tmidgett wrote:I mean, that's the easiest explanation. Not graverobbers followed by hungry wolves or anything like that.

Likewise, dude finds out his new wife is preggers, but he's never touched her. "Oh ... it was God! He knocked me up!" "Wow? Really? Cool!"

tmidgett wrote:I like the part about him rising from the dead.

If you are dead

and entombed in a cave

and the entrance is blocked by a rock

and someone finds that the rock has been rolled away

and your corpse is no longer there

then obviously you have risen from the dead!

I mean, that's the easiest explanation. Not graverobbers followed by hungry wolves or anything like that.

Particularly if you're buried in a grave that was loaned to you on a temporary basis by a political sympathiser who had his family status to lose if word ever got out about his involvement.

Actually, this thread is missing an interesting point in the non-divine Jesus line of bible theory. Jesus' rebellion against the theological patriarchy of the time, and that fact that much of his support came from the fact that this Jewish theology was 'new' and sympathetic to Rome, and while greatly feared was probably loathed by traditionalist groups and families at the time (which we can see in the hoo-hah about Messianism, which was actually resurgent during the ministry of John the Baptist, who was done in by the Romans and not the priests).

The point here is the "resurrection" and "transfiguration" metaphors being more obviously linked to the spiritual life of the people rather than Jesus himself, which would be a very crass minterpretation. The most stark example here is when Jesus threatens to tear down the temple and rebuild it again in three days, and is the first explicit appearance of the "resurrection" myth in the Gospel. He's not refering to himself there, at all. Tie that to the "den of thieves" outburst, the denial of divinity to Pilate, and the fact that Jesus forgives sins on the Sabbath as a show that anyone can forgive, any day of the fucking week and we've got a strong argument that the semantics here are of universalism and anti-establisment ethics. This is a lot more reasonable, and a lot neater than the "divine" explaination for those words, and those actions.

and Nerblybear - "universal father" is a decent enough translation of Elohim, JHWH or any other plural words for God that are used in the bulk of old Hebrew text, which Jesus (and Isaiah) drew upon for the best part of their teachings. Even Christians, reading the Bible with the doctrine in mind, would definitely notice the return to pre-Mosaic language and pre-Davidic politics in Jesus' teaching, again heavily borrowed from Isaiah.

Also the entire notion of a "uniquely divine" son of God didn't exist until way after Jesus was dead, it was invented to suit the scripture, not the other way around so its just not going to present in any Gospel. The Acts and the Epistles document dudes arriving at this conclusion.

boris shitting becker

im going to fucking bed

Albiz, Maybe you will allow me to say a few words, and then maybe you will pay me the 100 American dollars you owe me for the Euro wager.

The last generations of intelligent people to derive any spiritual succor or insight from reading the Bible literally (Newton, Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, and many others) all rejected the Trinity, and often doubted that Jesus was divine in any sense at all, because they critically read passages like those that have been quoted here and were struck by their profound ambiguity. They also didn't limit themselves to reading these passages in English, much less the deeply flawed King James translation, which has the additional misfortune of now being widely available on the Internet. English translations up until the nineteenth century all erred on the side of Trinitarian orthodoxy -- denying Jesus' divinity has, for most of the last 2,000 years, been one of the severest heresies and quickest paths to execution -- and so, _for the sake of preserving orthodoxy_, almost all English translations have deliberately made certain passages seem clearer than they are in the original.

John 5: 18 is a case in point.

The New English Bible, a much less tendentious translation from 1961 and still the standard scholarly English edition, reads, "This made the Jews still more determined to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath, but, by calling God his own Father, he claimed equality with God."

It's "the Jews" here who are drawing an inference: Jesus accords himself equal status with God, they say, by virtue of claiming God is his father. Jesus doesn't claim equality with God; nor does John claim it for him.

If that's not clear from this excerpt alone, read the fuller passage:

"It was works of this kind done on the Sabbath that stirred the Jews to persecute Jesus. 17 He defended himself by saying, 'My Father has never yet ceased his work, and I am working too.' 18 This made the Jews still more determined to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath, but, by calling God his own Father, he claimed equality with God. 19 To this charge Jesus replied, 'In truth, in very truth I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he does only what he sees the Father doing: what the Father does, the Son does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all his works, and will show greater yet, to fill you with wonder. 21 As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to men, as he determines. 22 And again, the Father does not judge anyone, but has given full jurisdiction to the Son; 23 it is his will that all should pay the same honour to the Son as to the Father. To deny honour to the Son is to deny it to the Father who sent him."

John 9: 35 is another case in point. The New English Bible reads "Jesus heard that they had expelled him. When he found him he asked, 'Have you faith in the Son of Man'"

"Son of Man" is also the translation of 9: 35 in the Twentieth Century New Testament (1904).

As for the last example from ch. 10 of John, again, listen to the New English Bible, produced in an age when translating ambiguities concerning the Trinity wasn't suicide.

"Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. At this Jesus said to them, 'I have set before you many good deeds, done by my Father's power; for which of these would you stone me?' 33 The Jews replied, 'We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. 34 You, a mere man, claim to be a god.' Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law, "I said: You are gods"? 35 Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered--- and Scripture cannot be set aside. 36 Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, "I am God's son"?"

Maybe the Gospels suggest that Jesus was the unique son of God, but nowhere do they unambiguously say that he therefore had divine status, much less divine status equal to God's. A reasonable Christian who reads these ambiguities conservatively might admit to Arianism: the view that Jesus was a kind of secondary divinity who might be conceptualized in mundane terms as the son of God. But any sensible reader of the Bible who is interested in what this compendium of myths actually says would also have to admit that even Arianism can't be fully supported with textual evidence.

Albiz, your money is safe for now.

Christ fucking hell. Are we still talking about this?

Isn't there like, a new Ex record, or some NOS 6L6 tubes we can talk about instead?

I wish I could be around in another 2,000 years where people are discussing a book of stories about Waco or somesuch, debating he-said-she-said nonsense.

Considering that Christianity is such a powerful force in our society, I think these questions are not only interesting but important ones to ask.

It is one of maybe two interesting threads on this board in the last month or so.

salut, BI!ZN!ONO!

big_dave wrote:Also the entire notion of a "uniquely divine" son of God didn't exist until way after Jesus was dead, it was invented to suit the scripture, not the other way around so its just not going to present in any Gospel. The Acts and the Epistles document dudes arriving at this conclusion.

That's not necessarily true. Egyptian religions deified the living too. Pharaohs were considered "divine".

A lot of so-called teachings, are based on scripture, but it really comes down to the clergy, the way they've perverted, and clouded the myth/person of Christ.