On your Jesus-myth Article, Mr. Holding

[-JGR]

Hiya, sorry for late reply on this one. and btw thanx for bothering with me this far, your answers have actually taught me something :)

Isn't that turning it upside down ? Horoscopes are a dying relic of excatly those superstitious ages I am talking about.

Dying? The sales of books, the presence of such in the papers, indicate any talk of the death of this practice is, as Twain said, premature. And that is but one modern superstition. Need I bring up the popularity of, for example, the Van Praaghs?

The belief that this is trustworthy is dying, nowadays most people consider it entertainment, and fun to read "just in case". Or are you saying that most people who read horoscopes actually believe them ?
And btw, Yes, you may bring up the popularity of the Van Praaghs, I've never heard of them.

If you compare this evidence with the evidence the new testament says Thomas had, do you not agree the evidence Thomas got was far better ?

No, not really. It is a different set of evidences but I can't say his was "better" than what we have.

Hmm really interesting. You are saying that beeing told something is just as good evidence as experiencing it yourself ???
To me, experiencing something myself weighs far heavier than the other. Beeing so trusting towards others as to put as much weight in what they say as what I experience myself.. has never anyone tried to deceive you ?
This is totally uncomprehensible to me.

What of the evidence we have today even comes close to walking with a miracleworker for years?

First of all, you approach this from the presupposition of a naturalistic world, not one in their time in which doing a miracle only got responses of, "He's in league with Beelzebub!" So the evidence of miracles is really less convincing in the first century than you think.

Then what is it that convinced the jews? They were waiting for the messiah, not the god himself, I take it wasn't thorough understanding of the scriptures either, as he surely wasn't alone in beeing able to quote them.

Second, we have evidence of social movements and how they operate, of human psychology (ancient and modern), and historical study that only Paul and perhaps Matthew among the Apostles would have comprehended.

I would say this is highly questionable, could you pick a couple of good examples?

what about those who haven't even heard of Jesus and the gospels?

Variable. For example, a person who knows of no Jesus, but admits his sinfulness and knows that he requires forgiveness from the Creator, is in my view as in good a position as any hearer of the Gospel.

Now you are assuming knowledge of one Creator, the concept sin, and the knowledge that one should ask forgiveness of this sin to this creator. Do you believe everyone has this knowledge ?

and put his finger where the nails were.. and secondly both he and Jesus are talking about his side not his feet as you are saying.

Thomas spoke of nail marks; Jesus did not. It is just as well showing him that none are there.

So now you are not refering to the zones of interaction stuff anymore ?

That Jesus is quoting Isaiah 29:13 from the greek version of the old testament (the Septuagint).
Since he is a god and such this _may_ be ok, but that the pharisee accepts this is pretty unlikely, since the hebrew bible is pretty different in this verse.

Actually the LXX was widely accepted as authoritative until after Christians started making heavy use of it, so there is no reason why Jesus would not have used it and a Pharisee would not have accepted it.

Authoritative compared to the original scriptures ? I _sincerely_ doubt it, on the other hand I am not able to prove it. Can you point me to anything indicating that the LXX was more authoritative than the untranslated texts ?

but anyway you _have_ to agree that more evidence, preferably something "touchable" would make missionary work far easier?

Not really. That's merely preferring one sense over others.

And what sense would that be ?

And you may be entering the side with no "light or dark" even now

If you knew who this was, you'd know better.

naah, I never learn :-)

[jpholding]

Hey ho,

>>>>>>>The belief that this is trustworthy is dying, nowadays most people consider it entertainment, and fun to read "just in case". Or are you saying that most people who read horoscopes actually believe them ?

That has been the case in my experience.

>>>>>And btw, Yes, you may bring up the popularity of the Van Praaghs, I've never heard of them.

Hmm, must not be making much of a streak outside the US. He is a "medium" who claims to speak to the dead and has often appeared in media here. See:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

for a sample.

>>>>>>Hmm really interesting. You are saying that beeing told something is just as good evidence as experiencing it yourself ???

If the evidence backing what is told is weighty enough, yes.

>>>>>>.. has never anyone tried to deceive you ?

Many times. I worked for the prison system in my state for 7 1/2 years. Prisoners are specialists in deception. They did not get away with anything around me.

>>>>>Then what is it that convinced the jews?

I suspect only the resurrection of Jesus would have convinced any of them if at all.

>>>>>>They were waiting for the messiah, not the god himself,

Hmm. Another topic...it's a long story...

>>>>>I would say this is highly questionable, could you pick a couple of good examples?

Yes...I have a whole article, but here's one: Preaching a crucified man was the wrong thing to do. Details from my article:

********
With the exception of the Christ-mythers and conspiracy theorists (and I put Muslims in this rank, where this issue is concerned!), few would deny the historical reality of the crucifixion. But once that door is opened, it brings about the first of our problems: Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?

As Martin Hengel has amply shown us in his monograph, Crucifixion, the shame of the cross was the result of a fundamental norm of the Greco-Roman Empire. Hengel observes that "crucifixion was an utterly offensive affair, 'obscene' in the original sense of the word." (22) As Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [263-4], crucifixion was a "status degradation ritual" designed to humiliate in every way, including the symbolic pinioning of hands and legs signigfying a loss of power, and loss of ability to control the body in various ways, including befouling one's self with excrement. The process was so offensive that the Gospels turn out to be our most detailed description of a crucifixion from ancient times - the pagan authors were too revolted by the subject to give equally comprehensive descriptions - in spite of the fact that thousands of crucifixions were done at a time on some occasions. "(T)he cultured literary world wanted to have nothing to do with [crucifixion], and as a rule kept silent about it." (38) It was recognized as early as Paul (1 Cor. 1:18; see also Heb. 12:2) that preaching a savior who underwent this disgraceful treatment was folly. This was so for Jews (Gal. 3;13; cf. Deut. 21:23) as well as Gentiles. Justin Martyr later writes in his first Apology 13:4 --

They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God...

