Being embarrassed about Jesus?

Fervent · 2025-07-08T00:08:13-0500

JohnClay said:
Their belief would apparently cause them to lose their salvation so they must have good reasons to reject the physical resurrection. So it seems the proof of the resurrection isn't so overwhelming after all.

The opinions of 2 men who aren't in any sort of special position to judge isn't really a relevant one, as it remains the opinion of two men.

JohnClay said:
If God was communicating with people I thought he'd try to avoid so many contradictory messages. Otherwise people can reject one particular sect or religion and just give up and turn to atheism.

Seems to rest on unjustified premises, what makes you think you could anticipate how a being with cosmic intelligence would behave?

JohnClay said:
Do you think the same number of people would be happy to be fed to lions if there was no message about the afterlife? Jesus said something like "if you lose your life for my sake you will save it".

The message of the afterlife isn't exactly a worthwhile promise without cause to believe such a promise. If someone told you today that all you have to do is believe that Jimmy Carter rose from the dead would you be willing to be fed to lions on the basis of such a promise?

JohnClay said:
Jesus also said to the thief next to him that he'd go to paradise. i.e. being rewarded in the afterlife.

I think the story of Jesus is a legend that grew (a fourth option to Lord/Liar/Lunatic). MLK thought the resurrection was a falsehood but maybe still believed in the afterlife anyway.

The problem with the legend hypothesis is legends require a historical core to grow around, but the core of the Jesus story is the resurrection story. So legend alone can't explain it, because there is no historical core for legends to build around.

JohnClay · 2025-07-08T00:33:23-0500

Fervent said:
The opinions of 2 men who aren't in any sort of special position to judge isn't really a relevant one, as it remains the opinion of two men.

The Bishop has written dozens of books including an entire book called "Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity" so he seems like an expert on the topic even if you believe he is wrong. I think MLK wrote about it as part of his training as a pastor.

Fervent said:
Seems to rest on unjustified premises, what makes you think you could anticipate how a being with cosmic intelligence would behave?

Well you wrote "wouldn't it make sense that that force would seek some sort of connection with it's creations" and if there is choice between making it obvious or not I thought it would choose to be obvious. (though I now believe in a non-obvious force)

Fervent said:
The message of the afterlife isn't exactly a worthwhile promise without cause to believe such a promise. If someone told you today that all you have to do is believe that Jimmy Carter rose from the dead would you be willing to be fed to lions on the basis of such a promise?

Well millions of people believe in Mormonism and that it is possible to have your own planet in the afterlife even though I don't think there is any archaeological proof for the book of Mormon. Though their beliefs about the afterlife can make Mormonism sound very attractive.

Fervent said:
The problem with the legend hypothesis is legends require a historical core to grow around, but the core of the Jesus story is the resurrection story.

Actually the earliest gospel was Mark and here is its original ending:

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]

Then later versions of Mark added more to the story. Then there was Luke and Matthew. Then in John Jesus is more clearly said to be God.

Fervent said:
So legend alone can't explain it, because there is no historical core for legends to build around.

I think Jesus existed then the story developed.

Fervent · 2025-07-08T00:41:29-0500

JohnClay said:
The Bishop has written dozens of books including an entire book called "Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity" so he seems like an expert on the topic even if you believe he is wrong. I think MLK wrote about it as part of his training as a pastor.

The question is what his basis for the claim is, as it stands you're simply making an argument from authority and it isn't clear what is supposed to make him an authority.

JohnClay said:
Well you wrote "wouldn't it make sense that that force would seek some sort of connection with it's creations" and if there is choice between making it obvious or not I thought it would choose to be obvious. (though I now believe in a non-obvious force)

Or it might be selective, why would it make it obvious?

JohnClay said:
Well millions of people believe in Mormonism and that it is possible to have your own planet in the afterlife even though I don't think there is any archaeological proof for the book of Mormon. Though their beliefs about the afterlife can make Mormonism sound very attractive.

The origins of mormonism are fully explicable given the charismatic leader. Afterlife beliefs only can explain so much.

JohnClay said:
Actually the earliest gospel was Mark and here is its original ending:

The earliest Christian documents were Paul's epistles, 1 Cor. being among the first. And in it there is what is likely a creedal statement that predates Paul's conversion that confesses the resurrection. Theories involving Markan priority are a bit of the tail wagging the dog, since the principal arguments in favor of Markan priority tend to be that it is less fantastic than the other gospels. And it still ends with the tomb being empty, even in the shorter ending(which is debateable whether that is the original or not as the older manuscripts tend to have the longer ending).

