No Show.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 345
Topic's author
#271
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Timid8967
YOUR SORROWFUL QUOTE RELATIVE TO MY DISTINGUISHED POST #266: "Meow."

 ethang5, he was easily run out of this esteemed forum because of his outright Bible stupidity and ignorance, and subsequent to his never ending bans, he has failed to return to save what face he had left.  The irony and comedy is that you want to be like him? 

Not to mention his  "continued pattern of sexual harassment"of members.#17

 


.  Poor ethang5 and Tradesecret are still healing from my continuous Bible slapping them Silly®️ along with many other members of this forum doing the same, and that is why we haven't seen them return.  Praise Jesus' revenge upon this ungodly duo!

 Indeed Brother, and the Reverend Tradesecret proclaims earnestly how he aspires to be just like  the vile Ethang 5 #76 . Yes Brother, Ehang5, that believes "Onlysheep or soldiers get killed by jihadists".   #154.  I had to remind this vile person that  " hundreds of thousands of those "sheep" are of  his  gods own flock.

#272
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
Oh, I thought you understood animal and pussy.  Ask your god, it might help.  Although it seems to be silent. 

I never said I wanted to be like Ethang. He seems to have vanished.  A bit like your brain.  And I have never communicated with him or her. 

Stephen is a dick.  Did you notice Stephen does not have a bio? Or has that eluded your dumb arse skull? Or perhaps your intentional ignorance is evidence of you being Stephen.  

See how similar you sound. Any objective reader would draw the conclusion:


Brother " ARE YOU KIDDING?! SURELY YOU JEST!" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599/post-links/263756

Stephen: " You are not on your own there , Brother.  Dimtim is almost a clone of the Reverend chaplain Tradesecret in his use of language, isn't he? "https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599/post-links/263720


Brother "It's uncanny in how you remind me so much of the total Biblical fool Tradesecret who changed from being a male, to a woman, and then unknown, especially with your specific syntactical sentence structuring and in not having a biography."https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599/post-links/263613


#273
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Timid8967

.
Timid8967,

YOUR QUOTE AGAIN WHERE LOGIC 101 ALLUDES YOU:  "Stephen is a dick.  Did you notice Stephen does not have a bio? Or has that eluded your dumb arse skull? Or perhaps your intentional ignorance is evidence of you being Stephen."

ONCE AGAIN, you miss the point just like you embarrassingly did in this link herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599-no-show?page=11&post_number=266
It matters not if Stephen has a biography or not because he is an Atheist where he is hell bound upon his demise, get it? NO BIO IS NEEDED under this circumstance, understood?  Furthermore, I don't give a rats ass about the Atheist Stephen, but noteworthy about him is that he knows more about the JUDEO-Christian Bible than any Bible inept pseudo-christian like YOU within this Religion forum.  

Where you on the other hand have opted out of having a biography because of your embarrassment in not being able to put one together to begin with!  LOL!!!  Here is a link to help you put together a biography, or if not, you remain a half-assed member:

As seen many times upon this forum, when a half-ass member like you can't bring forth any logical and reasonable posts, you revert to grade school antics and circular reasoning to feebly try and save face as we've seen ad nauseam when ethang5 and "he, she, and unknown" Tradesecret were here until they had to leave to save further embarrassment relative to their Bible ignorance in front of the membership .  I just wish you could have seen this Satanic Comedy duo in action, where subsequent to their wanting posts, all of us thought, "how Bible stupid can these two get" before we easily Bible Slapped them Silly®️ in return as they sheepishly ran away in dismay. 

.




#274
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Brother,

Did you miss the memo? I am a non-theist.  I am not a theist. I do not believe in god or gods or anything supernatural.  

Go and read my posts. dumb arse. 


Topic's author
#275
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen has a biography or not because he is an Atheist where he is hell bound upon his demise. 
I am, - if the bible is to be believed - hell bound -  as you say , Brother. I can live with it.  But you are not the only person to suggest as such : The Reverend Tradesecret, showed me his true colours when I had him on the ropes .

"the serpent, satan, - he is the accuser and you follow after him. you are his disciple. From my point of view - he is slime. You know like the stuff we find after a snail has passed by. creepy. disgusting. ugly."#24 Tradesecret

They all masquerade as lovely and gracious and tolerant of others views until you show their bible ignorance to their own embarrassment and then they start spewing bile as can clearly be shown above #272

dimtim couldn't hold himself together too long could he?

He came onto the religion forum, bumped up some 30+ threads - while stating we shouldn't " give oxygen to" things we don't even believe and "should be closed down"#16    and then homed in on me and my threads with niceties.  #141  Timid8967  and he is that thick that he believed I fell for his shite. 

And then it wasn't too long before I called him out as a fraud. #184


  Timid8967 We shouldn't discuss Jesus or the scriptures >>>>   #45  #46





#276
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
***
Multiple people have asked me to intervene on this thread. It has clearly turned toxic, and as such is being locked.

To most people who are being active here, please refresh yourselves on the Etiquette Expectations; in short, you can disagree with each other without making Ad Hominem attacks the primary means of disagreement (which quite often fails to actually disagree with what they said anyways).
-Ragnar, DM
***
#277
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
***
This thread has been unlocked by request.

If continuing to post here, please try to do so in a civilized manner. Disagree with topical ideas under discussion, rather than making insults toward the people with whom you are engaging in discussion. The mythological figure under discussion has no such protection; as an example, he could be accused of being a bad carpenter with no repercussions.
-Ragnar, DM
***
#278
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney
If continuing to post here, please try to do so in a civilized manner. Disagree with topical ideas under discussion, rather than making insults toward the people with whom you are engaging in discussion. The mythological figure under discussion has no such protection; as an example, he could be accused of being a bad carpenter with no repercussions.
-Ragnar, DM
Thank you, Ragnar, for reopening the post. However, I'm not aware of this mythical figure under discussion, nor did I find the video lampooning Jesus humourous but in poor taste, in the dark about the Person they ridicule. Again, I invite you to jump into the thread, take your side, and discuss the topic under consideration.
#279
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not aware of this mythical figure under discussion
Jesus was mention in the first post, to which I assume the topic to be Jesus Christ.
  • P1: If someone is key to a mythology, they are a mythological figure.
  • P2: Jesus Christ key to Christian mythology.
  • C1: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a mythological figure.


nor did I find the video lampooning Jesus humourous but in poor taste,
Jesus apparently spent most of his adult life as a carpenter, before going through a career change at about age 30. Being God made flesh and all that, we should expect  him to have made massive lasting impacts in that field (at least rebuild an important historical building or something), yet I have not heard of any. So I doubt a little comedy at an area he seemingly did not excel would hurt his feelings, as he's not a safe-space needing troll like a certain prophet.


I invite you to jump into the thread, take your side, and discuss the topic under consideration.
If the topic is not Jesus, as you've indicated, what is the topic?
#280
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney
I'm not aware of this mythical figure under discussion
Jesus was mention in the first post, to which I assume the topic to be Jesus Christ.
  • P1: If someone is key to a mythology, they are a mythological figure.
  • P2: Jesus Christ key to Christian mythology.
  • C1: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a mythological figure.
You're basing your whole argument on the mention of Jesus in the OP, but the OP concerns itself with eschatology. Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.

Jesus said to his followers that some of them would live to witness his return to earth: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Matthew16: 27-28.

Here is verse 27, which Stephen never included, just listed:

7 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every person according to his [a]deeds.

The argument is not about whether Jesus is a mythical figure but about His coming in the glory of the Father during the 1st-century. That is another topic.

*** 

P1 and P2 are in question, thus your whole syllogism. You assume them to be true.

P1. Someone can be the key to some mythology and not be a mythological figure. The gnostics built a myth around Jesus, yet the biblical text warned against this and claimed eyewitness testimony of His historicity. The OT points to such a historical figure who the NT writers identify as Jesus. You, Ragnar, want to brush off these testimonies and fuel the myth. Simon Greenleaf, who wrote a treatise on eyewitness testimony that is well respected and its basis is still in use today, saw these eyewitnesses as credible. The eyewitnesses are reasonable to believe. The gnostics were not eyewitnesses but claimed some hidden knowledge. Their credibility is in great question. 

P2. I disagree. People manufacturing these mythical theories in most cases centuries later are key. The early church fathers dealt with some of these heretical wolves trying to disrupt and steal away the message. 


nor did I find the video lampooning Jesus humourous but in poor taste,
Jesus apparently spent most of his adult life as a carpenter, before going through a career change at about age 30. Being God made flesh and all that, we should expect  him to have made massive lasting impacts in that field (at least rebuild an important historical building or something), yet I have not heard of any. So I doubt a little comedy at an area he seemingly did not excel would hurt his feelings, as he's not a safe-space needing troll like a certain prophet.
The Bible's focus is not about Jesus' carpentry life but about His years of ministry as the promised Jewish Messiah and what that means to Israel and the world.

I invite you to jump into the thread, take your side, and discuss the topic under consideration.
If the topic is not Jesus, as you've indicated, what is the topic?
The topic is eschatology. Stephen claims Jesus was a "No show." I say Stephen does not understand His coming. I asked Stephen to tell me how the Father came in His glory in the OT because Jesus said He would come in His Father's glory. So what does that mean? Stephen fails to identify this and, therefore, grossly misinterprets the nature of His coming in Scripture. He ignores all the prophecies Jesus said would be fulfilled before His coming, which is made known in the Olivet Discourse and can be shown to have happened to a reasonable degree, more reasonable than the alternative.  

Topic's author
#281
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.

`Stephen` is actually claiming that Jesus didn't return when he promised that he would return.

`Stephen` is claiming that THE BIBLE claims " that every eye will see him" (Jesus) return. Revelation 1:7.   There is not a single eyewitness account of Jesus returning.

`Stephen` is also claiming that THE BIBLE claims that Jesus will return "the same way he went" .  Acts 1:11.  That will be physically.  He hasn't done so yet although billions of Christians believe his return is "imminent".

 And `Stephen` is also claiming that PGA2.0 hasn't produced a single scrap of evidence that proves that  the corpse of man said to have  laid stinking and rotting in his tomb  for three days was raised from being dead to being physically alive again, had his physical wounds physically poked and prodded, physically shared a meal with friends, physically ascended into heaven, came back down and appeared at the fall of the city of Jerusalem in AD 66-70 in physical form or in the form of a ghost.

And I am also saying until PGA2.0 can come up with something other than unreliable and ambiguous cherry picked verses from the same unreliable and ambiguous  source I will not engage with him any further than I have or have to. 


#282
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
You're basing your whole argument on the mention of Jesus in the OP, but the OP concerns itself with eschatology. Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.
Sounds like talk about Jesus. Then while insisting we're not discussing Jesus, you quote Matthew 16: 27-28, which is also talking a lot about Jesus... Need I go on?

If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology.

I am pretty sure our disagreement is rooted in you having some problem with the word mythological, perhaps confusing it for some word that bears insult?

Going with the most basic dictionary of Google...
  • Mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.
  • Mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
  • Myths: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

The Bible's focus is not about Jesus' carpentry life but about His years of ministry as the promised Jewish Messiah and what that means to Israel and the world.
Since you lack a defense for his talents as a carpenter, why are you offended that jokes about it exist?
#283
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Someone can be the key to some mythology and not be a mythological figure. The gnostics built a myth around Jesus, yet the biblical text warned against this and claimed eyewitness testimony of His historicity. The OT points to such a historical figure who the NT writers identify as Jesus. You, Ragnar, want to brush off these testimonies and fuel the myth. Simon Greenleaf, who wrote a treatise on eyewitness testimony that is well respected and its basis is still in use today, saw these eyewitnesses as credible. The eyewitnesses are reasonable to believe. The gnostics were not eyewitnesses but claimed some hidden knowledge. Their credibility is in great question. 
There is no eyewitness testimony of Jesus Christ that I am aware of, sadly. I wish there was.
#284
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.

`Stephen` is actually claiming that Jesus didn't return when he promised that he would return.
When you claim Jesus did not return, per your OP in which you cited Matthew 16:27-28, you have to understand the nature of that coming. I asked you numerous times to explain what it meant when Jesus said He would come in the glory of the Father. What does that mean, and how would the 1st-century primary audience of address understand the Father's coming? All that is irrelevant to you. You pay little attention to it and thus grossly misinterpret Scripture because of such poor understanding. Not only that, you cherry-pick verses in all your threads, ignoring the context or other Scripture that speaks on the same subject, even collapsing the context. 

I could do the same thing. 

Jesus wept.

...do likewise.”

`Stephen` is claiming that THE BIBLE claims " that every eye will see him" (Jesus) return. Revelation 1:7.   There is not a single eyewitness account of Jesus returning.
Every eye will see Him. Who is that referring to? Every eye, under heaven --> the entire earth? Every eye of the land/earth of Israel? And what connotations does the word "see" have in its definition. I already explained that the word could also mean "understand." The eyes of your understanding do not understand this, or as the NT expressed in Ephesians, 

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,"

I asked you various questions about Revelation 1:7, which you basically ignored. Do you understand that the verse addresses two OT passages? Do you understand the nature of His coming in Daniel 7:13-14, of which Revelation 1:7 points to? It is a heavenly scene, not an earthly one. Did I not tell you that the NT takes the typology and shadows from the OT history and applies them in a spiritual sense? Did I not give you countless examples of this? Do you understand apocalyptic language? Do you know that it finds its explanation in the OT? You continually demonstrate you do not.  

And how would the High Priest and Chief priests see Jesus coming on the clouds in Matthew 26? 

64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

What did Jesus mean from now on? He would be sitting at the right hand of power. Where is that? Coming on the clouds. How did the Father coming in glory in the OT? He came on the clouds of JUDGMENT. They felt His presence in the cloud covering. I demonstrated that to you. Not a word from you in rebuttal. Nothing. Instead, you repaste a worn-out verse. 

What did the Father tell the Son? 

‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies under Your feet”’?

David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies under Your feet.”’

For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,

For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,

But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”?

As per the OT:

[ The Lord Gives Dominion to the King. ] [ A Psalm of David. ] The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

`Stephen` is also claiming that THE BIBLE claims that Jesus will return "the same way he went" .  Acts 1:11.  That will be physically.  He hasn't done so yet although billions of Christians believe his return is "imminent".
And I answered your objection. I asked you how Jesus went into heaven, and how many eyes witnessed Him go into heaven then? No answer as usual. I explained to you the significance of clouds, and He was taken up in a cloud, signifying He was in the presence of the Father, just as He was at the Transfiguration where the OT is contrasted with the NT. The God of the OT spoke through Moses in initiating the covenant, and the prophets in warning OT Israel of their apostasy. Jesus, at the transfiguration, represents the NT and Moses and Elijah take an insignificant position in the transfiguration. It is Jesus that the passage mainly concerns itself with. 

What you do is you buy into the Dispensational and futuristic view/explanation of Scripture in discussing these verses of Scripture. You ignore the prophecies that all pointed to His coming as being fulfilled. 

[a]  And `Stephen` is also claiming that PGA2.0 hasn't produced a single scrap of evidence that proves that  the corpse of man said to have  laid stinking and rotting in his tomb  for three days was raised from being dead [b] to being physically alive again, [c] had his physical wounds physically poked and prodded, physically shared a meal with friends, [d] physically ascended into heaven, came back down and appeared at the fall of the city of Jerusalem in AD 66-70 in physical form or in the form of a ghost.
[a] Your statement is not true. I already showed you that your CLAIM of a rotting corpse is not Scriptural. 

[b] Again, I showed you several passages that speak of the nature of our resurrected bodies and the kingdom being not of THIS earth. 

[c] And what did Jesus tell His disciples? He said He had not yet ascended to the Father. That took place in Act's 1:9-11. 

[d] You assume a physical appearance, and I have touched on the evidence that counters that claim. I have a lot more to come. I even gave you excepts from Josephus that speak of the people of Jerusalem witnessing a heaven army (which I believe could be explained as a vision) and one man crying, "The Son cometh" when the talents or stones were catapulted into the city.  

And I am also saying until PGA2.0 can come up with something other than unreliable and ambiguous cherry picked verses from the same unreliable and ambiguous  source I will not engage with him any further than I have or have to. 
Your not engaging is an excuse to sidestep the issues, IMO. You avoid my arguments almost totally, reiterating your cherry-picked verses repeatedly and avoiding any exegesis on my passages. I did that with yours, explaining the errors of your ways. 

