|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 17:56:35 GMT -5
Regarding reincarnation being taught by the early Church, here is an excellent comparative study on this subject, which I wish I had found sooner. It definitely clears up any confusion around Origen and his writings, who was one of the earlier church fathers who later was excommunicated. I also want to disply the opponent's viewpoint on this subject of reincarnation from this other secular site to keep a balance in views: reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-pope.htm (Secular perspective) www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation3.html (Christian perspective)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 19:37:36 GMT -5
I must say, this thread really has challenged my mind in ways I never dreamed of before. Although it took some different twists and turns, like many threads do, I really enjoyed what I learned as a result. Studies like this one definitely beats crossroad puzzles for keeping the brain cells alive! Now I could really use a rest after such a mental exercise!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 21, 2013 22:55:09 GMT -5
I must say, this thread really has challenged my mind in ways I never dreamed of before. Although it took some different twists and turns, like many threads do, I really enjoyed what I learned as a result. Studies like this one definitely beats crossroad puzzles for keeping the brain cells alive! Now I could really use a rest after such a mental exercise! faune, you definitely deserve a good rest after all that research!
I'll just stick to my crossword puzzles for now!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 23:20:32 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ Well, I must admit, crossroad puzzles must work because you definitely have a sharp mind for your age ~ 81 years old! However, that kitty picture really resembled how I felt after researching a number of topics I never dealt with before now. I definitely earned some zzz's and shall bid you all goodnight.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 21, 2013 23:29:48 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ Well, I must admit, crossroad puzzles must work because you definitely have a sharp mind for your age! However, that kitty picture really resembled how I felt after researching a number of topics I never dealt with before now. Thanks, (but no thanks) for the "compliment" about my age, faune!
I'm going to do a thread on "ageism" from the session on "ageism" that my daughter & I went to at the NOW convention when I get around to it!
It surprised even me!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 22, 2013 11:19:13 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ Hopefully you will get around to it soon, as I would love to hear what was shared at that convention? Also, I'm no spring chicken myself, but your sharp intellect makes me think I need to begin doing crossword puzzles myself. However, like the chicken who pops out the golden eggs, I try to create threads that will interest the reader and facilitate creative thinking. This Board has been quite the learning experience for me and I love threads that challenge the mind.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 24, 2013 12:38:43 GMT -5
Wow you really have done your homework! At the moment anything religious makes me want to run in the other direction. Visiting my fundamentalist, creationist birth family does that to me!! Glad to have you back, Snow, and hope you find this thread interesting to check out? I learned a lot myself from areas explored under this subject matter that I never dreamed would come up in discussion. Honestly, researching challenging topics beats crossword puzzles for keeping the brain cells alive and functioning!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2013 13:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2013 20:58:00 GMT -5
Funny you should be looking at this today. I was doing some research into the Q document that was used by Mark and then used by Luke and Matthew to make up the so called synoptic gospels. It also brought up the Gospel of Thomas again because many of the sayings that are mentioned in those 3 gospels are in the Gospel of Thomas. Some historians feel that the Q and Gospel of Thomas were used by Mark. The two are not biographies but more sayings attributed to Jesus. Snow ~ Actually it was this new article that I found with secular references to that period in time that I was referring to earlier. However, I did come across references to the Q document you cited aboved and find it quite interesting to explore. I plan to research that one a little further myself, as I'm not that familiar with its contents. Here's the one I was talking about today, which is different from the others. www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/jesus-exist.php
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 17, 2013 20:58:42 GMT -5
I discovered this article today while researching another topic and just wanted to add it to this thread on proof of Jesus Existence as found in sacred texts. I'm still checking out articles on the historical Jesus and wanted to share this one for its content. www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/jesus-exist.php Faune, this article shows such a bias, (note underlinings) & disregard of any dissenting dialogue on the matter, that I decided to look up who was writing this particular article.
Knowing who is stating something can often tell a lot about whether you can depend on the validity of the the statements.
The author of the article is Paul L. Maier
This is from wiki concerning Mair & his credentials.
Paul L. Maier (born May 31, 1930)[1][2] is an historian and novelist. He has written several works of scholarly and popular non-fiction about Christianity and novels about Christian historians. He is the former Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, from which he retired in 2011, retaining the title of professor emeritus in the Department of History. He serves as Third Vice President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.
