FYI Frylock, I’ll no longer be discussing these topics any further. I’ve noticed a tendency for you be overly literal in my word use, overly pedantic and to miscomprehend nuance. I find conversing with such types to be a of a time waster but I wish you well.
Good catch Skammer, Paul didn’t write Acts. You catching me in that error almost made me forget that I was still waiting for you to answer a question about something you said earlier in post #240. If you recall, I was following along with you all the way to the end then you said:
You are saying Jesus is OK with sin and breaking all them laws because he’s died for you? You think that henceforth sinning is a perfectly OK thing to do, and not something people should endeavor to avoid?
Tell me about a conversation on a topic like this that you’ve participated in that you didn’t find to be a time waster.
In a lot of interpretations the hyperbole of sun not giving light, moon turning to blood, etc, was a reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. It would be considered by every Jew to be a complete and unmitigated disaster. I’m not sure if I buy it, but I’m not sure what I believe on that point.
On the later paragraph, I believe it to be referring to the Resurrection. The Father is glorified through the defeat of death, the Devil, and sin - and perhaps it was angels who led Jesus back. Those standing there did witness the resurrected Christ. That is simply my interpretation of the passage, others may have a different view of it.
No, you’re claiming that “Following Christ” has one meaning and one meaning only, as defined by you, and that anyone who does not adhere to the One True Interpretation of the Bible is not a True Christian™ - which is an argument I’m used to hearing from fundamentalists, but not from atheists.
The last time that every Christian in the world agreed on what it means to be a Christian was - well, never, as the disagreements between the Gospels and the Epistles should make clear to you if you weren’t so fixated on trying to treat the New Testament as a monolithic entity to be mined for gotcha quotes.
I think it’s bad form to post something here and not respond to the reply. But this will be my last post in the thread, as I’ve said what I have to say. You’re the OP, so it’s only fair that you get the last word in this little exchange. Don’t bother with any questions, though. As a courtesy, I will read your reply, but I won’t be responding. Rather, I will leave it to those reading the thread to draw their own conclusions.
In your humble opinion. Most Christians think otherwise. So do I.
As mentioned previously, you’re conflating the Gospels and Jesus. As for the latter point, same response as to the previous one.
Again, it’s only your opinion that Acts contradicts Matthew. Most Christians think otherwise. So do I. Indeed, I rather like Smapti’s summary of the problem with your position in Post #274.
Not sure why my opinion on the subject is important, but my belief (even when I was a Christian) is that the Gospel writers attempted in good faith to reconstruct Jesus’ words, but were seriously handicapped by the weakness of the source materials, a common problem in ancient writings. More importantly, even if one assumes (as do most Christians) that the Gospels are accurate quotations by way of divine inspiration, it’s trivially easy to reconcile Acts with the passage in Matthew on which you rely. This was demonstrated by others upthread. That you, an atheist, are not persuaded is of no moment. In any event, it doesn’t entitle you to ascribe to Christians beliefs they do not hold so you can heap scorn and derision thereon.
As I said, you get the last word in this little exchange.
I would think that would be news to many if most liberal Christians couldn’t recognize and acknowledge the many contradictions, but it would be on par for the conservative ones.
With the sun not giving it’s light, and the stars falling on earth, there would be no life left on earth, or even an earth to speak of. and more than the temple would have been razed.
Even Jesus mother didn’t expect Jesus to resurrect, if she did, she wouldn’t have gone to anoint his body, there was no angels with him nor was it in his father’s glory. Most of the people he knew well didn’t recognize him, So that would be a far cry from coming in glory! And, what happened to all the people who were said to come out of their graves?
Kable:
The Talmudic passage is in tractate Sotah (that’s the Hebrew word for “suspected woman”) page 28a. The Mishna says that “Just as the waters test the woman, they also test the man.” The Talmud explains this passage to refer to the fact (or as you’d probably say, “fact”) that a test prompted by the suspicions of a husband who has sinned sexually will not work to convict the wife. The Talmud says this is alluded to by verse 31, “The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”, that it has a secondary meaning that only when the husband is in fact innocent of sin will the woman bear consequences from her sins.
As for proof, obviously there is none nowadays that an atheist would consider acceptable.
For many Jews, the destruction of the Temple was akin to the world disappearing. It was a mega-disaster which destroyed the reason for their existence.
