Deity Existence

[Ivramire]

You do realize the New Testament was written well after the fact, correct? By members of the Christian sect? You don't think a little hero worship/cult of personality came into play? Just look at how the North Korean government speaks of Kim Jong Il.

Acctually, the Gospel of Matthew is attributed to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus's 12 Apostles. So it probably wasnt TOO Long after the fact. And please explain why a cult of personality would've come into play? oh, and also, please the dramatic turn in the Jewish Community between palm sunday to good friday?

You only address one book. The point is that the books were written by people who were in a position and time to embellish whatever accounts they gave. It'd be to their best interest to show things a particular way.


My theology-teacher in Primary-school (who was a Nun) told me that the Gospels were written years after the fact.


It's obvious...


What do you mean?

[Jikanu]

He probably sincerely believed in God himself.

Attributed by whom?

You only address one book. The point is that the books were written by people who were in a position and time to embellish whatever accounts they gave. It'd be to their best interest to show things a particular way.


My theology-teacher in Primary-school (who was a Nun) told me that the Gospels were written years after the fact.


It's obvious...


What do you mean?

1. Ok, i looked into the other ones, and the gospel of John was also written by a direct disciple. I'm not entirely sure about the other two, but most archeologists find many of the events in the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian

I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.

I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?

Attributed by whom?

By the manuscript that was written, i suppose.

He probably sincerely believed in God himself.

And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)

[Ivramire]

1. Ok, i looked into the other ones, and the gospel of John was also written by a direct disciple. I'm not entirely sure about the other two, but most archeologists find many of the events in the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate.


I would guess that thay can be attributed to them, seeing as they bear their names and all (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) I didn't question whether he historically recorded events and locations that agree with what we actually know. It's the theological aspects that are in question, not his ability as a geographer.


I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.


To what source/evidence do you attribute this?

Look at any religion/cult/following today, they have plenty of followers, many of whom would fit the description of ''reasonable.''


I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?


That wasn't all of the Jews (only those in one city) and I have a thought that anyone would have cheered at what was essentially a parade.

I thought that there were people in the crowd at Jesus' ''hearing'' that incited the crowd to cry for Jesus' death? Whichever way, I still don't see how their ''change of opinion'' would affect anything.




And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)


If he believed in it...he wouldn't think he'd be committing blasphemy at all...isn't that what the Jews essentially executed him for.

.

[pigspark]

1. Ok, i looked into the other ones, and the gospel of John was also written by a direct disciple. I'm not entirely sure about the other two, but most archeologists find many of the events in the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian

I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.

I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?



By the manuscript that was written, i suppose.



And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)

but isnt their presumed a messiah to come?

[Jikanu]

but isnt their presumed a messiah to come?

...i have no idea what you're attempting to ask... seriously...

And at Ivramire: Your choice to reply within a reply makes it extremely difficult for me to reply to you. but i'll attempt to- i'll try not to miss any points. if i do, i'll try to catch them.

1. It was significant since Palm Sunday took place in Jerusalem just a bit before his Crusifixion. And i believe he was brought into Jerusalem durring his persecution to stand before Herod too. That's what makes it significant.

2. What im saying is that they're no different from any other of the jewish people at the time. Why would they alone choose to follow him in spite of there being no signs, while everyone else ended up persecuting him?

3. So you're suggesting he was scizophrenic? i find that hard to believe since all the ideals he expressed made complete sense and werent at all violent or paranoid. if that's not what you're suggesting, then please explain WHY he would think he was the Messiah unless he truly was.

[Ivramire]

1. It was significant since Palm Sunday took place in Jerusalem just a bit before his Crusifixion. And i believe he was brought into Jerusalem durring his persecution to stand before Herod too. That's what makes it significant.

I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?

I've replied to this in a previous post. I understood what you meant when you explained it the first time.


That wasn't all of the Jews (only those in one city) and I have a thought that anyone would have cheered at what was essentially a parade.

I thought that there were people in the crowd at Jesus' ''hearing'' that incited the crowd to cry for Jesus' death? Whichever way, I still don't see how their ''change of opinion'' would affect anything.

2. What im saying is that they're no different from any other of the jewish people at the time. Why would they alone choose to follow him in spite of there being no signs, while everyone else ended up persecuting him?

Already addressed.


Cult of Personality, quasi-addressed in my reply to your similar previous question below.

I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.

To what source/evidence do you attribute their rationality/irrationality? Their personal sense of judgment and qualities?


