Christian God theme debunked.

MVW,

I fully understand that those who disagree with what I say and how I say it will put up a fight, as those who lack real confidence in what they hold dear will uphold it in whatever way they deem effective. The important thing here is that, in the end, they realize that what they thought they had at their disposal to protect an idea is whatever their source material has to say on the subject. There are those here who worship and serve the letter of the law, forgetting that the lesson of Christ has nothing to do with upholding the integrity of the passed-down account of events.

 

You appreciated me, thedope, anyway. We'll have to save this one for Easter. There was something in it for the Good of fulfilled death wishes for Lazarus too.

 

NG,

You did definitely draw a line, procalaiming that those who have not come to your understanding of what did or did not take place surrounding the life of a man must lack critical thinking skills. You even went so far as to strip others of their badge of chrisianity for their failure to acknowledge that the resurrection was a physical event. Have you ever considered that whomever wrote of the account spun it in a way to help lend credibility to the teachings of the man who was crucified?

And you did definitely try to use the withholding of respect as a tool of guilt when confronted with someone who might not see things exactly your way. Go back and read your posts critically! However, your attempt to do so was very instructive insofar as it demonstrated exactly how religious wars are started and maintained. Whether you know it or not, you perfectly portrayed the "if you're not for us, then you're against us" ultimatum mentality that always precedes the pulling of swords.

Let's see if we can agree on some things. The cucifixion and the spilling of blood was not necessary in order for God to forgive humans for their out-of-line behavior. Agree, or disagree? The ressurection was not necessary to the credibility and potency of the teachings of Jesus, and that in fact, believing someone's words should not depend on whether some supernatural events surround the speaker. Agree, or disagree? Humans never were in need of forgiveness, as judgement and punishment are human ideals that appeal to the ego, and not the essential self. Agree, or disagree?

 

You sure about that;

In Matthew 12:38Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
See All..., some of the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign to prove He was the Messiah. But Jesus told them that the only sign He would give was that of the prophet Jonah: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (verse 40).
But how can we fit "three days and three nights" between a Friday-afternoon crucifixion and a Sunday-morning resurrection? This traditional view allows for Jesus to have been entombed for only a day and a half.
Some believe that Christ's "three days and three nights" statement does not require a literal span of 72 hours, reasoning that a part of a day can be reckoned as a whole day. Thus, since Jesus died in the afternoon, they think the remainder of Friday constituted the first day, Saturday the second and part of Sunday the third. However, they fail to take into consideration that only two nights—Friday night and Saturday night—are accounted for in this explanation. Something is obviously wrong with the traditional view regarding when Christ was in the tomb.
Jonah 1:17Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
See All..., to which Christ referred, states specifically that "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." We have no basis for thinking that Jesus meant only two nights and one day, plus parts of two days. If Jesus were in the tomb only from late Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning, then the sign He gave that He was the prophesied Messiah was not fulfilled.
Let's carefully examine the details from the Gospels. When we do, we uncover the real story of how Jesus' words were fulfilled precisely.
Notice the events outlined in Luke 23. Jesus' moment of death, as well as His hasty burial because of the oncoming Sabbath that began at sundown, is narrated in verses 46-53. Verse 54 then states, "That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near."
Many have assumed that it is the weekly Sabbath mentioned here, and that Jesus was therefore crucified on a Friday. But John 19:31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
See All... shows that this approaching Sabbath "was a high day"— not the weekly Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) but the first day of Unleavened Bread, which is one of God's annual high, or Sabbath, days (Exodus 12:16-17 [16] And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
[17] And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

See All...; Leviticus 23:6-7 [6] And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
[7] In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

See All...). These annual Holy Days could—and usually did—fall on days of the week other than the regular weekly Sabbath day.
This high-day Sabbath was Wednesday night and Thursday, since Luke 23:56And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
See All... shows that the women, after seeing Christ's body being laid in the tomb just before sunset, "returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils" for the final preparation of the body.
Such work would not have been done on a Sabbath day since it would have been considered a violation of the Sabbath. This is verified by Mark's account, which states, "Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices [which they would not have purchased on the high-day Sabbath], that they might come and anoint Him" (Mark 16:1And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
See All...).
The women had to wait until this annual "high day" Sabbath was over before they could buy and prepare the spices to be used for anointing Jesus' body. Then, after purchasing and preparing the spices and oils on Friday, "they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
See All...). This second Sabbath mentioned in the Gospel accounts is the regular weekly Sabbath, observed from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.
By comparing details in both Gospels—where Mark tells us the women bought spices after the Sabbath and Luke relates that they prepared the spices before resting on the Sabbath—we can clearly see that two different Sabbaths are mentioned. The first, as John 19:31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
See All... tells us, was a "high day"—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread—which, in A.D. 31, fell on a Thursday. The second was the weekly seventh-day Sabbath.
After the women rested on the regular weekly Sabbath, they went to Jesus' tomb early on the first day of the week (Sunday), "while it was still dark" (John 20:1The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
See All...), and found that He had already been resurrected (Matthew 28:1-6 [1] In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
[2] And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
[3] His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
[4] And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
[5] And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
[6] He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

