Ignorance and the Bible
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
The miracles are concocted, of course. Just as is a great deal of it.
One does not need a Bible for moral teachings.
Next
Yeah...you also want to pretend you are not using "atheist" as a descriptor simply because you lack "belief"...when the fact is you DO HAVE BELIEFS on the issue. The "beliefs" (BLIND FUCKING GUESSES) happen to be different from the beliefs of the theists, BUT the reason you use atheist is because of BELIEFS.
I know...I know. Neither you or gmark has the guts or ethics to simply concede that obvious truth, but who gives a shit. I'm outing you nonetheless...and I enjoy watching you cry like a baby about it.
Based Chad
Was it me?
true.
how would you characterize morality sans a biblical context?
my definition makes cypress lose his mind.
maybe it will happen here soon.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It looks like Perry the 12 year old ran back to his mommy.
Based Chad
Was it me?
hint: only cults say sacrifice must be involved.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
There is sometimes a stretching of the truth in the retelling, but weird shit happens over the years. Especially in primitive times. Laying a person who appears dead in a cave and having them wakeup 3 days later can be medically explainable. Odd, but not magical.
What book do you use for moral teachings? If any.
They came to believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. Even the great atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman admits there is sufficient testimonial evidence that one is almost forced to that conclusion.
I can't with a straight face tell myself it's because 15 or 20 people all had the same hallucination or were all afflicted with mental illness.
The theory that they all lied about it defies what we know about human psychology - people won't martyr themselves and die for something they know is a lie.
The one rational and naturalistic explanation I can't laugh off is the one you and I have considered as a possibility.
Pretty common sense. The humanists have a pretty good moral code, although I don’t recall all the elements.
Mostly, be kind, be honest, be trustworthy, be faithful, don’t kill, be respectful (when respect is due, of course).
Those are probably pretty universal, I think. Even crossing theological boundaries.
When they’re dead after a spear thrust into their side, they’re fucking dead. Then, it’s magic.
It’s suppositional bullshit and theological gymnastics to twist the narrative any other way.
If he wasn’t dead then, when the fuck DID he die? A few months or years later?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
IF they are dead. Saying a "spear thrust into their side" can mean anything from shoved all the way through the liver and out the back to just poking them to see if they are still alive like a kid with a stick finding road kill by the side of the road.
You want him to be dead, a typical atheist straw man, so you can declare the entire event a lie. Both Cypress and I have discussed a naturalistic answer to explain the event. Namely, he wasn't dead like you and your straw man building 12 year old buddy keep pushing.
Based Chad
Was it me?
is intentional population reduction part of it?
the humanist moral code?
I think you mean immoral code.
The practice of piercing the side was to puncture the heart and lungs of crucified to hasten death. It was a common practice of Roman crucifixions.
The piercing of the lance is only mentioned in the Gospel of John. It's never mentioned in the earlier synoptic gospels.
So it doesn't pass the criterion of multiple attestation for historical reliability - and it only shows up in the latest gospel which is farthest away from the historical events.
Therefore it strikes me as the author using literary licence.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It makes sense, but not all Roman soldiers were competent.
It appears only John mentions the piercing. John was the last of the Gospels written and the one geared most to the divinity of Jesus in fulfilling prophecy.
Bible Gateway passage: John 19:31-42 - New King James Version
Jesus’ Side Is Pierced - Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the...
32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.
33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.
34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.
36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.”
37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. Of all the Gospels, John is the most fantastical and, therefore, the most quoted by devout Christians.
Personally, I like Luke and Matthew better.
When Were the Gospels Written? A Complete Timeline and Analysis - The Bible Stories
Play on YouTube Table Understanding the Historical Context of When the Gospels…
thebiblestories.net
John is Aesop.Agreed. Of all the Gospels, John is the most fantastical and, therefore, the most quoted by devout Christians.
Personally, I like Luke and Matthew better.
We're on the same page. John has some beautiful stories, but there's probably a lot of literary licence being used.Agreed. Of all the Gospels, John is the most fantastical and, therefore, the most quoted by devout Christians.
Personally, I like Luke and Matthew better.
The earliest Gospel, traditionally attributed to Mark, is believed to have been written around AD 65-70. This timeframe is significant as it follows the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, which influenced the themes of urgency and persecution found in Mark’s account. The Gospel of Matthew is thought to have been composed between AD 70-85, while Luke's Gospel was likely written around AD 80-90. Lastly, the Gospel of John, which presents a more theological perspective, is dated to approximately AD 90-100.When Were the Gospels Written? A Complete Timeline and Analysis - The Bible Stories
Play on YouTube Table Understanding the Historical Context of When the Gospels…
Mark was written closest in time to the historical events, and it's supposed to be based on Peter's testimony and teachings recorded by his secretary Mark.
Luke is the strongest in terms of a social gospel, and it's probably the favorite of liberal theologians.
The fucking Bible SAID he was dead, pally boy. You’re the one pulling the “he’s in a coma” bullshit out of your asses.
But you failed to answer the question, if he didn’t die on the cross, when DID he die? Or are you gonna pull that one out of your heiney, too?
You’re really not gonna pull that shit, are you? There are “multiple attestations” of the crucifixion. They are all different.
There are “multiple attestations” of his baptism. They are all different.
There are two “attestations” of the birth narrative. They are different.
NONE of them possess historical reliability.
Here is about as far as you get on historical reliability, if that much. Jesus was born, almost certainly not in Bethlehem. He was an apocalyptic Jew that preached the end was coming and people should prepare. He was crucified. That’s it.
All the rest you propose is theological gymnastics.