• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Case for Christ

<alt>doxygen said:
So Joe finally consummated his relationship with Mary?

I wonder if they needed counseling due to Mary's little adulterous fling with God?
Click to expand...

Why do you say these hateful things, dox? They don't serve you well.
 
Vox said:
Says the guy who uses the false "New Testament" as validation for his bizarre Christian belief.
Click to expand...

Tosca's wisdom and intellectual acumen in presenting the reliable New Testament far surpasses your sophomoric and baseless claims to the contrary.
 
Vox said:
That indicates you've led a sheltered life.
Click to expand...

Actually, it indicates that this tinfoil hat idea of his doesn't get much airplay in serious circles.
 
Logicman said:
Tosca's wisdom and intellectual acumen in presenting the reliable New Testament far surpasses your sophomoric and baseless claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I haven't seen anything like that from him......what I've seen from him (and you) is a sheer lack of rational thought and a reliance on the same New Testament myths that Maccoby (a real scholar) debunked.

I'd be happy to see better from either of you though. Keep trying.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Why do you keep trying to reference logic when nothing you're trying to address involves it?
Click to expand...

Because the response from atheists here are simply that, illogical!
 
Logicman said:
What happened to you people in England? You've traded in the Word of God for the dictates of Satan. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Neither does that paranoid nonsense. (pass the BS smell test) What do you think you said then?
 
To add my two cents:

I am not an atheist and in fully support of the christian conception of God but do not accept this or any other such train of logic as confirming of a historic let alone spiritual Jesus.

The new testament gospels generally placed as written a minimum 40-100 years after the supposed events and likely a second and third generation within the community. But let’s even assume earlier — are they yet earlier and more reflect of the original group then the other components of the New Testament the christians preserved? Probably not. So although today it is read as gospels -> letters / acts. It most presumable the beliefs should be interpreted to have occurred as acts / letter -> gospels and should be interpreted as such. Agreed?

So really we have acts and the letters as the best guide to the beliefs of this group. And what do we find? An emphasis on leaders and teaching of those who interacted or had a blood connection with a physical historical Jesus? Nope — leadership and power was always to do with the relationship to a resurrected Jesus which took many forms including as in the case of Paul - visions. We also have the concept of the "Holy Spirit" as a clear arbitrator of truth to falsehood with clear indication the various churches having profoundly different interpretations, teachings and paradigms even to such the point of fundamental division of which later Christianity had to establish a creed with very specific lanaguage to cull the heard and attack a phenomenon not so consistent with their version of how the events went down.

So although it is no doubt possible the typical interpretation happened when one applies some skeptical filter what we find is the early “christian” community seems to indicate with their own words they were 1000% more about the Holy Spirit, visions and interaction with a spiritual Jesus and may or may not have actually had any connection or knowledge of a historical person: Jesus. or if they did acting strangely indifferent about the subject. The practice of writing a historical backstory of spiritual characters was common practice at the time and explains much of the storied elements in the gospels if it was indeed just done by later generations trying to deal with that fact being lead by the Holy Spirit and visions produces a lot of diversity of thought and at some point you need to pull in together and pick your leaders and traditions. There is other reasons too one might do that. In fact, does Paul ever reference a historic Jesus in a way that would indicate it was not just a spiritual allegory?

Why did Paul get so much influence without resistance and not be challenged on his lack of personal relationship with a historic Jesus? He wasn’t questioned at all on his credibility coming entirely from interactions with the Holy Spirit / Vision / interaction with the spiritual resurrected Jesus. This was the clear emphasis in the whole community with only passing possible references to historic figure and this was a close community with many terms like brother, sister and family. Is the idea of relating spiritual realm with our that out of question? No one finds that odd?

I have no issue with any interpretation but find once considered through both lens the traditional historic + spiritual and just spiritual : the entire New Testament seems more likely and more consistent being seen as having been created by a community where they believed Jesus was a spiritual being entirely in the spiritual realm not a flesh and blood historical persons and the gospels are simply the codification of mythos within the community.