He seems to have sufficient credentials to know what he is talking about, however, I thought this article was too bias to be considered worthy of a scholastic dissertation- it was so dismissing & belittling of any dissent.
You will note that none of the references actually use the name "Jesus" as to who is being referred to. They only state "Christus" & refer to someone who was supposed to be this Christus.
It is also not about the founder of this sect, but rather about them. Was it the Jesus of the gospels? I have no doubt that this group being referred existed but who was their founder? It is only inferred that it was Jesus.
I'm not claiming that Jesus didn't actually exist, but I certainly believe that he was made into "The Christ" by history & especially by Paul.
Maier appeared in a 2004 episode of the Showtime TV show, Bullsh-!, entitled The Bible: Fact or Fiction?. The show's hosts argued against a literal interpretation of the Bible. Maier was invited to provide both a counterargument and relevant background information regarding the text.
"He was opposed by Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer."
I have found Michael Shermer to be very trustworthy.
His column in the Scientific American is the first place that I read when we get the magazine!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2013 22:05:20 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ I actually prefer the writings and lectures by Dr. William Lane Craig, a well known apologist who has debated a number of distinguished atheists in the past on a variety of subjects. You can see many of his lectures and debates at this link below. I enjoyed listening to the debates on God's Existence recently between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens and Anthony Flew on two separate occasions. There's also one about the Historical Jesus and the Resurrection between Dr. Craig and Bart Erhman, which is quite interesting, too. I'm sure you will recognize a lot of these names listed below who have debated with Dr. Craig?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fXhP8kIM7I (Debate Between William Lane Craig and Anthony Flew)
www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/craig-apologetics-videos.php
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2013 22:25:09 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ I'm sure this debate about God's Existence between Dr. William Lane Craig (apologist) and Dr. Anthony Flew (atheist) you will find very interesting to listen to as time permits. This was a famous debate in the past that I felt was worth sharing tonight. You will also find in this debate section at the bottom of the page a number of debates with other famous atheists on a variety of topics dealing with the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and God's existence. Hope you enjoy some of these debates, which are pretty interesting and worth checking out.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fXhP8kIM7I Debate Between William Lane Craig and Anthony Flew
www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/craig-apologetics-videos.php
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 18, 2013 8:38:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 18, 2013 11:33:02 GMT -5
Funny you should be looking at this today. I was doing some research into the Q document that was used by Mark and then used by Luke and Matthew to make up the so called synoptic gospels. It also brought up the Gospel of Thomas again because many of the sayings that are mentioned in those 3 gospels are in the Gospel of Thomas. Some historians feel that the Q and Gospel of Thomas were used by Mark. The two are not biographies but more sayings attributed to Jesus. Snow ~ Here's what I discovered from my research of the " Q Document" today: life.liegeman.org/historymaker/q_etc.html
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 18, 2013 16:06:53 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ I'm sure this debate about God's Existence between Dr. Lane Craig (apologist) and Dr. Anthony Flew (atheist) you will find very interesting to listen to as time permits. This was a famous debate in the past that I felt was worth sharing tonight. You will also find in this debate section at the bottom of the page a number of debates with other famous atheists on a variety of topics dealing with the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and God's existence. Hope you enjoy some of these debates, which are pretty interesting and worth checking out. www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/craig-apologetics-videos.php Dmmichgood ~ I'm sure this debate about God's Existence between Dr. Lane Craig (apologist) and Dr. Anthony Flew (atheist) you will find very interesting to listen to as time permits. This was a famous debate in the past that I felt was worth sharing tonight. You will also find in this debate section at the bottom of the page a number of debates with other famous atheists on a variety of topics dealing with the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and God's existence. Hope you enjoy some of these debates, which are pretty interesting and worth checking out. www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/craig-apologetics-videos.php thanks, snow. I've heard some of them before & will listen to more as time permits.
I am so tire of "pear" preservation, I decided to take the day off. I've made spiced, minted, ginger honey pears & want to try some brandied pears next.
