At What Point?

You're off the edge of the map, Perry Phd. Are you going to start screaming again in large font, bold red letters?


I'm still curious about your hypothesis that Jesus went scuppering off like a conman. I don't agree with it. But I'm curious why you think it most appropriate.
 
You definitely have a PhD in sock hunting :thumbsup:

Would you care to defend your hypothesis of Jesus as a conman who ran off in the dark of night after realizing he wasn't dead from the Crucifixion? And why do you think the Disciples lied about it as well?
 
I don't think it is a completely impossible hypothesis. I don't think it is utterly bat shit crazy. It's certainly not one that should incite rage, resentment, grievance in a discussion about religion. Mark did write that Pontius Pilate was surprised at how quickly Jesus died and was taken off the cross.

Here is what I do think:
Unrepentant Holly rollers are emotionally invested in the inerrancy of the stories of the bible. They have become stuck on a 16th century idea Luther promoted.
Strident Atheists have an emotional investment in believing the New Testament is an unredeemable pack of lies and deceptions. Einsein famously said something like professional atheists are angry at Christianity for reasons commonly more emotional than rational.
Good points about emotional investment and agreed on the extremes of both theists and atheists.

Interesting comment from Einstein. and agreed with the thought.
 
Would you care to defend your hypothesis of Jesus as a conman who ran off in the dark of night after realizing he wasn't dead from the Crucifixion? And why do you think the Disciples lied about it as well?
^^^
Lies about what others posted.

Perry, quote the post then ask for a clarification.
 
^^^
Lies about what others posted.

Perry, quote the post then ask for a clarification.

Nope. Your buddy Cypress insisted on mischaracterizing my position so I'm simply following his lead to understand his hypothesis.

CLEARLY he believe Christ was either a conman or the DIsciples were liars. Unless of course he allows that some stories in the NT were....made up. If that were the case I'd be fine. It would make sense.

But he's set the ground rules so I'm just following his hypothesis.
 
Perry, quote the post then ask for a clarification.

I would ask Cypress where I said the authors of the Gospels were "lying because they thought they could get away with it" as he's said several times. Of course I never said or proposed any such thing, in fact I explained how it could be quite honest of later writers. But Cypress doesn't allow that.

It is HIS hypothesis that Christ was either a conman or the Disciples were liars.
 
Nope. Your buddy Cypress insisted on mischaracterizing my position so I'm simply following his lead to understand his hypothesis.

CLEARLY he believe Christ was either a conman or the DIsciples were liars. Unless of course he allows that some stories in the NT were....made up. If that were the case I'd be fine. It would make sense.

But he's set the ground rules so I'm just following his hypothesis.
1. Perry can't cite the quote. Implies he lied because he claims Cypress lied.

2. Perry lies about Cypress's position on Jesus.

3. Blames Cypress for everything while disclaiming any responsibility for his own actions.

These are a few reasons why I believe you have "issues", Perry.
 
I would ask Cypress where I said the authors of the Gospels were "lying because they thought they could get away with it" as he's said several times. Of course I never said or proposed any such thing, in fact I explained how it could be quite honest of later writers. But Cypress doesn't allow that.

It is HIS hypothesis that Christ was either a conman or the Disciples were liars.
^^^
The Google King can't quote Cypress saying any of this because the quotes don't exist.
 
1. Perry can't cite the quote. Implies he lied because he claims Cypress lied.

2. Perry lies about Cypress's position on Jesus.

3. Blames Cypress for everything while disclaiming any responsibility for his own actions.

These are a few reasons why I believe you have "issues", Perry.
Cypress lied about my point NUMEROUS times now and you never once piped up.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...... Interesting
 
^^^
The Google King can't quote Cypress saying any of this because the quotes don't exist.
Cypress lied about my position numerous times and you didn't get amped up.

Not sure why you guys have such a dim view of the early Church but, hey, that's your thing to figure out.
 
I even have a certificate as real as Perry's!

8sn6tg.jpg


Meanwhile, back on topic:

The same age we tell them about sex, pedophiles, murder and show them pictures of the executions by Hamas in Israel.
Seymour Butz! He signed my doctoral certificate. In proctology.
 
