ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Lighthouse--you were going to present a text which disproved Reformed doctrine, but when I asked you a question about the verse which you yourself selected, you did not answer my querstion.

Making statements that are not based on the text in question is not valid. You made nothing more than a general statement. SHOW THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT IN QUESTION. Exegete the words of the text and show how they are proof of the position that you sday is correct. It isn't ernough for you to say, I'm right. Show THROUGH THE WORDS OF THE TEXT why you are right!

Again, my question: What does the text give as the reason that Christ has not yet returned? What is His reason for not having returned yet?

Remember that this is the text you selected to disprove the Reformed view of scripture. If you believe that it does, you should be GLAD to freely discuss what the words in the text mean to you. Why haven't you? This is your opportunity to point out the words of the text and show how they themselves disprove the Reformed view of scripture.
What does1 John 2:2 have to do with Christ's return? Or did I use 2 Peter 3:9? Wait! That doesn't say anything about Christ's return either. 2 Peter 3:9 says that it is God's will that none perish. Calvinism says the opposite. 1 John 2:2 says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Calvinism teaches differently. Any questions?
 

badp

New member
Prodigal, I have to say, your claimed status as a wealthy man of the world puts us Christians to shame. If only we were as bright as you, we might also be making gobs of money. What are we thinking? Let's forget about our own loving relationships and become selfish, slothful jerks who live for material gain and care about no one else. Sounds like the dream life to me!

Seriously, prodigal, I'm not really sure how your Chrysler is relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you are one of these folks who believe that having money implies that you make good use of your mind. Wow, you read "banned" books and believe everything in them.. as long as they soothe your psyche (as they are designed to do for God-haters such as yourself). You and your shiny car can dish it out, but can you take it? Can you really hold your ground in a debate on this issue? The answer isn't just no, it's :ha: :ha: :ha: NO. The truth is, you are not really all that happy with your life, because if you were, you wouldn't be spending so much time here trying to further placate your uneasy mind. I see through people like yourself, so why don't you cut the crap and get down to business with this discussion?
 

Rolf Ernst

New member
Granite1010--Whjy do you have to go so far back in time to find some charge to make against the Christian community?

Genocide?? Who are the ones guilty of slaughtering 1.5 million babies a year in this country? AND you are concerned about the INQUISITION? While 1.5 million perish a year--multitudes more than perished during the inquisition--you are unconcerned about infanticide?

It is beyond strange that you obsess about things that happened centuries ago, making false accusations against Christians on the basis of atrocities YET you can't remember the millions upon millions of people slaughtered by atheistic socialists in your own lifetime. Methinks I smell a rat--a BIG one, and it is named deliberate deceit.

One name given to satan is that he is "the accuser of the brethren" and Jesus said, "you are of your father the devil, and the works of your father you will do."

The Inquisition is not your issue anyway. You have no grounds to accuse Christians for the inquisition. That was done by the Roman church, and their victims were those who refused to bow the knee to the pope. The REAL christians who would not deny Christ alone as Lord over the church were the ones who were slain. When the inquisitiors would go into the homes of unbelievers, the unbelievers were glad to do whatever the inquisitors asked them to do in order to save their hides. That is a fact of history which I am sure you do not care to acknowledge in your calculations.

The DRUG war? That, Granite1010, is not a church operation. That is the federal government's baliwick--but anything to accuse Christians is what you are really after. Truth has no bearing on the accusations you make against others. Anything convenient will do, and false charges are acceptable if they serve your purpose.

You reach back hundreds of years for some accusation to make while you cannot hear the cry of infants being slaughtered!! If your face were as messed up as your brain, you would be in a real fix.
 
Last edited:

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by badp

Prodigal, I have to say, your claimed status as a wealthy man of the world puts us Christians to shame. If only we were as bright as you, we might also be making gobs of money. What are we thinking? Let's forget about our own loving relationships and become selfish, slothful jerks who live for material gain and care about no one else. Sounds like the dream life to me!