But for today I'm leaving them just setting in the kitchen!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 18, 2013 16:29:16 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ I'm sure this debate about God's Existence between Dr. Lane Craig (apologist) and Dr. Anthony Flew (atheist) you will find very interesting to listen to as time permits. This was a famous debate in the past that I felt was worth sharing tonight. You will also find in this debate section at the bottom of the page a number of debates with other famous atheists on a variety of topics dealing with the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and God's existence. Hope you enjoy some of these debates, which are pretty interesting and worth checking out. www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/craig-apologetics-videos.php Dmmichgood ~ I'm sure this debate about God's Existence between Dr. Lane Craig (apologist) and Dr. Anthony Flew (atheist) you will find very interesting to listen to as time permits. This was a famous debate in the past that I felt was worth sharing tonight. You will also find in this debate section at the bottom of the page a number of debates with other famous atheists on a variety of topics dealing with the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and God's existence. Hope you enjoy some of these debates, which are pretty interesting and worth checking out. www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/craig-apologetics-videos.php thanks, snow. I've heard some of them before & will listen to more as time permits.
I am so tire of "pear" preservation, I decided to take the day off. I've made spiced, minted, ginger honey pears & want to try some brandied pears next.
But for today I'm leaving them just setting in the kitchen! Dmmichgood ~ I think you got me confused with Snow regarding the debates above, but that's O.K. I'm sure all that canning has worn you out. I can remember when my grandmother used to do preserving and it's quite a tedious process, but the effort is well worth it later on when you get to enjoy your efforts.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 18, 2013 16:40:21 GMT -5
Funny you should be looking at this today. I was doing some research into the Q document that was used by Mark and then used by Luke and Matthew to make up the so called synoptic gospels. It also brought up the Gospel of Thomas again because many of the sayings that are mentioned in those 3 gospels are in the Gospel of Thomas. Some historians feel that the Q and Gospel of Thomas were used by Mark. The two are not biographies but more sayings attributed to Jesus. Snow ~ I came across this article today that deals with Bart Ehrman's new book about the historical Jesus. This is a review by a well known historian and he doesn't seem to agree with a lot of what he claimed in his book regarding Jesus. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/carrier-finally-responds-to-ehrman-on-the-historicity-of-jesus/
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 18, 2013 16:42:24 GMT -5
thanks, snow. I've heard some of them before & will listen to more as time permits.
I am so tire of "pear" preservation, I decided to take the day off. I've made spiced, minted, ginger honey pears & want to try some brandied pears next.
But for today I'm leaving them just setting in the kitchen! Dmmichgood ~ I think you got me confused with Snow regarding the debates above, but that's O.K. I'm sure all that canning has worn you out. I can remember when my grandmother used to do preserving and it's quite a tedious process, but the effort is well worth it later on when you get to enjoy your efforts. ;)Yeh! bit confused today maybe! I meant you, faune!
Both peaches & pears are so good this year, no bugs. I didn't even have to spray.
I thought a mild winter, as we just had, usually resulted in more insect survival, but wasn't so this year.
These are Bartlet pears, a tree my husband planted many years ago. They are just great this year!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 18, 2013 17:42:13 GMT -5
Faune, from what I have read, Mark copied some of his stuff from Q and the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Q and Mark. That's seems to be what they have decided. Why do you accept as gospel something hypothetical from a 'they' source when we have the witness of the early fathers who have first-hand witness that Mark wrote what Peter preached? I just don't get it ...
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 18, 2013 17:45:00 GMT -5
Faune, from what I have read, Mark copied some of his stuff from Q and the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Q and Mark. That's seems to be what they have decided. Why do you so eagerly accept as gospel something hypothetical from a ' they' source when we have the witness of early fathers who have close-up witness that Mark wrote what Peter preached? I just don't get it ... The Authorship of the Gospel of Mark
The universal testimony of the early church fathers is that Mark, the close associate of Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark.
Carson and Moo explain the significance of this testimony,
“Moreover, no dissenting voice from the early church regarding the authorship of the second gospel is found…While we must not uncritically accept everything that early Christian writers say about the origins of the New Testament, we should not reject what they say without good reason.”1 Over a hundred years earlier, Thomas Horne recognized this writing,
“That Mark was the author of the Gospel which bears his name, is proved by the unanimous testimony of ancient Christians…Saint Peter having publicly preached the Christian religion at Rome, many who were present entreated Mark, as he had for a long time been that apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter had delivered, that he would commit the particulars to writing. Accordingly, when Mark had finished his Gospel, he delivered it to the persons who made this request. Such is the unanimous testimony of ancient writers, which is further confirmed by internal evidence, derived from the Gospel itself.”2 Joseph Kelly concurs,
"The patristic tradition is unanimous that Mark wrote Mark's Gospel."3
The following church fathers clearly state this.4
For a list of the early church fathers, who they were and when they lived, mentioned in this article, click here. ...
