The Kirk are doing it better

[SusanDoris]

gonnagle

As you may recall, I read quite a few of Karen Armstrong's books and at the time made a point of listening when she was broadcasting. She certainly presented a very much more realistic view of what probably happened in the time of Christianity's beginnings. I have expressed my views on her writings, but I'll join in again here I think to say that I waited in vain for  her to come down clearly on one side of the fence, but she had obviously decided to take a disinterested stance about whether God existed, , especially as she had most decidedly moved well away from her RC upbringing.

In the end, I think that she has never stepped right outside God belief and, therefore, her opinions can never be those of someone who sees things from a non-belief point of view, whereas those who have stepped completely away can.

[ad_orientem]

You deny that Jesus said he came not to abolish the law or that you said the law was dead?

You obviously do not understand the words of Christ, much like the Jews. Christ

[floo]

You obviously do not understand the words of Christ, much like the Jews. Christ

Maybe Jesus didn't do such a good job if most people didn't understand what he was on about. The Jews are still awaiting their promised Messiah.

[ad_orientem]

The Jews are still awaiting their promised Messiah.

They missed the boat, I'm afraid. They plotted against and killed him.

[Anchorman]

They missed the boat, I'm afraid. They plotted against and killed him.

-
The act was carried out by Romans.
The responsibility was and is ours.

[ad_orientem]

-
The act was carried out by Romans.
The responsibility was and is ours.

St. Peter and St. Stephen contradict you.

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain"

"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers"

[Anchorman]

Context, dear boy, context. The audience these Christians were addressing were Jews or those on the edges of Judaism. Who nailed the Lord to that Cross, pray? Not Jews - unless you have some hidden knowledge verging on Gnosticism that the Romans who tried and condemned Him, and nailed Him to that Cross underwent some hidden snip? And since Paul makes it abundanytly clear that ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and that Christ died for our sins, then all who sinned are in some way responsible for Him dying on that Cross. Remember when Paul wrote "Christ died for our sins" to the believers in Corinth, that infant congregation was a mixed community of Jews and non Jewish converts. So the 'our' was meant, not only for the Jews, burt for everyone else.

[ad_orientem]

Context, dear boy, context. The audience these Christians were addressing were Jews or those on the edges of Judaism. Who nailed the Lord to that Cross, pray? Not Jews - unless you have some hidden knowledge verging on Gnosticism that the Romans who tried and condemned Him, and nailed Him to that Cross underwent some hidden snip? And since Paul makes it abundanytly clear that ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and that Christ died for our sins, then all who sinned are in some way responsible for Him dying on that Cross. Remember when Paul wrote "Christ died for our sins" to the believers in Corinth, that infant congregation was a mixed community of Jews and non Jewish converts. So the 'our' was meant, not only for the Jews, burt for everyone else.

Nope. That's just modern ecumenist fluff, designed to gloss over the clear words of St. Peter and St. Stephen.

[Anchorman]

Ah, Ok =- so Paul was wrong, then? Fair enough. Strange kind of interpretation. Were those who made it sniffing strange insence at the time?

[ad_orientem]

Ah, Ok =- so Paul was wrong, then? Fair enough. Strange kind of interpretation. Were those who made it sniffing strange insence at the time?

The Apostle says we have all sinned, yes, I never denied that. That has nothing to do with original statement concerning the Jews plotting against and killing their own Messiah and God. That is why they were "cut off" as the Apostle puts it and why the Temple was destroyed etc.

[Rhiannon]

The Apostle says we have all sinned, yes, I never denied that. That has nothing to do with original statement concerning the Jews plotting against and killing their own Messiah and God. That is why they were "cut off" as the Apostle puts it and why the Temple was destroyed etc.

No, that was the Romans again.

[floo]

They missed the boat, I'm afraid. They plotted against and killed him.

Jesus was no sort of Messiah or deity he wouldn't be a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, if that were the case.

[Anchorman]

Jesus was no sort of Messiah or deity he wouldn't be a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, if that were the case.

-
Er/........
Would you like to review your statement - and provide evidence which will substantiate it, Floo?

[ad_orientem]

No, that was the Romans again.

You obviously haven't read the Gospels have you. In it the Jews plot against Jesus to have him put to death. Really, having read them I find it impossible to come to any other conclusion. The Church thought that too.

[floo]

-
Er/........
Would you like to review your statement - and provide evidence which will substantiate it, Floo?

It is for you to provide evidence to support your illogical belief, but of course you can't because there is none.

[Nearly Sane]

It is for you to provide evidence to support your illogical belief, but of course you can't because there is none.

No, Anchorman was replying to your post saying that Jesus was a rotted corose. The burden of proif falks on the person making the positive claim. In this case that was you.

[floo]

No, Anchorman was replying to your post saying that Jesus was a rotted corose. The burden of proif falks on the person making the positive claim. In this case that was you.

No it is the people who claim he resurrected who have to prove Jesus did so, as they can't, my claim he is a rotted corpse is more logical, as they didn't cremate people in those days, I don't think!

[Robbie]

Maybe Jesus didn't do such a good job if most people didn't understand what he was on about. The Jews are still awaiting their promised Messiah.

Not all Jews, some Jews. There are those who believe the Messiah (not Jesus) has come & revere a person who walked this earth, now dead. There are Jews who don't believe in the coming of a Messiah at all because their interpretation of scriptures is different. You cannot generalise about Judaism.

[Nearly Sane]

No it is the people who claim he resurrected who have to prove Jesus did so, as they can't, my claim he is a rotted corpse is more logical, as they didn't cremate people in those days, I don't think!

No.  You are using induction and the argument by personal incredulity here for your positive claim.

[Anchorman]

It is for you to provide evidence to support your illogical belief, but of course you can't because there is none.

-
You made a statement, Floo.
Without substantiating it, it is meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No.  You are using induction and the argument by personal incredulity here for your positive claim.

Hmmm. I'm aware of the burden of proof issue, but perhaps there's some nuance here. Science uses sigma certainty for example - a 5 Sigma event means that the probability of your finding being "true" is 3x10-7 (three times ten to the minus seven). Thus if the Higgs-Boson does not exist, the data from CERN would need to be at least as extreme as the data they observed. On this level of certainty the Higgs-Boson is referred to as a "fact".

This probability is equivalent to running the experiment around 3.5 million times. We can also "run the experiment" of looking at what happened when 3.5 million people died, and also obtain 5 Sigma certainty that they stayed dead. Is it so unreasonable then to call "dead people stay dead" a fact too, provided no absolutism is involved?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Hmmm. I'm aware of the burden of proof issue, but perhaps there's some nuance here. Science uses sigma certainty for example - a 5 Sigma event means that the probability of your finding being "true" is 3x10-7 (three times ten to the minus seven). Thus if the Higgs-Boson does not exist, the data from CERN would need to be at least as extreme as the data they observed. On this level of certainty the Higgs-Boson is referred to as a "fact".

This probability is equivalent to running the experiment around 3.5 million times. We can also "run the experiment" of looking at what happened when 3.5 million people died, and also obtain 5 Sigma certainty that they stayed dead. Is it so unreasonable then to call "dead people stay dead" a fact too, provided no absolutism is involved?

Yes, in the case of the specific claim that Jesus is a rotted corpse. I really don't understand why you want to use double standards as regards positove statements, or ignore the problems of inductiin for specific claims, or give a pass to arguments from personal incredulity for those claims you seem more sympathetic to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Yes, in the case of the specific claim that Jesus is a rotted corpse. I really don't understand why you want to use double standards as regards positove statements, or ignore the problems of inductiin for specific claims, or give a pass to arguments from personal incredulity for those claims you seem more sympathetic to.

I was just trying a line of argument - as much to see how it sounded to my ears as anything. I wasn't looking to start an argument. The question was simply, is the statement "Jesus is dead" (Floo's claim) any less certain than, say, "the Higgs-Boson is exists" is all.

[Anchorman]

Not all Jews, some Jews. There are those who believe the Messiah (not Jesus) has come & revere a person who walked this earth, now dead. There are Jews who don't believe in the coming of a Messiah at all because their interpretation of scriptures is different. You cannot generalise about Judaism.

-
With you there.
A couple of years back, a friend of mine, a Messianic Jew, invited me to celebrate Passover with himself and some members of his congregation.
A great night was had by all.
Typical Jewish Passover ceremonial, except that the last cup - the cup reserved, undrunk, for the Messiah, became the cup we used in communion - very moving evocation of the events of that Thursday before Good Friday.
Whilst maintaining their Jewish heritage, they nevertheless accept Yeshua as Messiah, Lord - and God.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I was just trying a line of argument - as much to see how it sounded to my ears as anything. I wasn't looking to start an argument. The question was simply, is the statement "Jesus is dead" (Floo's claim) any less certain than, say, "the Higgs-Boson is exists" is all.

And the answer to that is yes since the Higgs is a generic testable claim, whereas the Jesus claim is a specific non testable one. Essentially Floo's claim is more comparable to 'There are no black swans'