1. Perry can't cite the quote. Implies he lied because he claims Cypress lied.

2. Perry lies about Cypress's position on Jesus.

3. Blames Cypress for everything while disclaiming any responsibility for his own actions.

These are a few reasons why I believe you have "issues", Perry.
I believe Jesus was a human prophet, not a god, and on the off chance he survived the crucifixion, he might understandably have fled Judea as he was a convicted criminal under Roman law.

That is a rational, but unprovable theory for the resurrection story, for the meeting with some of his disciples, for his ultimate disappearance, for leaving his brother James in charge of the apostolic Jerusalem community, and for a genuine belief among the disciples that he had ascended to heaven.

The problem for people with very little education in history is they try to understand antiquity through their own 21st century filter and biases.

Near death experiences weren't understood until the 20th century. It is reasonable to think both Jesus and the disciples would interpret an NDE as miraculous.
 
I believe Jesus was a human prophet, not a god, and on the off chance he survived the crucifixion, he might understandably fled Judea as he was a convicted criminal under Roman law. That is a rational, but unprovable theory for the resurrection story, for the meeting with some of his disciples, for his ultimate disappearance, for leaving his brother James in charge of the apostolic Jerusalem community, and for a genuine belief among the disciples that he had ascended to heaven.

The problem for people with very little education in history is they try to understand antiquity through their own 21st century filter and biases.

Near death experiences weren't understood until the 20th century. It is reasonable to think both Jesus and the disciples would interpret an NDE as miraculous.
For an agnostic, you have more faith in god than most Christians.
 
I believe Jesus was a human prophet, not a god, and on the off chance he survived the crucifixion, he might understandably fled Judea as he was a convicted criminal under Roman law.

Run off like a conman in the night? Why would such a great teacher do that? And if he thought he was in danger from the Romans and the Jewish authorities he would have known that even BEFORE he was crucified.

That is a rational, but unprovable theory for the resurrection story, for the meeting with some of his disciples, for his ultimate disappearance

So the Disciples knew he was resurrected but they didn't know what happened to him later on? And they didn't tell Paul that he just wandered off somewhere?

Or are you of the opinion that they simply ASSUMED he had ascended to heaven?

Either way you are right up against the very thing you tell me is impossible: that it couldn't just be a made-up story after the fact many decades. Even quite innocently penned.

, for leaving his brother James in charge of the apostolic Jerusalem community, and for a genuine belief among the disciples that he had ascended to heaven.

Based on what exactly? For some reason you seem to think it is PROVEN that he came out of the tomb alive. But you are willing to let EVERYTHING ELSE be made up or misinterpretation.

So you believe the Disciples couldn't find Jesus a few days later after supposedly coming back from the dead so they ASSUMED he ascended into heaven?

Why didn't they tell Paul "Oh, yeah, JC came back from the dead and then one day we couldn't find him anymore". Instead of committing this story down that he either vanished in front of them or flew up into the sky in front of them.

Personally I'm more happy with the supernatural stuff being as likely made up after the fact (even quite innocently by people who may have believed it) as your exegesis involving NDE's and mystical disappearances.
 
I believe Jesus was a human prophet, not a god, and on the off chance he survived the crucifixion, he might understandably have fled Judea as he was a convicted criminal under Roman law.

That is a rational, but unprovable theory for the resurrection story, for the meeting with some of his disciples, for his ultimate disappearance, for leaving his brother James in charge of the apostolic Jerusalem community, and for a genuine belief among the disciples that he had ascended to heaven.

The problem for people with very little education in history is they try to understand antiquity through their own 21st century filter and biases.

Near death experiences weren't understood until the 20th century. It is reasonable to think both Jesus and the disciples would interpret an NDE as miraculous.
For an agnostic, you have more faith in god than most Christians.
What in Cypress's post makes you believe he has "more faith in god than most Christians"?
 
One only need to use simple logic and just a little homework to conclude that the Bible is significantly fiction. Some narratives may have a modicum of truth, but the entire premise of this single god is hogwash.
but the single God part is not wha't's important.

and is 'multiple gods' more believable?
 
Back
Top