Seriously, prodigal, I'm not really sure how your Chrysler is relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you are one of these folks who believe that having money implies that you make good use of your mind. Wow, you read "banned" books and believe everything in them.. as long as they soothe your psyche (as they are designed to do for God-haters such as yourself). You and your shiny car can dish it out, but can you take it? Can you really hold your ground in a debate on this issue? The answer isn't just no, it's :ha: :ha: :ha: NO. The truth is, you are not really all that happy with your life, because if you were, you wouldn't be spending so much time here trying to further placate your uneasy mind. I see through people like yourself, so why don't you cut the crap and get down to business with this discussion?
I'm going to have to add you to my friends list.:thumb:

But, I must warn you, I've already pointed this out to prodigal, and he just further projected his internal emotions on to me. He would rather live a lie, telling himself that I'm miserable, so he can live in his contentment, which he mistakes for happiness, joy and peace.:nono:
 

Rolf Ernst

New member
Lighthouse--In dealing with any scripture terxt, you must use the context. The context of 2 Peter 3:9 is the earlier verses in that chapter. Begin reading at verse 3. You brought this verse up, and now you are being evasive, not wanting to deal with any part of it. What is your problem?

Notice that Peter is answering those who scoff, "where is the promise of His coming?" And then you think that you can understand Peter's meaning in verse 9 by not taking into consideration the scoffinbg that Peter is replying against? That is the thing about Arminians and OVers. By the time they get through with their interpretations, they have put the text of scripture through a meat grinder because its contextual harmony requires them to be realistic about how far afield are their views of scripture.

Their doctrinal system is built on a systematic lift and paste tactic. Lift a phrase out of its context and paste it where it doesn't belong.

You brought this verse up. Now deal with it in its CONTEXT; which, incidentally and FYI links together the scoffers "where is the prommise of His coming?" With the beginning phrase of verse 9 (the verse you made claims about) and the coming spoken of is further explained in the tenth verse as "the day of the Lord."

NOW---------------will you PLEASE answer the question I asked, and stop evading??

HEY!! Is there another Arminian or OVer out there who will help Lighthouse in his predicament? COME ON NOW. YOU PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SLANDERING THE REFORMED FAITH, AND NOW YOUY ARE LOOKING AT A VERSE THAT YOU CLAIM DISPROVES THE REFORMEWD FAITH. WHY ARE YOU ALL MELTING AWAY LIKE SNOW UNDER A HOT SUN?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Lighthouse--In dealing with any scripture terxt, you must use the context. The context of 2 Peter 3:9 is the earlier verses in that chapter. Begin reading at verse 3. You brought this verse up, and now you are being evasive, not wanting to deal with any part of it. What is your problem?
What are you on about? How does the context make the verse mean anything different?

Notice that Peter is answering those who scoff, "where is the promise of His coming?" And then you think that you can understand Peter's meaning in verse 9 by not taking into consideration the scoffinbg that Peter is replying against? That is the thing about Arminians and OVers. By the time they get through with their interpretations, they have put the text of scripture through a meat grinder because its contextual harmony requires them to be realistic about how far afield are their views of scripture.
What? How does the context change the meaning?

Their doctrinal system is built on a systematic lift and paste tactic. Lift a phrase out of its context and paste it where it doesn't belong.
Buy a mirror.

You brought this verse up. Now deal with it in its CONTEXT; which, incidentally and FYI links together the scoffers "where is the prommise of His coming?" With the beginning phrase of verse 9 (the verse you made claims about) and the coming spoken of is further explained in the tenth verse as "the day of the Lord."

NOW---------------will you PLEASE answer the question I asked, and stop evading??
I answered your question. But your inference of the text isn't leaving anything open for discussion, you coward.

