Theists: would you view the truth?

[robvalue]

Ah, you can't take Matthew too seriously. Even by gospel standards of making shit up he was off the rails

I've learnt some truly hilarious stuff about how he "compiled" his version.

[vorlon13]

Well, from the atheist viewpoint sure, but the believers have it in their laps.

I'm just trying to help out.

And see this picture:




I'm thinking the triple crucifixion scenario is gaining some traction.  Matthew plausibly records a crucifixion during day light hours on Wednesday (by our terminology), John records another crucifixion on Thursday, and Mark has Friday covered.

And note the Protestants are also giving a nod to this idea:  the 3 EMPTY crosses we keep seeing in their displays.  The left and right ones do NOT portray the crosses of the thieves, as they certainly didn't die for anyone's sins (but their own, obviously) but they are empty too.  And that is acknowledging Jesus being crucified 3 times.

It is so frickin' obvious now! 

Protestants have been trying to tell us something and we finally figured it out.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Here's the link if you want to see the entire article:  http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/lack_o..._luke_acts

and that's not an isolated opinion piece either.  Ehrman is on board, and as we all know (or should know) as a Moody Bible College trained biblical scholar, Ehrman, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, knows the bible forwards and backwards.  If he says there are huge problems (my words, Ehrman tries to be diplomatic to a greater extent than me) in Luke regarding Christ's death failing to be described as providing atonement for sin, then there are huge problems in the Gospel of Luke for those desperately wanting Luke to describe Christ's death as providing atonement for sin.  As further confirmation of this problem, even to my un-Moody Bible College trained eye, the apologetics on this problem are even worse than the apologetics spewed forth in support of Mormonism, and that is no mean feat.




Lack of Atonement in Luke/Acts
 
This is our third rebuttal to Shamoun (previous rebuttals can be seen here *,*). We will respond to all of Shamoun's shoddy polemics, though not in the precise order in which he raised them.
 
I. Jesus (peace be upon him) as a righteous martyr in Luke/Acts
Consider the following passage in Mark 10:45:
"For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many"

The bit in italics conveys an atoning salvific value and significance to Jesus' (peace be upon him) death.

The author of Luke/Acts (henceforth known as 'Luke' for the sake of convenience), who is using Mark as his source, does not quote the above saying.

Some, however, claim that Luke does reproduce the above Marcan passage, albeit in a severely altered form, in :

For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

If so, then Luke has removed from Mark 10:45 the atoning significance of Jesus' (peace be upon him) death. There is no mention here of Jesus (peace be upon him) being a 'ransom' or giving his life 'for many'.

Luke also alters the confession of the centurion. Unlike the Marcan centurion, who says (15:39), "Surely this man was the Son of God," the Lucan centurion says (Luke 23:47):
"Truly this man was innocent." (or: "Surely this was a righteous man" - )

Even putting the above aside, consider the following passage from Acts 8:

25 So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.

 26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a desert road.)

 27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship,

 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.

 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."

 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

 31 And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
         ")HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER;
         AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT,
         SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.
    33 "IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY;
         WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION?
         FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH."
 34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?"
 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
Above, Luke has an Ethiopian eunuch read a passage from Isaiah 53 - a passage which came to be employed by Christians to explain Jesus' (peace be upon him) death as a vicarious atonement. It is precisely here where we should have expected a reference from Luke to Jesus' (peace be upon him) atoning death. But astonishingly enough, Luke makes no reference to the Servant of the Lord who was "wounded for our transgressions" (Isaiah 53:5), who was "bruised for our iniquities" (53:5) and who made himself "an offering for sin" (53:10). Luke stops citing Isaiah at a crucial point. He avoids citing the statement regarding the servant who was "stricken for the transgression of my people" (53:8).  Instead, Luke uses Isaiah to argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) died as an innocent victim who was subsequently vindicated.



Check the link to read the rest, or even better, go read Jesus Interrupted, and know the truth. 

---

So, it is as I suspected, this alleged disagreement is not based on anything that was said, but what was not said.  Would you agree?

This appears to be the converse of the same argument made against Paul, and the lack of historical narrative concerning the death of Jesus.  And again, I  would exercise caution, in ascribing motives, to what was not said.   It seems reasonable, that Luke's intention could be to provide a more objective historical account, without the theological implications (something I would point out, that I often here atheists asking for).  There could also be other reasons, why this may have been omitted; including the recipient of the letters, where they where going, or Lukes prior knowledge of what the recipients already possess.  I may choose to omit certain things depending on my intent and the audience to whom I am writing.   And there are a number of reasons, that I might do so.  However my silence on a particular matter, doesn't speak to my belief.

I don't see any reason, to believe that Luke held a different view of atonement than that of Paul or the other apostles.  Paul even (fairly harshly) speaks about those who teach a different Gospel.

[Minimalist]

1) Yup. Does that usually lead to a global religion of the scale of Judeo-Christianity, or are we just a 3000 year series of unfortunate events?

No, but the Roman Empire adopting them and making them a power structure throughout the known world sure as shit does.  In case you are wondering take a look at islam for a similar story of power-ridden bullshit.  In fact, they were so successful they beat the ever-loving shit out of jesusism.

[Drich]

For the purposes of this thread, a wormhole is possible, and you have the chance to look into it. All I want to know is whether you confirm, or trust to faith.

The point is that confirming carries a risk of losing all faith. Also I wonder if it would be immoral to view such evidence as it could demonstrate a lack of faith to do so.

At a certain point Faith is replaced. Believe it or not God does interact via the Holy Spirit IF and Only if you do things His way. That is when faith goes away and is replaced by a solid evidenced based belief.

If I had never known God, and all I had was a unconfirmed faith and my whole system of learning was based on information being presented a certain way, then yes. I believe I would just follow whatever the hive mind thought was a worm hole and was what happened.

Let me ask you this, what if the worm hole bore out the bible's version of events? Would you then have faith/believe?

[vorlon13]

. . . uh, which Biblical version ?


Like where Matthew says Jesus' followers have to keep the law to enter the Kingdom, but Paul says absolutely not ?

Kinda tough working through those 2 versions with out risking apostasy.

[Cyberman]

The One True Version™ that you can only understand once you believe it, silly!

[vorlon13]

Seems like the editors should have been so apprised . . .

[Minimalist]

Believe it or not God does interact via the Holy Spirit

Not.

Silly shit designed for primitive fucktards.

[robvalue]

For the purposes of this thread, a wormhole is possible, and you have the chance to look into it. All I want to know is whether you confirm, or trust to faith.

The point is that confirming carries a risk of losing all faith. Also I wonder if it would be immoral to view such evidence as it could demonstrate a lack of faith to do so.

At a certain point Faith is replaced. Believe it or not God does interact via the Holy Spirit IF and Only if you do things His way. That is when faith goes away and is replaced by a solid evidenced based belief.

If I had never known God, and all I had was a unconfirmed faith and my whole system of learning was based on information being presented a certain way, then yes. I believe I would just follow whatever the hive mind thought was a worm hole and was what happened.

Let me ask you this, what if the worm hole bore out the bible's version of events? Would you then have faith/believe?

I have no idea what that answer was meant to be. Would you look in the wormhole or not, if you were you, as you are now? Just looking for a yes or no.

I'd believe whatever events I saw. It would be interesting to know the truth. It wouldn't make any difference to me though.