See All...; Mark 16:2-6 [2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
[5] And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
[6] And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

See All...; Luke 24:1-3 [1] Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
[2] And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
[3] And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

See All...).
When we consider the details in all four Gospel accounts, the picture is clear. Jesus was crucified and entombed late on Wednesday afternoon, just before a Sabbath began at sunset. However, that was a high-day Sabbath, lasting from Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset that week, rather than the regular weekly Sabbath, lasting from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.
He remained in the tomb from Wednesday at sunset until Saturday at sunset, when He rose from the dead. While no one witnessed His resurrection (which took place inside a sealed tomb), it had to have happened near sunset on Saturday, three days and three nights after His body was entombed. It could not have happened on Sunday morning, because when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb that morning before sunrise, "while it was still dark," she found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty.
We can be assured that the length of His entombment that Jesus gave as proof He was the Messiah was exactly as long as He foretold. Jesus rose precisely three days and three nights after He was placed in the tomb.
Because most people do not understand the biblical high days Jesus Christ and His followers kept, they fail to understand the chronological details so accurately preserved for us in the Gospels.

 

Storch all I can say is what I've been saying all along, go read it for yourself if you disagree with what I'm saying.
All I have done throughout this farce is point out where you are wrong concerning what the Bible does or doesn't say, that's all.
You are the one who has taken it upon himself to twist it in the manner you have, and yet you still fail to recognize that you wrong concerning what the book actually says.
Your gripe isn't with me, it's with the Bible.

All those "summations" you present are your opinion/interpretation, but not what is actually written.
It really is quite easy to settle your beef with me, go read the material yourself then compare it with what you have been claiming it says, that is all, very simple and nobody's belief system has to be in jeopardy by your doing so.


I would be acting the exact same way if we were talking about any other topic with established source/reference material and it was being misquoted and misrepresented.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

Fool.

 

For our inertia burdened lives it is not empirically debunkable; it is only rationally debunkable. Means we still have to wait for peace in our times; and all that gas.:sunny:

 

Frankly this is too complicated for me to comprehend, priest. I cannot get there by way of my heart. I come to my position from examining the terrain of my own being and I find us all there. The I am I call myself the same I am you call yourself.
Notice the milking of tradition to establish truth. Notice how most people don't understand. You allow no one to enter. As prophecy is so accurately preserved, do you also not see christ because you expect a body yet to come or to revisit? How can christ be here among us if he is an immortal physical body? How can a physical body be everywhere at once? How does this relate to the necessity of we ourselves dying and being reborn?

You bring up fulfilling prophecy. Look at this phrase, these things were done, to fulfill prophecy. This is a conspiracy.

Certainly out of the mouths of no babe can these calculations come. Remember the sabbath was created for man not man for the sabbath.
We need to understand high time watchyoucallit? I don't think so. Let's get high instead! Not to poopoo your genuinely worthy academic effort as it accommodates your interests well no doubt.

You say to be christian is to uphold certain doctrinal premises , that is money
changer talk. My fathers house meant as a house of prayer for all natures yet by this they shall know you are my disciples, that you love one another. Doctrines taught are always the precepts of men. Jesus didn't write books but the holy spirit will bring to your remembrance all that he said.

By the timeline that has been established, what is taught at large, what is celebrated by the layperson the timeline is good friday to easter.

But regardless, this is the most important question I can ask you,
regarding the symbolism of what was recorded to have been said. What does the heart of the earth look like? There is abundance in the heart.

 

If something needs to be defended it's a sign of fragility. Truth in the form of testimony doesn't need to be approved by others. It simply is.

 

Don't get so worked up, merely illustrating that the commonly accepted traditions are not always rooted in the actual writings, that's all.
I made no claim or commitment concerning the validity of it or any of the other things you intimate that have purposed to do.

Yet again, (boy I'm getting tired of saying this) all I have said or pointed out here could be applied to any discussion concerning any topic.

It is those reading what I have been writing that keep assigning to me some beliefs or accusing me of being defensive, narrow-minded, etc. etc. when all I have done is illustrate the differences between what some members have stated the Bible says compared to what is actually written within it's pages.

Just trying to keep things intellectually honest

 

uhhh the bible doesn't talk, truly you do argue

You mean if we loved you or were making serious effort we needn't inquire of you about your take on semantics?

How do I square the teaching of redemption from original sin by blood with call no man your father for you have one father who is in heaven?
Paul was a Zealot expecting the messiah to lead armies.

 

Don't get me wrong. I am patient

What I have purported you do is not allow others their understanding. That others do not understand because they don't say it right or represent it in the proper terms. Certainly you have announced your lack of patience for this particular group of miscalculations.