Let also note the oddity that “God would become flesh" verses language of a spiritual fulfillment of the jewish messiah theory at a time of upheaval. (just following the changes made by Julius Caesar)

Traditionally such a suggestion is for sure heresy, yet, how much more sense does the whole thing make? To me a lot more.

In any case my two cents.
 
I have no doubt Jesus was an historical figure. It's not really debated among historians outside one or two cranks.

Jesus was simply a Jewish figure that preached Hellenistic philosophy to a Hebrew audience expecting the apocalypse. He had some revolutionary philosophy, some good advise, some bad advise, and maybe inspired some people in his day.

But he was not God in the flesh.
 
MovingPictures said:
I have no doubt Jesus was an historical figure. It's not really debated among historians outside one or two cranks.

Jesus was simply a Jewish figure that preached Hellenistic philosophy to a Hebrew audience expecting the apocalypse. He had some revolutionary philosophy, some good advise, some bad advise, and maybe inspired some people in his day.

But he was not God in the flesh.
Click to expand...

As several links and much discussion have shown here........Jesus preached standard Pharisee doctrine as an itinerant Pharisee rabbi. Nothing Hellenistic.

Saul/Paul is the one that brought in Hellenistic and Pagan notions.......much to the dismay of the real disciples of Jesus.

Conaeolos asks why there was not more resistance to Saul/Paul......well, that was because he preached to new Gentile converts who only knew that he was offering them an exciting new religion with speaking in tongues, prophecies, love feasts, miracles and (most of all) the newly adapted concept of salvation through "Grace" and the vicarious suffering and death of a "Christ"--(which meant you could sin and yet not be held accountable for your sin).

Paul offered a "get into heaven free" pass........which was irresistible to the sin-loving Gentiles (who knew a really good deal when they heard it).

That's why there was not more resistance. S/P's primary targets were vulnerable Gentiles.

The real disciples of Jesus resisted, but were too quickly outnumbered and neutralized.
 
Last edited:
For those who are coming late on board .......


The following are the CORROBORATING evidences given for Christ.



1. The Bible

Is the God of the Bible, the Creator?
Is the Bible, reliable? Can we trust the Bible?
Is it truly God-inspired? How do you know it came from God?


The first argument (proof) given is, The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, along with several evidences to support it. (see posts #706, 707)



The second was Mathematical Probability: Order of Creation (post #770)

The third, Mathematical Probability: The Christ Prophecy (#967)
Click to expand...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...320-bible.html (The Bible)




Since the information about Jesus Christ, came from the Bible - the evidences given above for the Bible, will be the very first thing you'll have to refute!



2. Non-Biblical source: Tacitus (post #1)


3. Investigative Research and Testimony by ex-atheists:

Lee Strobel (OP) (post #122)
Simon Greenleaf (post #141)



4. The James Ossuary (post #225)
 
Last edited:
Conaeolos said:
To add my two cents:

I am not an atheist and in fully support of the christian conception of God but do not accept this or any other such train of logic as confirming of a historic let alone spiritual Jesus.

The new testament gospels generally placed as written a minimum 40-100 years after the supposed events and likely a second and third generation within the community. But let’s even assume earlier — are they yet earlier and more reflect of the original group then the other components of the New Testament the christians preserved? Probably not. So although today it is read as gospels -> letters / acts. It most presumable the beliefs should be interpreted to have occurred as acts / letter -> gospels and should be interpreted as such. Agreed?

So really we have acts and the letters as the best guide to the beliefs of this group.
Click to expand...

The other Books are part of the guide to the belief of the group! They talked about the Christ as man - before the Resurrection! The Books are a crucial part of the history of their belief!




And what do we find? An emphasis on leaders and teaching of those who interacted or had a blood connection with a physical historical Jesus?
Click to expand...

Why not? Why shouldn't it be? They're the ones who were there with Him 24/7!