You seem to think that just by presenting a verse, it explains itself, without considering all of Scripture on the subject under discussion. 
#285
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Castin
Someone can be the key to some mythology and not be a mythological figure. The gnostics built a myth around Jesus, yet the biblical text warned against this and claimed eyewitness testimony of His historicity. The OT points to such a historical figure who the NT writers identify as Jesus. You, Ragnar, want to brush off these testimonies and fuel the myth. Simon Greenleaf, who wrote a treatise on eyewitness testimony that is well respected and its basis is still in use today, saw these eyewitnesses as credible. The eyewitnesses are reasonable to believe. The gnostics were not eyewitnesses but claimed some hidden knowledge. Their credibility is in great question. 
There is no eyewitness testimony of Jesus Christ that I am aware of, sadly. I wish there was.
You ignore the biblical accounts. Why is that? 
#286
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Barney
  • P1: If someone is key to a mythology, they are a mythological figure.
  • P2: Jesus Christ key to Christian mythology.
  • C1: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a mythological figure.
So you would say L. Ron Hubbard was a mythological figure, for instance?

Eh, I don't know. Could make it sound like you're saying L. Ron Hubbard was never a real person.
#287
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@PGA2.0
You ignore the biblical accounts. Why is that? 
Oh, I don't ignore them. I just think they're pseudepigraphal. Which is the consensus among historical scholarship.

The Gospels are written in highly proficient Greek. It's very unlikely that Jesus's immediate followers, being lower-class Jews from rural Galilee, could read or write well in even their own language, much less be so fluently literate in another.

It's estimated that fewer than 3% of Jews in Roman Palestine could read and write well enough to compose texts like this, and the ones who could would've all been urban elites, with the wealth and leisure to afford the education. Scholars think the Gospel authors most likely came from urban areas outside Palestine.

And of course, there's the fact that all of the Gospels are written anonymously, and none of them are written in the first person.
#288
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,580
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Castin
Well stated.
#289
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Castin
So you would say L. Ron Hubbard was a mythological figure, for instance?
Yes. I don't know their exact beliefs about the guy, but I suspect they have built up a tradition of proclaiming him to be the earthly avatar of Xenu or something like that. I am not saying they are wrong to worship aliens, I am just saying they have a mythology which no doubt includes him as the link to the divine.


Eh, I don't know. Could make it sound like you're saying L. Ron Hubbard was never a real person.
Not my intent. I would have used a clear word like 'fictional' if I wished to partake in such simple dismissal. 

George Washington similarly is a mythological figure in the United States, particularly in the subcultures of the armed services. That someone is/was real, does not prevent them from growing into a mythological figure. Granted, some fictional characters can also grow in significance to likewise be mythological.
#290
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney

You're basing your whole argument on the mention of Jesus in the OP, but the OP concerns itself with eschatology. Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.
Sounds like talk about Jesus. Then while insisting we're not discussing Jesus, you quote Matthew 16: 27-28, which is also talking a lot about Jesus... Need I go on?
Sure it is about Jesus but not just anything about Jesus, such as the historicity of Jesus or mythical Messiah figures or copy-cat religions. The specific subject is eschatology, a theme about the Second Coming of Jesus. How do I know that? It concerns Jesus' Second Coming. 

If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology.
If I can prove Jesus did not appear in the Bible? What does that mean? Please be clear on your thought. The Bible claims it is a revelation of God. It offers proof of that. What kind of proof will you accept? I can offer you reasonable proof. The thing about proof or evidence is that no matter how good it is, some choose not to believe it. 

I am pretty sure our disagreement is rooted in you having some problem with the word mythological, perhaps confusing it for some word that bears insult?
I believe the Bible is God's revelation to humanity. He chose a specific people to make Himself know through. In that respect, I believe Him over you as my highest authority. My thoughts are, you, just like me, are a limited, finite human being who does not know all things and probably not as much as you think you do about anything. The Bible reveals that Jesus is not mythical. The testimony of its writers confirms He is a historical Person. So, it is my word and my belief as opposed to or in conflict with your word and belief about whether Jesus is mythical or historical. I believe the evidence is in my favour, not yours. Now, the NT says, 

nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now.

and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

It also says, 

[ Eyewitnesses ] For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

And, 

Colossians 2:8-10
8 See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, [i]rather than in accordance with Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [j]complete, and He is the head [k]over every ruler and authority;  

With your worldview, you refuse to acknowledge the Bible is God's revelation. You know better. Therefore it is tough for me to prove to you something you are unwilling to accept. 

Hebrews 11:6 puts it this way,

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.

