What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE! Read This First Post, THEN Q & A Discussion! ASK QUESTIONS HERE! (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paddington said:
What would you like to debate?  Give me a refutation. 
Click to expand...
Here's one:

Hell is not a place of fiery torment, it is the common grave of mankind. What would Job pray to go to hell? (Job 14:13). Why would Jesus be in hell? (Acts 2:25-27

And please don't bring up the rich man and Lazarus, that was an obvious parable of which Jesus used a lot.

The wages sin pays is death, not fiery torment (Rom 6:23).

He who dies, has been acquitted from his sin. (Rom 6:7)

I'm pretty tired of the misuse of what hell is in order to scare people into being believers.

 
Jed said:
Here's one:

Hell is not a place of fiery torment, it is the common grave of mankind. What would Job pray to go to hell? (Job 14:13). Why would Jesus be in hell? (Acts 2:25-27

And please don't bring up the rich man and Lazarus, that was an obvious parable of which Jesus used a lot.

The wages sin pays is death, not fiery torment (Rom 6:23).

He who dies, has been acquitted from his sin. (Rom 6:7)

I'm pretty tired of the misuse of what hell is in order to scare people into being believers.
Click to expand...
Christianity, as a religion, does not function without fear.

 
Paddington said:
Paul did see the ascended Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus.  Paul's was led into isolation and taught personally by the ascended Jesus for several years, his gospel of Grace.  The 12 preached to the Jews who were still under the law.  Paul preached grace to the gentiles.  Paul's writings and teachings were affirmed by the 12 disciples.  If he were a fake, they wouldn't have approved his teachings.  

You are wrong. All of the gospels were written by the eyewitnesses, disciples, half brothers of Jesus.  It was a requirement for a book of the Bible to be included in the canon.  Scholars make speculations about where they got their content, but the Bible is clear that these men spake as they were moved of the Holy Ghost.  

 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. {in old time: or, at any time} 

 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Click to expand...
From:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date

Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous.The Gospel of John is somewhat of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle. During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle. Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.

As for what Paul saw, it's just as likely that he ate some mushrooms and had a wild trip as it is a dead Jesus appeared to him. In fact, the mushroom theory is far more likely than the later. 

As for Paul being affirmed by the 12 disciples, there is no evidence of this. The only evidence that at least one of them affirmed what Paul taught is from the book of 2 Peter. Which was very unlikely to be written by someone from Judea. It's far more likely to have been written by someone from Alexandria. And most scholars accept that the two books of Peter were written by two different authors. It's unlikely Peter was the author of either of them.  Most of the disciples aren't even heard of again in the bible outside of the gospels. But if you are willing to read ancient text that aren't in the bible, they are heard from... and not only do they not affirm Paul, they outright reject them. Those texts are considered heresy, for obvious reasons. 

 
Paddington said:
Paul did see the ascended Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus.  Paul's was led into isolation and taught personally by the ascended Jesus for several years, his gospel of Grace.  The 12 preached to the Jews who were still under the law.  Paul preached grace to the gentiles.  Paul's writings and teachings were affirmed by the 12 disciples.  If he were a fake, they wouldn't have approved his teachings.  

You are wrong. All of the gospels were written by the eyewitnesses, disciples, half brothers of Jesus.  It was a requirement for a book of the Bible to be included in the canon.  Scholars make speculations about where they got their content, but the Bible is clear that these men spake as they were moved of the Holy Ghost.  

 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. {in old time: or, at any time} 

 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Click to expand...
The 12?  It was 11.  Judas Iscariot was dead and unavailable.

 
Paddington said:
Paul did see the ascended Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus.  Paul's was led into isolation and taught personally by the ascended Jesus for several years, his gospel of Grace.  The 12 preached to the Jews who were still under the law.  Paul preached grace to the gentiles.  Paul's writings and teachings were affirmed by the 12 disciples.  If he were a fake, they wouldn't have approved his teachings.  

