Thank you Spencer.

He is RISEN AND HE IS COMING AGAIN!

Easter, like Christmas, means very little to most Australians these days, apart from gutsing and getting pissed.

Hot Cross buns in supermarkets months before the date of the Crucifixion and Resurrection; eggs and rabbits discounted early; invitations to morning teas plus hotcross buns a fortnight before Easter because the organisers were going to otherwise engaged this weekend.

Given the story of an alleged crucifixion was written some 350 years after the event? It's hard to verify as factual, how much is fact and how much is fable?

As for Easter eggs been around in some form for yonks. And started as some form of pagan harvest ritual? As hen's eggs that were decorated?

Scavenging dogs are nothing new and were around at the end of the second world war and the current genocide in Ukraine.

In truth, there is no real combination, save that invented by the fundamentalist Author? And as such very much a minority view?
Alan B.

When I think of Easter I don't think of
eggs, rabbits, and chocolate things -
Easter to me is a reminder of the
family joys it brings.

Wishing all of you that Easter will bring
smiles, happiness, and memories that you
can treasure.

I'm looking forward to colouring the eggs
and eating sea-food. Chocolate not so much.
Oh and watching the smiles on my grand-children's
faces.

My take on Easter is not centered on Easter eggs or symbolism or any of that stuff.
For me, it is connected to the well established fact of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, which is one of the most investigated and verified of historical events.
That He took the punishment that should have been mine, and that I can access God's forgiveness through faith in Jesus and His resurrection, is the most important aspect of this time of the year for me.
And it is an experience which is available to most people who want to think it through. Ans seek. Thanks Spencer.

Les,

<<He is RISEN AND HE IS COMING AGAIN!>>

Thank you for your affirmation that the hope of Christian believers is the Second Coming of Christ as it demonstrates God is in control of history. He is faithful to fulfill the promises of Scripture.

He came as a baby in a manger at Bethlehem, as was prophesied in the Old Testament. His First Coming was as a Suffering Servant to provide redemption. His Second Coming will be as a Conquering King. He began life on earth in very humble circumstances. At his Second Coming, he will return with the armies of heaven.

Alan B,

<<Given the story of an alleged crucifixion was written some 350 years after the event? It's hard to verify as factual, how much is fact and how much is fable?>>

I’m tired of reading the alleged factual nonsense you post to this forum about Jesus. I spent 5 years writing a research PhD degree on the historical Jesus and discovered plenty of evidence to refute your invented information.

When will you do serious research on the historical Jesus, instead of feeding us your fabricated baloney?

Inspector,

<<For me, it is connected to the well established fact of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, which is one of the most investigated and verified of historical events.

That He took the punishment that should have been mine, and that I can access God's forgiveness through faith in Jesus and His resurrection, is the most important aspect of this time of the year for me.
And it is an experience which is available to most people who want to think it through. Ans seek. Thanks Spencer.>>

I'm encouraged by your biblical perspective on why Christ came to earth to die and such forgiveness is provided for all. The historical evidence is available for all to investigate. However, be prepared to pursue the historical method with integrity.

OzSpen,

You may have spent years getting your PhD but so
did Bart Ehrman. His views differ from yours.
Are his views to be regarded as " alleged factual
nonsense?" And why are your views beyond reproach
simply because that's what you believe?

Virtually all scholars of antiquity as we're told
accept that Jesus was a historical figure although
interpretations of a number of events mentioned in
the gospels most notably miracles and the resurrection
vary and are subjects to debate.

Have you read Thiering's "Jesus the Man?"

If you want your opinion to be taken seriously and
respected you have to be more polite to the views of
others. Or are you just on this forum to preach - as I
seem to recall that was your goal in the past.

Didn't get you very far the last time did it?

Foxy,

<<You may have spent years getting your PhD but so
did Bart Ehrman. His views differ from yours.
Are his views to be regarded as " alleged factual
nonsense?">>

Please stay on topic and the Easter theme. There are several Ehrman themes that have been exposed in his debates with academics of different persuasions. Ehrman is a former evangelical who has now turned his back on those values.

OzSpen,

Stop deflecting. I am right on topic.

Bart D. Ehrman has not turned his back on any values.
He's an American New Testament scholar focusing on
textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical
Jesus and the origins and development of early Christianity.

He's written 30 books including 3 college textbooks. He's
also authored six New York Times bestsellers.
He's also the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of
Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill.

His work is not "alleged factual nonsense" and is worth a read -
at least many think so.

cont'd ...

OzSpen,

By all means hang onto your faith. That's
admirable for you. However, other people
have different opinions and views. And these
should be tolerated as well. You believe that
the Bible is the inspired word of God with no
mistakes. However as Prof. Ehrman points out
there are over "5,000 manuscripts of the New
Testament and no two of them are exactly alike.
The scribes were changing them, sometimes in
big way and lots of times in little ways..."

If the texts are the word of God why didn't he
protect them - why allow the scribes to change
them?

Meanwhile Saint Jesus of Galilee was never ever in any sense a Christian, nor did he found the religion about him, and of course the "resurrection" never happened (could not have happened).
The author of the essays featured below underwent a profound fifty year long research project into every aspect of the Christian religion. He was completely up to date with all of the modern scholarship re the fabricated origins and political purposes of the "New" Testament. He also pointed out that none of the authors of such had any inkling of anything to do with Esoteric Spiritual Religion. Such is of course also obviously also the case with the author of this featured essay.
He even experienced all of the extraordinary ecstatic/mystical/spiritual experiences described in the classic mystical texts, and understood their significance and limitations.

http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-2.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/idol.html
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/beyond_hidden.html

Meanwhile again why not check out this 570 page reference written by the extraordinary modern Christian contemplative Bernadette Roberts. A book which thoroughly covers all of the usual Christian truth claims, both ancient and modern.
http://freddieyam.com/down/roberts.real-christ.pdf

Dear OzSpen,

You claim: “I spent 5 years writing a research PhD degree on the historical Jesus and discovered plenty of evidence to refute your invented information.”

Well I've gone and had a quick look through your PHD and quite clearly you did no such thing. In essence it is just a review of another person's work.

But I was struck by the liberal use of the term of “shipwrecked on the 'rocks' of contradiction”.:

“Crossan's postmodern, reconstructive, interactive hermeneutic was shipwrecked on the 'rocks' of contradiction, inconsistency and self-defeating methodology.”

“It demonstrates how a postmodern, reconstructive, interactive hermeneutic is shipwrecked on the 'rocks' of contradiction, inconsistency and self-defeating methodology.”

“There it was demonstrated how this hermeneutic is shipwrecked on the 'rocks' of contradiction, inconsistency and self-defeating methodology.”

“It demonstrated how a postmodern, reconstructive, interactive hermeneutic is shipwrecked on the 'rocks' of contradiction, inconsistency and self-defeating methodology.”

I realise that writing a dissertation can be daunting so the occasional repetition is going to creep in. But I was curious as to where such a striking phrase comes from.

It seems it was used by Hartshorne in 1948 where he states of Aquinas; “[Though] his doctrine was shipwrecked on certain rocks of contradiction, has he not left us an admirable chart showing the location of the rocks!”

I can not find any other earlier reference to it. Where it is employed in later works Hartshorne is usually acknowledged and/or referenced

Are you able to illustrate where you did so in your dissertation?

Long ago I would talk sometimes to a man who was very well versed in computers.
University degrees, lots of experience, very practical.
I have no university degrees.
I do have a basic understanding of electronics and coding.
I would think about computers, and if we happened to discuss them I would say....
'This must be how it is done. That is the way it must work.'
And he would say, 'yes, that is right'.
Or perhaps, 'yes, nearly, but you have it a bit wrong. You forgot to allow for such and such.'
So I didn't need a degree from a university to understand how computers work.
The important thing here is that you don't need degrees in philosophy, cryptology, or indeed anything, to understand the basics of living and how nature works.
You do need to be observant, questioning, logical, thoughtful, and ready to learn.
You will come to understand that most people around you have life values based on a story.
In other words, based on total fiction.
Well meant fiction, well thought out fiction, which served a purpose at the time it was devised.
But still, all fiction.
To me, it is like trying to build one's life on quicksand. A very unsteady place.
And if the 'truths' are so self-evident, why the need for continual reinforcement?
They perform ceremonies and rituals, and parade around just like actors on a stage.
The difference is that they never leave the stage as an actor will.
They continue with the act all day.
All the world is their stage.
Do I want to stop them?
No.
They must do what they must do.
But they must let me do what I must do as well.
Not try to belittle me, or ram their silly ideas down my throat.
I think, too, that they should avoid playing dress-ups in public places.
Avoid parading around me in costume.
I like public areas to be neutral and placid.
Not divisive places.
But I put up with it all because I live in a democracy, and democracy allows it.

Happy Easter OzSpen

Much of the Biblical account of Jesus from his birth at Christmas to his death at Easter is a hodge-podge mix of fiction and reality. Was there a Jesus Christ, most certainly, and that is confirmed by the Non-Christian Jewish Historian Josephus who made reference to Jesus in his 'Antiquities Of The Jews' circa 94 AD, Josephus writes; "he (Ananus) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." Was Christ crucified, certainly, and that is confirmed by another Non-Christian Historian the Roman Tacitus, in his 'Annals' written circa 116 AD Tacitus comments on the execution of "Christus" at the hands of the Roman Governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. The details of Christs Crucifixion can be disputed, but not the fact of his death at the hands of the Romans.

The Bible portrays Pontius Pilate as a weak vacillating man, with some sense of justice towards the common Jew. That is not true, Pilate was Governor of Judaea for 11 years, and by Roman standards he was a good administrator, ruthless and cold towards the Jews, and any like Jesus who fermented Jewish insurrection against Roman rule were swiftly and un-mercilessly dealt with, without Pilate batting an eyelid. The Biblical account is theatrical and is designed to shift blame for Christs death from the Romans onto the Jews.

Was Christ crucified and entombed on the same day, in fact within hours of his crucifixion. Not likely as the purpose of Roman crucifixion was a slow and agonising death, and the victim would be left to "rot" on the cross as a reminder of Roman authority and what happens to transgressors.

The resurrection and ascension of Jesus, is a matter of Christian faith as there is no evidence for those events, only later Gospel accounts, mostly attributed to St Paul and his followers. The James (brother of Jesus) sect of Christianity which confined itself within Judaism, did not preach resurrection at all, and disappeared with the assassination of James in a political struggle by fellow Jews between 65-69 AD.

Well said Foxy Paul and S.R. To believe anything as a faith based only, (brainwashed from birth) view. One needs to hold open in the mind, the possibility, that the opposite could also be true!

If e.g. one believes J.C. died on a cross, raised folk from their grave, fed a thousand from one basket of fish and bread?

Then one must consider in absence of verified ironclad, irrefutable, evidence, just she said he said, then one needs to consider the entire story could be an embellished fabrication to lend credulence to the claim that J.C was the predicted Messiah?

And the foundation of all Christian religions? And all Church Authority? Replete with a history soaked on blood, horror stories and peadophillia? See pillars of the earth.
Alan B.

Mean Girl Keneally seen praying in a Catholic church pre-Easter despite having written in the past, "Catholicism has done more harm to Australia than Islam".

She has, unsurprisingly, been accused of hypocrisy for using a church that she said was worse than Islam for political purposes. She might have seen the light, but who would believe it!

ttbn, you speak from a point of ignorance, the Keneally's have always been practising Catholics, regular Sunday church goers long as I've known them and that's over 10 years. I respect their right to do the church thing, as I've said before I'm no fan of KKK's politics or her personal style of dealing with people, but she's not a hypocrite in that regard.

AlanB wrote: "the story of an alleged crucifixion was written some 350 years after the event?"

That is "factual nonsense"

Being Good Friday I'll share what I wrote on another
thread (paraphrasing Dr Seuss - and making it my own):

I moan and groan when I try to walk
I repeat myself when I do talk
I need glasses to help me see
And I'm far to old to hold my pee

So bear with me folks - the church bells are ringing
Voices of the faithful are joyously singing
Christ has risen, Easter is here
The Easter Bunny is drawing near

Chocolates and eggs, big and small
Will gladly be shared by one and all
Happy days with family
Will be spent with joy quite happily.

HAPPY EASTER TO ONE AND ALL!

Ex Anglican clergyman, Peter Wales, reminds his readers how, on the occasion of Christian festivals some idiots always claim that the festivals, including Easter, are actually pagan festivals appropriated by Christians.

People as ignorant as the dills taking issue with Spencer Gear here.

Paul1405,

<<Much of the Biblical account of Jesus from his birth at Christmas to his death at Easter is a hodge-podge mix of fiction and reality>>

That's a statement loaded with your anti-Jesus presuppositions. Sydney-based ancient historian, Dr. Paul Barnett, who has taught history at Macquarie University does not agree with you. See his research in The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Eerdmans 2005). He cited Meyer who wrote: "For the history of Christianity . . . we have the completely inestimable advantage . . . of having access to the portrayal of the beginning stages of development directly from the pen of one of the co-participants. That alone ensures foe the author an eminent place among the significant historians of world history" (in Barnett 2005:204).

Foxy,

You say: <<Bart D. Ehrman has not turned his back on any values. He's an American New Testament scholar focusing on
textual criticism of the New Testament>>

His values are no longer those of an evangelical Christian scholar, which they were previously.

He HAS CHANGED HIS VALUES.

SteeleRedux,

<<Well I've gone and had a quick look through your PHD and quite clearly you did no such thing. In essence it is just a review of another person's work.>>

Would you say you have a fair comprehension of my 400pp narrative and 60pp of Works Consulted by your "quick look" through my dissertation? What a joke! I exposed John Dominic Crossan's presuppositions that were damaging in reaching his final conclusions.

OzSpen,

Prof. Bart Ehrman has not turned his back on his
values. As I wrote previously he is an American
New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism
of the New Testament, the historical Jesus and
the origins and development of Christianity. He publishes
his findings.

And by doing so he demonstrates his strong professional ethics
rooted in honesty about his work. He accepts constructive
criticism and he treats others with respect. All these are
admirable values. If you can't see or understand that - you are
the one with a problem. Perhaps you need to examine your own
values - which say more about you then they do about Prof Ehrman.

Paul1405,

<<The resurrection and ascension of Jesus, is a matter of Christian faith as there is no evidence for those events, only later Gospel accounts, mostly attributed to St Paul and his followers.>>

Here you have given us your presuppositions again. You have not provided any careful investigation into the events. Assertions do not provide evidence. I'm waiting to see your careful historical method in action.

True: (as they say),
There is one step below the depths of a politician, a child molester!

And secondly; if Christine Keneally is at such a despicable level of colloquial recognition, then she would be in good company with child molesters among the priests.

The game is up maybe? Another Hillary Clinton?

Daffy Duck.

The Guru Dada you venerate, was also once among the same despicable class.

Dan.

I was raised as a devout catholic and by the time I turned 18 thought I would be a priest. And I have never ever said the Crucifixion was a fable, just not proven fact. Albeit has some truth that many historians have attributed to two probable persons who fit the description of the Jewish Rabi J.C. And when I revealed my ambitions to a fellow worker, he suggested I read a number of history books available at the local book store. And given the first council of Nicosia was when the current official bible was recorded in print, and given that took place some 350 ad I stand by my assertions. Moreover, the oldest known bible resides, I believe in Munich and could be an entirely different book we recognize today. There is no similarity whatsoever!

Spencer reminds me of a story Sir Richard Bramston tells of a highly placed flat earth official he invited onto one of his low obit space fights. The official accepted and spent the entire journey glued to a portal and watched as a round globe unfolded beneath him. When the landed, Sir Richard inquired, and what do you think now? Whereupon the official replied, the special effects were extremely lifelike as were the graphics. And walked off, his errant and entire untested beliefs unchanged.

It is said and unchallenged life is not worth living. And equally an unchallenged/untested belief system, is not worth believing!
Alan B.

Thanks Spencer,

Oh what a Saviour......how can it be that He would die for me.
May the message of the cross continue to go out from all who have breath and may the Lord bless you for using the life He gave you to Glorify Him.

Simon Rossic

Alan B sounds like the type of person that would situate fire teams across the road from one another for an ambush.

A system that doesn't protect itself will be destroyed- Communists don't challenge their ideas- Stalin said we don't allow people to have guns so why should we allow them to think. The British system in the Industrial Revolution seemingly created a sandbox of creative destruction. I think that Alan B has bastardized Socrates here. Socrates probably needs to be understood in it's context.

OzSpen,

There is nothing assumed by me at all concerning the claims of Christs resurrection and ascension, I simply state the evidence, if that's what you can call it, is only contained within the Gospels. It widely accepted that the Gospels are not historical accounts, and any belief that one obtains from those accounts which are not corroborated from other independent sources is supposition.

What evidence do you have to offer for the validity of Christs resurrection and ascension.

Kudos Kid,

I know you are big on Socrates, but how about putting a Sockinit?

He has risen and is coming again? And I thought he was just breathing heavy?
Alan B.

Alan B said "It is said and unchallenged life is not worth living. And equally an unchallenged/untested belief system, is not worth believing!"

Answer- Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."

The evidence for the existence of Santa Claus is irrefutable, the cookies and carrot left out on Xmas Eve have gone, and presents are now under the tree. Santa has been and gone, anyone who doubts that has a predisposed bias against Santa. More evidence is contained in the writhing of the Xmas scholar Francis Pharcellus Church in his message to Virginia in the year 1897. "Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus".

["Is There a Santa Claus?" is commonly reprinted during the Christmas and holiday season, and has been cited as the most reprinted newspaper editorial in the English language. It has been translated into around 20 languages, and adapted as a film, television presentations, a musical, and a cantata.]

I've never quite understood the reluctance of some Christians to acknowledge that their sacred festivals have antecedents in pagan culture. At least the time of those festivals.

There's no way that Jesus was born in late December. The celebrations of that date are clearly related to the summer solstice. Equally the timing of Easter is based on the timing of Passover which in turn is likely based on a Canaanite festival. Indeed festivals around this time proliferate throughout the northern hemisphere and occur to celebrate the first bounties of the coming of spring. The birds were laying, fatted calf was fattening, the barley was ripening. What's not to celebrate. The egg, a symbol of rebirth, ,merely continues that theme.

Even so, the fact that timing of the commemoration is borrowed from antiquity doesn't, or ought not, diminish the raison d'etre for the celebration. Jesus was born. That he might have been born in October rather than December is a minor issue and ought not detract from the celebration of the actual birth. Equally he died during Passover. That the timing of that event coincides with festivals from other cultures with differing traditions which have been incorporated into the Christian tradition, ought not detract from the actual commemoration of the crucifixion.

My kids and, now, grandkids always get chocolate eggs. They also get a lecture on the other part of the celebration. The two can easily co-exist.

Alan B write "And given the first council of Nicosia was when the current official bible was recorded in print, and given that took place some 350 ad I stand by my assertions." [those assertions being that "story of an alleged crucifixion was written some 350 years after the event".]

The bible was COMPILED at the council of Nicosia. But it was compiled from books already written, and most of them were written within the lifetime of those who witnessed crucifixion event. The books weren't written 350 years later.

I have a volume of selected works of Shakespeare. It was COMPILED in the 1990's. That doesn't mean Hamlet was written in the 1990's.

Struth.

My grand-daughter who's only six once asked me to
take down the crucifix from my bedroom wall. When
I asked her why - she said - how can I keep a man
nailed to a cross in my bedroom? I explained to her
who that man was and that he had died for our sins.
"What sins?" she asked. And added - "I'm only six
years old - what possible sine could I have?"
"What does that even mean?"

The conversation continues to this day.

Come on, Foxy.

A child says:

"I'm only six
years old - what possible sine could I have?"

Six year olds just don't speak that way.

ttbn,

Again - Thank You for your opinion.

We can only speak from our own experiences
So I fully understand that yours are different
to mine. However -

Tara is very clever - and very stubborn. She's quite
the personality. And she comes out with the most
unusual things. BTW - I'm giving her the book
"The Life of Jesus" by Sally Grindley for Easter.
And lots of chocolates of course.

Spencer,

No response to you from SR, typically; he comes out barking (less and less, fortunately), cocks his leg, and slinks back to his kennel.

As always, this conversation should show Christians that they need to look for a safe space, something that is not available even in churches these days.

God Alan B:

I don’t know why I bother but here goes.

Firstly, the Jews would definitely rate as the most unhappy tribe of natives on earth.
This is what the poor confused Romans were dealing with.
In exasperation, as their traditions were in dealing with the exasperating contemptuous, they struck out physically.

On the most part, Jews escaped the early Roman persecution by fingering their enemy the Christian sect members: Coupled with this deflection tactic, the Jews had engineered a truce agreement with Rome allowing them to be exempted from idol worship the Romans so adored; but sadly for the new Jewish cult members, Christians, their intransigence was rewarded with innovation of terror, and fed to the lions as public entertainment, for only one morbid example.

As an escape mechanism from Roman persecution, Christians appealed to Rome for exemption from idol worship based on their understanding they were the true Jewish religion, pointing to their understanding of the Torah.
Only in 312AD did Roman persecution of Christians cease, at the conversion of the Emperor Constantine.

So at this point in history, there is a need to define the new Jewish cult as the real McCoy “officially”; and a need to for the official Bible suitably endorsed by Roman authority.
Very little to do with the need of theology for the masses.

Dan

Yes, the first council of Nicosia did compile the first of many versions of the bible from existing hand written scrolls, Even so none of those "books" were eye witness accounts of the event, but hearsay written at least fifty years after the event.

Moreover, the inclusion of what was included and what was left out was the decision of Constantine the great who was at the time a pagan sun worshipper. He also had his minions appointed as the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople!

And therefore, changed Christian teaching and practice forever. Given the early esoteric Christians did not use an altar, nor hear confessions, perform marriage ceremonies, nor build giant constructions to glorify God. But met in one and others homes to break bread in remembrance.

And their leaders did not practice unnatural celibacy! Nor take the sword to disbelievers! All that came later after the intervention of the pagan sun worshipper Constantine!
Alan B.

Constantine was only baptized on his deathbed as insurance. Until then he was bona fide sun worshipping pagan. And as such responsible for much of the pagan rituals that permeate Christian sacrament/worship.
And orthodox Christians use a less altered bible as their foundation for "Constantinian" belief.

Of the new testament writers, only John was literate. All the others relied on scribes to put their words down on parchment. And explains the unusual differences and disagreement? As paraphrasing and editing scribes left out and or included social mores/beliefs they did or didn't agree with?

And the scholar Paul was not an apostle, but disciple who came years after the event. And a self confessed homosexual, who had and has, with his letters, great influence on esoteric Christian belief!
Alan B.

Well Alan B's gone from confidently assertion the Gospels were written 350 years after the event to confidently asserting that they were written 50 years after the event. Quite an [unacknowledged] backflip.

He's still wrong but not so wrong as to make me want to argue the issue.

He equally confidently asserts that they weren't eye-witness accounts. Wrong again.

Alan B marches out of the closet with St Paul carrying a rainbow flag.

Do you know what your attempt at character assassination is…it’s sacrilegiously off key Alan B!

Something I’ve noticed though when considering the gay set, their propensity for violence against others of the normal view , descends to unusually low levels!

Dan

ttbn,

I agree with you - we all need safe spaces from
intolerance. Unfortunately some people, including
Christians are quick to judge and tell others what
they're against.

We all know people who express their disapproval of
various people, groups, and sections of our society,
ranging from movies, television, books, the media,
political parties, gay people, evolutionists, atheists,
members of other religions, the values in public schools
and universities. and the list goes on.

When arguing for their versions of the truth and their
faith many Christians appear intolerant and self-righteous.
Hate and ignorance are human problems. To embrace people
does not appear easy for anybody - even the religious
amongst us who should be practicing what their religion
teaches - or in the case of Christians - what Jesus
preached.

I remember my neighbour being so proud of the fact that she
went to church every Sunday. She was the biggest gossip in
the neighbourhood and never had a nice thing to say about anybody.
So perhaps she needed to go and pray every Sunday. Although it
didn't seem to do her much good.

Canem,

<<Answer- Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living.">>

I agree.

The apostle Paul gave the road map for life: "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:2).

Foxy,

<< we all need safe spaces from intolerance. Unfortunately some people, including Christians are quick to judge and tell others what they're against.>>

Should we be truthful about telling people what Jesus said about Judgment Day? "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31).

OzSpen

I understand that you believe that it is the
Christian's job to preach the gospel and to
make disciples. But as I understand it -
it is God Himself who does the converting, and
that no one can come to Christ unless the Father
draws them.

Therefore you also have to realize that not everyone
will believe and respond to your message.

And, you have to be tolerant of that.

Dear ozspen,

You seemed to have neatly sidestepped the issue of your liberal use of Hartshorne's phrase in your dissertation without any apparent citation.

Given on page 3 you signed a declaration which included the following:

“I understand what plagiarism entails and am aware of the University's policy in this regard.”

And

“I declare that this assignment is my own, original work. Where someone else's work was used (whether from a printed source, the internet or any other source) due acknowledgement was made according to departmental requirements.”

http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/50510

I'm sure you would want to clear this up.

For clarity sake you did include a single reference to Hartshorne with a web link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hartshorne/#3 but I would have thought there really should have been a direct reference to his work "Devine" where he used the phrase, especially as it was absent from your link.

As an aside you really do seem to have it in for the poor bloke John Dominic. Not only did you thoroughly attack him in your dissertation but you you have gone on to write a book accusing him of seemingly supernatural powers:

“This book examines how historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan has dismantled education, TV viewing (by application), and religious studies with his postmodern deconstruction of the text.”

http://scribd.com/book/569781285/How-to-Ruin-Your-Education-and-TV-Viewing-Five-Lessons-from-John-Dominic-Crossan

Perhaps we need a safe place where well respected scholars can be free from seemingly chronic criticisers.

I look forward to your hopefully informative response.

Happy Easter.

"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
ozpen,
Yep, but really bloody difficult with all the crap raining down on us from the Anarchist Left !

Dear Alan.B,

It is unlikely any of the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses even given the protestations of the likes of mhaze.

What is instructive is seeing the differences in each reflecting the order they were written.

Mark, the first, does not contain any references to Jesus being called God nor any mention of a virgin birth. When Christ was on the cross Mark has him cry: "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me". This survives into the second (Matthew) but by Luke it has become "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" and by John Jesus does not address God at all from the cross.

The case for the divinity of Jesus is progressively padded over each subsequent Gospel. Still it is a powerful story and one that still inspires today.

OzSpen,

Is it a case of cut and run when you are asked to provide evidence for the resurrection and ascension of Christ. You claimed I was presupposing these event didn't take place because I have some "anti-Jesus" bias, which I don't accept, as I can not find plausible evidence for those events. As Steele has said; "The case for the divinity of Jesus is progressively padded over each subsequent Gospel. Still it is a powerful story and one that still inspires today." That I agree with.

Again I ask if you have the evidence, other than the Gospels, for Christs resurrection and later ascension into Heaven, please put it forward.

Christ was most likely a disciple and relative of John The Baptists, whose existence is authenticated in the writings of Josephus. John was a renegade preacher within Judaism, possibly a leader within the Essene Sect. The Essenes were a powerful group within Judaism for about 300 years preaching that salvation was at hand, and with anti-Roman hostility many Essens, including John and later Jesus, were executed by the Romans for the crime of sedition. With the death of John, Jesus assumed the leadership of Johns group, that accounts for the very late start in life of the Jesus ministry, at an advanced age for the times of 30.

"It is unlikely any of the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses even given the protestations of the likes of mhaze."

Well there are good arguments on both sides. On balance I'm agnostic on the issue but lean toward Matthew and Mark being disciples, Luke probably and John probably not. But to assert certainty on any of it is fraught.

The issue is an interesting exercise in the pursuit of truth in ancient history given the paucity of sources on many of these questions. But its not an argument I care to have with the 30 minute experts that abound here

Foxy,

<<But as I understand it - it is God Himself who does the converting, and that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws them.>>

You've missed the other half of God's equation in John 12:32, " And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

God converts but people respond: 'If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved' (Romans 10:9-10).

OzSpen,

It seems that you are only capable of seeing things
from one side. That's fine and your faith. However,
something to consider is that not all people believe
as you do or believe in God. Many obey their conscience.

And even Pope Francis has stated that non-believers would be
forgiven by God if they followed their conscience and did
not hurt anybody.

Have a nice day.

I have nothing further to say.

of course, there were other eye-witnesses to the resurrection....

http://babylonbee.com/news/roman-soldier-in-charge-of-guarding-tomb-of-a-troublemaking-jewish-carpenter-looking-forward-to-an-uneventful-weekend

Paul1405,

<<Christ was most likely a disciple and relative of John The Baptists, whose existence is authenticated in the writings of Josephus. John was a renegade preacher within Judaism, possibly a leader within the Essene Sect.>>

So your evidence is of the "most likely" kind and John being "a renegade preacher . . . possibly a leader." I would not choose my accountant based on such a most likely possibility. You provided nil evidence for John being <<possibly a leader within the Essene Sect>>.

From the lack of evidence you've provided in this thread, I conclude you are a ho-hum non-researcher.

Eyewitnesses? Yes, but none of the new testament writers were eyewitnesses. But used hearsay accounts to "pen" their differing versions, Albeit, with a possible element of truth? To reach unto the Kingdom of heaven ye must be born again. And given the pagan, sun worshipping Constantine had all the writings pertaining to the then Christian belief in reincarnation excluded and others, which claimed we humans are fallen angels trying to earn a passage back to heaven via the purgatory of human life in the physical realm, also excluded.

And the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children.
Rabbi, was this man born blind for his sins or those of his father?
Neither, but so the Father could work in him.

Simply put, the values and practice as taught by the Essene Rabbi Jesus? Have little in comparison to the church that came after the intervention of Constantine. And the latter riddled with pagan ritual and belief. And given that is so, can anyone claim that the bible with all its versions and inherent contradictions to be a divinely inspired document? God is hardly likely to contradict Him/Herself!

Therefore, all those that claim the bible is the literal word of God. Clearly self deluded errant fundamentalists? Yes, the master will need to return but mainly to correct the account and words attributed to him which came from many other sources.

I believe the non Daified, Son ( It is not I who does these things but the Father in me) of the God of love, will not condemn non believers, but admit them to heaven also based on their actions during their lives, based on truth and to do unto others---! And that is all! And the very essence of early esoteric Cristian, bigotry free teaching.
Alan B.

"And even Pope Francis has stated that non-believers would be
forgiven by God if they followed their conscience and did
not hurt anybody."

I wouldn't take too much notice of a Pope who is more Commo than Catholic. If the pagans don't "hurt anybody" they don't need forgiving for hurting anybody. But what their conscience permits them to do is another matter.

If your criteria is that history must be by eye-witnesses then, apart from the Peloponnesian Wars and its aftermath, we know virtually no ancient history.

Are the Gospels reliable? Watch this ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M&t=1696s

OzSpen,

This forum is not a "court of law", and opinion, your opinion, my opinion, anyones opinion, are all acceptable here. In the case of the Christian belief in Christ's resurrection and later ascension into Heaven, that is only supposition, considering believers claimed evidence is provided by the Gospels only, writings which cannot be corroborated by other sources. Your leap of faith in believing in Gospel events that are not evidenced based are fine with me, but don't make the claim they are fact if you have no evidence.

My use of the words "most likely" and "possibly" indicate I am offering something that is not entirely evidenced based. Saying John The Baptist was a "renegade preacher" is reasonable based on the Josephus account of him in his the 'Antiquities of the Jews' that substantiates the Gospels by saying that John was executed (beheaded) by order of Herod Antipas in the fortress at Machaerus. Beheading was not the punishment for heresy, but the punishment for transgression against the state. Herod could not order crucifixion, as that was exclusively a Roman punishment, but Herod could order beheadings.
Josephus records that the Essene's were a large sect within Judaism. The John practice of baptism in water and his message of the imminent coming of the Messiah, fits in with Essene belief, the immersion in water to absolve one of sin was a daily ritual of the Essene's, and their belief that the coming of the Messiah was at hand is identical to John message.

Like John, Jesus was possibly also an Essene Jew, his preaching of poverty, charity, piety and devotion to God etc, is very much the Essene message. Add to that, its possible the "conversion" of Saul Of Tarsus (St Paul), in my opinion the true founder of Christianity, was nothing more than his moving from the Pharisee Sect of Judaism and aligning himself with the "Jesus Movement" within the Essene Sect.

mhaze

Having watched the video, out of it there comes additional interesting conclusions away from the main theme which of course was is the resurrection of Christ historically provable.

One was, people are motivated to believe a message, in this case the resurrection, or it may be ideological, such as a belief in Communism or Islam were two other examples in the video: Whatever the desire to believe lies an emotional response to the choice.
Point being here, proving an event such as again, the resurrection, to believers is remarkably unnecessary, since the believer is aligned through an emotional state to believe the message.
The Bible calls this condition “faith”. And right at this point, is the success story of Christianity.

I also subscribe to your belief (for want of a better word), viz;
*… If your criteria is that history must be by eye-witnesses then, apart from the Peloponnesian Wars and its aftermath, we know virtually no ancient history.…*

This also applies to medieval history, and in particular, Russian history.
Now the significance of this was in the related writings by Russian historical writers themselves, of Russian history, was to couch the complete period of Russian defeat and domination by the Mongol Golden Hordes, not as a humiliating defeat of Russia, but a sign from God who must be appeased for Russian sins. Defeat turned into religious symbolism.

Personally, I don’t like engaging in the “Proofing agenda” when the dedicated Christians I have known through the years would be simply horrified at the thought of any need for themselves of historic proof of Biblical events, especially the resurrection belief: They would see that need as a lacking in faith which they accept as truth from biblical accounts. They would not question the Bible in this way.

Dan

Dear mhaze,

Let me get this straight.

Alan.B wrote: “Even so none of those "books" were eye witness accounts of the event, but hearsay written at least fifty years after the event.”

You in reply say of Alan: “He equally confidently asserts that they weren't eye-witness accounts. Wrong again.”

I wrote: "It is unlikely any of the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses even given the protestations of the likes of mhaze."

And your reply was: “Well there are good arguments on both sides. On balance I'm agnostic on the issue but lean toward Matthew and Mark being disciples, Luke probably and John probably not. But to assert certainty on any of it is fraught.”

So now according to you Alan could be right, but it isn't certain?

Alan replies: “Eyewitnesses? Yes, but none of the new testament writers were eyewitnesses.”

You have retreated from your original assertion and ended up with: “If your criteria is that history must be by eye-witnesses then, apart from the Peloponnesian Wars and its aftermath, we know virtually no ancient history.”

Not the most well argued nor solid position is it and yet you started with such confidence.

Paul1405,

<<Again I ask if you have the evidence, other than the Gospels, for Christs (sic) resurrection and later ascension into Heaven, please put it forward. >>

That's a statement demonstrating you are not a true historian who wants to examine ALL of the evidence - including the Gospels. The New Testament and especially the Gospels have been tested to examine if they satisfy the criteria for being reliable. They do. See: (1) F F Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Inter-Varsity Press 1960). (2) Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press 1987).

You are too late to try to tell me that I should go searching beyond the Bible to find something more reliable (and substantive) in Josephus and Tacitus. What is in Josephus and Tacitus is a pebble compared with the monument of trustworthy evidence in the New Testament.

Alan B,

<<Eyewitnesses? Yes, but none of the new testament writers were eyewitnesses. But used hearsay accounts to "pen" their differing versions, Albeit, with a possible element of truth?>>

What does Luke 1:1-4 tell us about his sources?

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

You don't seem to want to read the Gospel text and accept what it says.

OzSpen

1 Corinthians 9:22

Alan B on his global mission to convince the world of his superior intellect.

Dan

Dear OzSpen,

Surely the veracity of the Gospels as historical documents are also shipwrecked on the rocks of contradiction so profusely strewn among them (Hartshorne 1945)

"So now according to you Alan could be right, but it isn't certain?"

Yes, the issue is uncertain. So when he confidently expresses certainty, he's wrong.

I know these simple things elude you, SR, what with your 30 minute expertise, but the Gospels were written in the life-time of those who witnessed the events. If they weren't written by actual eye-witnesses, they were written based upon the recall and/or writings of eye-witnesses. That they don't align in detail, is neither here nor there. Eye-witness accounts even today rarely align in detail and its the bane of the ancient historian that the sources that come to us from that period are often in conflict.

The death of Jesus was one of the most monumental events in history and we know little with certainty about it. Equally the death of Alexander was one of the most consequential in history (the world would be a very different place if he'd lived to 60 or so) but we also know nothing about it with certainty. That's the nature of ancient history.

Paul1405,

<<Is it a case of cut and run when you are asked to provide evidence for the resurrection and ascension of Christ.>>

The most reliable evidence for Jesus' resurrection and ascension is in the New Testament Gospels - which has been demonstrated in the research of Professor F F Bruce, "The New Testament: Is It Reliable?" (Inter-Varsity 1960 - now in 2nd edn) and Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press 1987).

I have no more evidence to submit as I've provided the best evidence and you refuse to accept it. May the rock around your neck bring you God's justice.

The book is over 2,000 years old and translated from several ancient tongues. When we go back to the original Greek the lords prayer reads very differently and lead us not into temptation becomes, do not put us to the test. And the book is chock full of such inaccuracies.

And therefore cannot be relied on as the literal word of God as the fanatic Ozpen demonstrates and uses as chapter and verse authority for his unique brand of intolerant bigotry?

Something the Master was never guilty of! As for my intelligence Dan, I have nothing to prove, least of all to abusive know-it-alls like yourself.

Foxy, the bible tells us not to cast our pearls before swine, it is as you have found, a complete waste of time!
Alan B.

OzSpen,

Luke 11:2-4 Is the basis of the 'Lord's Prayer'. Relevance?

I am not disputing Christ's crucifixion, a natural event that is documented to my satisfaction. The "5 act play" that is the Gospel account of that event is mostly unsubstantiated theatrics, but the basis is true. It's a bit like believing the musical play 'Les Miserables' is a true account of the French Revolution, it has a basis in truth, there was a French Revolution, but that's where truth ends.

Moving to the supernatural events associated with Easter, Christ's resurrection and later ascension into Heaven. They are far more difficult to prove, unlike the crucifixion, an everyday occurence in Roman times, there is corroborating evidence provided by both Josephus and Tacitus for that, but no corroborating evidence for the later supernatural events.

"trustworthy evidence in the New Testament" is your view, but not mine. I consider your belief a matter of faith, and I accept that, but its not an iron clad fact.

ps Both Bruce and Blomberg, possibly start from a position of bias, being committed men of faith. Not having read them, I do not presume to pass judgement on their works.

Diver Dan,

"Point being here, proving an event such as again, the resurrection, to believers is remarkably unnecessary, since the believer is aligned through an emotional state to believe the message."

Precisely. We had a very long thread here a few years back where some asserted they could disprove the existence of a deity. The main protagonist finally admitted that they could do no such thing and hasn't been sighted since. The problem for people like OzSpen is that they get sucked into the 'proof' game. There is no proof of a deity, a resurrection, an after-life. There is no proof that the things the Jesus is purported to have down, were indeed done.

But proof is beside the point. The believers 'know' its true. They have all the proof they need. The unbelievers 'know' its false and no 'proof' would ever dissuade them from that.

If a scroll was found in the Dead Sea caves tomorrow that independently confirmed what the Gospels said it wouldn't make the slightest difference to either side. When Brian told his followers that he wasn't the messiah, it made no difference to them.

Scientists 'believe' there is Dark Matter. They have no proof of it. But their understanding of the world makes no sense to them if there is no dark matter. Equally Christians believe their is a saviour. They have no proof of it. But their understanding of the world makes no sense to them if there is no Jehweh, no Jesus, no resurrection.