So, there lies my difficulty. The evidence is reasonable, but your worldview will deny it regardless. It means bowing the knee to Jesus. You will resist. You will not believe God exists, so how will you come to Him? It requires humbling oneself, and people want to be their own highest authority, the one who decides what is and what should be (relativists). 

Going with the most basic dictionary of Google...
  • Mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.
And how do you propose the Bible does that? Do you believe a supernatural Being cannot do miracles, things that go against the natural order?

  • Mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
Sure, mythologies often base themselves loosely on eternal truths (copy-cat religions).

  • Myths: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
The Bible never professes to be mythology but expressly warns against "myths and endless genealogies" or "philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition."

It warns against the traditions of men rather than the word of God. So, if you want to make your case for the Bible as mythology, I would invite you to start a thread. Please show me your evidence so I can dispute it. 

The Bible's focus is not about Jesus' carpentry life but about His years of ministry as the promised Jewish Messiah and what that means to Israel and the world.
Since you lack a defense for his talents as a carpenter, why are you offended that jokes about it exist?
I don't lack a defence; I say the object of His incarnation was not about Him being a carpenter, but about Him being God and revealing God, far greater than a mere carpenter. Yet He humbled Himself and became a Man. So, it was also about His taking on the nature of a human being to atone for sin, once for all time. Thus, there is a contrast between the OT and NT, between two covenants. The one (the Old Covenant) was a shadow of a greater covenant and truth that always pointed to Jesus, the Messiah, and His coming. Prophecy is great enough proof for a witness to God, but everything ultimately points towards the glory and majesty of God. That is why I chose to engage on this thread and this topic. I wanted to show how little Stephen and other God deniers know about Scripture, a subject they pretend they know so much about. That OP touched on a verse that has brought Stephen much trouble. He doesn't know how the Father came in glory in the OT or he does know and doesn't want to admit it. He refuses to acknowledge it, even though the words are fairly plain to understand.

#291
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
mythical or historical
Read above. I have not claimed those two things are mutually exclusive. I have literally said the opposite!

Seemingly for the pure sake of disagreement, you are arguing Jesus is not part of any religious or cultural tradition. Which is wholly non-sequitur.
#292
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Castin
You ignore the biblical accounts. Why is that? 
Oh, I don't ignore them. I just think they're pseudepigraphal. Which is the consensus among historical scholarship.
Okay, you don't ignore them; you think they are not what they claim to be. 

Which scholars?

When you speak of historical scholarship, you are probably speaking of Higher Criticism. Is that right? If so, do you know the history of Higher Criticism? 

The Gospels are written in highly proficient Greek. It's very unlikely that Jesus's immediate followers, being lower-class Jews from rural Galilee, could read or write well in even their own language, much less be so fluently literate in another.
There is a lot of presumption on your part here, or possibly with "your scholars." When these disciples went into Asia Minor, they could have learned to speak to these people in their own language if they did not already know it, which is more probable. Koine Greek was the commercial language of the entire Middle East, and it is likely the disciples spoke it as well as Hebrew and Aramaic. Jesus chose these twelve as ambassadors who would spread the Gospel message throughout the known world of their time. Even if you are right in your speculation that they could not write Koine Greek, Acts tells us, during the Day of Pentecost,

" 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with different [d]tongues, as the Spirit was giving them the ability to speak out."

6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together and they were bewildered, because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own [e]language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “[f]Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we each hear them in our own [g]language [h]to which we were born? 9 Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and [i]Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya around Cyrene, and [j]visitors from Rome, both Jews and [k]proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own [l]tongues of the mighty deeds of God.” 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others were jeering and saying, “They are full of [m]sweet wine!”

Not only this, God gave the early church the gift of tongues. The apostles were able to speak in different tongues because the promised Holy Spirit filled them with the ability to speak to others of different languages, as explained above. 

And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, and various kinds of tongues.

All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with.

These gifts of tongues and interpretation would end and did end in AD 70 with the transition completed between the two covenants. What do we know about history? We know that these Old Covenant people could no longer worship as prescribed by the Law of Moses after AD 70. We know from history that the temple and city are destroyed by the Romans as prophesied. The Levitical Priesthood dispersed and sold into captivity. The animal sacrifices and feast days stopped. Thus just a predicted, forty years later (after Jesus pronounced judgment upon OT Israel), judgment came upon Israel. 