jesusevidences.com/originntgospels/authorshippublicationgospelmark.php
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 18, 2013 17:54:43 GMT -5
Faune, from what I have read, Mark copied some of his stuff from Q and the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Q and Mark. That's seems to be what they have decided. Why do you so eagerly accept as gospel something hypothetical from a ' they' source when we have the witness of early fathers who have close-up witness that Mark wrote what Peter preached? I just don't get it ... More ... Papias’ early comments about Mark being the interpreter of Peter and thus writing down Peter’s gospel was common knowledge in the church and repeated over and over by the early church fathers.
Irenaeus records in his work, Against Heresies (3.1.1),
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
Tertullian writes in his work, Against Marcion (4.5),
“The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage--I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew--whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men unsually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters.
Eusebius records Origen’s statement in his Commentary on Matthew (in Eusebius Church History 6.25), jesusevidences.com/originntgospels/authorshippublicationgospelmark.php
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 18, 2013 17:58:47 GMT -5
StAnne ~ This secular source also agrees that Mark was an original document and there was no copying by Matthew or Luke from this early gospel as suggested by some modern day scholars. life.liegeman.org/historymaker/q_etc.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 18, 2013 18:15:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 18, 2013 18:25:16 GMT -5
Why do you accept as gospel something hypothetical from a 'they' source when we have the witness of the early fathers who have first-hand witness that Mark wrote what Peter preached? I just don't get it ... Probably for the same reason you believe the church fathers are telling the truth because they said they are? The church fathers have an interest in what they put out there as 'their truth'. Do you think they would say they made it up? Even if they did? Scholars studying this don't have anything to lose most of the time. They just look at it with an unbiased and neutral eye and they see discrepancies. I think it makes more sense to believe a neutral party over a party with a vested interest in the subject. I don't think there is any point discussing this further. As I said in another thread, What do you want to talk about next? you believe the church fathers are telling the truth because they said they areNo. Because their writings verify down thru the centuries - and other writers comment - some object - so we have a pretty clear picture of much of what was written and happening. Scholars studying this don't have anything to lose most of the time. They just look at it with an unbiased and neutral eyeHmmm. The church fathers aren't believable - your unnamed 'scholars' are ... On what are you basing your assertion that they are neutral and are unbiased. How is it that they are infinitely so much more knowledgeable than those who were there? I notice you keep writing ' scholars' but offer no evidence, no sources. And we're supposed to accept these blurbs as gospel ...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 18, 2013 18:56:50 GMT -5
Because their writings verify down thru the centuries - and other writers comment - some object - so we have a pretty clear picture of much of what was written and happening. If you destroy all evidence to the contrary and control the history it is easy to claim verification.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 18, 2013 19:16:02 GMT -5
Because their writings verify down thru the centuries - and other writers comment - some object - so we have a pretty clear picture of much of what was written and happening. If you destroy all evidence to the contrary and control the history it is easy to claim verification. I dunno about that. all evidence to the contrary, you say. Interesting. Then how is it we know about the Gnostics, the Arians, the Marcions?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 4, 2014 0:54:08 GMT -5
I enjoyed reviewing this old thread of mine relating to Sacred Texts that proved Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist back in the first century and was crucified under Pilate, regardless of the myth promoters who would have us believe differently about Jesus' actual existence in history. Even Bart Ehrman addresses this fact in his recent book, Did Jesus Exist? He also brings out the discrepancies and errors found within the reasoning of the Jesus myth supporters.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 4, 2014 1:29:22 GMT -5
I enjoyed reviewing this old thread of mine relating to Sacred Texts that proved Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist back in the first century and was crucified under Pilate, regardless of the myth promoters who would have us believe differently about Jesus' actual existence in history. Even Bart Ehrman addresses this fact in his recent book, Did Jesus Exist? He also brings out the discrepancies and errors found within the reasoning of the Jesus myth supporters. It doesn't matter to me whether Jesus of Nazareth did or did not exist back in the first century and was crucified under Pilate.
What I do not believe is that a man called Jesus or by any other name, rose from the dead & was taken up into the sky.
That is the MYTH side of the story & I don't believe that happened.
|
|