If you're going to write the biography of a man, wouldn't you talk to those who knew him personally? How credible, or how complete of a picture of the man you're writing about if you don't rely on those who interacted with him personally?




Nope — leadership and power was always to do with the relationship to a resurrected Jesus which took many forms including as in the case of Paul - visions.
Click to expand...

TRAINING, started with the pre-Resurrection Christ!
Why was Jesus explaining His parables?

But, yes....leadership, has always been by Christ, even after the Resurrection!




We also have the concept of the "Holy Spirit" as a clear arbitrator of truth to falsehood with clear indication the various churches having profoundly different interpretations, teachings and paradigms even to such the point of fundamental division of which later Christianity had to establish a creed with very specific lanaguage to cull the heard and attack a phenomenon not so consistent with their version of how the events went down.
Click to expand...

There will always be someone who'll try to corrupt the teachings. Satan isn't taking all these sitting down.
Why were we repeatedly warned by Jesus about false teachings?

Actually, Jesus never promoted denominational Christianity. He's forbidden sectarianism! (Mark 9: 38-50)

We shouldn't pay too much attention to our denominational identities.
The only reason I'm a Baptist was because I erringly thought I had to be a member of the church to be baptized.

I have no problems going to another denomination church to SING and GLORIFY GOD with them. I don't have to adhere to their teachings that go against the teachings in the Bible (like the political correctness of churches who conformed to the world).

At the end of the day, God knows what's in our hearts.




So although it is no doubt possible the typical interpretation happened when one applies some skeptical filter what we find is the early “christian” community seems to indicate with their own words they were 1000% more about the Holy Spirit, visions and interaction with a spiritual Jesus and may or may not have actually had any connection or knowledge of a historical person: Jesus. or if they did acting strangely indifferent about the subject.
Click to expand...

Which early Christians do you mean that may, or may not have connection or knowledge of Jesus?
How "early" are you referring here?




The practice of writing a historical backstory of spiritual characters was common practice at the time and explains much of the storied elements in the gospels if it was indeed just done by later generations trying to deal with that fact being lead by the Holy Spirit and visions produces a lot of diversity of thought and at some point you need to pull in together and pick your leaders and traditions. There is other reasons too one might do that.
Click to expand...

What HISTORICAL writing would be incomplete as to omit crucial background info of the subject?
Don't all substantive writings about a person - spiritual or not, ancient or present time - include some historical backdrop of the person?

Just check out a person on Wikipedia. Wikipedia always give you some historical background about the person.




Continued.......
 
Last edited:
Continuation......


Conaeolos said:
In fact, does Paul ever reference a historic Jesus in a way that would indicate it was not just a spiritual allegory?
Click to expand...

You must've read Harpur? If you've read Paul's writings, you know that Harpur was making such a ridiculous claim!

I had to cut the article - you've got to go read the rest from the link. The author gave a lot of examples of Paul references to Jesus.


In his book, The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur claims that the story of Jesus was mythical. To bolster his assertion that there never was a real human named Jesus as depicted in the gospel accounts, Harpur alleges that the apostle Paul, whose writings were penned before the gospel accounts, never mentioned Jesus as a historical figure.

In fact, it is amazing that Harpur could make such an outlandish, unscriptural claim and still have his book published by anyone familiar in the least with Paul’s writings.

The fact of the matter is Paul often spoke of Jesus in terms that cannot be understood correctly in any way other than as a historical, flesh-and-blood human being. Paul used the name “Jesus” 218 times in his writings (Strong, 2001, p. 453), not counting other names for Jesus like Christ or Lord.

For Harpur to say Paul “occasionally” mentioned Jesus is outright dishonesty.



Not only did Paul repeatedly mention Jesus, but he specifically stressed that Jesus had come in the flesh as a real human being. For instance, in 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul wrote: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” To elucidate what he meant by the word “man,” Paul wrote in Philippians 2:5:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (emp. added).