It's estimated that fewer than 3% of Jews in Roman Palestine could read and write well enough to compose texts like this, and the ones who could would've all been urban elites, with the wealth and leisure to afford the education. Scholars think the Gospel authors most likely came from urban areas outside Palestine.
And when was this theory first proposed?

And of course, there's the fact that all of the Gospels are written anonymously, and none of them are written in the first person.
The early churches that received the originals would understand who they came from, and tradition would convey who they were down through the early centuries. Early church fathers make mention of who these writers were. I could dig up some of the quotes from these church fathers with some work. 
#293
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney
mythical or historical
Read above. I have not claimed those two things are mutually exclusive. I have literally said the opposite!

Seemingly for the pure sake of disagreement, you are arguing Jesus is not part of any religious or cultural tradition. Which is wholly non-sequitur.
I am saying that the Bible does not claim to be a mythical tale but the historical deals of God with humanity. It does not claim to be a mythical account of Jesus but a historical one. You are the one claiming,
"The mythological figure under discussion has no such protection; as an example, he could be accused of being a bad carpenter with no repercussions." (Post 277)

I'm saying that the Jesus described in the pages of the Bible is not the mythical figure that you make Him out to be. Myths and false gospels came later. 

I asked you to explain what you meant by, 

"If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology."

Did not appear in the Bible?  What are you talking about?


#294
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
True or false: Jesus is a figure within a religion, which members thereof have a tradition of worshipping as God?

If true, by definition he's part of a mythology. Remember:
Going with the most basic dictionary of Google...
  • Mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.
  • Mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
  • Myths: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

As for:
I asked you to explain what you meant by, 

"If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology."

Did not appear in the Bible?  What are you talking about?
You have denied he is a part of Christian mythology, a mythology centered on the Bible. If he's not in the bible as that would require, I will yield that he is not mythological. If he is in the bible, and Christianity is indeed a religion and/or tradition, then he is by definition a mythological figure. That is the non-sequitur you put yourself in with seeking offense and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
Topic's author
#295
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
You ignore the biblical accounts. Why is that? 
Oh, I don't ignore them. I just think they're pseudepigraphal. Which is the consensus among historical scholarship.

The Gospels are written in highly proficient Greek. It's very unlikely that Jesus's immediate followers, being lower-class Jews from rural Galilee, could read or write well in even their own language, much less be so fluently literate in another.

It's estimated that fewer than 3% of Jews in Roman Palestine could read and write well enough to compose texts like this, and the ones who could would've all been urban elites, with the wealth and leisure to afford the education. Scholars think the Gospel authors most likely came from urban areas outside Palestine.

And of course, there's the fact that all of the Gospels are written anonymously, and none of them are written in the first person.

 A+1

#296
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
"Mythology is the study of myth. Religion is a system of beliefs and practices formally organized and set into action in the world." https://andrewneuendorf.com/tag/difference-between-religion-and-mythology/

"The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings, whereas mythology is a collection of myths, or stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..." https://www.gale.com/religion-and-mythology

I therefore reject you effort to slur these two concepts together as if their synonimity is empiric knowledge.

No, it ain't, and your syllogism isn't, either. You can't just string three sentences together and call them syllogism.

P1 Birds fly.
P2 Camels walk.
C Therefore, butterflies swim.

Nope, not a syllogism.
#297
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
That words can contextually have different meaning, does not affect the context to which I have spoken and the clarifications I have given.

Even under your own definitions, that you think Jesus did not appear in any "stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..." (underline added for emphasis) is odd considering how many stories about him have been mentioned in this thread.

That you think saying he appeared in any "stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..." is the same as proclaiming "...Therefore, butterflies swim" is laughable. You are of course welcome to prove he never appeared in the collection of stories known as the bible; if you do that, I will yield I was wrong to accuse him of appearing in such stories.

The indignation over this, to me is akin to someone loving blue so taking offense if anyone dares demean it by calling it a color.
#298
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
When did I say Jesus did not appear in biblical stories? When did I essay to prove that? You have me at odds, sir, with what I did say: that myth and religion are not synonymous, as per my citations. By saying they are, and driving your point home that Jesus, or his stories, are myths is you calling my blue a color, and I think that was the very point you were trying to make that contributed to this string's toxicity. Perhaps it ought to be closed for good.
#299
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney
True or false: Jesus is a figure within a religion, which members thereof have a tradition of worshipping as God?
A figure or person? What do you mean by a figure? If a person, true. True, Christians recognize and worship Jesus as the one and only true God. 