JohnClay said:
Then later versions of Mark added more to the story. Then there was Luke and Matthew. Then in John Jesus is more clearly said to be God.

I think Jesus existed then the story developed.

The problem is, without the resurrection there's nothing noteworthy about Jesus. He's just an itinerant preacher who died in the most shameful fashion. Not exactly the kind of individual that legends crop up around.

JohnClay · 2025-07-08T01:33:12-0500

Fervent said:
The question is what his basis for the claim is, as it stands you're simply making an argument from authority and it isn't clear what is supposed to make him an authority.

He is a Bishop which is based on his knowledge of Christianity - while you're saying they're "opinions of 2 men who aren't in any sort of special position to judge". But the Bishop would have done a lot of research.

Fervent said:
Or it might be selective, why would it make it obvious?

Well in the Bible sometimes things are made obvious like the story about the angels and the shepherds, etc. So God is supposed to perform miraculous signs.

Fervent said:
The origins of mormonism are fully explicable given the charismatic leader. Afterlife beliefs only can explain so much.

The earliest Christian documents were Paul's epistles, 1 Cor. being among the first.

Paul was also a charismatic leader. He writes hardly anything at all about the life of Jesus - just some verses about the Lord's supper, etc. He didn't even meet the historical Jesus (not including his vision). Then decades after Jesus' death the gospels appeared. I wrote this free book about the two Christmas stories. They seem to have contradictions.

An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Read the book/eBook online

guide4christmas.com

Fervent said:
And in it there is what is likely a creedal statement that predates Paul's conversion that confesses the resurrection. Theories involving Markan priority are a bit of the tail wagging the dog, since the principal arguments in favor of Markan priority tend to be that it is less fantastic than the other gospels.

Well Luke and Matthew contain parts of Mark - sometimes word-for-word. Logically Mark came first.

Fervent said:
And it still ends with the tomb being empty, even in the shorter ending(which is debateable whether that is the original or not as the older manuscripts tend to have the longer ending).

The problem is, without the resurrection there's nothing noteworthy about Jesus. He's just an itinerant preacher who died in the most shameful fashion. Not exactly the kind of individual that legends crop up around.

That would explain why basically nothing was written about Jesus for 20 or so years after his death until Paul came along.

Fervent · 2025-07-08T01:47:46-0500

JohnClay said:
He is a Bishop which is based on his knowledge of Christianity - while you're saying they're "opinions of 2 men who aren't in any sort of special position to judge". But the Bishop would have done a lot of research.

The issue is that the "research" available doesn't really speak to the truth or falsity of the resurrection, we're all working with the same handful of texts and making arguments. So relying on his authority as an argument is fallacious.

JohnClay said:
Well in the Bible sometimes things are made obvious like the story about the angels and the shepherds, etc. So God is supposed to perform miraculous signs.

Sure, but there's also a pretty selective element to it. God does what He wants, and reveals Himself to who He wants.

JohnClay said:
Paul was also a charismatic leader. He writes hardly anything at all about the life of Jesus - just some verses about the Lord's supper, etc. He didn't even meet the historical Jesus (not including his vision). Then decades after Jesus' death the gospels appeared. I wrote this free book about the two Christmas stories. They seem to have contradictions.

An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Read the book/eBook online

guide4christmas.com

Paul was certainly charismatic, but the community of believers in the resurrection were around before he came around. And while he didn't write much on Jesus life he made clear references to the resurrection and his interaction with Peter and James and others who directly interacted with Jesus. My point with Paul is that the earliest documents involving the Christian community involve belief in the resurrection, counter to your attempt to use Mark to the contrary. The question at hand is the resurrection, not what took place during Jesus' pre-crucifixion ministry. Paul's writings put a damper in the notion that the story was legendary.

JohnClay said:
Well Luke and Matthew contain parts of Mark - sometimes word-for-word. Logically Mark came first.

Nope, there are a number of explanations for the parallels especially as all of them were relying on source documents so the places where all three contain the same material could just as easily be explained by common sources as actual usage of Mark. There's a case for Matthean priority, and while it is admittedly a minority position among scholars Markan priority cannot simply be taken for granted.

JohnClay said:
That would explain why basically nothing was written about Jesus for 20 or so years after his death until Paul came along.

20 years after a historical figure is actually extremely fast comparitively speaking, and considering that Paul began his career as a persecutor of the church for their claim of resurrection his writing first is neither here nor there. The point is that legend is a poor explanation, both because the resurrection is too central to the story of Jesus for such an explanation to make sense and because of the unlikeliness of some itinerant preacher in a backwood of the Roman empire who died the death of slaves and seditious actors would posthumously inspire people to endure the kind of persecution that plagued the early church.

JohnClay · 2025-07-08T03:23:54-0500

Fervent said:
The issue is that the "research" available doesn't really speak to the truth or falsity of the resurrection, we're all working with the same handful of texts and making arguments. So relying on his authority as an argument is fallacious.

You seem to give the impression that you're equally as knowledgeable about the resurrection as the bishop who wrote a 352 page book about it.

Fervent said:
Sure, but there's also a pretty selective element to it. God does what He wants, and reveals Himself to who He wants.

It's convenient that the miracles seem to go away whenever skeptics come along and try to investigate them. The Amazing Randi, a late atheist magician, used to offer a $1 million prize for any proof of the supernatural (like mind reading, etc) [since he was a magician he knew the tricks like spoon bending, etc]. Like I said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud")

Fervent said:
Paul was certainly charismatic, but the community of believers in the resurrection were around before he came around.

Yeah I didn't think of that.

Fervent said:
And while he didn't write much on Jesus life he made clear references to the resurrection and his interaction with Peter and James and others who directly interacted with Jesus. My point with Paul is that the earliest documents involving the Christian community involve belief in the resurrection, counter to your attempt to use Mark to the contrary. The question at hand is the resurrection, not what took place during Jesus' pre-crucifixion ministry. Paul's writings put a damper in the notion that the story was legendary.

Believers believing that it was literal doesn't prove it necessarily happened. Part of the reason I reject it now is that I think there are never ever any events that a skeptic couldn't explain away. Like a limb instantly growing back, etc.

Fervent said:
Nope, there are a number of explanations for the parallels especially as all of them were relying on source documents so the places where all three contain the same material could just as easily be explained by common sources as actual usage of Mark.

So are you saying that Mark, which apparently uses less educated language, had both Luke and Matthew and made 97% of their gospel up of them? What is the point of that? If you believe Mark was first it makes more sense because Luke and Matthew would have been written to add more content.

Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels-en.svg.png

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fervent said:
There's a case for Matthean priority, and while it is admittedly a minority position among scholars Markan priority cannot simply be taken for granted.

20 years after a historical figure is actually extremely fast comparitively speaking, and considering that Paul began his career as a persecutor of the church for their claim of resurrection his writing first is neither here nor there. The point is that legend is a poor explanation,

One advantage of it is that it doesn't require the laws of physics to be broken. Paul's conversion is interesting though.

Fervent said:
both because the resurrection is too central to the story of Jesus for such an explanation to make sense and because of the unlikeliness of some itinerant preacher in a backwood of the Roman empire who died the death of slaves and seditious actors would posthumously inspire people to endure the kind of persecution that plagued the early church.

But I think a key reason for people being willing to die from Jesus was to go to paradise. There are lots of counter-arguments for the belief that there must have been a resurrection - including ones from Christians like the bishop and MLK.

BTW something about the afterlife - why do you think the Sadducees (a Jewish group) didn't believe in the afterlife? I think the idea just evolved in the Bible, especially regarding Hell.

CoreyD · 2025-07-08T06:42:30-0500

JohnClay said:
I believe in a non-obvious intelligent force. All I know is that I think it exists.

Well, at least you believe some intelligence had to be behind creation, rather than some unguided mindless process.
That's commendable, since it shows you have giving it serious thought.

JohnClay said:
2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan can appear to be an angel of light so any information you get from a supernatural being could be deception. Like "God" in Futurama said "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all".

Yes, the Bible does tell us that Satan deceive many, by presenting what's dark, as light, but this doesn't mean he deceives everyone.
The Bible also tells us there are persons who are not outwitted by Satan; for they are not ignorant of his schemes. 2 Corinthians 2:11

So, basically, this tells us that only the ignorant will be deceived, and why is that?
It goes back to what I said previously... most people have not really made a serious effort to get to know God, and the truth about him, so as to develop a loving relationship with him.

They fall victim to the angel of darkness.

JohnClay said:
I believe I can be playing hide and seek with God. I don't really love him very strongly.

Many people are like yourself, so you are not alone.

CoreyD · 2025-07-08T06:54:48-0500

JohnClay said:
"I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud"
(that way people can't be sure whether it was God/paranormal or not)

Many people may feel strongly about what they think.
The real question is though, can what they think stand up to scrutiny, and past the test.

So let's test your strong belief.
Can you give me the explanation for accurate fulfilment of prophecy being coincidence, delusion, hallucinations.
For example... how is it possible to know the person - by name, even before that person is born - that will build a space ship that will travel to a star 300 light years into the future?

Lukaris · 2025-07-08T08:00:26-0500

If I was non Christian, I would probably accept that its followers take it for what they think it is. Until I felt I needed what it claims then it would probably just be another religion. That was how I felt before I truly believed.

Fervent · 2025-07-08T11:05:13-0500

JohnClay said:
You seem to give the impression that you're equally as knowledgeable about the resurrection as the bishop who wrote a 352 page book about it.

You seem to miss my point, which is that every modern researcher is making what sense they can of a limited body of documentation. So to point out that some Bishop wrote a 352 page book doesn't really speak to the issue. It just highlights his opinion, without providing any real substantive argument.

JohnClay said:
It's convenient that the miracles seem to go away whenever skeptics come along and try to investigate them. The Amazing Randi, a late atheist magician, used to offer a $1 million prize for any proof of the supernatural (like mind reading, etc) [since he was a magician he knew the tricks like spoon bending, etc]. Like I said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud")

Miracles on demand are a different animal than miracles produced at God's discretion. Sorry we don't have the omnipotent Creator at our beck and call.

JohnClay said:
Yeah I didn't think of that.

Believers believing that it was literal doesn't prove it necessarily happened. Part of the reason I reject it now is that I think there are never ever any events that a skeptic couldn't explain away. Like a limb instantly growing back, etc.

So a legitimate resurrection isn't something that skeptics couldn't explain away? Seems a bit of circular reasoning there.

JohnClay said:
So are you saying that Mark, which apparently uses less educated language, had both Luke and Matthew and made 97% of their gospel up of them? What is the point of that? If you believe Mark was first it makes more sense because Luke and Matthew would have been written to add more content.
View attachment 367236

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At this point, a full explanation of the arguments would be more of a distraction from our primary discussion.

JohnClay said:
One advantage of it is that it doesn't require the laws of physics to be broken. Paul's conversion is interesting though.

And there's the real issue, your presuppositions. It must be impossible, so no matter how unlikely any other explanation is that must be it. The problem with that is our understanding of the laws of physics is built on inductive reasoning, which means a single counterexample would demonstrate our understanding flawed. So we can't discount potential counterexamples by insisting that they are impossible without overstepping the epistemic warrant that inductive reasoning can provide.

JohnClay said:
But I think a key reason for people being willing to die from Jesus was to go to paradise. There are lots of counter-arguments for the belief that there must have been a resurrection - including ones from Christians like the bishop and MLK.

There's no reason for people to believe the promises of paradise are true without some reason to believe the resurrection.

JohnClay said:
BTW something about the afterlife - why do you think the Sadducees (a Jewish group) didn't believe in the afterlife? I think the idea just evolved in the Bible, especially regarding Hell.

That requires a much wider history lesson than I am willing to get into.

CoreyD · 2025-07-08T12:17:29-0500

JohnClay said:
BTW something about the afterlife - why do you think the Sadducees (a Jewish group) didn't believe in the afterlife? I think the idea just evolved in the Bible, especially regarding Hell.

I think this is a good, and fair question, since the Sadducees were a sect of Jews active in Judea during the Second Temple period, from the second century BCE to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
I hope that answers your question.

If you ask yourself where these Jews came from, it might help.
Then doing some historical research, will reveal some things that should give you the answer I will post at the end.

Second Temple Period
In 587/586 BCE, the Neo-Babylonian Empire conquered the Kingdom of Judah; the Judeans lost their independence upon the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, during which the First Temple was destroyed. After the Babylonians annexed Judah as a province, part of the subjugated populace was exiled to Babylon. This exilic period lasted for nearly five decades, ending after the Neo-Babylonian Empire itself was conquered by the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which annexed Babylonian territorial possessions after the fall of Babylon.

Now read Nehemiah 5:1-14; Nehemiah 13:1-31
You could optionally read Chapters 8 and 9.
What you should see, is that the returning Jews were a mixture of corrupt and faithful Jews, and the corrupted Jews included greedy priests, and then there were the children that were not pure Jews, because of their unfaithful parents who took foreigners as mates - Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite wives.

So, the sect of the Sadducees could well have been... not pure Jews that would love God and his truths, as taught to the forefathers, but people who believed in another "culture". Or they simply deviated, through their corruption and greedy interests.
In any case, the Jews returning from captivity to Babylon, had to really love God, if they were to remain faithful.
Nehemiah was one such Jew.

I really love your questions though.
They are thoughtful questions.
Keep them coming.

Being embarrassed about Jesus?

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads