Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

Please leave this alone Robert - we can cope ....

And you'll be too busy backing up your claim of 1600 years of biblical scripture.

Reading the KJV - because the men who compiled this version seem to have genuinely believed they really were dealing with the very Word of God - we find that all four gospels say that Jesus drank a potion and "gave/yielded up the ghost".

But giving up the ghost does not mean dying.

Reading the KJV again:

"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age,"

And:

"And Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was gathered unto his people"

Giving up the ghost and dying look suspiciously like two different things.

Which presents difficulties for the Christian doctrine that Jesus died by secular Roman execution as a criminal ... which was really a religious human sacrifice to his father the Jewish deity, Yahweh.

Later compilers - who were, I suggest, becoming increasingly aware that they were dealing with mythology and cult propaganda - have overcome any moral qualms they may have had, and have changed what "God" said with regard giving up the ghost and dying.

And have made the words fit what they have chosen to believe.

But the original writers may have been intentionally abstruse - so readers may read the text as they wish it to be read. A common occurrence in "scripture".

And if certain contemporary readers understood that Jesus was "dead", but not literally dead, it's useful to understand want else may be meant by "dead".

Uh, what about the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus's side with his spear to check if he was dead and upon seeing the scientific proof (blood and water pouring from the wound instead of just blood as would be the case for a living person), took him down?

Stuart doesn't care about "evidence." He wants proof. There is no proof. This is a walk of faith. You must have faith to either believe in God or not.

Hey Stuart - how did the universe come into being?

Yawwwn. This is so boring I'm not even touching it.

"But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs." John 19:33

I suppose he was just mostly dead. That's not the same as dead. And then they went to Miracle Max and bought a miracle, because his reason to live was TRUE LOVE!
Sorry. I'm tired. Might have drifted off here a little.

Annette wins the funny quote award of the month. Did everyone catch the reference? If not: Shame on you - get off the chat groups and learn some essential pop culture.

Annette wrote: "I suppose he was just mostly dead. That's not the same as dead. And then they went to Miracle Max and bought a miracle, because his reason to live was TRUE LOVE!
Sorry. I'm tired. Might have drift..."


"Mostly dead" is a common hypothesis, known generally as the "swoon theory/hypothesis".

All four gospel writers make the point of saying that the Jesus character was given a potion.

All four gospel writers make the point of saying that the Jesus character only gave up the ghost.

None of the gospel writers say that the Jesus character died.

I suspect this was very deliberate.

Because contemporary readers would be aware that Jesus did not literally die as a result of Roman punishment.

Jesus may have been alive and well after his punishment.

Which may have only been him tied to a stake for a few hours -a form of pillorying. (Some Christians follow this path of faith, so they cannot be wrong.)

He may have been rendered unconscious by the potion - which made him insensible to further pain and gave him the appearance of death.

Rod wrote: "Annette wins the funny quote award of the month. Did everyone catch the reference? If not: Shame on you - get off the chat groups and learn some essential pop culture."

High five!

Stuart is not even a good skeptic, let alone scholar. Skeptic Bart Ehrman claims it is foolish to say that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't killed by the Romans. I think Stuart needs to go back to Skeptic School and study a little better.

Jesus awaits you, Stuart. I pray you will repent of your godship and surrender to Christ.

Stuart wrote: "None of the gospel writers say that the Jesus character died."

Incapable of understanding plain English, re: #5. No wonder he constantly distorts its meaning.

Ned wrote: "Stuart wrote: "None of the gospel writers say that the Jesus character died."

Incapable of understanding plain English, re: #5. No wonder he constantly distorts its meaning."

He may have been rendered unconscious by the potion - which made him insensible to further pain and gave him the appearance of death.

Now it's getting really funny. And dumb.

Are you this desperate Stuart? Roman soldiers failed at their One job? Took a live guy off the cross?
Wait, it's okay - they had a magic potion 2000 years ago... the talking donkey brought it.

LOL, Rod. It's sad when anyone loves their sin more than they love God. I pray for his repentance....

Wade wrote: "Stuart doesn't care about "evidence." He wants proof. There is no proof. This is a walk of faith. You must have faith to either believe in God or not.

Hey Stuart - how did the universe come into b..."

"There is no proof. This is a walk of Faith"

These are perhaps the most honest words I've read from a Christian here.

Let me ponder them again ...

"There is no proof"

"This is a walk of faith."

I'm happy to fully agree with: "There is no proof.".