You are wrong. All of the gospels were written by the eyewitnesses, disciples, half brothers of Jesus.  It was a requirement for a book of the Bible to be included in the canon.  Scholars make speculations about where they got their content, but the Bible is clear that these men spake as they were moved of the Holy Ghost.  

 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. {in old time: or, at any time} 

 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Click to expand...
How do we know that the author of this work is telling the truth? 

Well, look what he wrote, it specifically says that it's true!

:loco:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thayman said:
The 12?  It was 11.  Judas Iscariot was dead and unavailable.
Click to expand...
####, trying to remember grade school religion class but I think there was a 13 apostle who substituted in for him.  Started with a "B" maybe?

ETA: Upon googling it was "Matthias". 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
From:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date

Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous.The Gospel of John is somewhat of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle. During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle. Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.

As for what Paul saw, it's just as likely that he ate some mushrooms and had a wild trip as it is a dead Jesus appeared to him. In fact, the mushroom theory is far more likely than the later. 

As for Paul being affirmed by the 12 disciples, there is no evidence of this. The only evidence that at least one of them affirmed what Paul taught is from the book of 2 Peter. Which was very unlikely to be written by someone from Judea. It's far more likely to have been written by someone from Alexandria. And most scholars accept that the two books of Peter were written by two different authors. It's unlikely Peter was the author of either of them.  Most of the disciples aren't even heard of again in the bible outside of the gospels. But if you are willing to read ancient text that aren't in the bible, they are heard from... and not only do they not affirm Paul, they outright reject them. Those texts are considered heresy, for obvious reasons. 
Click to expand...
Doesn't Mark imply that it was, in fact, Mark, because Mark ran faster than Peter or something? 

I like this thread.  It challenges me to remember what those zany nuns taught me and those underpaid parochial school teachers parroted to me from some textbook. 

 
Zow said:
Doesn't Mark imply that it was, in fact, Mark, because Mark ran faster than Peter or something? 

I like this thread.  It challenges me to remember what those zany nuns taught me and those underpaid parochial school teachers parroted to me from some textbook. 
Click to expand...
That is the line of thinking of the traditionalists who ascribe the authorship of Mark to Mark. Most of Mark is clearly take from other sources, many of which are pagan.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

"Most scholars also reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative."

As has been said many times in this thread, very little of what has been attributed to Jesus by the Gospels is unique to Jesus. The majority of the stories about him can be found in ancient writings about other people. The 12 apostles may not have even been real and are just personifications of the 12 constellations that follow the sun. Christianity is likely just a amalgam of sun worship and paganism that was used as propaganda against Jews who were scattered amongst the greco roman world after their revolt against Rome failed. It was needed so the scattered Jews wouldn't convince the greco roman world to join their revolt. That's why it was all written in Greek, showed Jesus as a not being a revolutionary against Rome (give to caesar what is caesars), and showed the Jews failed to recognize their own messiah. The "real" Jesus was probably King Izas of Edessa, who we know from historical records led the revolt against Rome, was crucified by Rome with to other revolutionary leaders just outside of Jerusalem, and we see from Edessan coins from the period that the king of Edessa wears a "crown of thorns". The Jewish Messiah was supposed to be named "Yeshua" or as we know Joshua. The name Jesus likely came from Joshua being combined with Izas as the stories of the two were told word of mouth over decades.  

 
The gospels are anonymous.  Names were assigned later to establish authority when more writings were popping up doing the same.  But when Mark (the first gospel) was written there was no need to establish authority because it was authoritative in the communities in which it was circulated.  There were no other gospels, no competition.  Ditto in Matthew and Luke's communities, although both of those authors had a copy of Mark, but their audience probably didn't.  

John is also anonymous and does not claim to be the "disciple that Jesus loved."  The author claims the disciple that Jesus loved (probably John, son of Zebedee) was his source, not himself.  

I agree that the stories of Jesus could have been taken from other ancient writings and the disciples based upon the zodiac, etc.  But I believe that Mark (first) basically used the stories in the Hebrew bible as his source for this stories for Jesus.   A retelling of stories of Joshua, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc.  Essentially everything done in his narrative is a retelling of a similar story in the Old Testament.  He could have also used external contemporary source material such as the Homeric Epics (See: Dennis R. MacDonald's book notes).

