My Love Affair is Over
I found this beautifully written story on exchristian.net:
By VeryBerry ~
Link
Then the first comment over there was this one:
Congratulations on leaving the SoB.
LOL
By VeryBerry ~
I was involved in a love affair with a man whom I loved dearly. He made me feel loved, secured, and accepted. I used to spend countless hours talking to him... he was a great listener.
Moreover, he knew my about my dreams, hope, fear, secrets, and desires. He even promised to help me overcome my fears and help me fulfill my dreams. In other words, this relationship was my raison d'être. I must also confess that I was so in awe with my lover that I divulged certain aspects of our perfect relationship to several women. My matchless lover encouraged me to do so. He loved when I bragged about the happiness that he has brought into my pitiful life. Why wouldn't I tell other women? My lover's promises gave me an exhilarating feeling that words cannot describe.
But, a few months ago, I decided to end our long- term relationship. Although I trusted my lover, I decided to perform a background check on him; which led me to the conclusion that he was an impostor, liar, lunatic, heartless, and charlatan. I cried for days and I was depressed for a while. I even discovered that his father was a murderer!
In case you haven't guessed it yet, my lover's name was Jesus dubbed the lover of my soul. Even though I was involved in a seemingly perfect relationship, something was not right.
Jesus made hundreds of promises that he was unable to keep. For instance, he promised me that " if you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you." John 15:7 (NIV). I requested many small favors from Jesus, but he failed to grant my request. In addition, he said to me " peace I leave with you; peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid." I have the peace he promise me after I left him. Furthermore, he threatened me with eternal damnation in order to discourage me from losing my faith-- or from running into his rival's arms, Satan. Jesus said, " But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
I can quote dozen more unfulfilled promises, buy I don't want to bore my audience.
Jesus also made me feel worthless. He claimed that he was sent by his father to save a wretched woman like me from sins. I could never please him. I was never good enough. I must add that I did most of the talking, Jesus would just listen but he never answered. I was so in love with him that I used to sing love songs to him everyday, I wrote love letters to him, and I declared my love for him publicly. The man was never happy; never satisfied. He was quite possessive too. He demanded that "I take every thought captive..." 2 Corinthians 10:5. He wanted to control my thoughts in order to keep me submissive. To top it off, he asked me to hate my family in order to demonstrate my love and loyalty to him. " If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." What a lunatic!
I am delighted to tell everyone who would listen that I ended my 33-year abusive relationship with Jesus. It's over. I am free.
Link
Then the first comment over there was this one:
Congratulations on leaving the SoB.
LOL
47 comments:
That site makes for some interesting reading. More current Christians should read it.
But of course we know that none of those ex-Christians could ever have been Real and True Christians ;)
The rest of that first comment is pretty good, too.
sometimes people become too smart for their own good.
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-33.html
the Bible does not condone anti intellectual behavior as loftus asserts
@trae:
I love comments along the line of being too smart. As someone in deconversion, my shift in belief will not be accepted until I have fulfilled the tests of those in my believer circles (or even those in blogs like this one). There are always three more books to read, five more arguments to consider, and so on.
Were I to remain "stupid" (not too smart for my own good), I would be accused of leaving prematurely. I've yet to run into a believer who says, "I accept that you have done your due diligence and I declare you intellectually justified in choosing non-belief."
My question for theists is: Do you hound those in your churches to read x more books and consider y more arguments, as well?
If I've not fulfilled the intellectual duties necessary to know exactly what Christians believe and the arguments supporting these beliefs enough to reject them... how are Christians able to know who they profess to worship?
Very well said, Hendy.
Christianity is one big old Hotel California : you can check out but you can never leave - at least according to the self-appointed doorkeepers.
Jesus-what a charmer that guy is. A very very good looking guy (as a man, I still gotta admit it, you fellas can't deny it either), I've seen pictures of him, and he's a huge celebrity. With those blue eyes, long hair, a cool beard, a six pack, and the way he dresses when he's not modeling on a cross-I mean, what woman wouldn't worship him. What guy wouldn't want to be like him? This guy was a total rock-star. Women would do anything for him, even if it’s just to touch the hem of his garments, or go on their knees just to wash his feet. Men would do anything for him too. He even charmed twelve men into following him and called them his disciples. His pickup lines are/were amazing. Some also thought he was fitting for a kingship.
But that's why you shouldn't "judge a book by its cover". You gotta open it to see what's inside. What you find might beak your heart, and I don't know if there's a bigger heart breaker than Jesus. He was my role model, my biggest influence, some one I "looked up" to, but he disappointed me man. Now I'm just trying to warn others so they don't get hurt like many of us have. We have to speak out. Maybe we can at least save one person at a time from his charm. I'm glad for that girl, VeryBerry. You go girl!
Andre
@ trae norsworthy,
sometimes people become too smart for their own god.
Fixed that fer ya.
:)
The sad reality of Jesus is he never promised anything to gentiles and (as Biblical scholars from Albert Schweitzer to Bart Ehrman and Dale Allison have pointed out) he died just as he lived: A failed apocalyptic prophet of the Second Temple period.
Late first and early second century CE literate Hellenistic humanity (better known as Greek scribes) gave Jesus salvation by labeling him the Christos / Messiah and sold this new and improved image to a world longing to be miracle workers themselves.
This Humanistic entity known as “theology” keeps it going.
hendy
I've yet to run into a believer who says, "I accept that you have done your due diligence and I declare you intellectually justified in choosing non-belief."
why would anyone agree that you're justified in turning to a worldview that states there is nothing supernatural when no person can possibly know such a thing?
it's not that a person needs to get to a certain amount of knowledge to be justified. it's that sometimes people let their mind get clouded over a simple issue. saying that there is no god is not something a person can substantiate.
i elaborate here:
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/07/l-11.html
The sad reality of Jesus is he never promised anything to gentiles
demonstrably false. verses where He promises salvation that are not qualified to jews only:
john 3:5-8, matt 19:17-21, john 3:16-21, john 5:24, john 6:27, among others
he died just as he lived: A failed apocalyptic prophet of the Second Temple period.
how would you know that he failed?
Late first and early second century CE literate Hellenistic humanity gave Jesus salvation by labeling him the Christos / Messiah and sold this new and improved image to a world longing to be miracle workers themselves.
this outdated scholarship of the second quest has been superceded by third quest scholarship. Jesus was not the result of retrojected hellenism or deceitful scribes
it's not that a person needs to get to a certain amount of knowledge to be justified. it's that sometimes people let their mind get clouded over a simple issue. saying that there is no god is not something a person can substantiate.
Proving that there is a god... or more precisely proving that the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible is THE God (if you want to assume first cause)... is not something a person can substantiate... so who's mind is clouded?
trae norsworthy said... "why would anyone agree that you're justified in turning to a worldview that states there is nothing supernatural when no person can possibly know such a thing?
it's not that a person needs to get to a certain amount of knowledge to be justified. it's that sometimes people let their mind get clouded over a simple issue. saying that there is no god is not something a person can substantiate."
Hi Trae.
I dont see how its so true to suggest people have no way of knowing such things.As Dan DeMura points out, so far proving God, is not something a person can really substantiate any better than somebody can disprove God exists.
To me it seems what you and many others advocate for ,is promotion of guess work.Dont get me wrong i fully realize there is some really good reason humans need to use some imagination , otherwise many new ideas would never even be thought about or discovered.
But we humans need to draw a line in the sand somewhere ,otherwise it becomes a little dangerous.
We have already had witch killings ,sacrifice of babies in fire in hope of it bringing more fertility etc.Somebody needs to be held responsible for this type of guess work.
This world would soon become total chaos if it was always run like religious faith often has been.There would be people advocating for things like arsenic to be added to our food ,because they could maybe try suggesting, it isnt always poisonous to everyone.
Modern science tells us, devotion on charisma can make the part of all our brains shut down that are supposed to deal with scepticism and making good decisions.And witch killings and sacrifice of babies and the death of Jim Jones cult members,and even continued use of sham doctors and medicines or voting for washed out politcians etc, is pretty good evidence how it often happens.
Some people would suggest we should simply have faith in idea of man made problem of global warming ,i suggest looking at the evidence first, is still very important.That doesnt mean im not willing to believe global warming might be a man made problem.
And global warming is not considered as any type of omnipotent "being" with its own conscience,neither is it considered as some heavenly father that loves us and wants the best for us.Therefore in my opinion i think we can understand why global warming might not bother letting us know what to believe.
You assert there is no evidence of the non existence of Gods ?.
Well if they really be the loving omnipotent beings who supposedly love us as children, and only wish for the best for us.Well in my opinion i suggest there is actually plenty of evidence that seems to suggest they quite likely dont seem to exist.
But devotion on charisma wont let people see that unless they decide to atleast be a little careful to not simply be devoted.
trae norsworthy claims:
demonstrably false. verses where He promises salvation that are not qualified to jews only:
john 3:5-8, matt 19:17-21, john 3:16-21, john 5:24, john 6:27, among others
RE: While Matt. is the most Jewish (WD Davies), John is the most anti-Jewish; a book where Romans (Gentiles) are made out to be simply innocent bystanders controlled by the evil Jewish mob is totally contrary to what Josephus tells us about Pilate and the Roman’s brutal control of Jerusalem. So if you think quoting the above verses from John proves your point, you have NOT done your homework!
Also, please locate me a Gospel Tract that can provide the so-called plan of only from John.
Secondly, the highly polished Hellenistic Greek of this Gospels and advance theology (Jesus is the unborn eternal divine Logos from Heaven, plus the fact that only in John Jesus speaks no parables) dates it very likely post 90 CE.
this outdated scholarship of the second quest has been superceded by third quest scholarship. Jesus was not the result of retrojected hellenism or deceitful scribes
The fact that Jesus ONLY exists in your and other Christian’s brains proves my point.
Scribes wrote it, and you people bought into it!
@trae:
"it's not that a person needs to get to a certain amount of knowledge to be justified. it's that sometimes people let their mind get clouded over a simple issue. saying that there is no god is not something a person can substantiate."
What's simple? God exists? Well, to look into the evidence one needs to grow in knowledge and understanding. This seems to "get one's mind clouded" over a simple issue. How, exactly can we determine necessary knowledge from that which clouds?
Will the determining factor only be whether one believes or not?
Great, I won't substantiate the claim that "god does not exist." Instead I'll simply hold firmly that I find no compelling evidence that he exists and thus I will live my life as though he does not. Is that more suitable for you?
Given my finiteness and tendency for being too smart for my own good, perhaps I should just wait for he who can do anything and knew me before I was formed in my mother's womb to help me out a bit...
@ Hendy:
How does it sound coming from an atheist?
"I accept that you have done your due diligence and I declare you intellectually justified in choosing non-belief."
@ trae:
"why would anyone agree that you're justified in CLINGING to a worldview that states there is a supernatural reality when no person can possibly know such a thing?"
Hendy, this:
"...I'll simply hold firmly that I find no compelling evidence that [God] exists and thus I will live my life as though he does not."
Is almost verbatim a statement that I made about what I believe when Eric pressed me to define my atheism. I called it "functional atheism", and the statement above is the core of it.
@GearHedEd:
"How does it sound coming from an atheist?..."
I can't tell if that's a trick question :) My first reaction was, "reassuring" (who doesn't like to get validated?).
I stated it as believers may go half the way and say, "The evidence isn't proof but there's definitely something here to look at." But they won't go the next step and admit that it's a justifiable condition to see the exact evidence they see and conclude differently. Believers are not allowed to respect non-belief, or at least that's how it seems.
It has to be wrong because Jesus is the one true god and that's that. If you don't believe, they're at a loss to explain why and resort to accusations of hidden motives, not really looking at the evidence, etc.
I just want to be respected for the work I've put into looking into this should I choose to continue in non-belief! Maybe I care too much!
@GearHedEd:
It's kind of like THIS.
Greta Christina asks it in a way to propose that god does not exist or not care, similar to a link John posted previously, the Argument from Nonbelief.
Believers can't even to there. It can't have anything to do with god's quality of evidence or interaction with the human race... it has to be an intentional problem with the nonbeliever. That's the only possible reason for most believers of why there should be nonbelievers.
For an entertaining example, check out CRAIG with Carrier. If you don't have 7min, listen to Carrier at 3:30 and Craig's response as well as Carrier's counter-response!
-----
- [Craig makes reference to god being able to be immediately and powerfully known through the Holy Spirit]
- Carrier: But I don't have that evidence. God hasn't spoken to me. I haven't had the Holy Spirit inspire me to believe that Jesus has risen from the grave...I can only work with the information that I have.
- Craig: Riiigght. Well for a person with an open mind and an open heart, whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly, will come to belief in god...
- Carrier: But you're essentially saying that I have a closed mind, a closed heart, and my cognitive faculties aren't functioning...
-----
Don't you just love it?
"...a book where Romans (Gentiles) are made out to be simply innocent bystanders controlled by the evil Jewish mob is totally contrary to what Josephus tells us about Pilate and the Roman’s brutal control of Jerusalem. So if you think quoting the above verses from John proves your point, you have NOT done your homework!"
You're the one who hasn't done his homework. If you think Josephus and Philo's accounts of Pilate are objective, then you live in lala land. Also, the Jewish leaders' charge, "If you let him go you are no friend of Caesar's" would have given any governor pause, especially if he was appointed by Sejanus.
"Secondly, the highly polished Hellenistic Greek of this Gospels and advance theology (Jesus is the unborn eternal divine Logos from Heaven, plus the fact that only in John Jesus speaks no parables) dates it very likely post 90 CE."
This is pure flatulence. John's Christology is no higher than Paul's and Paul wrote in the 50s and 60s.
"The fact that Jesus ONLY exists in your and other Christian’s brains proves my point."
Your testimony to that effect is duly noted and discarded. It carries no more weight with me than a Mormon's testimony of Joseph Smith.
"Your testimony to that effect is duly noted and discarded. It carries no more weight with me than a Mormon's testimony of Joseph Smith."
And both are equally false.
Next?
Ha yes, O’Brien is a true believer whose eager, but false apologetics has him actually thinking Philo of Alexandria recorded historical accounts in Judea, especially about Pilate!
Tell you what, Mr. Scholar in Residence, please direct me to any of Philo’s works that discusses Pilate.
Secondly, your use of the Fourth Gospel to prove the Fourth Gospel is a great example of Circular Reasoning. ..RIGHT ON BUDDY!
And what about those old evil Jews O’Brien, forcing the sweet and kind Pilate to crucify poor Jesus.
The merciful, just and honorable Pilate gave poor ole Jesus every benefit of the doubt and still those evil Jews (always had it out for Jesus though the Gospel) scared meek and mild Pilate by invoking Caesar's name!
Anyway, these ole evil Jews gave all Christians their salvation by killing Jesus (Thank God for that!) and yet the Gospel of John makes them look bad! Shame on you Fourth Gospel!!
This is pure flatulence. John's Christology is no higher than Paul's and Paul wrote in the 50s and 60s.
RE: The only major liberal scholar who held an early date for the Fourth Gospel (was the late J.A.T. Robinson who claimed it, as well as the Synoptic Gospels, predated 70 CE / the Temple destruction. Robinson’s thesis was based on more sensationalism than objective scholarship, but you conservatives love the thesis in this book, but not his view of the Christian religion in his Honest to God.
Your testimony to that effect is duly noted and discarded. It carries no more weight with me than a Mormon's testimony of Joseph Smith.
I agree with GearHedEd (and Hume) here. One religious “Faith” cannot attack another religious “Faith”.
Fact is, there is just as much religious evidence that the Book of Mormon is true as there is the claim the Gospels are true. Your above charge is nothing but the pot calling the kettle black!
But to console you O’Brien: Hey if God (Jesus) be for you…who can be against you! Amen?!!
"Tell you what, Mr. Scholar in Residence, please direct me to any of Philo’s works that discusses Pilate."
Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius
http://www.ecmarsh.com/crl/philo/book40.htm
"Secondly, your use of the Fourth Gospel to prove the Fourth Gospel is a great example of Circular Reasoning. ..RIGHT ON BUDDY!"
I did no such thing, of course.
"RE: The only major liberal scholar who held an early date for the Fourth Gospel (was the late J.A.T. Robinson who claimed it, as well as the Synoptic Gospels, predated 70 CE / the Temple destruction. Robinson’s thesis was based on more sensationalism than objective scholarship, but you conservatives love the thesis in this book, but not his view of the Christian religion in his Honest to God."
Don't pretend like you've surveyed the relevant literature, cuz' you haven't:
John a Primitive Gospel
Erwin R. Goodenough
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Jun., 1945), pp. 145-182
F. Lamar Cribbs, “Reassessment of the date of origin and the destination of the Gospel of John,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89.1 (March 1970): 38-55.
F. Lamar Cribbs, “St Luke and the Johannine tradition,” Journal of Biblical Literature 90.4 (Dec. 1971): 422-450.
BARBARA SHELLARD
THE RELATIONSHIP OF LUKE AND JOHN: A FRESH LOOK AT AN OLD PROBLEM
J Theol Studies, 1995; 46: 71 - 98.
"I agree with GearHedEd (and Hume) here. One religious 'Faith' cannot attack another religious 'Faith'."
I couldn't be less interested in your agreement with gasbag Hume. (Although, he was possibly more nuanced than you suggest.)
"Fact is, there is just as much religious evidence that the Book of Mormon is true as there is the claim the Gospels are true. Your above charge is nothing but the pot calling the kettle black!"
Quit while you're behind.
"My Love Affair is Over" Yet another example of someone projecting their human experience upon the nature of the divine.
Oh how the dead has arisen! So you get one point right, (I didn’t check my sources and you can rest assured that won’t happen again!).
Well here are a few more counter- points to put in your scholastic pipe and smoke on:
O'Brien: "You're the one who hasn't done his homework. If you think Josephus and Philo's accounts of Pilate are objective, then you live in lala land"
Harry: And the Gospels are not even more so?! Well consider this: For Jesus we are almost entirely dependent on the devotional utterances of Paul (c.50) and the hagiographic accounts of the gospels (75 - 100).
"The Troublemakers" by Morton Smith in The Cambridge History of Judaism Vol. III:
The Early Roman Period, p. 501.
Backing up Smith’s statement up is this conclusion: “In modern times this text, know as the Testimonium Flavianum, has been considered to be the only extra-Biblical wittness to the historicity of Jesus. Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Peter Lang, 2003) p. 203.
So now we find that both Josephus and the brief account by Philo carry more credence than the four Gospels combined!
And as to your citing of a few random sources published only on the journal level (3 from the JBL and one from The Journal of Theological Studies) to support an early dating for John, let face some facts: “To most modern scholars direct apostolic authorship has therefore seemed unlikely; and only a few (e.g. J.A.T. Robinson) would favor a date before c. AD 80 or 90. John, Gospel of St. in The oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford university Press,1997), p.882.
Again, Mr. Journal Citing O’Brien: “Given all these considerations most often the gospel is assigned a date of
90-95, which continues the inclination of previous decades of scholarship to conclude that John is the last of the four gospels to be written. There are others, however, who argue that the date might have been as early as 80 -85.” John, The Gospel of (E. Date and Authorship) in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. III: H-J (Doubleday, 1992). p.882.
Both the Book of Mormon and the Gospels and nothing short than parasites of history!
Quitting is not an option when I have the majority of scholarly statements on my side and you don’t! So O'Brien, it time to try again.
Hi MMM:
You are a true Christian mystic! (Are you a member of any denomination?)
Secondly, the "Divine" is subjectively defined. What is “Divine” for you is not “Divine” for others, thus they have a right to reject it.
Shalom,
Harry
"I didn’t check my sources and you can rest assured that won’t happen again!"
I'm not willing to take that to the bank.
"For Jesus we are almost entirely dependent on the devotional utterances of Paul (c.50) and the hagiographic accounts of the gospels (75 - 100).
"The Troublemakers" by Morton Smith in The Cambridge History of Judaism Vol. III:
The Early Roman Period, p. 501."
I dispute those dates for the Gospels and Morton Smith was a charlatan.
"Backing up Smith’s statement up is this conclusion: 'In modern times this text, know as the Testimonium Flavianum, has been considered to be the only extra-Biblical wittness to the historicity of Jesus. Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Peter Lang, 2003) p. 203."
The Testimonium is not the only witness. There is also Tacitus, among others.
"And as to your citing of a few random sources published only on the journal level..."
1. There is nothing random about them. All of the articles I cited either directly or indirectly date John earlier.
2. Journals are just as good as books, if not better.
"Both the Book of Mormon and the Gospels and nothing short than parasites of history!"
That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?
"Quitting is not an option when I have the majority of scholarly statements on my side and you don’t! So O'Brien, it time to try again."
Sorry, but what matters is the quality of the argument, not the quantity of people who espouse it.
Ignerant Phool said...Jesus-what a charmer that guy is. A very very good looking guy...
In "Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus", William R. Harwood makes the claim on page 263 that Jesus was actually "so stricken with imperfections as to be contemptible".
So maybe Jesus wasn't really an extremely handsome man.
O’Brien:
As referenced in my last post, these dates are established by the MAJORITY of scholars. (You are religiously apologetic and it now appears that no amount of data held by established scholars will change that.)
As for Morton Smith goes, I sat in on seminar dealing with the Greek Magical Papyri in 1986 at the SBL meeting held in Atlanta which was based on one of the lecturers who had just published a book on these texts by the university of Chicago Press: Hans Dieter Betz.
Present at the seminar was noted New Testament and Coptic scholar, James M. Robinson (Claremont Graduate School); Helmut Koester (Harvard); Hans Dieter Betz (Claremont Graduate School) and the noted Semitic scholar, Richard Steiner (Yeshiva University).
Morton Smith presented the final paper on the languages of the papyri and NONE of the mention scholars I saw present questioned Smith's conclusions, including the book’s author, Hans Dieter Betz.
As to your charge that “Morton Smith was a charlatan.” then just way did WD Davies, William Horbury and John Sturdy (not to mention Cambridge University Press) allow Smith, not only to write one chapter, but two chapters; more than any other author? Two chapters in vol. 3 (The Early Roman Period) priced at $212.00, and one chapter in Volume 1 (The Persian Period) priced at $174.00?
Thus, your charge, even if correct, does not square with the facts as other scholars saw / see Smith!
[Moreover, just what is the nature and function of the naked young man in Gethsemane (Mark 14:51-52)? What theology does it teach? Why is it even in the Canonical Mark?!
Why was he (unnamed) alone with Jesus while Jesus made to Apostles stay back? Just why did the Apostles need to remain behind while Jesus was alone with him?!]
Consider this from the Biblical Archaeology Review:
“In 2010, another handwriting analysis of the Mar Saba MS was undertaken by a Greek graphologist Venetia Anastasopoulou at the behest of Biblical Archaeology Review.[ An internationally known Greek handwriting expert, she compared Mar Saba MS with known samples of Morton Smith's Greek handwriting, and concluded that it was most probably not written by Morton Smith.” Cited from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark
As to your claim: “Sorry, but what matters is the quality of the argument, not the quantity of people who espouse it.” Just what bibliography have you brought to the table other than you bitter opinions? So far you’ve cited a few journals of which I doubt you have even read.
Secondly, how many SBL meeting have you attended? How many religion meetings have you presented a paper at and defended?
I have read five papers (Two on the Book of Mormon the Mormon Church…the first at Clemson University) and three on the Bible at different universities.
Finally, I have read you pop-up sarcastic comments on other posts here at DC. You seem to be one hell of a bitter person looking for a fight. But keep posting your minority held and sarcastic comments, it will only make people see just what Christianity can do and has done to many people such has yourself!
Now lets read you sarcastic reply.
O’Brien:
As referenced in my last post, these dates are established by the MAJORITY of scholars. (You are religiously apologetic and it now appears that no amount of data held by established scholars will change that.)
As for Morton Smith goes, I sat in on seminar dealing with the Greek Magical Papyri in 1986 at the SBL meeting held in Atlanta which was based on one of the lecturers who had just published a book on these texts by the university of Chicago Press: Hans Dieter Betz.
Present at the seminar was noted New Testament and Coptic scholar, James M. Robinson (Claremont Graduate School); Helmut Koester (Harvard); Hans Dieter Betz (Claremont Graduate School) and the noted Semitic scholar, Richard Steiner (Yeshiva University).
Morton Smith presented the final paper on the languages of the papyri and NONE of the mention scholars I saw present questioned Smith's conclusions, including the book’s author, Hans Dieter Betz.
As to your charge that “Morton Smith was a charlatan.” then just way did WD Davies, William Horbury and John Sturdy (not to mention Cambridge University Press) allow Smith, not only to write one chapter, but two chapters; more than any other author? Two chapters in vol. 3 (The Early Roman Period) priced at $212.00, and one chapter in Volume 1 (The Persian Period) priced at $174.00?
Thus, your charge, even if correct, does not square with the facts as other scholars saw / see Smith!
[Moreover, just what is the nature and function of the naked young man in Gethsemane (Mark 14:51-52)? What theology does it teach? Why is it even in the Canonical Mark?!
Why was he (unnamed) alone with Jesus while Jesus made to Apostles stay back? Just why did the Apostles need to remain behind while Jesus was alone with him?!]
Consider this from the Biblical Archaeology Review:
“In 2010, another handwriting analysis of the Mar Saba MS was undertaken by a Greek graphologist Venetia Anastasopoulou at the behest of Biblical Archaeology Review.[ An internationally known Greek handwriting expert, she compared Mar Saba MS with known samples of Morton Smith's Greek handwriting, and concluded that it was most probably not written by Morton Smith.” Cited from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark
As to your claim: “Sorry, but what matters is the quality of the argument, not the quantity of people who espouse it.” Just what bibliography have you brought to the table other than you bitter opinions? So far you’ve cited a few journals of which I doubt you have even read.
Secondly, how many SBL meeting have you attended? How many religion meetings have you presented a paper at and defended?
I have read five papers (Two on the Book of Mormon the Mormon Church…the first at Clemson University) and three on the Bible at different universities.
Finally, I have read you pop-up sarcastic comments on other posts here at DC. You seem to be one hell of a bitter person looking for a fight. But keep posting your minority held and sarcastic comments, it will only make people see just what Christianity can do and has done to many people such has yourself!
Proving that there is a god...
or more precisely proving that the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible is THE God is not something a person can substantiate
there are plenty of reasonable explanations to the contrary of your assertion. which ones do you have a problem with?
I dont see how its so true to suggest people have no way of knowing such things.
i elaborate on that here:
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-32.html
proving God, is not something a person can really substantiate
if God has chosen to reveal Himself to us, then people most certainly can substantiate it and it indeed has been
Well in my opinion i suggest there is actually plenty of evidence that seems to suggest they quite likely dont seem to exist.
and what would this evidence be?
But devotion on charisma wont let people see that unless they decide to atleast be a little careful to not simply be devoted.
nontheists are just as "devoted" as any religious person. this website is a great example. the real question is why nontheist devotion is superior to theist devotion
if you think quoting the above verses from John proves your point, you have NOT done your homework!
you may have forgotten that john is allegedly recorded by a disciple of Jesus; a jew. quoting from john is not a problem in this regard. furthermore, it's not like paul and peter, both jews, didn't fight for gentile rights.
Also, please locate me a Gospel Tract that can provide the so-called plan of only from John.
sorry, i'm not following. could you restate?
Secondly, the highly polished Hellenistic Greek of this Gospels and advance theology (Jesus is the unborn eternal divine Logos from Heaven, plus the fact that only in John Jesus speaks no parables) dates it very likely post 90 CE.
not that this is an issue or makes any of it untrue
Scribes wrote it, and you people bought into it!
scribes may have transmitted the text but, that doesn't mean what they copied wasn't true. ehrman's only schtik is that the "scribes made errors". dan wallace has reminded him that the variants amount to a difference in meaning in only a handful of cases and none of them are significant even though ehrman tries to pretend otherwise.
What's simple? God exists?
yes. it's an either or. no human can have evidence that God does not exist.
Well, to look into the evidence one needs to grow in knowledge and understanding. This seems to "get one's mind clouded" over a simple issue. How, exactly can we determine necessary knowledge from that which clouds?
this is a perfect example of how people get misled because they forget that they can't know that God doesn't exist and they get all mired in "evidence"
I'll simply hold firmly that I find no compelling evidence that he exists and thus I will live my life as though he does not.
and what would be compelling?
why would anyone agree that you're justified in CLINGING to a worldview that states there is a supernatural reality when no person can possibly know such a thing?
because if God has revealed Himself, then we certainly can know. furthermore, there is reasonable evidence that He has revealed Himself
Trac,
Hey, it’s easy and fun to apologetically argue the past…it’s like a game of chest (using facts and matching witts), but other than Biblical promises for hope, Christianity has nothing today: Jesus has never returned in 2,000 years, none of the miracles Jesus promised his apostles / believers (signs and wonders) follow Christians today except those faked by Benny Hinn, Earnest Angley (Hell, Angley can’t even re-grows his own hair and wares a wig…so much for Jesus’ promises )and other TV and tent evangelist playing off what Jesus and the New Testament promised!
With the miracle sales pitch over and the past being dead Christian history; what do you have to prove your point today?..... Waiting.
Do you think Dan Wallace’s excellent knowledge of Hellenistic Greek can make one iota (pardon the pun) difference in making (present tense) miracles happen now?
Here’s your chance to prove the truth of Gospel Christianity or is Christianity just another death religion kept alive by promises and faith of its beleivers?
Secondly Trae,
Please tell me why Christians (with all the truth, morals and ethics (such as yourself)) feel the need to lie about who they really are and use bogus blog names?
I’ve posted my true identity here for three years and nothing has ever happened to me other than a few off the wall emails or people with honest questions.
Yet you want to debate about the truth of the New Testament, but you turn right around and post bogus facts about who you are.
I find that very contradictory.
Frankly Trae, what do Christians like you have to hid?
You wrote, "Secondly, the "Divine" is subjectively defined. What is “Divine” for you is not “Divine” for others, thus they have a right to reject it."
Yep, I know. God already acknowledged this - there are those who will project natural images upon the divine and there are those who will reject God. What's new??
Hi MMM:
You make the same mistake all people do:
You think the word "god" is a proper noun. The fact (as drawn from my above point, that you use a capital “G” in God makes it subjective from you and you sect only…Christianity.
A Hindu would beg to differ with you based on the millions of Gods they have.
But nice try anyway!
Charles said,
"Ignerant Phool said...Jesus-what a charmer that guy is. A very very good looking guy...
In "Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus", William R. Harwood makes the claim on page 263 that Jesus was actually "so stricken with imperfections as to be contemptible".
So maybe Jesus wasn't really an extremely handsome man."
Are you kidding me!? Have you not seen his poster boy pictures? He was/is to die for.;-)
Great News for all Christians:
Heaven has been located!!!
(Sorry all you atheists and agnostics out there.)
According to the title of their 1977 # 1 Country Hit by The Kendalls:
Heaven’s Just a Sin Away!
Glory!
Trae norsworthy said..."http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-32.html"
No thanks Trae ,you can say it here if its worth saying.No ! malice or offence intended.
Trae.."if God has chosen to reveal Himself to us, then people most certainly can substantiate it and it indeed has been"
No Trae.One things is for certain.Obviously faithful have not been able to substantiate it.It would be foolish to suggest so.Or why is it still being discussed so very often.
Trae its one thing to simply make claims like you do.Buts its a whole differnt kettle of fish when you are stuck with trying to provide good evidence to substantiate your claims.1,If god reveal himself like you suggest then its obvious he`s made a terrible mess of it,we have mega ideas of allsorted gods.2, meaning god has NOT substantiated anything ,like you try claiming.
Fact need to be seen to meet evidence Trae.
You know ,kinda like almost EVERYONE can see things can be seen! to fall ,meaning gravity HAS honestly been substantiated.
Trae..."and what would this evidence be?"
Hey i know, how about you supply a photo or a video.We can photo or video gravity in action.Or how about you invite God over to Johns blog, in person .Tell him hey God gandy want to meet you to substantiate you actually exist.Tell him gandy is not to keen on faith guess work.He need to personal see or hear evidence, or he become kinda scepetical
You think that to much to ask? Trae.Of a "being" with "conscience"
Trae.."nontheists are just as "devoted" as any religious person. this website is a great example. the real question is why nontheist devotion is superior to theist devotion"
Not when it comes to faith in Gods or pink unicorns or trolls.
You need to FIRST provide some pretty substantiated evidence ! of Gods obvious existence .Before ! you can make a decent honest claim non theist devotion relies on charisma of faith for their disbelief.
Sure im not disagreeing this devotion problem gets non believers also .We can become devoted to humans who are completely hopeless like crank doctors ,or health pills that have no effect other than making your pocket lighter.
You theist have absolutely no substantiated evidence of God .You got nothing good to prove his existence.Non theists can click a camera 365days a year every 2 seconds ! for hundreds of years, and show absolutely no picture of god has ever been able to be captured! by anyone! to prove he actually exists! anywhere .
Thats evidence aint to bad Trae.
Where as non theists can call you out anywhere ! and say if you believe this God exists, then come on put your money where you mouth is! take a picture you can provide for some decent evidence of this "existence" you keep claiming ! ...yet are never able to capture in photos
Meaning there is far more! evidence available for god not! existing ,than there is evidence available to suggest maybe he does.
We are starting to get some pictures of outer space and black hole and such like now ...And these things like gravity ...have no concience of their own ! ... So we have understanding of why we had need to go looking for them! to seek them it out.
But God is supposedly some "being" which supposedly also has a "consience".Meaning there is less reason! we human should think we should need to seek him out!, and much more reason God as a "being" with a "consience" should surely have some real good reason to be seeking ALL us humans out.
But no, we dont see that at all Trae
Suggesting more evidence exists for Gods nonexistence !, than evidence exists for his existence
Hi Harry --- you wrote, "You think the word "god" is a proper noun"
I'm not going to engage in diverting the conversation to debate the proper use of adjectives to describe the divine.
So long, Harry - keep on diving -- going deep can be a spiritual endeavor as well as an aquatic one..
John,
Come on. This sounds like a sentimental diatribe about a girl who didn't get fucked by her imaginary jesus and who is now mourning her 33 year old tight vagina. Whatever happened to atheists like Nietzsche who scorned the weak and groveling nature of christianity. What ever happened to his anti-christ, the will to power, amor fati, eternal recurrence and the revaluing of all values.We have forsaken Nietzsche's profound and now famous Madman for a pouting and bitching complaint. Nietzsche abhorred resentment. Stop fucking around with weak atheism that belongs on Dr. Phil. Who gives a fuck about this person's fantasy love affair. Did she really think she would get fucked by this divine Santa Claus?-Ivan Karamazov
to Ivan Karamazov,
first of all asshole, who the Fuck are you to assume/accuse this Woman, a human being, that her faith/love for Jesus [or any one Else for that matter] and her disillusionment with it, has to do with her not being Fucked? What a prick YOU are,
ah but then let's Glorify Nietzsche who of course was while Nihilist also a Misogynist --this is the One area,
where atheist Men and Christian Men and all other religious Men and Political Men, are IDENTICAL,
yea baby, suck on That one for a bit.
her story sadly is like numerous other stories of women in All religions, All ideologies and in All parts of the world.
I am coming to the rationale that maybe the problem is that God isn't so much a 'being' as HE or She is Love, we Can't See love but we, hopefully, know what Love is,
and that through time/evolution and Experience--of going through Pain, we humans more and more learn what Love is and what it Isn't,
and that could be God? Maybe it's an energy source
knowledge of 'good and evil', is a learning process--sadly takes more evil with all the male power system dynamic hating on women going around since B.C., OR maybe there is only good and evil seeks it out to destroy it, the Tree of Life, is the rising above both--through Love,
and maybe the whole Son of Man was the Hope, faith, things not seen and Hoped for, the Energy that finally came about and became...through the prophecies and hopes...
Maybe, maybe not,
See from the secular to the non believing to the believing, the one thing they All have in common is their distaste of women, male superiority, justifications/and even sanctioning including under er, cultural relativism, raping girls, killing girls, abusing girls or females, in All walks of life and in all beliefs,
just as the so called Genesis says...makes you wonder don't it?
And here you are the woman writes her personal story which Should not be trivialized or dismissed, her pain is real, her experience is real and whether she believes or not--her Words should not be lumped up to some misogynist defining her as 'not being fucked',
and IF it proves anything, that if there Is a God, if God is Love, this world truly doesn't get it, does it,
not in religion or out of religion...
maybe, 'God' was just some construct by some man who couldn't handle the one mammal that could say NO to his so called male entitlement to be fucked on his demand--A.K.A. 'MAN'.
funny thing is, now Man don't need God anymore because it's so damn believed that Women are here just for that or want that or deserve that...go figure...
now I wonder what Nietzsche would say to THAT LITTLE 'TRUTH'?
harry
Please tell me why Christians (with all the truth, morals and ethics (such as yourself)) feel the need to lie about who they really are and use bogus blog names?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to and why it makes a difference about anything. I’m sure different people have different reasons.
you turn right around and post bogus facts about who you are. I find that very contradictory.
when did I do this?
gandolf
No thanks Trae ,you can say it here if its worth saying.No ! malice or offence intended.
I am in the process of responding to the debunking christianity “challenge” and not one person from here is willing to engage me on it. yet, loftus says Christians are the ones with their minds made up. seems like the opposite to me.
Obviously faithful have not been able to substantiate it.
So now you’re telling other people what they have experienced? That smacks of smuggled in authority. How can you substantiate your statement.
It would be foolish to suggest so.
They are basing their comments on their experience(s). why is that assertion foolish when they know what they’ve experienced? In other words, God is real to these people and has clearly revealed Himself to them in multiple ways. Do you have a brain scan machine that shows them to be irrefutably deluded? I suspect not.
Or why is it still being discussed so very often.
because some people convince themselves otherwise even though they have no way to substantiate their belief that God does not exist.
If god reveal himself like you suggest then its obvious he`s made a terrible mess of it, we have mega ideas of all sorted gods.
God gave people freewill to believe what they want to believe. And when they do, people like you complain that we have freewill to believe in all sorts of gods.
meaning god has NOT substantiated anything ,like you try claiming.
just because people have the freewill to believe anything doesn’t mean that God hasn’t revealed Himself.
Fact need to be seen to meet evidence Trae.
and what happens when people believe they have evidence of God’s existence and that it meets the “facts” as we know them?
Hey i know, how about you supply a photo or a video.
And if someone did, people would just complain that they’ve been doctored.
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-35.html
We can photo or video gravity in action.
No, you can’t. you can only see the EFFECT of gravity. Just like we can see the effect of God.
Or how about you invite God over to Johns blog, in person .Tell him hey God gandy want to meet you to substantiate you actually exist.Tell him gandy is not to keen on faith guess work.He need to personal see or hear evidence, or he become kinda scepetical
how do you know God hasn’t done that already? Anyway, even if He did, people would say it isn’t God. Just someone pretending to be God.
Not when it comes to faith in Gods or pink unicorns or trolls.
nontheists have just as much faith in antisupernaturalism as any Christian has in Christ.
You need to FIRST provide some pretty substantiated evidence ! of Gods obvious existence .Before ! you can make a decent honest claim non theist devotion relies on charisma of faith for their disbelief.
why should one come before the other? There is no reason why. that is just an excuse to not deal with the whole issue.
Meaning there is far more! evidence available for god not! existing ,than there is evidence available to suggest maybe he does.
there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that God doesn’t exist. On the other hand, there is evidence that God does exist.
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-35.html
Post a Comment