If true, by definition he's part of a mythology. Remember:
Going with the most basic dictionary of Google...
  • Mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.
  • Mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
  • Myths: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Nope, you are equating all religions as mythical. Although myths can be (and are) associated with religions and also sometimes associated with supernatural beings, it does not have to be the case, of which I argue about Christianity as not conforming to your definitions. I argue it is the one true religious teaching.

As for:
I asked you to explain what you meant by, 

"If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology."

Did not appear in the Bible?  What are you talking about?
You have denied he is a part of Christian mythology, a mythology centered on the Bible. If he's not in the bible as that would require, I will yield that he is not mythological. If he is in the bible, and Christianity is indeed a religion and/or tradition, then he is by definition a mythological figure. That is the non-sequitur you put yourself in with seeking offense and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Here again, you are equating every "traditional story" to myth. You are equating the Bible as a mythical story. My contention is that true Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian canonized writings, do not fit your descriptions. When you say, "If He's not in the Bible as that would require," I say, He most certainly is revealed in the Bible. I also think, once again, your wording is a little vague. "Not in the Bible"? He is only "in the Bible" in the sense that He is REVEALED in its pages. So what? The Bible, as its authority, has the claim it is the Word of God. It has evidence to back the claim. Although God does not need to give His creatures an explanation, He chose to do so. Again, with traditions, you are equating every one of them as mythical. That is not necessarily the case.  Some traditions are based on facts, not a myth. 

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I'm disagreeing because what you are doing is conflating all myths with Christianity. I believe, with good evidence, that what you are saying does not apply to the Bible. 

  • P1: If someone is key to a mythology, they are a mythological figure.
  • P2: Jesus Christ [is] key to Christian mythology.
  • C1: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a mythological figure.
While this categorical syllogism is valid for its conclusion follows from the premises, I question its soundness in whether its premises are true or false?

P1. Counter argument - The biblical accounts specifically deny Christianity or Christ is a myth, stating the facts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. 
P2. Counter argument - Those stating Jesus Christ as a mythical figure are key to the mythology, not the historical Jesus. 

I do not believe your syllogistic major and minor premises are true/factual, thus falsifying the syllogism, undermining your whole deductive case. You are making a non-sequitur assertion about Jesus Christ, that He is a myth. You are trying to create a universal statement (every religion and every religious leader) about Christianity and Jesus that does not necessarily follow.

You are stating that if someone/anyone is S (someone key to mythology), then all are P (a mythological figure). All S are P, or if anything is an S, it is also P.
Jesus Christ is S (someone key to Christian mythology).
Therefore, Jesus Christ is P (a mythological figure).

I question the truth of the major premise; if anyone is key to mythology (s), they are mythical. That does not follow that all key people to mythology are mythical figures since the key, the person identifying, describing and ascribing the supposed mythology, is not the myth.  

I question the truth of the minor premise that Jesus Christ is key to mythology (S). Once again, people who identify or categorize Jesus as mythical are key to the mythology. Jesus did not create the myths about Himself. 

I would agree that Jesus Christ is said to be a mythical figure/person. That He is, does not necessarily follow. You were the one, in your OP, stating Jesus is a mythical figure. "The mythological figure under discussion." Thus, you are promoting a myth. 
#300
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw
@ Ragnar,

That you think saying he appeared in any "stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..." is the same as proclaiming "...Therefore, butterflies swim" is laughable. You are of course welcome to prove he never appeared in the collection of stories known as the bible; if you do that, I will yield I was wrong to accuse him of appearing in such stories.
Here again, you make a big assumption that the Bible is a bunch of stories and nothing else while ignoring the historical narrative and those who claim to be eyewitnesses of His ministry, life, death, and resurrection or those who claim to give an orderly ACCOUNT of the EVENTS concerning Jesus. It is not about His appearing but them actually witnessing Him in His Person, a historical Person.  

That being said, it is not the main thrust of this thread. I mentioned that thrust being prophecy and eschatology (His Second Coming).