Quote from: kate durcal on June 09, 2011, 08:05:21 PM
It is very interesting, and indeed a life changing experience to witness in one self and in others  how the proximity of death can so quickly change what you believe. I first witness, while in combat, how most atheists and believers alike where making deals with G-d for their own survival, and when wounded most call for their mothers.They look at you with begging eyes as if you had the power of save them as they die. Tears!

Many years later I witness the same in the terminally ill patient in the hospital. Suddenly the cockiness all but evaporate. The evil, the fraud, die with anxiety, the good ones with peace and calmness, but make no mistake both know that something is coming their way.

Shalom,

Kate D

I too have been around death and the dying, though i usually find them and see first hand their last expression. My mom died in bed, though i could tell by the look of shock on her face that the heart attack was painful enough to wake her. I have known people that have become very bitter and angry. and though their bite would sting, of course, i am a kind person with love and understnding in my heart. I tried to make her as comfortable as I could. It is VERY hard to watch someone die over 6 or seven months.

To all posters in this thread, my comment was not said with prejudice. I personally do not believe in god. And i most certainly wasn't putting anyone down for their beliefs.

I would be willig to bet that Kate does not play well with others. And who are you to judge anothers death? wow! even if someone seems cocky and angry and bitter and mean to all around them,, Have a little compassion for crying out loud! Death is a scary thing, more so when your the one going through it! Wow, Kate, I hope that you find piece,

If you can't say something good please don't speak at all. Kitty, please refrain from making personal attacks. 
Randi

i only spoke that which i observed. Funny how kate makes all kinds of ghoulish replies to me here and NEVER does anyone ever say anything to her! Still, i didnt casll anyone any names, i didnt use profanity. You do not have to agree with my post, thats your right. Just as it is my right to voice my opinion, which i did, and ill do it again and again and again. After all, I am an american and so far we still have the right to speak!   

Lets tone it down, the name calling isn't appropriate.

You both have had your say (and everyone has their right to their own opinion).

Lets move on.

wow! tone it down? oh yeah, christianity! lol! OMG OMG! lol! 

Lets not derail the thread altogether-I find the topic to be quite fascinating. Kitty I apologize if I hit a nerve. We should be able to speak without raising our voices here-especially if we disagree.  Although you said you did not believe in God, I get the feeling that something is bothering you and if you want to you may look for answers here too.

I have seen and done too much to not believe in God. But I'll be the first to say that I don't know everything yet. Yes you could say that I was given a 'sign' that I can look back to and know something extraordinary happened to me. Why I was given the gifts of sight from my dreams I cannot say other than to surmise that I would need this assurance somewhere along the road-and this has not happened any more since I was very young. For what purpose? Who knows for sure. Maybe it was for someone on this forum to read and seek the truth too. If someone earnestly seeks truth they will surely find it.
Read the words in the Scriptures and think about them, then read them again to see what else they say to you.

Randi

Getting back to the topic at hand.
One of the main bricks for me so to speak is the 48-52 hour window from the time of Jesus death to the time that He is claimed to be on the road to Emaus. The one thing we do have is that 3 of the Gospels are eye witness accounts and the 4th written by an outside observer. All 4 are claiming that Jesus physically came back from the dead. None of the accounts contradict each other. Yes there are some variations but that is to be expected with eyewitness accounts. If they are so alike as to be seemed to be memorized by the parties that are relaying the information then there is often something wrong with those type of eyewitness accounts. seeing as these things took place over 48 hours or so t makes sense that there are differences between them if you factor in the distance the observer is from the event,and the time when the observer was at the event and factoring in the personality of the observer one will pick out something that is important to them and another will pick out something else. So what does this mean to me? There is nothing in there to show me that what they are saying is wrong or that they don't believe what they are saying is untrue. But could they be mistaken or is it possible that they for whatever reason they are trying to pull a fast one so to speak?

Slice it ,dice it, throw it through a blender there is still one question that has never been answered. If Jesus did not actually rise from the dead what happened to the body? Is there another explanation that can actually fit the time frame,the landscape,political backdrop, and other logistics that can explain what happened? Is it Possible that perhaps they got the wrong tomb? Is it possible they were seeing things? Is it possible that Jesus just passed out and somehow revived in the tomb? Or is it possible that somehow the body was stolen? Or did it happen just as they said and He actually rose from the dead?

I do have to leave this here for now as i do have some time constraints.

The gospel of Mark was the earliest of the four to be written.  Now here's an interesting fact, Mark contains only 31 verses not duplicated in either Matthew or Luke.  This should raise some eyebrows because if they were written by independent eyewitnesses, then they ought to be fairly different.  Granted Luke has an excuse since he says he didn't know Jesus personally but shame on Matthew for plagiary.  The main point, I'm trying to make about these three is that Matthew and Luke are based off of Mark.

And what about Mark?
He parallels a lot of earlier scripture in his works.  Mark 11:1-11 draws a lot of inspiration from 1 Samuel 9-10. The arrest at Gethsemane, complete with the kiss, appear to be derived from 2 Samuel 20.

It is also entirely possible that the Jesus in Mark is based off of Jesus, son of Ananus who is mentioned in The History of the Destruction of Jerusalum written by Flavius Josephus. 

This passage comes from Book 6: Chapter 5: Section 3.

"But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost."

Again the Gospels were said to have been written as late as 70 CE.  If Mark did live in Jerusalem, surely he would have heard of this fellow.  It looks like I have found my Roman historical account of Jesus after all.  It says similar things to what is in the bible, but nothing about the crucifixion and resurrection (which appears to have been inspired by Daniel 6).

First Mark is also the shortest of the four (16 chapters as opposed to Matthew's 28 and Luke's 24 chapters) so it makes sense that his would not contain much different then the other two. As far as i know there is nothing to show that Mark wrote his first as opposed to Matthew.

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 11, 2011, 01:57:42 PM

And what about Mark?
He parallels a lot of earlier scripture in his works.  Mark 11:1-11 draws a lot of inspiration from 1 Samuel 9-10. The arrest at Gethsemane, complete with the kiss, appear to be derived from 2 Samuel 20.

If you could please clarify as i am not seeing your point on this. They do not seem to me to be the same.

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 11, 2011, 01:57:42 PM

It is also entirely possible that the Jesus in Mark is based off of Jesus, son of Ananus who is mentioned in The History of the Destruction of Jerusalum written by Flavius Josephus. 

This passage comes from Book 6: Chapter 5: Section 3.

"But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost."

Again the Gospels were said to have been written as late as 70 CE.  If Mark did live in Jerusalem, surely he would have heard of this fellow.  It looks like I have found my Roman historical account of Jesus after all.  It says similar things to what is in the bible, but nothing about the crucifixion and resurrection (which appears to have been inspired by Daniel 6).

First there is a major problem with this as to the time frame.
This gives the time frame better

Jesus, the son of Ananias, was a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the Jewish War against Rome began in 66 CE, went around Jerusalem prophesying the city's destruction. The Jewish leaders of Jerusalem turned him over to the Romans, who tortured him. The procurator Albinus took him to be a madman and released him. He continued his prophecy for more than seven years until he was killed by a stone from a catapult during the Roman siege of Jerusalem during the war.

He would have died in 69 CE. Claudius ruled from 41-54 AD and had written edicts as Christianity had already spread to Rome. Also Nero began putting Christians to death after the fire in Rome in 64 AD which predates the death of Jesus ,son of Ananias.

Below is taken from the annuals of Ticitus

So far, the precautions taken were suggested by human prudence: now means were sought for appeasing deity, and application was made to the Sibylline books; at the injunction of which public prayers were offered to Vulcan, Ceres, and Proserpine, while Juno was propitiated by the matrons, first in the Capitol, then at the nearest point of the sea-shore, where water was drawn for sprinkling the temple and image of the goddess. Ritual banquets and all-night vigils were celebrated by women in the married state. But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.