Another interesting theory is that Mark simply set out to write a continuation of the Old Testament.  The last book in the Old Testament (at least the English one we have today) is Malachi, the last OT prophetic book).  Malachi ends with the prophecy that the prophet Elijah will be sent by God before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes (Malachi 4:5).  And thus ends the Old Testament.  

And how does Mark begin?  It begins with John the Baptist, the new Elijah, preparing the way before the Lord.  John baptizes and preaches that the messiah is coming... one who will baptize not with water, but with the Holy Spirit.  Then Jesus is introduced and it goes from there.  

Matthew and Luke change Mark's purpose to construct their own.  They add silly and contradicting birth accounts and go from there, using Mark and of course "Q" as sources.  

 
Jayrok said:
The gospels are anonymous.  Names were assigned later to establish authority when more writings were popping up doing the same.  But when Mark (the first gospel) was written there was no need to establish authority because it was authoritative in the communities in which it was circulated.  There were no other gospels, no competition.  Ditto in Matthew and Luke's communities, although both of those authors had a copy of Mark, but their audience probably didn't.  

John is also anonymous and does not claim to be the "disciple that Jesus loved."  The author claims the disciple that Jesus loved (probably John, son of Zebedee) was his source, not himself.  

I agree that the stories of Jesus could have been taken from other ancient writings and the disciples based upon the zodiac, etc.  But I believe that Mark (first) basically used the stories in the Hebrew bible as his source for this stories for Jesus.   A retelling of stories of Joshua, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc.  Essentially everything done in his narrative is a retelling of a similar story in the Old Testament.  He could have also used external contemporary source material such as the Homeric Epics (See: Dennis R. MacDonald's book notes).

Another interesting theory is that Mark simply set out to write a continuation of the Old Testament.  The last book in the Old Testament (at least the English one we have today) is Malachi, the last OT prophetic book).  Malachi ends with the prophecy that the prophet Elijah will be sent by God before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes (Malachi 4:5).  And thus ends the Old Testament.  

And how does Mark begin?  It begins with John the Baptist, the new Elijah, preparing the way before the Lord.  John baptizes and preaches that the messiah is coming... one who will baptize not with water, but with the Holy Spirit.  Then Jesus is introduced and it goes from there.  

Matthew and Luke change Mark's purpose to construct their own.  They add silly and contradicting birth accounts and go from there, using Mark and of course "Q" as sources.  
Click to expand...
Good stuff here. The question that should really be asked is why did the author of Mark write those things. The Christian position is he wrote it to be a witness of what happened. But since he didn't witness anything and was just taking existing stories and producing a new spin, what was his intent? Determining intent has to include the audience it was written to. It was written in Greek. The audience it was written to spoke Greek. As you mentioned, the writing picks up where the OT leaves off. So the audience would have some knowledge of the OT. The only audience that existed at the time Mark was written that meets that description is the greco-roman world where Jews were scattered after the fall of Jerusalem and Judea. So know that we know the audience, why would Mark write what he did to them? The greek speaking people in areas where scattered Jews were refugees would obviously be hearing about their failed revolt against, including why they revolted against Rome. This presents a risk that those greek speaking people would join the Jews in another revolt against Rome. Mark was written as propaganda to explain to the greek speaking population where Jews were scattered the "other side of the story". Rome crucified the leader of the Jewish revolt (King Izas of Edessa who was a Nazarene Jew) outside of Jerusalem with two other revolutionary leaders. Surely the scattered Jews would be telling their new Greek speaking neighbors the story of him and how Rome killed him as he was the Messiah. Keep in mind the Messiah was the one who was supposed to rid the promised land of the gentile occupation (Rome) and return the lost ten tribes. That's exactly what King Izas was trying to do in the revolt he led. So Mark was written as propoganda to the greek speaking people to say that yes he was the Messiah, but no it was not Rome who killed him. It was the Jews who killed him because they failed to recognize him as the messiah. And oh by the way he said to "give Caesar what is Caesars". I don't believe Mark was the only propaganda going on either. I believe Q was another one. John was another one. And so was Paul's writings. Mark and Q then were combined into one by Matthew and Luke. And Luke wrote Acts to tie Paul's writings into it. But even those just scratch the surface. Rome had no problem with a ridiculous amount of propaganda being written as long as it kept the Jews from winning over the greek speaking world to produce a bigger revolt. Thus there were all kind of propaganda letters in circulation at the time (the word "circulation" being used liberally given it was a all just men manually copying them which was expensive and took forever). Of course it produced a ridiculous amount of different beliefs over decades and even centuries. If it wasn't for one of the belief systems gaining the political power of Rome, who went off killing people who disagreed with them (heretics) and destroying books and letters that disagreed with them, we'd have a much clearer picture of what happened. As more and more that was not destroyed by Rome is uncovered, the clearer it gets, which is kind of ironic given the clarity we are now seeing is showing just how ####ed up it really was, and is not the simple "good news" that Rome's religion has taught the world of what happened.  

 
Politician Spock said:
"Paul and Jesus" by James Tabor

"Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman.Ehrman has written a lot of books on the subject. 

"The Amazing Colossal Apostle" by Robert Price. This one is hard to read but contains a lot of evidence of what really happened. 
Click to expand...
Have you read any of Richard Carrier's books?  I want to start reading some of his and some of the authors listed above, but not sure where to start?  Reading Carrier's blog, he is pretty critical of Ehrman, and points out a lot of his material that he claims is incorrect and/or misunderstood.

 
CowboysFromHell said:
Have you read any of Richard Carrier's books?  I want to start reading some of his and some of the authors listed above, but not sure where to start?  Reading Carrier's blog, he is pretty critical of Ehrman, and points out a lot of his material that he claims is incorrect and/or misunderstood.
Click to expand...
No, but I've watched a lot of him on youtube. I believe Carrier is critical of the stuff Ehrman uses to conclude Jesus did exist. Carrier believes Jesus didn't exist at all. 

 
CowboysFromHell said:
Have you read any of Richard Carrier's books?  I want to start reading some of his and some of the authors listed above, but not sure where to start?  Reading Carrier's blog, he is pretty critical of Ehrman, and points out a lot of his material that he claims is incorrect and/or misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Carrier is critical of Ehrman mostly because Ehrman disagrees with his stance on the Christ myth theory.  Carrier is a mythicist; Ehrman believes Jesus lived in history but was a regular man, a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, not unlike John the Baptist.  

With regard to books to read, it depends on what you're interested in.  Ehrman's expertise is mainly textual criticism (Misquoting Jesus, Forged, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Lost Christianities, Jesus Interrupted, etc.), but as a New Testament scholar and professor, he also has expertise in early Christian history.  

If you're interested in his view of the historical Jesus and how he later became "God" when his movement grew, I would recommend two of his books. Both are short reads:

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium and How Jesus Became GOD: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. There is a 3 part lecture series on the latter on youtube and another separate lecture on that book here.  

For Richard Carrier, his crowning achievement, if you will, is his epic book on the historicity of Jesus.  I read it when it first came out a couple of years ago.  Not a short book, but it is packed with content and more footnotes/references to other works than I think I've ever seen in a book.  Carrier did years worth of research for this book.  

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason For Doubt

Carrier makes a very compelling case that Christianity started with a myth where the Jesus figure was originally conceived as a celestial being known only through private revelations and hidden messages in Jewish Scripture.  This is Paul's Jesus, not the miracle working preacher of the gospels that came later.  

If you're interested in the Christ myth theory, this is the book to read.  However, a great place to start before reading this book is to check out the work of Earl Doherty.  His website is dedicated to the Christ myth.  And he has an easy reading book that sums up his view:  The Jesus Puzzle:  Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus.  Carrier includes many references to Doherty's work.  