With "This is a walk of faith", we can substitute:

"This is a walk of delusion", or

"This is a walk of brainwashing" or

"This is a walk of deception", or

This is a walk of gullibility", or

"This is a walk of fantasy",,

And so on we could go

Because, as we have here in full and honest admission

"There is no proof."

There is no proof that there ever was a Jesus

There is no proof that there ever was a Jesus who was fathered by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh

There is no proof that a single biblical verse came from the mythological Yahweh

There is no proof that Yahweh created the universe

There is no proof that Yahweh created the first woman from one of the mud-man's ribs

There is no proof that Yahweh opened the windows in the dome of Heaven and let in the water from outside to fill the dome up to above the height of Mt Ararat.

It's myth and make-believe

And being brainwashed into it can make you just downright dishonest about it

Okay, Stuart, so now we all got the message. There is no proof. (It's what I've been saying for a while, too.) That's why it's called faith. I keep wondering though, why it irks you so much that you have to go on and on in these discussions. You know there is no proof, so why not shrug, turn around and leave it alone?

Good question Annette. It's because the Truth of Christ is working on Stuart's soul.

Of course, Stuart's complete lack of intellectual honesty only tells half the equation. Here's the rest of the story ... Atheists have to possess MORE faith than a Christian. How so? Let's start with the First Cause. Hey Stuart - where did all of this cool stuff in creation come from if there is no creator? Answer? You don't know. Morons like Bill Nye say, "we can discover it together." Nope. We have the answer right in front of us.

Where is the proof? Like I said, there is no proof on either side. God designed it that way because this is a walk of faith. You must have more faith to be an atheist than a theist.

By the way, Stuart. Do you realize how incredibly arrogant you sound when you claim we-Christians are "brainwashed?" Are you so devoid of manners you didn't realize this. Listen, if you want to have an adult conversation, you need to answer questions as well as ask them. WHERE DID ALL OF THIS DELICATELY FINE-TUNED MATTER IN CREATION COME FROM?????????????

Jesus awaits your repentance and I await you to go see what one of your atheist fools have to say. Since you have zero original thought, please bring something of value back to the adult table to discuss before re-posting any of your nonsense.

Stuart wrote: "He may have been rendered unconscious by the potion - which made him insensible to further pain and gave him the appearance of death."

That is an inadequate response and bedside the point. You made the statement that none of the gospel writers directly say that Jesus died. That is not a true statement, regardless of your speculations. In any event, a person surviving crucifixion and walking around like nothing happened is a laughable scenario. The scourging alone was sometimes not survivable, much less the crucifixion, the spear in the side, and water mixed with blood gushing out of the chest cavity. This post only shows how far you are willing to go to deny the facts.

Again with the disingenuous demand for "proof." Virtually nothing is subject to absolute proof, and Stuart knows it. The generally accepted, functional definition of proof is "sufficient evidence to form a conclusion." There is nothing absolute about it. Conclusions must be based on probabilities. The difference between absolute and inferred knowledge is faith. Faith is everywhere, and exercised by every human being. For instance, people think the speed of light is known -- it is not -- it is inferred. Only the round-trip speed of light can be measured. Light speed may very well be different in one direction. The speed of light is merely a useful convention. Electrons cannot be observed. Their existence and behavior are inferred. If you haven't obtained DNA testing, you accept your lineage on faith, based on your parent's claims. If you sit in a chair without carefully examining it first, you've just used faith. Then there is the "brain in a vat" problem, which most of us just dismiss as ridiculous, even though we cannot "prove" that we are not brains in vats.

"Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor." Even though the sculptor cannot be directly observed, nor his existence "proved."

The only way for someone to deny Christ and the God of the bible is to define away the evidence. This requires applying different standards of what constitutes proof in different situations. The evidence is there, and it is more than adequate.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.

Matt 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed.

Stuart wrote: "Please leave this alone Robert - we can cope..."

My response: After reading your many posts, it is very clear that you CANNOT cope.

1 Corinthians 15:3 - "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the scriptures;"

Matthew 27:50 - "Then Jesus gave another loud cry and gave up His spirit AND DIED."

Stuart wrote: "But giving up the ghost does not mean dying...."

My response: Now Stuart is claiming to be a Bible Scholar! LOL!

There are many translations that in English translate this Greek phrase as "DIED".

Stuart is not even an adept skeptic, let alone bible scholar.