Celsus describes Jesus as one who was "bound in the most ignominious fashion" and "executed in a shameful way." Josephus describes crucifixion as "the most wretched of deaths." An oracle of Apollo preserved by Augustine described Jesus as "a god who died in delusions...executed in the prime of life by the worst of deaths, a death bound with iron." (4) And so the opinions go: Seneca, Lucian, Pseudo-Manetho, Plautus. Even the lower classes joined the charade, as demonstrated by a bit of graffiti depicting a man supplicating before a crucified figure with an asses' head - sub-titled, "Alexamenos worships god." (The asses' head being a recognition of Christianity's Jewish roots: A convention of anti-Jewish polemic was that the Jews worshipped an ass in their temple. - 19) Though confused in other matters, Walter Bauer rightly said (ibid.):

The enemies of Christianity always referred to the disgracefulness of the death of Jesus with great emphasis and malicious pleasure. A god or son of god dying on a cross! That was enough to put paid to the new religion.
And DeSilva adds [51]:

No member of the Jewish community or the Greco-Roman society would have come to faith or joined the Christian movement without first accepting that God's perspective on what kind of behavior merits honor differs exceedingly from the perspective of human beings, since the message about Jesus is that both the Jewish and Gentile leaders of Jerusalem evaluated Jesus, his convictions and his deeds as meriting a shameful death, but God overturned their evaluation of Jesus by raising him from the dead and seating him at God's own right hand as Lord.

The message of the cross was an abhorrence, a vulgarity in its social context. Discussing crucifixion was the worst sort of social faux pas; it was akin, in only the thinnest sense, to discussing sewage reclamation techniques over a fine meal - but even worse when associated with an alleged god come to earth. Hengel adds: "A crucified messiah...must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish." That a god would descend to the realm of matter and suffer in this ignominious fashion "ran counter not only to Roman political thinking, but to the whole ethos of religion in ancient times and in particular to the ideas of God held by educated people." (10, 4) Announcing a crucified god would be akin to the Southern Baptist Convention announcing that they endorsed pedophilia! If Jesus had truly been a god, then by Roman thinking, the Crucifixion should never have happened. Celsus, an ancient pagan critic of Christianity, writes:

But if (Jesus) was really so great, he ought, in order to display his divinity, to have disappeared suddenly from the cross.

This comment represents not just some skeptical challenge, but is a reflection of an ingrained socio-theological consciousness. The Romans could not envision a god dying like Jesus - period. Just as well to argue that the sky is green, or that pigs fly, only those arguments, at least, would not offend sensibilities to the maximum. We need to emphasize this (for the first but not the last time) from a social perspective because our own society is not as attuned as ancient society to the process of honor. We found it strange to watch Shogun and conceive of men committing suicide for the sake of honor. The Jews, Greeks and Romans would not have found this strange at all. As David DeSilva shows in Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, that which was honorable was, to the ancients, of primary importance. Honor was placed above one's personal safety and was the key element in deciding courses of action. Isocrates gives behavioral advice based not on what was "right or wrong", but on what was "noble or disgraceful". "The promise of honor and threat of disgrace [were] prominent goads to pursue a certain kind of life and to avoid many alternatives." [24] Christianity, of course, argued in reply that Jesus' death was an honorable act of sacrifice for the good of others -- but that sort of logic only works if you are already convinced by other means!

This being the case, we may fairly ask, for the first time in this essay, why Christianity succeeded at all. The ignominy of a crucified savior was as much a deterrent to Christian belief as it is today - indeed, it was far, far more so! Why, then, were there any Christians at all? At best this should have been a movement that had only a few strange followers, then died out within decades as a footnote, if it was mentioned at all. The historical reality of the crucifixion could not of course be denied. To survive Christianity should have either turned Gnostic (as indeed happened in some offshoots), or else not bothered with Jesus at all, and merely made him into the movement's first martyr for a higher moral ideal within Judaism. It would have been absurd to suggest, to either Jew or Gentile, that a crucified being was worthy of worship or died for our sins.

There can be only one good explanation: Christianity succeeded because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs!

******
>>>>>>Now you are assuming knowledge of one Creator, the concept sin, and the knowledge that one should ask forgiveness of this sin to this creator. Do you believe everyone has this knowledge ?

I think knowledge of A Creator (it need not be one, I think), of sin, and of forgiveness is universal. Do you know of a society that does not know of these things, or has not had such concepts?

>>>>>So now you are not refering to the zones of interaction stuff anymore ?

Yes, I was in fact.

>>>>Authoritative compared to the original scriptures ?

Yes, of at least equal authority.. Since this is a side issue I will just link: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html -- see notes on use of it by Philo, Josephus, etc. Also near the end:

"The earliest Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible of course did not have the benefit of a century or more's reflection on the proper role of the biblical translator, and this was why their work was considered in some circles to be in need of revision. The dilemma posed for diaspora Judaism by this new awareness of the differences between the LXX and its Hebrew original in fact gave rise to two courses of action: alongside those who set out to 'correct' the LXX texts, bringing them into closer line with an authoritative text form of the Hebrew, there were others who cut the Gordian knot by claiming an authority for the LXX Pentateuch equal to that of the Hebrew original...."

And what sense would that be ?

Tactile over intellectual.

[-JGR]

howdy ho,

Hey ho,

>>>>>>>The belief that this is trustworthy is dying, nowadays most people consider it entertainment, and fun to read "just in case". Or are you saying that most people who read horoscopes actually believe them ?

That has been the case in my experience.

seems your neighbourhood is more superstitious than mine then :)

>>>>>>Hmm really interesting. You are saying that beeing told something is just as good evidence as experiencing it yourself ???

If the evidence backing what is told is weighty enough, yes.

What if your own experience runs in contradiction to what some very weighty evidence says?

>>>>>Then what is it that convinced the jews?

I suspect only the resurrection of Jesus would have convinced any of them if at all.

now you are avoiding the fact that most of Jesus' followers when he was alive were Jews.

>>>>>I would say this is highly questionable, could you pick a couple of good examples?

Yes...I have a whole article, but here's one: Preaching a crucified man was the wrong thing to do. Details from my article:

I believe you are shooting at the wrong target here. I will try to show why.

********
With the exception of the Christ-mythers and conspiracy theorists (and I put Muslims in this rank, where this issue is concerned!), few would deny the historical reality of the crucifixion. But once that door is opened, it brings about the first of our problems: Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?

Very many it would seem. Here you are setting up a strawman.