I would think returning from death, conquering said death, sin, and the devil, is kind of glorious. That and his body was pretty nice looking after he resurrected and all. Kind of glorious sounding to me.
As for the graves coming out - are you conflating the Matthew text with another?
It was I who requested the Talmudic passage. You seem to think it was Kable.
First, I want to say something I have often thought but never said on this board. I have never been bothered by the confidence in fundamentalist beliefs often expressed by adherents of Judaism here. Maybe because it is unknown for a Jewish believer to persistently ring one’s doorbell of insist on shoving a tract in one’s face downtown.
As you have said before, things are not set up for the practice to be carried on today. I’m curious about whether the following is something you would expect to work today:
[30:37] And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chestnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. [30:38] And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. [30:39] And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-straked, speckled, and spotted.
ETA: It was post 201 where I asked about the Talmud.
Trans Fat Og:
My apologies, then, that post should have been directed to you.
No, and it wouldn’t have worked for anyone else in Biblical times either. This was a miracle that Jacob had been told by an angel to perform in a prophetic dream, as specific recompense for Laban’s cheating him. It’s not something that is said to work in general. (Genesis 31:10-12)
I agree with you. Only I’d ask why it would be “natural to draw that conclusion”. It seems like a pretty absurd, far-fetched, far-reaching and purely superstitious conclusion to arrive at.
I ill have to look up the chapter and verse, but one of the writers, speaking of the Resurrection, Wrote there were many who came out of their graves, during the earth quake that is said to have happened.
The resurrection Jesus didn’t look like any being in Glory, Mary Magdalene who was supposed to have been the first to see him thought he was the gardener so what Glory is that?
What, you never heard of a gardener named Jesus?
And yes, it was Matthew who made up the story of the zombie invasion of Jerusalem. If true, it would have been the greatest miracle of the entire Bible, but it is given half a line. Not even the other gospel writers would touch it.
Ah, I think I may have misinterpreted your original post. My apologies.
Matthew talks about the tombs of the Saints being opened at Jesus’s death and appearing to people after the resurrection (though, not as a prophecy but as part of his telling the story). I don’t think anyone really knows what that was about as it was two lines in Matthew right after Jesus’s death and doesn’t get brought back up, and isn’t found in any of the other Gospels.
This is plenty of stuff on the dead rising from their graves at the Second Coming, however.
It may be a reference to what Tradition says that in between Jesus’s death and resurrection (on Holy Saturday), He preached to those in Hell (presumably leading them out of Hell). I believe that tradition indicates that was when folks who never had the chance to hear about Jesus were able to listen to the good news and obtain salvation.
I think a Jesus who has a shiny new body, coming back from death, and can disappear and appear at will is pretty glorious. YMMV.
Where were the angels that Jesus is quoted as saying that would be with him when he came in his father’s glory?
That is how you look at it but I hardly think even his apostles that hid ran to the grave when they heard he had returned didn’t see any glory. Then later on the men walking with him didn’t recognize him until he broke bread. In my opinion that was not in glory, more like in secret. The gardener Mary saw was not glowing, or in Glory!
There were two glowing angels inside the tomb that told the women that Jesus wasn’t there anymore, if you want to get all literalistic (Luke 24) ;).
And I’d counter the lack of “glory” by looking at art regarding the resurrection, which tends to make Jesus look pretty glorious. So it isn’t just me who thinks the resurrection of a dead man is pretty glorious :).
This is one from the webpage of a Catholic Parish: http://www.olfatima.ca/wp-content/themes/twentyeleven-child/images/Jesus-Resurrection.jpg
Notice it was written by some human who in all probability wanted to glorify the passage. I still would not consider it very Glorious. If his mother expected him to not be alive , and the people who knew him well didn’t recognize him, And I don’t see him coming in glory with his angels. The so called angels were not with Him. Even when it was written that Jesus came through a wall to the Apostles, Thomas had to put his finger in the wounds to prove it was Jesus, speaks to no glorious coming back!
That’s called artistic license. And IMO the passage you quoted proves that you’re wrong. It clearly shows that “glorious” people are so awesome that people immediately bow down to them. They don’t mistake them for the gardener, or walk with them for a long time without noticing anything out of the ordinary.