Wade wrote: "Stuart is not even an adept skeptic, let alone bible scholar."

That is for sure Wade. It is sadly humorous how he tries to "frame" a discussion so as to prove himself correct.

Christ is king. Stuart - please hear His message before it's too late. I beg you to open your heart.

So metaphorically you gouge your own eyes out--choosing to be blind. Yes, it means He died. The Gospel is so simple a child can understand it. Those who don't understand simply choose not to.

Thanks Nancy. Well said.

What a ridiculous conversation. I applaud those of you who tried to take Stuart seriously on this one, But, was it worth it?

It's not worth arguing over, but it it is worth telling him the truth about Jesus being the only way to eternal life. I pray that he turns to Christ.

Another thing to keep in mind is that others could be silently reading on the side lines. The presentation of truth may strengthen their own walk with Jesus... or lead them to Him.

Preach the Gospel... it is God's power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16) to whosoever will call upon the Name of Jesus.

We still haven't addressed the issue of why Christians smudged the wording of the KJV in both the OT and the NT.

In the OT they smudged the distinction between giving up the ghost and dying. (See the opening comment.)

In some NT versions, they say that Jesus took the potion and died. In the KJV, all four gospels only say he gave up the ghost.

I suggest Christians have made the same distinction I have ... and have smudged the "Word of God" for their own purposes.

Robert wrote: "Another thing to keep in mind is that others could be silently reading on the side lines. The presentation of truth may strengthen their own walk with Jesus... or lead them to Him.

Preach the Gosp..."

Oh, and how are you going with presenting the 1600 years of biblical "scripture", Robert ...?

Other could be reading silently in the sidelines and seeing the example you are setting.

And please see my thread "Robert's Books" ... and comment on that topic there.

Wade wrote: "It's not worth arguing over, but it it is worth telling him the truth about Jesus being the only way to eternal life. I pray that he turns to Christ."

So, Wade, good honest Muslims and Hindus and everyone else who hasn't bought the failed messiah as human sacrifice story, are going to burn in the Christian Hell ... because of that unfortunate incident between Eve and the Talking Serpent ...?

And Pope Francis assures us good Atheists will not be denied Paradise ... and he speaks with the voice of Christ on Earth.

And you can't say he doesn't - because it's a statement of "Faith". And, as you've stated yourself: when you don't have proof, having faith is all you need for something to be true and real.

Nancy wrote: "So metaphorically you gouge your own eyes out--choosing to be blind. Yes, it means He died. The Gospel is so simple a child can understand it. Those who don't understand simply choose not to."

Ah, Nancy ... well done with the blindness metaphor.

And, in the context of the topic here, "dead" can also be a metaphor.

When the writers of the essentially love-free gospels have their would-be god-king make the blind to see and the lame to walk and the dead to rise - it's highly likely they were simply using well-known metaphors.

But when you are trapped by belief - you are trapped into only seeing things one way.

All sorts of social consequences await you if you dare buck the system - not-so-very-bright egotistical bullies will yell at you in BOLD CAPITALS, for example, and you won't see that maybe you have been trapped into a belief-system that is full of fantasy.

That very few are honest about.

Ned wrote: "Again with the disingenuous demand for "proof." Virtually nothing is subject to absolute proof, and Stuart knows it. The generally accepted, functional definition of proof is "sufficient evidence t..."


Not-so-bright Christians simply howl and spit standard cliches and utter eternity threats.

Really bright people who are - for whatever reasons - still Christians, do recognise that the mud-man and the rib-woman and the genocidal global flood and all the other angels and virgin-birthing and such are fantasy.

And often the really bright people do "philosophy".

And they put up a great smokescreen of this so-called "philosophy".

And they hide behind it.

I think it's dishonest.

We don't need "absolute proofs".

We just need some demonstration outside the cult propaganda that there really was a Jesus who was descended from the deposed David royal family and whose father was the Jewish deity Yahweh and whose mother was a Jewish virgin.

And any other such biblical claim.

It's very simple.

It's very straightforward.

And you know precisely what I mean.

Stuart loves to misquote. Stuart loves to hate. Stuart is his own god. Stuart is intellectually dishonest.

Above all, Stuart needs to repent of his sins and trust alone in Jesus Christ.

Wade wrote: "Stuart loves to misquote. Stuart loves to hate. Stuart is his own god. Stuart is intellectually dishonest.

Above all, Stuart needs to repent of his sins and trust alone in Jesus Christ."

You nailed it Wade!

Stuart wrote: "Ned wrote: "Again with the disingenuous demand for "proof." Virtually nothing is subject to absolute proof, and Stuart knows it. The generally accepted, functional definition of proof is "sufficien..."


Stuart, I love ya man but you are just full of conjecture, it's not a logical way too debate.

Robert wrote: "Wade wrote: "Stuart loves to misquote. Stuart loves to hate. Stuart is his own god. Stuart is intellectually dishonest.

Above all, Stuart needs to repent of his sins and trust alone in Jesus Chri..."

That's the best you offer ...?

No 1,600 years of biblical scripture ...?

Not a tiny shred of anything to back your claim that what you quote IN CAPITALS really did come from the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh ...?

Nothing to back up the mud-man and the rib-woman and the global-flood and Jesus being fathered by Yahweh ....?

Stuart wrote: "No 1,600 years of biblical scripture ..."

My response: I already addressed that... using the very sources YOU referred to. Apparently your math skills are even worse than your theological skills.

Sadly, the lacking math skills will not get you judged by God... the rejection of Jesus WILL!

Derrick wrote: "Stuart wrote: "Ned wrote: "Again with the disingenuous demand for "proof." Virtually nothing is subject to absolute proof, and Stuart knows it. The generally accepted, functional definition of proo..."


Sure there's conjecture.

You need controlled conjecture when you are dealing with mythology and analogy and political slander and propaganda that's over 2,000 years old in many cases.

Asking for the teensiest bit of backup evidence (not absolute proof) for mud-men and smoking mountains and virgin-born god-men and such, is perfectly reasonable.

Especially when Christians say other peoples' mud-men and smoking mountains and virgin-born god-men are just make-believe,

The Christian ones look just like make-believe to me too,

Especially when there is only the cult propaganda to back them up.

Stuart is a self-aggrandizing FRAUD. He has claimed (falsely so) to have read "MANY" Christian books that attempt to prove Jesus and the Bible.

BUT... Stuart CANNOT name EVEN ONE... he CANNOT point out EVEN ONE flaw that he personally has debunked.

Stuart likes to "hear himself talk" (or read his own writings in this case).
______________________________

It is PITIFULLY SAD that Stuart spends SO MUCH TIME trying to debunk that which he considers a fairy tale!
______________________________

Has anyone here ever heard me rail against Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? No?

Why? Because I don't believe they are real... and I have no time to WASTE debunking dwarfs!
______________________________

Stuart, what is wrong with you? Why do you OBSSESS over that which you claim is false?

It sounds like a mental disorder to me.

Robert wrote: "Stuart wrote: "No 1,600 years of biblical scripture ..."

My response: I already addressed that... using the very sources YOU referred to. Apparently your math skills are even worse than your theol..."

You did not address that.

You can prove you are not a liar by copying and pasting the dates you posted.

Christian missionaries do not consider their efforts a waste.

Nor does this Atheist missionary.

"Atheist missionary" ??? LOL. That explains a lot, Stuart.

Stuart wrote: "You did not address that. You can prove you are not a liar by copying and pasting the dates you posted..."

I most certainly did... using your posted references.

LOL!!!!!! Since you originally posted them... YOU FIND and re-post them!

ROFL!

That's Stuart's modus operandi, Robert. We have creation which is the first step in knowing there's a God, yet Stuart tries to put the onus on the Christian to "prove" that God exists.

His position is intellectually bankrupt and sad.

Wade wrote: "That's Stuart's modus operandi, Robert. We have creation which is the first step in knowing there's a God, yet Stuart tries to put the onus on the Christian to "prove" that God exists. His position is intellectually bankrupt and sad."

Absolutely Wade! Very sad... and beyond bankrupt intellectually.

But he thinks he is wise... so in his mind, I am sure that is all that matters.

Stuart wrote: "Christian missionaries do not consider their efforts a waste.

Nor does this Atheist missionary."

So, what does an atheist missionary do????

Save people from an eternity in Heaven?

Saves them from the mind and money trap of Christian brainwashing.

And from the psychological bullying of egotists who just aren't very bright or very honest.

You and I and others who may be following know fine well you leapt on the 500 BCE for the 2 tiny amulets

And you have not had the honesty to address the missing 1,100 years.

Jesus is writing all this down, Robert ...

If "God" rewards intellectual honesty ... my conscience is always perfectly clear.