HEY!! Is there another Arminian or OVer out there who will help Lighthouse in his predicament? COME ON NOW. YOU PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SLANDERING THE REFORMED FAITH, AND NOW YOUY ARE LOOKING AT A VERSE THAT YOU CLAIM DISPROVES THE REFORMEWD FAITH. WHY ARE YOU ALL MELTING AWAY LIKE SNOW UNDER A HOT SUN?
Leave the Arminians out of this. And why don't you want to confront 1 John 2:2?
 

Rolf Ernst

New member
Lighthouse--I will deal with 1 John 2:2 later. Right now I am trying to get you to EXPLAIN WHAT 2 Peter 3:9 teaches ACCORDING TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING, but for some reason, you are hesitant to deal with the entire text of Paul's statement.

Why don't you understand that context IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING not only what the Bible says, but the statements of people you speak to everyday?

If you think I am not able to deal with the scriptures you have mentioned, you will find--to your dismay--that you are greatly mistaken. Why aren't your friends trying to help you our of your predicament? You can't go into the context because the context, when considered, destroys your attempt to discredit the reformed faith. Maybe the others are quiet now because they have already seen a discussion like this before, know how it ends up, and want no part of it now!

CAN ANYONE really BELIEVE CONTEXT IS NOT IMPORTANT?

Lighthouse--not so quick. We can deal at length with 1 John 2:2 later. We have barely begun on 2 Peter 3:9. You claim it proves your point, so what is your sudden rush to get away? Are you cold? Would turning the thermostat up a little make you more comfortable? Winter days are long, ya' know. So settle dowmn and let us deal with the issue you brought up. Since you brought it up, you should enjoy this!
 
Last edited:

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
"Whjy do you have to go so far back in time to find some charge to make against the Christian community?"

Because, thankfully, Christians have not been able to enforce their will politically for quite some time.

"you are unconcerned about infanticide?"

No. Let's stay on topic. I said Christians have historically abused power the minute they got it. You suddenly turn this into a discussion about my views on abortion (I'm pro-life, by the way). Don't try to pull a bait and switch, Rolf.

"...making false accusations against Christians on the basis of atrocities..."

These accusations aren't false, they're history. I have NEVER seen or heard a Christian admit, "Look, this is part of the church's history. We made mistakes, and I'm sorry for that." Not a single Christian here at TOL or in person has ever taken ownership for the sins of the past committed by the church. Everyone ALWAYS passes the buck. You are no exception:

"The Inquisition is not your issue anyway. You have no grounds to accuse Christians for the inquisition. That was done by the Roman church, and their victims were those who refused to bow the knee to the pope."

Sure I do. The church is not exempt from criticism, last time I checked. The Roman church killed its enemies in the name of Christ, and justified what it did with scripture. Sorry, but that's what happened.

"The DRUG war? That, Granite1010, is not a church operation."

The church is responsible for the drug war as it was responsible for Prohibition. Salvation through legislation...

You should do some reading on the history of the drug war and the hand the church had in convincing Congress that "drug fiends" and "reefer addicts" were a terrifying threat to the community (especially the, ah, BLACK fiends and addicts, who just might violate good white girls). The propaganda campaign responsible for the drug war, instigated by evangelicals, was and is extremely similar to the Christian teetotaler campaign waged against alcohol. And we all know what a bang-up job the Volstead Act turned out to be...

So. Let's review: the atrocities of the church give us no reason to believe abuse of power won't happen again should the church regain political power. And to that you say...well, the best you can do is accuse me of being indifferent to abortion.

Non-sequitar and a really, really silly way to respond.
 

prodigal

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Rolf,

Lighthouse--you were going to present a text which disproved Reformed doctrine, but when I asked you a question about the verse which you yourself selected, you did not answer my querstion.

Nice. Two Christians going at with each other. Beautiful example boys of the lack of unity within your exclusive, archaic club. You can’t even agree on how you come to salvation. If you can’t agree on how to come to salvation, how are any of you supposed to know if anyone is actually really saved?

My contention: There is no such thing as salvation, it’s all in your heads.

Now, when placed in comparison to the absolutely insane mythology associated with Christianity, what makes more sense? Does it make more sense that all of your superstitions and out of this world fairy tales are actually true? Or does it make more sense that your imaginations are just playing tricks on you and you’re all fools?

Hmmmm.

We believe in freedom and liberty

And enslavement to a dead guy.

Lighthouse,

The reason I don't like organized religion is because I can't find Biblical support for so many doctrines.

I’m sorry, you know better than theologians who have been sculpting their doctrines for hundreds of years? I think you think too much of yourself at times, LH.

Just because I don't beleive God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future doesn't mean that I believe He doesn't know any of what the future holds, or even might hold.

In light of what the bible says about your god’s completel foreknowledge and pre-ordaination of the events of the universe, I would venture a guess to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and, you’re just making your doctrine up as you go along.

I don’t care about your doctrine, LH. Frankly, I don’t even care about the gory details of your faith. What your book says is meaningless to me because it’s validity is in doubt from the get go. You can’t defend your book’s veracity. Rolf can barely do it. Clete couldn’t do it, and Hilston got sick of me.

Paul met Christ. Paul knows. End of story.

Paul had a vision of Christ and recounted his vision in 1 Cor. 15 side by side with the “appearances” of the risen jesus to the 500 and various others. Paul’s vision of Christ was no different than the “appearances” he made to everyone else. It wasn’t a physical resurrection. When they killed jesus, that was the end of the story. He died, and is still dead.

What book is that?

The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read. That’s what it’s called.

I like your cowardly attempt at not answering my points. Calling me a tool is how you answer my points. How charmingly yellow-bellied.

I know Christ, for a fact.

You're a sad, pathetic excuse for an intellectual.

You see, LH, this isn’t an answer. This is what a cowardly child says. How old are you? Why don’t you know how to talk to people like a civilized human being with manners and decency? Why do you not have class?

I thought you said they were full of contradictions.

I told you to read Matthew and Luke in comparison to Mark to see just how much Matthew and Luke copped from the original gospel. Up to 80 percent. Now, read the resurrection accounts, there’s where you’ll see the inconsistencies, because of my contention.

My contention is this: Jesus died on the cross, was dead, was buried and stayed there. That’s why all these post-crucifixion “appearance” stories are so varied. The authors of the gospels were just making them up. Get it? That’s why there are contradictions in the post-death story of Christ. They had nothing factual to base it on, they had to make it up, hence the inconsistencies.

There is no instance. I never said there was, moron.

Than you need to be a little more clear about what you’re saying when you post. Please don’t call me a moron.

And thanks for making my point.

So you admit that there is no Paul reference to the testimony of Peter? Wonderful.

You've bought into a lie because you couldn't reconcile the ideologies of Calvinism, and decided to reject all of Christianity instead of looking inot God, on your own. You're a fool.

That might be true, but that still isn’t an answer to the point I made. I made, what I believe to be a very good point, but instead of fearlessly defending it with what your favorite theologian says about the bible, or with scripture that would silence me, you fall back onto immature name calling.

You’re a loser LH, a loser. Every word you write testifies to how big of a loser you are. I post valid, food-for-thought ideas and all you can do is reply to them with insults?

You’re a waste of my time.

What makes me superstitious? If you don't like talking to me, then don't talk to me.

I’m not going to, loser. You’re a fat, pathetic, powerless waste of flesh working behind the counter of a crappy ice cream restaurant. I’m young, sleek, good looking and have a great job. Your Christianity has done nothing for you but make you into an even more miserable person than you were without it.

This isn't the real world numbnuts.
quote:I on the other hand:I’m not over weight

I see you conveniently left out the rest of my self-description list. Did I make LH jealous? Does he hate his life?

I have the only Life worth having.

I wouldn’t trade lives with you for a million dollars, or with a gun in my mouth. I would rather be dead or poor for the rest of my life than have your life, or whatever it is that deludes you into thinking you have something worth being jealous of.