Alan B,

<< When we go back to the original Greek the lords prayer reads very differently and lead us not into temptation becomes, do not put us to the test. And the book is chock full of such inaccuracies.>>

Do you read N T Greek and understand Greek grammar and syntax or are you simply spruiking?

mhaze

Following is a situational reality all within a stones throw from my back yard. On one side of the fence is a general surgeon from Brisbane, and his family, devout practicing Catholics.
On the other side of the fence is a cardiac specialist from Melbourne, a devout Protestant.
Over the back fence a retired builder; devout Catholic.

All of these people exhibit a brain.
Q: do any of this microcosm of Christian believers ask for proof of the resurrection as a motivation for their religious stand. A: obviously not.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, that God and his message would be better served by OzSpen, if he ignored such questioning, which has the less than hidden intention of ridiculing his faith as it’s base.

Dan

"May the rock around your neck (Paul) bring you God's justice." That sounds painful, conform or its fire and brimstone for you, that has generally been the attitude from the Christian hierarchy for centuries. Fortunately the old guard in many churches is being replaced by a more liberal, tolerant new guard, and questioning is acceptable.

Buddha said; "Man should seek Enlightenment", he didn't say if you don't you'll burn in Hell, so that puts him one up on lots of others in my book.

I question all the time, its healthy, what do you thinking I do at Christian fellowship on a Wednesday night, some chaps don't know what to make of me, is he a Christian, or some kind of renegade heathen.
At my first nights attendance, I was welcomed, then shorty after asked what I thought of St Paul, tonights discussion. I could have answered; "A wonderful chap who did the work of Jesus", but I chose to say "St Paul, also known as Saul of Tarsus, the true founder of Christianity.....", gave my reasons for saying that, of course it raised a few conservative eyebrows to lift, but others joined in the conversation and it was a good discussion.

DD,

OzSpen is a big boy, and can speak for himself.

"OzSpen, if he ignored such questioning, which has the less than hidden intention of ridiculing his faith as it’s base." No, there is no ridculiculing of faith by me, OzSpen has every right to his faith, and I respect that, I just have a different opinion.

Dear OzSpen,

Did you really say this of another poster?

"May the rock around your neck bring you God's justice."

Hardly a Christian sentiment there young fella.

And what on earth is this recurring theme of yours with rocks? And why the reluctance to talk about them?

Perhaps you might need to ease up a little because they seem to be getting you in all sorts of trouble.

Hartshorne sends his regards of course.

Dear mhaze,

Overdoing the 30 minute experts jibe a touch aren't we?

Oh well.

There is very little support from the majority of biblical scholarship that even the earliest Gospel is an eyewitness account. Those who try and push the idea generally have quite deeply vested interests.

Perhaps the Q document was but we will never know because it seems likely to be lost to the world.

Consider the following :-
The Christian religion portrays God as a loving father looking after his flock, " He will not suffer thy foot to be moved", etc. Here was Jesus on the cross suffering the most extreme torture. "God, why has thou forsaken me" was his cry. Would a loving Father such as believed upon by the Christians, be so indifferent to the suffering of His son. I suspect not. The only conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that in fact there is no God. He is just an imaginary being, thought up by the Jewish leaders to help them to maintain control over them, in a similar fashion to what happens to today's faithful, particularly in the Catholic and evangelical religions.

David

VK3AUU,

<<The only conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that in fact there is no God. He is just an imaginary being, thought up by the Jewish leaders to help them to maintain control over them, in a similar fashion to what happens to today's faithful, particularly in the Catholic and evangelical religions.>>

You have provided us with your limited understanding. The facts are that He is a loving, caring God whose attributes include judging the world at the end of time.

"There is very little support from the majority of biblical scholarship that even the earliest Gospel is an eyewitness account"

An assertion SR will back up any minute now.

Ozpen. If he is such a loving caring God, then why did he let his dearly beloved son die such an excruciating death. You can't have it both ways.
David

Hi David,

The quote is from Matthew 27:46, it's repeated word for word in the very shot Gospel of Mark 15:34. Like every thing Jesus is reported to have said, nothing is truly verifiable, it's all a matter of faith. In the three synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, Christ is portrayed as a man with divine qualities. In John, Christ is portrayed as a divine being with manly qualities.

"The Christian religion portrays God as a loving father looking after his flock" That is true today, but not so long ago, God was portrayed as an angry vengeful God.

"Overdoing the 30 minute experts jibe a touch aren't we?
"

A bit too close to home?

VK3AUU,

<<Ozpen. If he is such a loving caring God, then why did he let his dearly beloved son die such an excruciating death. You can't have it both ways.>>

It is important to understand that Jesus was a Jew and the Jewish way of covering/forgiving sin (atonement) was through a blood sacrifice: "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life" (Leviticus 17:11).

The loving God keeps His Covenant through blood sacrifice.

I can just imagine what they thought back in the day when the Churh mob were applying red hot irons to a blokes bare feet. "This is only a tickle compared to what God's going to do when he gets his hands on you."

OzSpen and other committed believers,

Would you like to comment on the other early Christian writings (Gospels) which were for at least 300 years accepted as accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. In 1945 the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Egypt and has been dated as an early account of the word of Christ. Some believe this Gospel was written by the Christ Apostle Thomas, who is named in Matthew 10:3. Was Thomas even literate? A lack of literacy among Jesus and his followers may explain the lack of first hand accounts of the first century AD "Jesus Movement".

How the people of "unshakeable faith" quickly cut and run whenever you want to discuss Christianity from another perspective, or question the validity of scripture. Should there be a charge of heresy leveled against the inquisitors of orthodox Church teaching. "How dare you question the spoon fed teachings of the Almighty".... the Church hierarchy is whom they are actually referring to, not God, note, not the teachings of Christ and other early Christians as much, but the words of the Church hierarchy of more recent times.