We can weary ourselves but could it be in the cause of truth? Would the truth bind us to some labor?

I don't assign you any beliefs but rely on your reports, the report of impatience, the report of frustration. What could you be frustrated by but your own verdicts. You do not accept the verdicts of others.

Our honest congruence is between the heart and the mind.
Honesty is consistency, when what you do and what you say you mean are the same.

Obviously nothing is debunked as there is bunk everywhere.

 

You and others keep implying that I am in some way offering interpretations of the writings when I am doing nothing of the sort.
Simply pointing out when what is being assumed or stated about it is incorrect in light of what is actually contained within it's pages is not interpreting.

Really if you or anyone else thinks I am wrong, then please do compare the statements I have made note of and compare them to what is actually written in the book.
ANY OF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THAT, YET IT APPEARS NONE ARE WILLING, BUT WOULD RATHER HOLD ON TO TRADITIONS AND FAULTY COMPREHENSION OF THE SUBJECT.
I am not offering anything that can not be investigated by anyone reading this.

For any of you to take issue with that tells me I'm not the one being defensive.
All I have championed to defend here is critical reading comprehension, no more, no less.

 

I do not say that you are wrong. I say that in this case what you say you mean and what you are doing are not the same. The information about high sabbath is not in the text, it is in the study of jewish tradition. Now in regards to the meaning of heart of the earth? Nothing is meaningful to me that does not relate to my current condition. How should we apply critical reading comprehension to these questions?

 

NG,

I am not in a disagreement with you because you misinterpret the Bible. I'm in disagreement with you because you hold the Bible to be the end all of understanding when it comes to spiritual matters to do with God and Jesus. For instance, the Bible says that Jesus was resurrected--that his body disappeared from the tomb. I'm not arguing that the Bible doesn't put forth that idea. I'm arguing that, just because it is written in a book, that doesn't mean it happened.

So, let's see if we can agree on some things. The cucifixion and the spilling of blood was not necessary in order for God to forgive humans for their out-of-line behavior. Agree, or disagree? The ressurection was not necessary to the credibility and potency of the teachings of Jesus, and that in fact, believing someone's words should not depend on whether or not some supernatural events surround the speaker. Agree, or disagree? Humans never were in need of forgiveness, as judgement and punishment are human ideals that appeal to the ego, and not the essential self. Agree, or disagree?

 

JKHolman,

I am very surprised that the non-pertinent part of your post has not been deleted. Of course, if it does get deleted, then what are you left with?

 

MVW,

I hope you're not making the mistake of believing that I'm defending a new idea. I've offered no new ideas. I've simply called into question those ideas that others promote which are not conducive to an understanding of deity.

 

Please do indicate where I stated that.
That may be what you assume I believe, but I never made any such declaration beyond saying I agree with the core tenants of the faith.
Again it goes back to reading comprehension.
Nor have I ever said that you or any other participant in this circus were misinterpreting the Bible, only that you were misquoting or misrepresenting what is actually written.

Please quote the post in which I stated that "because it was written in a book it actually happened" all I ever did was point out that you were wrong about what is reported in the book.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

I ask you again, why is that so hard for you to comprehend?????


Seriously, please quote any posts where I have made any of the declarations you are ascribing to me.

 

In the absence of a need in the essential self who's purpose does the idea of original sin and redemption through blood sacrifice serve? Follow the money or the investment of self. I say it was very important to the zealot and in the absence of a messiah leading armies the battle is pushed back to some indefinite future. On the one hand you should be alert for this future, on the other why worry for tomorrow, there is enough trouble in this day.

What a mess putting new wine in old skins! When given the choice between innocence and guilt they cry give us barrabas. Paul was addressing his own militant faction. The church of christ is built on the foundation of feeding people.
But at any rate it is interesting how these same tensions in the early church and even between jesus and the traditional establishment persist in this day.

 

NG,

You have been complaining that I'm not understanding things because I don't understand what the Bible says. I'm telling you that I do know what it says. In fact, I've been telling you that I disagree with some of its tenets. For instance, I disagreed with you that the resurrection is the core of the christian faith. I believe I heard you say that to another poster who inimated that it was a non-issue.

In order to clear things up, I posted this:

So, let's see if we can agree on some things. The cucifixion and the spilling of blood was not necessary in order for God to forgive humans for their out-of-line behavior. Agree, or disagree? The ressurection was not necessary to the credibility and potency of the teachings of Jesus, and that in fact, believing someone's words should not depend on whether or not some supernatural events surround the speaker. Agree, or disagree? Humans never were in need of forgiveness, as judgement and punishment are human ideals that appeal to the ego, and not the essential self. Agree, or disagree?

If you want to answer, then please do, and we can go on from there. If you don't want to answer, then just say something to that effect.