You’re fat, pathetic loser with no clue.

Actually, forget it. You're not worth the time I spend on you.

LH, my time is worth thousands and thousands of dollars. That’s what people pay me, thousands and thousands of dollars, just for what I know, the expertise I bring to the table, and just helping them.

Your time is worthless.

Christians and dairy queens like yourself come a dime a dozen, there’s only one Prodigal.

Badp,

I have to say, your claimed status as a wealthy man of the world puts us Christians to shame

Never made that claim. I claimed to be on my way. I’m just starting, but when I get going, you can’t stop me.

Let's forget about our own loving relationships and become selfish, slothful jerks who live for material gain and care about no one else. Sounds like the dream life to me!

Yeah me too!

No, seriously, what’s good for me isn’t good for everyone. LH is just a loser.

Seriously, prodigal, I'm not really sure how your Chrysler is relevant to this discussion.

It’s relevant because it shows I have more power than his god. That’s all. That and I don’t have a Chrysler 300c yet, I will, but not yet. I always speak of my goals as if I have already accomplished them.

It’s good for the old attitude.

God-haters such as yourself

Don’t hate god, I dislike Christians like LH.

Can you really hold your ground in a debate on this issue? The answer isn't just no, it's NO. The truth is, you are not really all that happy with your life, because if you were, you wouldn't be spending so much time here trying to further placate your uneasy mind.

This thread is over seven hundred posts deep. I’ve exhibited nothing but the ability to take it, but maybe you wouldn’t know, I understand, it would be tiring to actually go back and read all of this crap. LH is the one dragging this thread through the mud, what with his brazen use of the words, “idiot”, “moron”, “tool” and his utterly nauseating “buy a mirror” catch phrase.

Defend him if you’d like, but turning my own argument around on me just isn’t going to work. You’re a Christian, you’re superstitious by nature, you think you have mind powers. You don’t, you’re just as weak as the next human.

Quit trying to find power in the bigoted words of an ancient book and go out into the world and make things happen for you and yours.

Rolf,

Granite is nailing your butt to the wall right now. You need to read some objective literature on the history of your religion. There are massive precedents for christians taking miles when offered inches, for killing in the name of christ, for committing atrocities and thrusting their will on others.

The results?

Nothing. Out of all the atrocities they have committed, after all the force they have exerted, they have nothing to show for themselves.

We need to make something happen, we need to make sure that christians never get political power again. They're dangerous enough without it, if they ever get political clout in this country they'll send us in one hell of a bad tail spin towards devastation.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Lighthouse--I will deal with 1 John 2:2 later. Right now I am trying to get you to EXPLAIN WHAT 2 Peter 3:9 teaches ACCORDING TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING, but for some reason, you are hesitant to deal with the entire text of Paul's statement.
I dealt with it. Get over yourself.

Why don't you understand that context IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING not only what the Bible says, but the statements of people you speak to everyday?
I know the importance of context. And I know that you are saying the "all" and "any" in 2 Peter 3:9 is in reference to "all the elect." And I see how you get this from the text. But you're reading your preconceptions into it.

If you think I am not able to deal with the scriptures you have mentioned, you will find--to your dismay--that you are greatly mistaken. Why aren't your friends trying to help you our of your predicament? You can't go into the context because the context, when considered, destroys your attempt to discredit the reformed faith. Maybe the others are quiet now because they have already seen a discussion like this before, know how it ends up, and want no part of it now!
I went into the context. You don't seem to care.

CAN ANYONE really BELIEVE CONTEXT IS NOT IMPORTANT?
I never said context wasn't important. But most Calvinists seem to think it's not.

Lighthouse--not so quick. We can deal at length with 1 John 2:2 later. We have barely begun on 2 Peter 3:9. You claim it proves your point, so what is your sudden rush to get away? Are you cold? Would turning the thermostat up a little make you more comfortable? Winter days are long, ya' know. So settle dowmn and let us deal with the issue you brought up. Since you brought it up, you should enjoy this!
I dealt with it. Why can't you see that?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by lighthouse

Why?

