero worship/cult of personality came into play? Just look at how the North Korean government speaks of Kim Jong Il.

Originally Posted by Jikanu

Acctually, the Gospel of Matthew is attributed to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus's 12 Apostles. So it probably wasnt TOO Long after the fact. And please explain why a cult of personality would've come into play? oh, and also, please the dramatic turn in the Jewish Community between palm sunday to good friday?

You only address one book. The point is that the books were written by people who were in a position and time to embellish whatever accounts they gave. It'd be to their best interest to show things a particular way.

My theology-teacher in Primary-school (who was a Nun) told me that the Gospels were written years after the fact.

It's obvious...

What do you mean?

**Hraesvelg** · 06-27-2009, 05:55 PM

Attributed by whom?

**Vasu** · 06-27-2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

And what would Jesus himself gain from this deciet? other than scourging, and being hung at the cross, which he DID forsee. True, if all went well he would be the most well known man in the world. but he wouldnt know that it would. and he wouldnt be able to experience it in life.

He probably sincerely believed in God himself.

Jikanu · 06-27-2009, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Vasu

He probably sincerely believed in God himself.

Originally Posted by Hraesvelg

Attributed by whom?

Originally Posted by Ivramire

You only address one book. The point is that the books were written by people who were in a position and time to embellish whatever accounts they gave. It'd be to their best interest to show things a particular way.

My theology-teacher in Primary-school (who was a Nun) told me that the Gospels were written years after the fact.

It's obvious...

What do you mean?

1. Ok, i looked into the other ones, and the gospel of John was also written by a direct disciple. I'm not entirely sure about the other two, but most archeologists find many of the events in the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian

I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.

I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?

Originally Posted by Hraesvelg

Attributed by whom?

By the manuscript that was written, i suppose.

Originally Posted by Vasu

He probably sincerely believed in God himself.

And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)

**Ivramire** · 06-27-2009, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

1. Ok, i looked into the other ones, and the gospel of John was also written by a direct disciple. I'm not entirely sure about the other two, but most archeologists find many of the events in the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate.

I would guess that thay can be attributed to them, seeing as they bear their names and all (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) I didn't question whether he historically recorded events and locations that agree with what we actually know. It's the theological aspects that are in question, not his ability as a geographer.

I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.

To what source/evidence do you attribute this?

Look at any religion/cult/following today, they have plenty of followers, many of whom would fit the description of ''reasonable.''

I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?

That wasn't all of the Jews (only those in one city) and I have a thought that anyone would have cheered at what was essentially a parade.

I thought that there were people in the crowd at Jesus' ''hearing'' that incited the crowd to cry for Jesus' death? Whichever way, I still don't see how their ''change of opinion'' would affect anything.

And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)

If he believed in it...he wouldn't think he'd be committing blasphemy at all...isn't that what the Jews essentially executed him for.

.

pigspark · 06-27-2009, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

1. Ok, i looked into the other ones, and the gospel of John was also written by a direct disciple. I'm not entirely sure about the other two, but most archeologists find many of the events in the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian

I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.

I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?

By the manuscript that was written, i suppose.

And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)

but isnt their presumed a messiah to come?

Jikanu · 06-29-2009, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by pigspark

but isnt their presumed a messiah to come?

...i have no idea what you're attempting to ask... seriously...

And at Ivramire: Your choice to reply within a reply makes it extremely difficult for me to reply to you. but i'll attempt to- i'll try not to miss any points. if i do, i'll try to catch them.

1. It was significant since Palm Sunday took place in Jerusalem just a bit before his Crusifixion. And i believe he was brought into Jerusalem durring his persecution to stand before Herod too. That's what makes it significant.

2. What im saying is that they're no different from any other of the jewish people at the time. Why would they alone choose to follow him in spite of there being no signs, while everyone else ended up persecuting him?

3. So you're suggesting he was scizophrenic? i find that hard to believe since all the ideals he expressed made complete sense and werent at all violent or paranoid. if that's not what you're suggesting, then please explain WHY he would think he was the Messiah unless he truly was.