See one of the things that is often overlooked is that by the time of Nero,Christianity had spread so rapidly and was affecting even the Roman Empire.  Within the lifetime of many that claimed to be eyewitnesses.  The stories themselves could still be verified fairly easily.

Wow sarah thanks for the history lesson 

The significance of Mark talking about the donkey is that he's showing Jesus the prophetic power of Jesus, much like that of the seer in 1 Samuel. 

⁸ While they were at the great rock in Gibeon, Amasa came to meet them. Joab was wearing his military tunic, and strapped over it at his waist was a belt with a dagger in its sheath. As he stepped forward, it dropped out of its sheath.

⁹ Joab said to Amasa, "How are you, my brother?" Then Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. ¹⁰ Amasa was not on his guard against the dagger in Joab's hand, and Joab plunged it into his belly, and his intestines spilled out on the ground. Without being stabbed again, Amasa died. Then Joab and his brother Abishai pursued Sheba son of Bikri.

Also what I meant about Mark being in Matthew and Luke is not that some reworded content is in those books, but that it is there word for word.

I like that you pulled up the Tacitus account.
For good measure let's pull up all of McDowell's non-Christian sources:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

This is also a good site as it presents arguments and counterarguments:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org

Sarah, I do want you to know that I like how we have maintained an intellectual conversation devoid of emotional pleas or name calling.  Thank you.

 

Criticism in the writing of the Christian is found early on on the first milenium.

"the second century pagan Celsus wrote:

    "It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism." [tc] "

Kate D

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 12, 2011, 11:26:46 AM
The significance of Mark talking about the donkey is that he's showing Jesus the prophetic power of Jesus, much like that of the seer in 1 Samuel. 

⁸ While they were at the great rock in Gibeon, Amasa came to meet them. Joab was wearing his military tunic, and strapped over it at his waist was a belt with a dagger in its sheath. As he stepped forward, it dropped out of its sheath.

⁹ Joab said to Amasa, "How are you, my brother?" Then Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. ¹⁰ Amasa was not on his guard against the dagger in Joab's hand, and Joab plunged it into his belly, and his intestines spilled out on the ground. Without being stabbed again, Amasa died. Then Joab and his brother Abishai pursued Sheba son of Bikri.

Thank you for showing me that. I will have to ponder this.

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 12, 2011, 11:26:46 AM

Also what I meant about Mark being in Matthew and Luke is not that some reworded content is in those books, but that it is there word for word.

On Mark being the same. I do not know if they are word for word in the Greek. (I myself can not read Greek so....)
I do agree they are very very close. In the NIV version the wording is not identical.

I myself am not convinced that Mark was the first one written it is something i can not prove but it would seem to make sense. I think Matthew was written first but i do base this on the way Christianity spread out from Jerusalem. Matthew seemed to be addressing his gospel to the Jews (He did include the genealogies which would have been a very important point as he shows Jesus linage back through the house of David) which was the first major group to be spoken to.

I do know there is speculation that the gospel of Mark may have been Peter's account and was just written down by Mark. (Mark did travel with Peter for a time and there is speculation that he was his scribe) Mark for whatever reason did not include the genealogies which if the people who he was trying to address were not Jewish they would not have meant much so there may have been no point in including them. It also seems as if it's kind of like the readers digest version. (Not to belittle it by any means) Short,sweet and to the point.

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 12, 2011, 11:26:46 AM

I like that you pulled up the Tacitus account.
For good measure let's pull up all of McDowell's non-Christian sources:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

This is also a good site as it presents arguments and counterarguments:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org

Thank you for pointing those out. I will check them out. I do know that the scholars themselves often will go back and forth themselves on ancient history. For example before 1960 it was thought that Pilot was a mythical figure till they found the Pilot stone in June 1961. It was found in an excavation of an ancient temple in Caesarea. It was a partial stone but they have translated the partial inscription as The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads: Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, has restored the Tiberieum of the Seaman (or possibly, of the Caesareans)

The partial inscription reads (conjectural letters in brackets):
[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIEUM
[PO]NTIUS PILATUS
[PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
[FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 12, 2011, 11:26:46 AM

Sarah, I do want you to know that I like how we have maintained an intellectual conversation devoid of emotional pleas or name calling.  Thank you.

I do think respect for others position does go a long ways. I know what my beliefs mean to me and they are important to me. Then it only follows that someone else's beliefs will be just as important to them. I do hope that is coming across. I am learning things from you that give me something to think about. Please if ever i am not clear or
there is something that i bring up and there is another point of view please bring it up. I do not know everything by any means and i am not always aware that there are disputes even by the scholars themselves on some of early authors.

Maddie, I do thank you also. The emotional pleas can be a very big turn off for many people so i stay away from it.
The name calling just ends up hurting someone else and i know i don't like it when it happens to me so why do it to some one else. 

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 08, 2011, 09:10:18 AM
Actually matthew, mark, andluke were the synoptic gospels.  John's is the one that is different from the others. What I'd like to see is Roman documentation of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Or at the very least the census from Bethlehem would be acceptable.

By any chance is your birth name Thomas??   

No it was not Thomas.  I was actually named after one of the gospel writers.  Just trust me that I have a need to prove what is real in my life.  I don't really want to go into more detail than that. 

I find the best policy is to always put your beliefs to the test.  Do not assume what you believe is true, in fact attack your faith with everything you can.  If it holds, your faith is justified.  If it fails, you have been freed from a lie.  As for a faith that would tell you not to question it and simply believe, that is a faith with something to hide.

Your faith has saved you 

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 12, 2011, 11:26:46 AM

I like that you pulled up the Tacitus account.
For good measure let's pull up all of McDowell's non-Christian sources:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

This is also a good site as it presents arguments and counterarguments:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org

I did get a chance to look them up and was able to quickly read what their opinions were on Tacitus accounts. Please correct me if i am reading it wrong but the gist of what i was reading is that due to the fact that he was not one of the top notch historians there is some question as to where he got the information, whether if in fact he got it from actual accounts or whether he was just taking the accounts of the Christians at that time. I take it they are not saying that he is wrong but they can not verify his source. (This was something i was unaware of myself)

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 13, 2011, 07:03:32 PM

I find the best policy is to always put your beliefs to the test.  Do not assume what you believe is true, in fact attack your faith with everything you can.  If it holds, your faith is justified.  If it fails, you have been freed from a lie.  As for a faith that would tell you not to question it and simply believe, that is a faith with something to hide.

If it can't be tested and cannot be questioned isn't that what "Blind Faith" really is?

If faith needs to be proven where's the faith?

Quote from: M2MtF2FtM on June 14, 2011, 07:50:24 PM
If faith needs to be proven where's the faith?

Please correct me if i am wrong but did not Jesus keep telling the people of His day believe in Me because of what you have Seen? I may be wrong but i have yet to read where Jesus ever said just believe because I said so.
I believe He kept pointing to the miracles as evidence that what He said was the truth. The tomb could have been just left vacated and no one may have never seen Him but He did not do that. It is recorded that He showed Himself alive to multiple witnesses as evidence that it is the truth. Even to the point that Thomas was quoted as saying "Unless i see the nail marks in His hands and put my fingers where the nails were,and put my hand into His side i will not believe" (I do not blame Thomas as it is possible that he saw the whole thing and it would be very difficult to believe that someone actually rose from the dead after seeing them being beaten to a pulp, punctured with spikes,hung on a cross and then skewered like a kabob and then possibly helping with the burial)
Taking what Thomas said one step further. It is implied that he would not nor could not believe what he was being told, so much so that even if he saw Jesus he still would not believe what his eyes were seeing because his proof was that he had to actually touch Him with his own hands in order to believe.
Jesus goes and shows Himself to Thomas so that he would have the evidence so that he could believe.


Luke tells me that he was able to do the research and verify it so much so that he was convinced that it was true.
If it was verified to them can it not also be verified to us also?

I do agree that there are aspects to faith where we can not see but i believe our faith in Him can be shown to have a firm foundation and is not blind