Robert Price is another favorite author of mine.  But his books, including the above mentioned The Amazing Colossal Apostle, are not easy to read.  He does have one fun book that essentially rips at The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, called The Case Against The Case For Christ.  

 
For a little more perspective, I find my position to be somewhere between Erhman and Carrier. 

I believe the Jesus christians believe is neither one man that really existed, nor is he entirely a myth. I think a lot of myths were applied to numerous real people, and all of it eventually became the story of one man. I believe one of those real people was King Izas of Edessa. I believe another one of those people was a carpenter named Jeshua who taught radical jewish ideas. There may be more, but the real lives of at least those two were combined with a lot of pagan ideas to create what christians know as Jesus.  

 
Paddington said:
It's not me that has all of the answers, it's God and since I know Him and have His word, I am in bliss.  
Click to expand...
If God has all of the answers, why did God ask Adam where he was and whether he had eaten fruit in Genesis? 

If the answer to this question is “so God could test Adam’s integrity”, why would God not have already known what Adam's answer would be since God has all of the answers?
 

 
Politician Spock said:
If God has all of the answers, why did God ask Adam where he was and whether he had eaten fruit in Genesis? 

If the answer to this question is “so God could test Adam’s integrity”, why would God not have already known what Adam's answer would be since God has all of the answers?
 
Click to expand...
 Because He wanted Adam to answer Him and admit what he had done.  God DID already know Adam's response, but God also knows everything.  God wants a relationship with us, it's not about knowing, it's about relating to Adam.  

 
Paddington said:
 Because He wanted Adam to answer Him and admit what he had done.  God DID already know Adam's response, but God also knows everything.  God wants a relationship with us, it's not about knowing, it's about relating to Adam.  
Click to expand...
Christians say god wants a relationship with us all the time, but ignore:

"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them.'" (Genesis 6:6-7).

Great relationship there.  :loco:

 
At that moment God regretted making man because man's sin was so great.  The relationship is damaged due to sin.  Hello?  Isn't that what Christians are trying to tell you?

 
Funny Meme:  Just be a democrat. They don't believe in walls and if god doesn't let you in he is a racist.

Something along those lines...

 
Paddington said:
At that moment God regretted making man because man's sin was so great.  The relationship is damaged due to sin.  Hello?  Isn't that what Christians are trying to tell you?
Click to expand...
So if man's sin wasn't that great, say it was just little mistakes here and there, God wouldn't have flooded the earth to kill everyone, right?

Think about it this way.... everyday I see on the news people who shock the hell out of me for what they do to each other. But if it ever got so bad that it made me think I wish a flood would come along and kill everyone, I would immediately think of all the people I know and love who don't deserve that. I would have to be a really sick and twisted ####### to not feel like that.  

 
He wouldn't have been a 1%er democrat, like the Clintons.  I see him more of a socialist, at least in terms of a community helping each other through goods and services shared among the community.  He was also a nationalist ("I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."), at least from one gospel perspective.  

Today Jesus would probably have been labeled as a nut... a doomsday prophet claiming the sky is about to fall.  May have been on the government's watch list.  

 
Jayrok said:
He wouldn't have been a 1%er democrat, like the Clintons.  I see him more of a socialist, at least in terms of a community helping each other through goods and services shared among the community.  He was also a nationalist ("I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."), at least from one gospel perspective.  

Today Jesus would probably have been labeled as a nut... a doomsday prophet claiming the sky is about to fall.  May have been on the government's watch list.  
Click to expand...
Jesus was labeled as a nut... a doomsday prophet claiming the sky is about to fall. And he was on the government's watch list. 

 
What would you think of a person who would welcome his kids in his home, and give them food, clothing and shelter... as long as they believe in Santa Clause. But if they don't believe in Santa Clause, then they burn for eternity in the fireplace. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Paddington
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2
9 10 11
Replies
528
Views
8K
Paddington
Paddington
Paddington
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
2 3
Replies
105
Views
3K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
A Glimpse of Beauty In an Ugly Place
Replies
0
Views
225
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top