As Martin Hengel has amply shown us in his monograph, Crucifixion, the shame of the cross was the result of a fundamental norm of the Greco-Roman Empire. Hengel observes that "crucifixion was an utterly offensive affair, 'obscene' in the original sense of the word." (..)

I see no reason in belieng this not to be correct. However this may be the strength the competing religions lacked. That the man-god was willing to do this for them. I certainly find this a more likeable trait than many competing gods of the time. Also it has a bit more "believable aura" about it (subjective oppinion), than Gods sitting on mountains throwing thunder at people and dicing over peoples destiny.

"(T)he cultured literary world wanted to have nothing to do with [crucifixion], and as a rule kept silent about it."

This need not mean more than either some strange fetichist wrote it, or someone not of the cultured literary. In fact if one reads 1 Cor 1, as you are refering to the author strikes me as someone hatefull of the cultured literary.

"19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[3]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, "

(38) It was recognized as early as Paul (1 Cor. 1:18; see also Heb. 12:2) that preaching a savior who underwent this disgraceful treatment was folly.

"the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing", Those who are perishing ? Does it mean those who do not believe? So.. you are claiming that the author didn't even believe it was possible to recruit new believers with the gospel. That Jesus was in error when getting himself crucified?

"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. "

this says it was shamefull. not that it was folly to preach.

This was so for Jews (Gal. 3;13; cf. Deut. 21:23)

well christianity never did grow much among the jews now did it?

as well as Gentiles. Justin Martyr later writes in his first Apology 13:4 --

They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God...

I seem to recall this beeing in answer to jews? I may be wrong, but you have to give the context for this to have any worth.

The enemies of Christianity always referred to the disgracefulness of the death of Jesus with great emphasis and malicious pleasure.

I could also use such an argument.. that does not mean I do not see that the message will work for others.

But if (Jesus) was really so great, he ought, in order to display his divinity, to have disappeared suddenly from the cross.

This comment represents not just some skeptical challenge, but is a reflection of an ingrained socio-theological consciousness.

heh, I remember using the exact same argument in a discussion once, but still it does not imply I can not see some like the message.

[24] Christianity, of course, argued in reply that Jesus' death was an honorable act of sacrifice for the good of others -- but that sort of logic only works if you are already convinced by other means!

Umm the greek Epicurus 341-270bc was certainly a utilitarian before christ, I guess that kinda wrecks that line of argumentation.

----

>>>>>>Now you are assuming knowledge of one Creator, the concept sin, and the knowledge that one should ask forgiveness of this sin to this creator. Do you believe everyone has this knowledge ?

I think knowledge of A Creator (it need not be one, I think), of sin, and of forgiveness is universal. Do you know of a society that does not know of these things, or has not had such concepts?

The concept sin is lacking in alot of cultures, take the word sin. It is hebrew in origin. Do you know of any english words (not influenced by hebrew traditions) describing the same concept? In norwegian I can assure you there is none, and as such I claim this is proof that the concept was unknown for both norwegian and english speaking populations. And I assume
It may be you are thinking about Gods beeing cross with people and they had to atone to make it good again. But sin has consequences for the afterlife while most old religions were only afraid of the consequences of their actions in this life. And they certainly begged alot of different gods for forgiveness for whatever in no way is the creator the dominant character in general in religions to offer the atonement. In norse mythology the creator wasn't even worshipped.

However when dealing with the christian sin, we must not forget the concept that humans are sinfull from birth. And not even jewism which christianity hails from has that concept (according to a Jew I asked yesterday). I know bakhti hinduism has a similar concept though. Do you know of any other ?

>>>>>So now you are not refering to the zones of interaction stuff anymore ?

Yes, I was in fact.

Since you never expained what this zones of interaction stuff was I took the liberty of searching on the internet.. and I found an article on the tectonics site :)

http://www.tektonics.org/eztorefute.html
"Malina and Rohrbaugh in their social science commentary on the Synoptics [356] note that the hands and feet were a "zone of purposeful action" "

Here it is completely forgotten the fact I pointed out to you.. that Jesus shows Thomas his hands and __side__ If the theory of zones of interaction had any credit to it. Jesus would have been showing his hands and __feet_.

>>>>Authoritative compared to the original scriptures ?
Yes, of at least equal authority.. Since this is a side issue I will just link: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html -- see notes on use of it by Philo, Josephus, etc. Also near the end:

ok, this is proving to require more research than I anticipated. So for now I'll give you this one, and retract my assumption that Jesus couldn't have used the LXX.

[jpholding]

Hello Mr Transformer.

>>>What if your own experience runs in contradiction to what some very weighty evidence says?

I've been known to change positions in such cases.

>>>now you are avoiding the fact that most of Jesus' followers when he was alive were Jews.

Er, I am? How?

>>>I see no reason in belieng this not to be correct. However this may be the strength the competing religions lacked. That the man-god was willing to do this for them.

That would be completely contrary to the honor and shame dialectic. No one would have considered this something any god or man should go through. You're looking at this from a modern perspective where honor is not important.

>> I certainly find this a more likeable trait than many competing gods of the time

You do, but they would not have. And:

>>>Gods sitting on mountains throwing thunder at people and dicing over peoples destiny.

This is exactly what matched their own sentiments best.

>>>This need not mean more than either some strange fetichist wrote it, or

That would be a contrivance against all scholarship on the matter.

>>>claiming that the author didn't even believe it was possible to recruit new believers with the gospel. That Jesus was in error when getting himself crucified?

Celsus and other critics said as much.

>>>well christianity never did grow much among the jews now did it?

That it grew at all anywhere is the problem that has to be dealt with.

>>>>I seem to recall this beeing in answer to jews?

I think you are thinking of Dialogue with Trypho.

>>>heh, I remember using the exact same argument in a discussion once, but still it does not imply I can not see some like the message.

How, within the attiutudes I have laid out? Not in modern terms; by ancient psychology.

>>>Umm the greek Epicurus 341-270bc was certainly a utilitarian before christ, I guess that kinda wrecks that line of argumentation.

How so? This has nothing to do with utilitarianism but with trying to overcome the shame problem.

>>>>The concept sin is lacking in alot of cultures, take the word sin. It is hebrew in origin. Do you know of any english words (not influenced by hebrew traditions) describing the same concept?

Um, no, but how does this show "sin" and wrongdoing as a concept is lacking?

>>>However when dealing with the christian sin, we must not forget the concept that humans are sinfull from birth.

I would consider that a marginal issue to the main question of whether men are thought to do any wrong ever at all.


>>> liberty of searching on the internet.. and I found an article on the tectonics site :)

Never heard of the guy.

>>>Here it is completely forgotten the fact I pointed out to you.. that Jesus shows Thomas his hands and __side__ If the theory of zones of interaction had any credit to it. Jesus would have been showing his hands and __feet_.

Mmmm. But with what does Jesus tell Thomas to touch his side?

>>>ok, this is proving to require more research than I anticipated. So for now I'll give you this one, and retract my assumption that Jesus couldn't have used the LXX.

You earned a lot of respect from me here.

[-JGR]

Hello Mr Transformer.

Heh, can u guess which one ? hint: he's really big

>>>What if your own experience runs in contradiction to what some very weighty evidence says?
I've been known to change positions in such cases.

hmm ok, that's getting us nowhere.. what evidence for God is it that you find so convincing?
The bible?
How the universe functions?
Personal experiences?

>>>now you are avoiding the fact that most of Jesus' followers when he was alive were Jews.
Er, I am? How?

you said:
I suspect only the resurrection of Jesus would have convinced any of them (the jews) if at all.

then how do you explain that he had jewish followers when you do not believe any of them became convinced before he was resurrected?

>>>I see no reason in belieng this not to be correct. However this may be the strength the competing religions lacked. That the man-god was willing to do this for them.

That would be completely contrary to the honor and shame dialectic. No one would have considered this something any god or man should go through. You're looking at this from a modern perspective where honor is not important.

not exactly (i think) , I am trying to look at it from a point of what would be more convincing realisticly like. And I feel that goes beside the point of honor and shame dialectic you are trying to make.
This may very well pose problems for the early christians, but you are assuming that all founders of religions would try to choose stuff that people would like the best, and here I think is my major argument against your dialectic. There is little reason to have this assumption. If we are dealing with people with psychiological delusions (as I will strongly claim atleast the author of revelations was suffering from), there is no reason to think they would even try to pick something that would go well with the public.

>> I certainly find this a more likeable trait than many competing gods of the time
You do, but they would not have.

again the assumption. Hmm another thing might be that they simply tried the story out on a couple of people and saw that it worked. Nomatter if they thought it wouldn't if they see it working why should they not continue using it? I find this very lacking proof of them having knowledge they could not have, as I think you are trying to argue for.

>>>This need not mean more than either some strange fetichist wrote it, or
That would be a contrivance against all scholarship on the matter.

agreed, but I have seen no good evidence supporting that popular belief.

>>>claiming that the author didn't even believe it was possible to recruit new believers with the gospel. That Jesus was in error when getting himself crucified?
Celsus and other critics said as much.

but that one of the authors of NT believed it is an entirely different matter.

>>>well christianity never did grow much among the jews now did it?
That it grew at all anywhere is the problem that has to be dealt with.

Is there any reason to not let me deal with it from several angles ?

>>>Umm the greek Epicurus 341-270bc was certainly a utilitarian before christ, I guess that kinda wrecks that line of argumentation.

How so? This has nothing to do with utilitarianism but with trying to overcome the shame problem.

no... your article was at that point arguing that the concept of one sacrificing him for many was unheard of by other than christians.
note the line:
but that sort of logic only works if you are already convinced by other means!

and I am with Epicurus, pointing at other means :)

>>>>The concept sin is lacking in alot of cultures, take the word sin. It is hebrew in origin. Do you know of any english words (not influenced by hebrew traditions) describing the same concept?

Um, no, but how does this show "sin" and wrongdoing as a concept is lacking?

I thought that would be evident. If people have no way of relaying the knowledge of the concept they would not have it.

>>>However when dealing with the christian sin, we must not forget the concept that humans are sinfull from birth.

I would consider that a marginal issue to the main question of whether men are thought to do any wrong ever at all.

that is your definition of sin ? men doing wrong ?
and what "wrong" is that? is there some universal way of knowing? Different cultures have certainly had very different perceptions of what is right and wrong. I would say that very much of what is described as "right" in christian belief, is naturally "wrong" for me.

>>>Here it is completely forgotten the fact I pointed out to you.. that Jesus shows Thomas his hands and __side__ If the theory of zones of interaction had any credit to it. Jesus would have been showing his hands and __feet_.

Mmmm. But with what does Jesus tell Thomas to touch his side?

His touching appendix :)
Wouldn't it look strange if jesus had asked Thomas to stick his foot in Jesus' side ?

[jpholding]

Hiya,

Heh, can u guess which one ? hint: he's really big

I may have guessed if it was the old series but it looks like the new one. There was one that could change into an airport and I think his name was Burrito Supreme.

what evidence for God is it that you find so convincing?

Your second choice, how the universe functions, comes closest.

then how do you explain that he had jewish followers when you do not believe any of them became convinced before he was resurrected?

I am not sure what the matter is here. There was nothing to "convince" of in the kerygma before the resurrection.


not exactly (i think) , I am trying to look at it from a point of what would be more convincing realisticly like. And I feel that goes beside the point of honor and shame dialectic you are trying to make.

I do not think you are appreciating the depth with which honor and shame affected these people. It is far more than what someone would "try to choose" but what would or could be accepted. Do you think for example a religion would succeed that told people they had to become pedophiles?

If we are dealing with people with psychiological delusions (as I will strongly claim atleast the author of revelations was suffering from)

Hmm, why? Because of the imagery? Such imagery was common and perfectly normal in ancient writers of the genre. This is like saying the author of the Hannibal Lechter books must be deluded.


but that one of the authors of NT believed it is an entirely different matter.

Yet you must explain in this context how they came to believe unless it were so. Can you?

Is there any reason to not let me deal with it from several angles ?

Feel free.

no... your article was at that point arguing that the concept of one sacrificing him for many was unheard of by other than christians.

Er, no, I didn't say that...that was a well known idea (the viacrious death); what I am saying is that Christians tried to use that as a counter to the shamefulness of the crucifixion. In other words others needed to be convinced that it was a sacrificial death in order to believe it; elsewise it is seen as "spin doctoring".

I thought that would be evident. If people have no way of relaying the knowledge of the concept they would not have it.

You mean to say, they need a WORD to go with the concept, or they must not have a concept???

that is your definition of sin ? men doing wrong ?

Yes. But if you want to get into epistemics of morality that is beyond my expertise. I am sure at least we agree there are things definably morally wrong?

Wouldn't it look strange if jesus had asked Thomas to stick his foot in Jesus' side ?

Depends what day it is. April Fools Day? Still that is why the hand became a zone of interaction to begin with.

[-JGR]

Hiya,
Heh, can u guess which one ? hint: he's really big

I may have guessed if it was the old series but it looks like the new one. There was one that could change into an airport and I think his name was Burrito Supreme.

rofl! heh, nope not burrito supreme.. he is from the original series, though he wasn't in so many episodes and he's a latecommer. But you're in the correct size division.

what evidence for God is it that you find so convincing?

Your second choice, how the universe functions, comes closest.

hmm are you're arguments anything like those found in the "human face of god" thread ?

then how do you explain that he had jewish followers when you do not believe any of them became convinced before he was resurrected?

I am not sure what the matter is here. There was nothing to "convince" of in the kerygma before the resurrection.

so the farmers and fishermen and what not, laid down their work and followed him for years on end without beeing convinced of anything?

I do not think you are appreciating the depth with which honor and shame affected these people. It is far more than what someone would "try to choose" but what would or could be accepted. Do you think for example a religion would succeed that told people they had to become pedophiles?

In fact I know of such a religion(sect), they call themselves "the children of God", of course they are hunted by authorities and have to keep a low key, but I have read about them a couple of places.
From what I remember they originated in Germany, but now also have members in the scandinavian countries.
One of the things they preach is that Jesus was a pedophile and one should follow his example.

Hmm, why? Because of the imagery? Such imagery was common and perfectly normal in ancient writers of the genre. This is like saying the author of the Hannibal Lechter books must be deluded.

Nope I would say that author was writing fiction. Of course if you want to propose that the authors of the NT were writing fiction, just say so and I'll be right here at your side supporting you :)

but that one of the authors of NT believed it is an entirely different matter.

Yet you must explain in this context how they came to believe unless it were so. Can you?

I'll give it a shot :)
You mention that the vicarious death was a well known idea.
One sacrificing himself for the good of the many. Well if you want to make the sacrifice the "best" possible.. what would make the best sacrifice. A pure physical sacrifice, or one that even sacrificed his own honour in this way?
Seen like this, all the shame and dishonouring would serve to strengthen the sacrifice, and could as such be one of the things that actually helped christianity rise. Since it was _so_ obvious that this God was willing to do _anything_ for them.. but yet.. through his resurection he could still be viewed as the allpowerfull and unshamed God. Since it was only the man part of jesus that was touched by the shame, not the god part.

sound just a bit reasonable?

I thought that would be evident. If people have no way of relaying the knowledge of the concept they would not have it.

You mean to say, they need a WORD to go with the concept, or they must not have a concept???

ouch, sorry... I wasn't very clear here. I ment of course word or expression that covers the concept.
What I am mean is: Words are made to describe stuff. If there is no need to describe a thing (example: they have no knowledge of it), they won't have a word (or expression) to describe it. Our languages didn't have this before the hebrew word came... and pherhaps that means they didn't know of the concept? I think so.
But if this word thing isn't good enough for you. The ancient Norse religions are probably good examples of religions without sin concept, and where the creator was not the one, one would usually pick to ask forgiveness if one thought the gods had been angered (actually it is a bit vague who is the main creator, some stuff always existed, while the earth and humans were made by three brothers). Of whom only one, Odin was really worshipped, and as time passed Thor more and more took his place.
BTW these gods were usually only angered by someone not treating them with respect or offending them directly. They did not care how people were treating each other when they were alive, except that they gave some recommendations. So people wouldn't be praying forgivness of the Gods if they had done anything they felt was wrong to their neighbour.

Yes. But if you want to get into epistemics of morality that is beyond my expertise. I am sure at least we agree there are things definably morally wrong?

nope, I would not agree with that. In my oppinion wether anything is right or wrong is always a subjective thing. Some stuff is more common to be accepted as wrong, typically stuff that hurst people.. But here one often avoids this by classifying people into it's ok to do hurtfull stuff to this group, and not ok to do it to this group.

Wouldn't it look strange if jesus had asked Thomas to stick his foot in Jesus' side ?

Depends what day it is. April Fools Day? Still that is why the hand became a zone of interaction to begin with.

*giggle*, yeah well.. this "zone of interaction" stuff seems a bit ad-hoc excuse if you ask me.
How do you explain the behaviour he showed towards the other disciples?
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side.
Him showing his hands and side was not to show them he was the one that had been crucified? Are the hands and side some sort of "zone of identification" ?

[jpholding]

Howdy,

rofl! heh, nope not burrito supreme.. he is from the original series, though he wasn't in so many episodes and he's a latecommer. But you're in the correct size division.

Well, that's all I remember.

hmm are you're arguments anything like those found in the "human face of god" thread ?

I have not read it, sorry.


so the farmers and fishermen and what not, laid down their work and followed him for years on end without beeing convinced of anything?

Just that he had a worthwhile mission inaugurating the Kingdom of God -- a totally ideological mission.


In fact I know of such a religion(sect), they call themselves "the children of God", of course they are hunted by authorities and have to keep a low key, but I have read about them a couple of places.

Well, there you are -- any chance of them growing into a world religion?

Nope I would say that author was writing fiction.

"Fiction"? A better word for the genre would be artistic prophecy.

sacrifice the "best" possible.. what would make the best sacrifice. A pure physical sacrifice, or one that even sacrificed his own honour in this way?

That would be too problematic -- all such vicarious deaths were either by animals, or for a noble purpose, which again is not apparent in Jesus' case unless you already believe it.

viewed as the allpowerfull and unshamed God. Since it was only the man part of jesus that was touched by the shame, not the god part.

That also has problems, because the Jews believed that the man and the spirit were a unified totality. What touched the Jesus part could not help but touch the god part.

But if this word thing isn't good enough for you. The ancient Norse religions are probably good examples of religions without sin concept, and where the creator was not the one, one would usually pick to ask forgiveness if one thought the gods had been angered

So are you saying the Norse did not believe in moral wrong? I think I am missing something here. You say:

They did not care how people were treating each other when they were alive, except that they gave some recommendations.

All right, so this shows the gods did not care much about sin, but we still have a concept of it, do we not?

*giggle*, yeah well.. this "zone of interaction" stuff seems a bit ad-hoc excuse if you ask me.

I hope you do not mean it is a false concept. This is taken from serious texts by scholars of anthropology.

Him showing his hands and side was not to show them he was the one that had been crucified? Are the hands and side some sort of "zone of identification" ?

No, but it would not be to show that he was crucified anyway -- a Jewish resurrection body would be glorified and have no defects.

[-JGR]

hiya

Well, that's all I remember.

oh well, It's Metroplex

hmm are you're arguments anything like those found in the "human face of god" thread ?

I have not read it, sorry.

Too bad, you don't happen to have any pieces on Tectonics that goes into this do you? It would be very interesting to see your take on what proof the universe itself offers.

Just that he had a worth while mission inaugurating the Kingdom of God -- a totally ideological mission.

So when Jesus was talking about himself as the "Son of Man" all the time, the disciples were silently shaking their heads behind his back, and thought, oh well.. he's a bit crazy, but he does make a good idealogical leader?

In fact I know of such a religion(sect), they call themselves "the children of God", of course they are hunted by authorities and have to keep a low key, but I have read about them a couple of places.

Well, there you are -- any chance of them growing into a world religion

I dunno, let them lead some world empires and give them free command of their armies to start mass conversions and we'll see.

But anyway, they have grown despite what one should think (and hope). And if there is some growth one should not rule out more growth as time passes. And I feel this kinda weakens the final point in your article that

"Christianity succeeded because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs!"

In their case one could say the same with: The fact that they preach about and encourage pedophilia is their most incontrovertible proofs!"

sacrifice the "best" possible.. what would make the best sacrifice. A pure physical sacrifice, or one that even sacrificed his own honour in this way?

That would be too problematic -- all such vicarious deaths were either by animals, or for a noble purpose, which again is not apparent in Jesus' case unless you already believe it.

unless you already believed the death was noble ? not sure i'm following you now. What culture would say that saving all humanity from eternal damnation is not noble? And the notion of a "hell" wasn't new to the hellinists, neither the idea that one could be saved from it.

viewed as the allpowerfull and unshamed God. Since it was only the man part of jesus that was touched by the shame, not the god part.

That also has problems, because the Jews believed that the man and the spirit were a unified totality. What touched the Jesus part could not help but touch the god part.

Ah.. but christianity never did work much for the jews. What about us looking at those who listened to the christian message instead, like the greek.. they did believe that the body and soul were separate. And they did accept the message.

But if this word thing isn't good enough for you. The ancient Norse religions are probably good examples of religions without sin concept, and where the creator was not the one, one would usually pick to ask forgiveness if one thought the gods had been angered
So are you saying the Norse did not believe in moral wrong? I think I am missing something here. You say:

The people had their form for moral, and the gods had theirs, but the gods did not care if the people did not follow up theirs. And as such the people would not pray forgiveness of the creator if they believed they had done something wrong; as you said could help people if they did not believe in Jesus.

They did not care how people were treating each other when they were alive, except that they gave some recommendations.
All right, so this shows the gods did not care much about sin, but we still have a concept of it, do we not?

Not as I define it no. If sin is merely described as someone doing something wrong it would fall under that category. But if it is doing something wrong in the eyes of the creator it is not the same concept.

*giggle*, yeah well.. this "zone of interaction" stuff seems a bit ad-hoc excuse if you ask me.

I hope you do not mean it is a false concept. This is taken from serious texts by scholars of anthropology.

I have no reason to doubt the concept no. But since Jesus' side is clearly mentioned all the time I see no reason to involve it in this tale.

No, but it would not be to show that he was crucified anyway -- a Jewish resurrection body would be glorified and have no defects.

Then why did he show his hands and side?

[jpholding]

Oyez,

>>>oh well, It's Metroplex

Darn, never heard of that one.

>>>>Too bad, you don't happen to have any pieces on Tectonics that goes into this do you?

No -- I keep out of topics I am not expert in. It's a lesson many do not learn.

>>>So when Jesus was talking about himself as the "Son of Man" all the time, the disciples were silently shaking their heads behind his back, and thought, oh well.. he's a bit crazy, but he does make a good idealogical leader?

I am not sure where you get that. I am saying only that there was nothing objectionable taught in the ministry of Jesus (beyond what the hoidy toidy Pharisees disliked, and the average Jew did not like them anyway).

>>> I dunno, let them lead some world empires and give them free command of their armies to start mass conversions and we'll see.

Hmm, but Christianity did not have that advantage for the first 300 years, did it?

>>>But anyway, they have grown despite what one should think (and hope).

How many members now?

>>>unless you already believed the death was noble ? not sure i'm following you now. What culture would say that saving all humanity from eternal damnation is not noble?

Not exactly my point. My point is that they woud look at the death and say, "That's shamneful." Then when they were told it was to save humanity they would say, "Yeah, right! Lousy way to do it! Get out of here!"

>>>Ah.. but christianity never did work much for the jews. What about us looking at those who listened to the christian message instead, like the greek.. they did believe that the body and soul were separate. And they did accept the message.

I have to disagree that it "did not work for Jews" any less than Gentiles. And the NT shows that the Gentiles were taught by the apostles about the totality concept (more details if you want).

>>> not care if the people did not follow up theirs. And as such the people would not pray forgiveness of the creator if they believed they had done something wrong; as you said could help people if they did not believe in Jesus.

Was there any way to offend the gods and incur their wrath?

>>> But if it is doing something wrong in the eyes of the creator it is not the same concept.

I would not make a distintion on the basis of the person offended.

>>>Then why did he show his hands and side?

To show that the wounds were NOT there -- which would be evidence of a resurrection (healed, glorified body) that they could touch with their hands (zone of interaction again).

[-JGR]

Oyez,
No -- I keep out of topics I am not expert in. It's a lesson many do not learn.

that's allways good advice, however we are talking about the stuff you deem the most convincing proof. So I had hoped you would have researched it a bit. But of course one does not have time for everything.

>>>So when Jesus was talking about himself as the "Son of Man" all the time, the disciples were silently shaking their heads behind his back, and thought, oh well.. he's a bit crazy, but he does make a good idealogical leader?

I am not sure where you get that. I am saying only that there was nothing objectionable taught in the ministry of Jesus (beyond what the hoidy toidy Pharisees disliked, and the average Jew did not like them anyway).

John5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Were the disciples convinced before the ressurection, and believed Jesus was telling the truth here.. or did they not belive him? I think this is far beyond ideological stuff as I understand you of claiming.

>>> I dunno, let them lead some world empires and give them free command of their armies to start mass conversions and we'll see.

Hmm, but Christianity did not have that advantage for the first 300 years, did it?

Nope, but it did not become a world religion before it did, and that was what you were asking.

>>>But anyway, they have grown despite what one should think (and hope).
How many members now?

Did a little research on the net and it seems they have been a bit more public than I thought, and the sect was founded by David Berger from in the US not germany as I thought, more information from ex-members http://www.exfamily.org/ . Couldnt find any estimates on how many members they have now. only some numbers from the 70's when they allegedly had 19000 members in 60 countries.

>>>unless you already believed the death was noble ? not sure i'm following you now. What culture would say that saving all humanity from eternal damnation is not noble?

Not exactly my point. My point is that they woud look at the death and say, "That's shamneful." Then when they were told it was to save humanity they would say, "Yeah, right! Lousy way to do it! Get out of here!"

Well that would be a matter of how you tell it, if you say:
Our saviour died in the most shamefull way... and btw you were saved by it.. it wouldn't be so good.
however if you say:
So that you could live forever, our saviour suffered the greatest agony and shame. It sounds a bit better doesn't it.

>>>Ah.. but christianity never did work much for the jews. What about us looking at those who listened to the christian message instead, like the greek.. they did believe that the body and soul were separate. And they did accept the message.

I have to disagree that it "did not work for Jews" any less than Gentiles. And the NT shows that the Gentiles were taught by the apostles about the totality concept (more details if you want).

If it worked equally well why are the roman and greek religions extinct while the jewish religion lives on ?

But is your argument along the lines that since they had a different cultural upbringing than what was preached, it was harder for them to be conviced of it?

>>> not care if the people did not follow up theirs. And as such the people would not pray forgiveness of the creator if they believed they had done something wrong; as you said could help people if they did not believe in Jesus.

Was there any way to offend the gods and incur their wrath?

Go spit 'em in the face would probably work. But not by spitting your neighboor in the face.
Norse religions did not have the good/bad concept that christianity does. Instead it was much more based on strong/weak. If you acted strongly the gods might take notice and favour you, but if you acted weakly they simply wouldn't care about you.
Also one could incur favour by making sacrifices. And there were plenty of rituals for this. When one sacrificed one made a deal with the god in question. Like this: I give you this sacrifice/pledge some stuff to you, and you favour me in return. If one did not deliver on the pledge one might incur their wrath also of course. But this was much more of a deal made between equals as opposed to the "man beeing insignificant next to the allmighty" type of worshipping which one finds in christianity.

>>>Then why did he show his hands and side?

To show that the wounds were NOT there -- which would be evidence of a resurrection (healed, glorified body) that they could touch with their hands (zone of interaction again).

But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

Then why did Thomas need to see the nail marks to believe that jesus had been resurrected??
If what you say is correct, Thomas would have wanted to see the _lack_ of nail marks..

[jpholding]

Howdy,

But of course one does not have time for everything.

That would be an apt description.

Were the disciples convinced before the ressurection, and believed Jesus was telling the truth here.. or did they not belive him?

It is not said -- all that is said is that some came to believe he was Messiah. You may note that John also records many leaving Jesus because of such claims.

I think this is far beyond ideological stuff as I understand you of claiming.

Is it? Is it ideological merely to claim to be a deity? How is that to be tested?

Nope, but it did not become a world religion before it did, and that was what you were asking.

Hmm. I do not see that this makes a difference. World religion or not makes my argument the same.

any estimates on how many members they have now. only some numbers from the 70's when they allegedly had 19000 members in 60 countries.

OK. Who reported the 19000 number? Hopefully not self-reported.

So that you could live forever, our saviour suffered the greatest agony and shame. It sounds a bit better doesn't it.

By reversal? No. That's just semantic trickery. It's like trying to put bad news after good news to make the bad news more palatable. That does not work that I have ever seen.

But is your argument along the lines that since they had a different cultural upbringing than what was preached, it was harder for them to be conviced of it?

Harder to understand would be better to say.

Instead it was much more based on strong/weak. If you acted strongly the gods might take notice and favour you, but if you acted weakly they simply wouldn't care about you.

Ah. So what we have here is actually just a different orientation in which strength was "good" and weakness was "sin". It's the same thing I said, just different values, really.

Then why did Thomas need to see the nail marks to believe that jesus had been resurrected??

I argue in one of my articles that the disciples, when they first heard of the word of the empty tomb, did not believe Jesus had been resurrected but had merely bodily ascended from the tomb (like Elijah, or Moses in the apocryphal lit). I say then that Thomas was expecting the same body as before, not a resurrected one.

[-JGR]

Hiya,

Were the disciples convinced before the ressurection, and believed Jesus was telling the truth here.. or did they not belive him?

It is not said -- all that is said is that some came to believe he was Messiah. You may note that John also records many leaving Jesus because of such claims.

Well if they did believe him your point of the jews not beeing convinced until he was ressurected is void, and if they did not believe him I would say it makes the relationship between Jesus and his disciples a bit odd.

Nope, but it did not become a world religion before it did, and that was what you were asking.

Hmm. I do not see that this makes a difference. World religion or not makes my argument the same.

You asked wether the children of god (now called the Family) could become a world religion, and I said we can see if we give them armies to start conversion like the christians had at their disposal when they really gained momentum.

any estimates on how many members they have now. only some numbers from the 70's when they allegedly had 19000 members in 60 countries.

OK. Who reported the 19000 number? Hopefully not self-reported.

heh, I believe the numbers were self reported yes.. which is why I said they allegedly have that number of members. Unfortunatly I was unable to find any other numbers. They are a pretty tight knit group.

So that you could live forever, our saviour suffered the greatest agony and shame. It sounds a bit better doesn't it.

By reversal? No. That's just semantic trickery. It's like trying to put bad news after good news to make the bad news more palatable. That does not work that I have ever seen.

It is not trickery no. The difference lies in wether one explaines why it happend and why it was necessary, or not.
If one just gives the fact, I have no problem with your view beeing correct..
that people would just see the shame as a shamefull thing.
However if one explains that this was done intentionally for a reason, I can not see why people should not believe it was done for a reason. (as long as one is given other evidence for the ressurection itself)

But is your argument along the lines that since they had a different cultural upbringing than what was preached, it was harder for them to be conviced of it?

Harder to understand would be better to say.

hmm doesn't this go against what you said earlier that the evidence for christ is just as good for any culture?

Instead it was much more based on strong/weak. If you acted strongly the gods might take notice and favour you, but if you acted weakly they simply wouldn't care about you.

Ah. So what we have here is actually just a different orientation in which strength was "good" and weakness was "sin". It's the same thing I said, just different values, really.

No, strength was valued, and weakness was frowned upon. wether one was nice or bad determined how many friends you got not what the gods thought of you.
but to get back on track this is what you said earlier regarding requirements for salvation:
"but admits his sinfulness and knows that he requires forgiveness from the
Creator"

Even if I were to accept that strong/weak equals good/bad, it doesn't help you any. Because if you prayed to the gods saying you had been weak and asked forgiveness, well It's like a christian praying to god telling Him "today I bought some vegetables, please forgive me". The gods wouldn't be the slightest interested. And therefore people wouldn't pray asking forgiveness for such.
And as already mentioned the creator concept is pretty vague in this religion.
Which of these would you pick as the creator you should ask forgiveness of:
- The one who made the initial world where the gods later were born.
- The one who gave birth to the gods
- The one who freed/shaped/created the one who gave birth to the gods
- The ones who made the world as humans see it
- The one who the world as we know it is made of
- The one who made The one who the world as we know it is made of
- The one who made the bodies of the humans
- The one who gave the human bodies life
- The one who gave the humans will

Then why did Thomas need to see the nail marks to believe that jesus had been resurrected??

I argue in one of my articles that the disciples, when they first heard of the word of the empty tomb, did not believe Jesus had been resurrected but had merely bodily ascended from the tomb (like Elijah, or Moses in the apocryphal lit). I say then that Thomas was expecting the same body as before, not a resurrected one.

Hmm so now you are saying both that "a Jewish resurrection body would be glorified and have no defects." -
and that the jewish disciples were "expecting the same body as before"
You're loosing me a bit here. does this article of yours clarify this a bit more?

[Robyn Banks]

I keep out of topics I am not expert in. It's a lesson many do not learn.

Interesting. 'JP Holding' claims to "keep out of topics" he is "not expert in".

But is Holding's claim true? Definitely not!

Here is one example where 'JP Holding' went well outside his expertise. Unfortunately for him it is an area that he wrongly considers himself to be most expert in: basic bible interpretation!

'JP Holding' has claimed to have some knowledge in interpreting the Bible. But is he an expert? Far from it. Take one example, where he claimed to interpret John 20.9.

This is the passage:

John 20.9

For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]oudepw gar hdeisan thn grafhv, oti dei auton ek nekrwn anasthnai
[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]

Do you know what was JP Holding's "expert" commentary on this verse? Here it is, in all its so-called "expertise":

• "rise again from the dead" -- "rise again" is the Greek anistemi used twice for emphasis.

What? The Greek word "anistemi" is "used twice for emphasis"??

'JP Holding' claims that he only ever writes on topics he is an expert in. But here he has made an elementary mistake, which would embarass even a beginner in biblical exegesis!!

1. The Greek word used is not "anistemi", but "anasthnai" ([color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]anasthnai[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]). What JP Holding has done is to look up the root-word in Strong's Concordance. However, it is not the root word that is used here at all. Have a look at the verse above, to see that he is incorrect.

One basic error. Definitely not 'expert'. But the worst part is to come.

2. The Greek word "anasthnai" is in fact used only once in the verse! When 'JP Holding' misread his Strong's Concordance, he made a highly embarassing second error. Let me explain. Holding was reading a version of Strong's Concordance that links to the QuickVerse Bible Software KJV translation. The way this software works, it is possible to click on each word of the KJV English translation, and discover the root Greek word. In this case, the English phrase "rise again" is linked to the one Greek root word "anistemi". This is because the English translators of the KJV used the phrase "rise again" to translate "anasthnai". So, by clicking on either "rise" or "again" in the QuickVerse Software, Holding would have got the one word "anistemi".

Holding's elementary mistake was to think that, when his Bible Software provided him with the one Greek word "anistemi" from two English words, the word actually appeared twice in the Greek. This is a very poor and elementary mistake. And this error only goes to show:
a) Holding's ignorance of how his own Bible Software works, and
b) Holding's ignorance of the Greek that he was purporting to comment on 'as an expert'!

Two very basic errors. Definitely far from being an 'expert'.


So when you hear 'Holding' claim that he "keeps out of topics I am not expert in", you can have a wee smile to yourself. Mr Holding is far from being the 'expert' he claims himself to be. His knowledge of basic biblical interpretation is in fact quite rudimentary. Although he likes to puff himself up with the 'air of authority', the truth is that in talking about the Bible, he is talking about a subject in which he is far from expert!

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[jpholding]

But is Holding's claim true? Definitely not!

Definitely so. What's wrong, little Robyn? Did I make your zit explode?

I think I hardly need remind the intelligent folks how that happened -- and that it had nothing to do with "expertise" or lack thereof.

Meanwhile, when is Robyn ever going to produce all that documentation that Malina, et al are posing outdated ideas? Mmm?