Look at any religion/cult/following today, they have plenty of followers, many of whom would fit the description of ''reasonable.''

3. So you're suggesting he was scizophrenic? i find that hard to believe since all the ideals he expressed made complete sense and werent at all violent or paranoid. if that's not what you're suggesting, then please explain WHY he would think he was the Messiah unless he truly was.

I never said anything about shcizophrenia or a mental ailment. Why does anyone start a new religion? Apply any possible existing reasons from recent examples. Unless someone goes back in a time-machine and asks him, can't really know for sure can we?

[Jikanu]

I've replied to this in a previous post. I understood what you meant when you explained it the first time.


That wasn't all of the Jews (only those in one city) and I have a thought that anyone would have cheered at what was essentially a parade.

I thought that there were people in the crowd at Jesus' ''hearing'' that incited the crowd to cry for Jesus' death? Whichever way, I still don't see how their ''change of opinion'' would affect anything.




Already addressed.


Cult of Personality, quasi-addressed in my reply to your similar previous question below.





To what source/evidence do you attribute their rationality/irrationality? Their personal sense of judgment and qualities?


Look at any religion/cult/following today, they have plenty of followers, many of whom would fit the description of ''reasonable.''






I never said anything about shcizophrenia or a mental ailment. Why does anyone start a new religion? Apply any possible existing reasons from recent examples. Unless someone goes back in a time-machine and asks him, can't really know for sure can we?

1. my POINT was that in the very same city that they praised him they soon after persecuted him. Not just ANY city, THE city. The whole city was out praising him, in the very same city that just a few days later he was brought to Herod to be persecuted. And even if there were a few people inciting it, i can't really see it causing that dramatic of a shift. And it wasnt a "Parade", they were celebrating that the man who they believed was their Messiah had come.


It's not like all of the Jewish people came out to persecute him, but the cities that were visited probably had alot of them. Jerusalem was the biggest Jewish city at the time. Why did his supporters suddenly turn against him? I only ask because the only really reasonable explaination is in the bible. People dont change their minds that quickly. :/

2. They start new religions because they truly believe in them, or for the glory, for the most part. Your two options are that either 1. He wanted to be remembered and continued wanting that in the face of death in an extremely brutal way, 2. He had some kind of a mental ailment, or 3. He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was correct. Unless there's another reasonable explaination, i dont really see much support for the first two.

3. I say they were rational since they were just like all the other Jews at the time. They were simple fishermen and such. They had found their place in the world. They were reasonably aged men, not young adults. they had no REASON to join a cult, like those in the Manson Family and such did. No more reason than any of the jews that persecuted him, at least.

[Ivramire]

1. my POINT was that in the very same city that they praised him they soon after persecuted him. Not just ANY city, THE city. The whole city was out praising him, in the very same city that just a few days later he was brought to Herod to be persecuted. And even if there were a few people inciting it, i can't really see it causing that dramatic of a shift. And it wasnt a "Parade", they were celebrating that the man who they believed was their Messiah had come.

And like I said, I still don't see how a dramatic shift in opinion changes anything, especially in regards to the reality of whether or not anyone was a deity. And just supposing that this affects anything. What is the source for the number of people, the technicalities, the specifics etc. Is it something that would benefit from showing things one way or another?

It's not like all of the Jewish people came out to persecute him, but the cities that were visited probably had alot of them. Jerusalem was the biggest Jewish city at the time. Why did his supporters suddenly turn against him? I only ask because the only really reasonable explaination is in the bible. People dont change their minds that quickly. :/

What was the reasonable explanation?


I beg to disagree. Hah.

2. They start new religions because they truly believe in them, or for the glory, for the most part. Your two options are that either 1. He wanted to be remembered and continued wanting that in the face of death in an extremely brutal way, 2. He had some kind of a mental ailment, or 3. He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was correct. Unless there's another reasonable explaination, i dont really see much support for the first two.

That's 3 options.


Why would it necessarily be correct? You discount the option of ''He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was incorrect''

3. I say they were rational since they were just like all the other Jews at the time. They were simple fishermen and such. They had found their place in the world. They were reasonably aged men, not young adults. they had no REASON to join a cult, like those in the Manson Family and such did. No more reason than any of the jews that persecuted him, at least.

All based on assumptions and things that are impossible to verify one way or another.


Yes, some were fishermen, a number were certainly middle-aged but the rest is pure conjecture.