I'll assume you're a) not dense and b) not playing dumb.

It helps us understand in what context the book was written, why it was written, who the intended audience may have been, and what may or may not have been on the author's mind when he wrote it.

Put another way, does it matter when, say, "1984" was written by George Orwell? (Brownie points if you know when!) If he'd written it, say, two or three years ago, the book would have none of the impact it enjoys today.

There are plenty of other examples: "American Psycho" as a contemporary indictment of Eighties greed and indifference; "A Christmas Carol" as social commentary on English injustice and oppression; the unease with fascism expressed by Sinclair Lewis in "It Can't Happen Here." None of these novels (and I'm just sticking with fiction here) would have anywhere near the same impact had they not been written when they did. And the list could go on and on.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by granite1010

I'll assume you're a) not dense and b) not playing dumb.

It helps us understand in what context the book was written, why it was written, who the intended audience may have been, and what may or may not have been on the author's mind when he wrote it.
I understand, but why does the time period in which it was actually written matter? They are true stories. The time they took place is of significance, but the time they were written is not.

Put another way, does it matter when, say, "1984" was written by George Orwell? (Brownie points if you know when!) If he'd written it, say, two or three years ago, the book would have none of the impact it enjoys today.
If he had written it a few years ago he wouldn't have called it "1984."

There are plenty of other examples: "American Psycho" as a contemporary indictment of Eighties greed and indifference; "A Christmas Carol" as social commentary on English injustice and oppression; the unease with fascism expressed by Sinclair Lewis in "It Can't Happen Here." None of these novels (and I'm just sticking with fiction here) would have anywhere near the same impact had they not been written when they did. And the list could go on and on.
I agree. But, as I said, the Bible is not fiction.
 

Pepper

New member
Geez...could you guys at least attempt to sound like civilized people? this is just getting out of control. Prodigal, you know I agree with you on many points, but I think you're being just a little too mean. I'm older than you and I don't get paid thousands of dollars an hour to do whatever, do you think less of me for that? Your personal life and lighthouse's personal life, job, salary, appearance, etc...are completely pointless in a faceless forum such as this. The importance is the words, and by going around saying how great you are, you're not making yourself look very good. I still think this could be a very interesting topic if everyone would stop being so mean to eachother....sorry guys, but this is starting to look like a pissing contest rather than an intelligent conversation. Granite, with a few exceptions, has so far come off in the best light, and he's not even always that nice (*hugs* granite). I'm sure you're all very intelligent people with a lot to say, but you also have to be willing to listen if you want to be heard.
 

prodigal

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Pepper,

LH is a loser, you are not. It's obvious, anyone with half a brain will know that. He seems to believe he has power due to his belief in the fantastical. He has no power, it's obvious. You don't make the fantastical claims that he does without tangible support of the benefits of his "powers". He's deluded, you're not.

And at least I have class.

Granite,

1948.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
"Granite, with a few exceptions, has so far come off in the best light, and he's not even always that nice (*hugs* granite). I'm sure you're all very intelligent people with a lot to say, but you also have to be willing to listen if you want to be heard."

Thanks Pep. :cool: Agreed, let's just be cool. What's Fonzy? He's cool.

"I understand, but why does the time period in which it was actually written matter? They are true stories. The time they took place is of significance, but the time they were written is not."

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and that the gospels (with everything else) are/were divinely inspired. They were written as memoirs in old age, far removed from the actual events. I'm sorry, but this colors your perceptions and memories no matter who you are. The gospels are not contemporary. This changes things.
 

prodigal

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Lighthouse,

Listen, I've said some things I'm not entirely happy about. I apologize. Even if the things I said are the things I actually think, I shouldn't have said them. I should have kept them to myself and taken the high road, but I didn't, so I'm sorry.

Listen, can you give me a good reason to not believe this:

Jesus was just a man. A teacher. He was not the son of god, nor did he ever intend to teach that he was the son of god. I believe this because to the extent of my knowledge, the Maschiach (the messiah) of the Jewish old testament was never supposed to be the son of god in the first place, so why would he have taught that he was?

Jesus was killed, in my opinion, probably by the Jews for blasphemy. The Jewish Talmud makes references to the death of jesus at the hands of the Jews, but those references mention him being either stoned or hanged, so it doesn't really corroborate the bible story.

Jesus did not rise from the dead. He stayed there like humans have a tendancy to do. Since you are unable to offer up any proof as to the divinity of jesus, and since you are unable to offer me any indication that it is in fact possible for the dead to come back to life, I must continue to believe that Jesus met his fate like every other human.

It is my contention that in conjunction with Paul, the apostles were able to perpetuate the stories of jesus but with little to no supernatural elements in those stories. It wasn't until Paul began writing that jesus began to take on a more mythological persona. All you have to do is read the bible to ascertain this. The gospels were written years after the epistles, the epistles make no mention of jesus' physical life, or physical resurrection. They make mention of his death and they make mention of a spiritual resurrection but there are no clear references to a physical resurrection of the dead. Any references are clearly stated to be a matter of faith, not fact. Even Paul was in the dark as to whether or not it actually happened.

Paul used common mythological elements in his writing to depict jesus in a light familiar to the culture. This has been done throughout history with epics and myths, and at the time, fiction was written in order to teach a moral lesson. It would have only made sense to embellish the story in order to hammer a point home. This is true also for the gospels. This wouldn't have been a problem then because people would have understood the thrust of the message, they would have understood it to be mythological, the point of the story not being the substance but the moral.

The gospel writers, and the gospels had a politcal/religious agenda that far exceeded the simple story telling of Paul. The gospels are not mentioned in any supporting texts until the second century which gives us a pretty guess at when they began to circulate.

The gospel of Mark was written first, it was nothing more than Mark having taken dictation from Peter. This dictation was not in chronological order, it was a collection of sayings and stories that ended at 16:8. Later an editor added past 16:8 and revised the collection of stories.

The authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed up to 80% of Mark in order to write their versions of the story. This is obvious enough to find on your own if you were to read Matthew and Luke side by side with Mark. Embellishments were made in Matthew and Luke in order to better tell the story according to the theological agenda of the writers. These writers were probably motivated by the need to organize the new "christian" church, a church that was fragmented and in dire need of unity. Evidence for this can be found in the epistles, Paul is constantly chiding the churches for their wrong teachings, he is constantly discipling them for this that and the other thing.

The apparent fragmentation of the christian church necessitated unity. Unity was found in the writing of the gospels. The gospels took the metaphorical, mythological stories of Paul, stories that were never meant to convey a literal message, and conveyed the myth as reality. This now literally written myth was the means by which the christian church was unified. Counsels were held, such as the counsel of nicea, to further cement the foundation of a church that was based on a mythologically embellished character who claimed to be the messiah and wasn't.

It was a myth that the church decided to teach literally. They wrote stories based on mythological teachings of Paul and some first hand, but certainly not supernatural, experiences that some had of jesus. It was a new religion that needed an epicenter to give it both unity and legitimacy, jesus fit the bill of the epicenter. I think I'm using that word correctly.

Lighthouse, I would suggest you look to what the Jews teach about their messiah. I think you'll find that they make an incredibly strong case for why jesus did not fit the bill of the messiah. The traditional jewish profile of the messiah was something quite different than what the NT claims he was.

It was a story, a myth, and christians have been taught to take the substance literally. What was originally taught to be the main focal point of the story was not the substance but the moral. The substance, until the mass circulation of the gospel and the unification of the church, was commonly understood to be mythological and to be taken as a fictitious story to hammer home a point.

This is my contention. I would like some form of extra-biblical support for why this contention cannot be correct.

Yours truly,

Prodigal
 
Top