Any attempt to turn Paul’s phrase “in the likeness of men” into some sort of spiritual, mystical appearance is doomed to failure. Furthermore, Paul more specifically mentioned that “the likeness of men” that he discussed in Philippians meant human flesh. Paul wrote to the Romans about “Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3, emp. added).
Click to expand...

Apologetics Press - Did Paul Write About Jesus as a Historical Person?


So there you go. Harpur is effectively debunked!




Why did Paul get so much influence without resistance and not be challenged on his lack of personal relationship with a historic Jesus?
Click to expand...


Because, no one accuses Paul of that! What is there to resist? :lol:

Furthermore, Jesus had chosen Paul! Who would resist Jesus? Read the conversion of Paul and how he was guided to meet with Christians.




He wasn’t questioned at all on his credibility coming entirely from interactions with the Holy Spirit / Vision / interaction with the spiritual resurrected Jesus. This was the clear emphasis in the whole community with only passing possible references to historic figure and this was a close community with many terms like brother, sister and family. Is the idea of relating spiritual realm with our that out of question? No one finds that odd?
Click to expand...

Obviously....you haven't read the story of Paul. Read Acts 9.
There isn't any doubt that Jesus had chosen Paul.




I have no issue with any interpretation but find once considered through both lens the traditional historic + spiritual and just spiritual : the entire New Testament seems more likely and more consistent being seen as having been created by a community where they believed Jesus was a spiritual being entirely in the spiritual realm not a flesh and blood historical persons and the gospels are simply the codification of mythos within the community.

Let also note the oddity that “God would become flesh" verses language of a spiritual fulfillment of the jewish messiah theory at a time of upheaval. (just following the changes made by Julius Caesar)

Traditionally such a suggestion is for sure heresy, yet, how much more sense does the whole thing make? To me a lot more.

In any case my two cents.
Click to expand...


You should read the argument given at the other thread, The Bible.

The third, Mathematical Probability: The Christ Prophecy (#967)

https://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/287320-bible.html
 
Last edited:
Vox said:
As several links and much discussion have shown here........Jesus preached standard Pharisee doctrine as an itinerant Pharisee rabbi. Nothing Hellenistic.

Saul/Paul is the one that brought in Hellenistic and Pagan notions.......much to the dismay of the real disciples of Jesus.

Conaeolos asks why there was not more resistance to Saul/Paul......well, that was because he preached to new Gentile converts who only knew that he was offering them an exciting new religion with speaking in tongues, prophecies, love feasts, miracles and (most of all) the newly adapted concept of salvation through "Grace" and the vicarious suffering and death of a "Christ"--(which meant you could sin and yet not be held accountable for your sin).

Paul offered a "get into heaven free" pass........which was irresistible to the sin-loving Gentiles (who knew a really good deal when they heard it).

That's why there was not more resistance. S/P's primary targets were vulnerable Gentiles.
Click to expand...


Read my response above. #270, #271.



The real disciples of Jesus resisted, but were too quickly outnumbered and neutralized.
Click to expand...

The other poster above was lamenting why there was no resistance to Paul....and here you are saying the contradictory. I suppose you guys don't belong in the same atheistic denomination! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Why do people like Harpur make such ridiculous, dishonest claims? Refer to post #271.

I suppose, just like Dawkins......people like Harpur are banking on the fact that their target audience don't bother doing any fact-checking.

They're counting on the ignorance of anti-Christs. In other words, they know their target audience very well.
 
MovingPictures said:
I have no doubt Jesus was an historical figure. It's not really debated among historians outside one or two cranks.

Jesus was simply a Jewish figure that preached Hellenistic philosophy to a Hebrew audience expecting the apocalypse. He had some revolutionary philosophy, some good advise, some bad advise, and maybe inspired some people in his day.

But he was not God in the flesh.
Click to expand...

As you can see, I supported my claim - and even challenge you guys to refute them.

Now that we've debunked the ridiculous theory of Harpur, you got anything to back up your claim?
 
Vox said:
Your responses here tell me clearly that you are not one.
Click to expand...

Uh, Crab Cake has forgotten more about this stuff than you'll ever know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom