Originally posted by jpholding

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 ?

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.

Originally posted by 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.

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" ?

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.

hiya

Originally posted by jpholding

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?

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).

Originally posted by jpholding

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..

Howdy,

Originally posted by -JGR

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.

Hiya,

Originally posted by jpholding

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?

Originally posted by jpholding

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.
ουδεπω γαρ ηδεισαν την γραφηv, οτι δει αυτον εκ νεκρων αναστηναι<βρ />

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" (αναστηναι). 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

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?

Howdy, now back to the adult in the room,

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.

There is however a difference between what was asked to be believed before, and what was asked to be believed after. The crucifixion in particular made hard to accept that Jesus could be someone God favored.


It is not trickery no. The difference lies in wether one explaines why it happend and why it was necessary, or not.

I see no difference between the two except order of presentation. Saying it was done intentionally doesn't change that it is shameful and that shame is a serious value concept. Indeed to say one purpsely shamed one's self would make it even worse.

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

Not that I see...can you explain?

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.

Yes, I see this. And what I see is that it is the same thing I have said, only with different values, in which "weakness" is "sin" and "strength" is "goodness".

bought some vegetables, please forgive me". The gods wouldn't be the slightest interested.

? -- but though you were saying that the gods of the Norse placed value on this? So are you saying they did, but they still did not care?

Which of these would you pick as the creator you should ask forgiveness of:

That of course would have to be step 2. Another topic.


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?

Perhaps. http://www.tektonics.org/tsr914.html -- let me reiterate:

1) They were not expecting a resurrected body.
2) Thus if they saw him they'd have expected wound marks.
3) Jesus showed them the areas and had them touch them so that they would know a) he was real b) he was resurrected and not merely back in normal flesh as they had expected.

Originally posted by Robyn Banks

'JP Holding' claims to "keep out of topics" he is "not expert in".
But is Holding's claim true? Definitely not!

Originally posted by jpholding

Definitely so.

I see 'JP Holding' has been reduced to argument by assertion (together with his usual Fallacies of Ad Hominem, which I have ignored).

This is understandable. When 'Holding' asserted that the Greek word "anistemi" was used twice in John 20.9, he made the embarassing conclusion that this was done "for emphasis".

Not only that, but he has also made the same elementary mistake on other occasions, in respect of other verses.

Here is another 'the Greek appears twice' error - which demonstrates Holding's level of 'expertise' in biblical interpretation:

• "And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding(ly) sorry (Matt. 17:22-23). Matthew uses egeiro here, twice again"

But Matthew does not use 'egeiro' twice. In fact, he did not even use the root-word 'egeiro', but one of its derivatives. And Matthew only used the word once.

Originally posted by jpholding

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

Evidently you do not keep out of topics you are not expert in.

Holding is an 'expert' Librarian. That is his training. Biblical interpretation is not an area of his expertise. And, as expected, we find basic errors of biblical interpretation.

Holding's claim to be an expert in interpreting the bible is untrue - untrue in fact, and proved true by his elementary errors.

Robyn Banks

Actually, it is the word εγειρω, it just happens to be the future passive εγερθησεται. Any first year student could tell you that the θησ combo is the stem for the future passive, and obviously the ται ending shows it is a secondary tense, meaning that the form shifts. Take away the tense formative and add the typical first person ending, ω, and we have εγειρω since the ι drops out in the future stem. Tada!

Evidently we can find "basic errors" in Robyn's posts as well. Perhaps he, too, should keep from posting about things which he does not know.

Originally posted by Jaltus

Actually, it is the word εγειρω, it just happens to be the future passive εγερθησεται.

duh! ... which is precisely what I explained above, Jaltus:

"he [Matthew] did not even use the root-word 'egeiro', but one of its derivatives". The derivative, which Holding failed to identify, but which you kindly point out, is in fact "egerthesetai".

But Holding did not know this:
1. Holding did not know that the word was not egeiro, but egerthesetai.
2. Holding did not know that the word 'egerthesetai' appeared once, not twice as he claimed.

Understand, Jaltus?

If you had bothered to read my first post in this thread, you would have seen that I made the exact same point about Holding's two errors, in respect of John 20.9:

"The Greek word used is not "anistemi", but "anasthnai". 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."

Originally posted by Jaltus

Evidently we can find "basic errors" in Robyn's posts as well.

Evidently not. But it goes to show how you are prepared to misrepresent the truth, rather than face up to the fact that Holding made quite basic errors in biblical interpretation.

Do you admit that Holding was wrong in the two points I made above, Jaltus? Or are you less interested in the truth, than in misrepresenting what I plainly set out about Holding?

Robyn Banks

LOL at JP's sig link!