Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[CaliforniaSun]

FYI, this particular quote is "useful" IMO because it comes from the lips of Jesus himself.

Allegedly, as Jesus didn't write anything down personally, at least that we know of, and the only existing source of what Jesus said were not written by those who knew him, and weren't even his contemporaries. A court of law would consider the 'words' of Jesus as heresay.

 

[Michael]

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

Ya know.....

If you're going to turn into a Bible Thumper on me, at least POST THE QUOTES and don't paraphrase things to the point of pure stupidity!

That line you're talking about is a QUOTE FROM MOSES which Jesus then goes on to REBUKE, starting with the word "BUT....".

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

 

[Michael]

Allegedly, as Jesus didn't write anything down personally, at least that we know of, and the only existing source of what Jesus said were not written by those who knew him, and weren't even his contemporaries. A court of law would consider the 'words' of Jesus as heresay.

Actually that's not likely to be true IMO. The whole book of John is probably written by the apostle John and/or John followers (at the end of that chapter). It contains LONG (I mean very long) narratives that were attributed to Jesus at at time when ONLY his primary disciples were presumably present. Only a direct apostle of Jesus would have been able to get away with that, and have something like that cannonized by the 'Church' that followed. Then there's the Gospel of Thomas which is probably source material for the synoptic gospels, and was probably written by one of the disciples.

 

[Greg1234]

Allegedly, as Jesus didn't write anything down personally,

Who said he did?

at least that we know of, and the only existing source of what Jesus said were not written by those who knew him,

They're called copies of copies. Papyrus breaks down.

and weren't even his contemporaries.

Didnt have to be.

A court of law would consider the 'words' of Jesus as heresay.

No it won't.

 

[Michael]

I think two people in The Gospel of Thomas.

I don't think it was the Gospel of Thomas.

But it doesn't matter, really. Either it "isn't true" or "it is justified".

It matters to me whether it's "true" or not.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Actually that's not likely to be true IMO. The whole book of John is probably written by the apostle John and/or his followers. It contains LONG (I mean very long) narratives that were attributed to Jesus at at time when ONLY his primary disciples were presumably present. Only a direct apostle of Jesus would have been able to get away with that, and have something like that cannonized by the 'Church' that followed. Then there's the Gospel of Thomas which is probably source material for the synoptic gospels, and was probably written by one of the disciples.

Yes, this would be your opinion, as scholarship does not support this.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Who said he did?




They're called copies of copies. Papyrus breaks down.





Didnt have to be.




No it won't.

So, you agree with me?

 

[Michael]

Yes, this would be your opinion, as scholarship does not support this.

Actually in terms of the Gospel of Thomas it does. I'm not sure that there is actually a consensus on the book of John. Who BESIDES John could have written John 17 in your opinion?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Actually in terms of the Gospel of Thomas it does. I'm not sure that there is actually a consensus on the book of John. Who BESIDES John could have written John 17 in your opinion?

I just read this passage, and my question would be, what in that passage could not have been written by just about anybody familiar with Christian tradtion and teachings?

 

[Michael]

I just read this passage, and my question would be, what in that passage could not have been written by just about anybody familiar with Christian tradtion and teachings?

Let's first keep in mind that to even make it into the Bible the source had to be "accepted" by some significant percentage of the "Christian" population at that time. Only four such community projects made it through that process. John is unique in terms of the LENGTH of narratives attributed to Jesus, as well as the CONDITIONS in which these talks are given, i.e. only the apostles were supposedly present. This particular speech is given ONE TIME, not many times as might be true for the Sermon on the Mount. It's given ONLY to apostles present and it's not a 'short' quote.

In terms of "possibilities", it's "possible" that anyone could have written it. In terms of 'probabilities' however, it's likely that only a direct apostle of Jesus would A) have privy to that information, and B) manage to be 'trusted' well enough to convince a whole community to put "faith" in his depiction of Jesus and his words in that moment.

 

[Michael]

Mark's Use of the Gospel of Thomas

FYI, this link on the Gospel of Thomas is well worth the read. It suggests that The Gospel of Thomas was probably used as source material for at least the book of Mark. The Gospel of Thomas was more like a "cheat sheet" that the apostles might have wanted to take on the road with them when Jesus send them out to teach. It has long been theorized that some well trusted and pre-circulating early Christian documents were used as source material for the synoptic gospels, and there is growing evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was one such document.

 

[mzungu]

Let's first keep in mind that to even make it into the Bible the source had to be "accepted" by some significant percentage of the "Christian" population at that time. Only four such community projects made it through that process. John is unique in terms of the LENGTH of narratives attributed to Jesus, as well as the CONDITIONS in which these talks are given, i.e. only the apostles were supposedly present. This particular speech is given ONE TIME, not many times as might be true for the Sermon on the Mount. It's given ONLY to apostles present and it's not a 'short' quote.

In terms of "possibilities", it's "possible" that anyone could have written it. In terms of 'probabilities' however, it's likely that only a direct apostle of Jesus would A) have privy to that information, and B) manage to be 'trusted' well enough to convince a whole community to put "faith" in his depiction of Jesus and his words in that moment.

All you have done is prove to me that the Bible was written by many authors. The conflicting passages are so many that it is little wonder there are not more sects that many hate each other yet use the same Bible as their only religious book.

I stand by my statement that Jesus commanded us to keep the OT in its entirety. Anyone with a passing knowledge of English can see clearly that this is so!

 

[Michael]

All you have done is prove to me that the Bible was written by many authors.

Surely that wasn't surprising news to you?

The conflicting passages are so many that it is little wonder there are not more sects that many hate each other yet use the same Bible as their only religious book.

Sounds more like a rant than anything.

I stand by my statement that Jesus commanded us to keep the OT in its entirety. Anyone with a passing knowledge of English can see clearly that this is so!

Jesus doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Jesus doesn't kill anyone for blasphemy. Jesus doesn't take anyone's land by violence. That's purely your own subjective claim. Loving your enemy isn't the same as killing them, and killing their wives and children. If you can't see or accept that difference between the BEHAVIORS and ACTIONS and the moral teachings of Jesus the man and Moses the man, I'm afraid we'll get nowhere.

 

[mkatzwork]

Surely that wasn't surprising news to you?

Sounds more like a rant than anything.

Jesus doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Jesus doesn't kill anyone for blasphemy. Jesus doesn't take anyone's land by violence. That's purely your own subjective claim. Loving your enemy isn't the same as killing them, and killing their wives and children. If you can't see or accept that difference between the BEHAVIORS and ACTIONS and the moral teachings of Jesus the man and Moses the man, I'm afraid we'll get nowhere.

So you're saying it's ok for him to teach it as moral and God's law (eg. Mark 7:10 - the execution of children who speak disrespectfully of their parents), provided he doesn't actually carry it out himself?

 

[Michael]

So you're saying it's ok for him to teach it as moral and God's law (eg. Mark 7:10 - the execution of children who speak disrespectfully of their parents), provided he doesn't actually carry it out himself?

No, I'm suggesting that the actions of Moses violated the commandments that he wrote. They clearly state 'Do not kill'. Jesus lived those laws and physically embodied those laws, whereas Moses did not.

 

[mkatzwork]

No, I'm suggesting that the actions of Moses violated the commandments that he wrote. They clearly state 'Do not kill'. Jesus lived those laws and physically embodied those laws, whereas Moses did not.

But he still taught them as moral and right, which is hard to suggest that selling one's children into slavery is. Or the myriad other things in Leviticus that are widely considered to be offensive by non-believers. If he lived these laws, did he stone any children who spoke disrespectfully of their parents, as was his duty?

 

[mkatzwork]

No, I'm suggesting that the actions of Moses violated the commandments that he wrote. They clearly state 'Do not kill'. Jesus lived those laws and physically embodied those laws, whereas Moses did not.

Incidentally, God personally instructed him to kill. Unless that was prior to the 10 Commandments (I know they're both Exodus but don't have a moment to check), in which case, killing was ok prior, which makes it hard to see why God was so angry at Cain....

do you have any evidence of Moses breaking the commandments AFTER they were given to him?

 

[Michael]

But he still taught them as moral and right, which is hard to suggest that selling one's children into slavery is.

Lots of folks teach lots of stuff and try to pass it off as "moral" and "right" behavior. Much of what Moses taught as being moral and right in those laws he wrote, he also ignored. Did Moses kill?

Or the myriad other things in Leviticus that are widely considered to be offensive by non-believers. If he lived these laws, did he stone any children who spoke disrespectfully of their parents, as was his duty?

Jesus was a living embodiment of the "commandments" (and the underpinning sense of morality) that Moses 'taught'. Unfortunately for Moses that also demonstrated that Moses didn't personally live up to those same commandments.

 

[Michael]

Incidentally, God personally instructed him to kill.

Well, that's what he CLAIMED at least.

Unless that was prior to the 10 Commandments (I know they're both Exodus but don't have a moment to check), in which case, killing was ok prior, which makes it hard to see why God was so angry at Cain....

FYI, most of the genocide took place AFTER Moses wrote the commandment: "Do not kill".

do you have any evidence of Moses breaking the commandments AFTER they were given to him?

Sure. In fact the very day he came down with the Commandments in hand that say "Do not kill", Moses ordered the death of Jews for daring to worship a pagan concept of "God". That's not exactly "loving your enemies" is it?

 

[mzungu]

Jesus doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Jesus doesn't kill anyone for blasphemy. Jesus doesn't take anyone's land by violence. That's purely your own subjective claim. Loving your enemy isn't the same as killing them, and killing their wives and children. If you can't see or accept that difference between the BEHAVIORS and ACTIONS and the moral teachings of Jesus the man and Moses the man, I'm afraid we'll get nowhere.

Oh so by your argument Hitler should not be blamed for the millions of people murdered in WW2 because Hitler did not personally kill anyone. GOTCHA!