Jewish Pros

Training Bodybuilding
21

I too thought this was the Training/Nutrition Forum. But since it’s apparently now the Theology Forum I’m willing to play.

Not about Jewish Pros. A Reply to PtrDR:

You say to research the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. I hate to tell you, but there isn’t any. It is a fact that a man named Jesus lived and taught in the Galilee, that he was seen as a miracle worker and teacher, and that he was put to death. Beyond that, there are no facts. It’s important not to confuse the Jesus of history with the Christ of faith. There’s a big difference.

You may wish to point to the Gospels as proof, so let’s look at those. Since John was written far later, and Matthew and Luke are based on Mark’s account as well as the source known as Q, we should stick to Mark. And Mark, the earliest written Gospel, wasn’t recorded until around 70 A.D. We can state this with certainty because, based on internal references, we know it was written after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. So, the oral traditions surrounding the life and death of Jesus circulated for some 30 years before being written down. This gives a significant amount of room for error.

As for any actual reference to the resurrection, the original Gospel of Mark doesn’t contain any. Since the resurrection was of such importance to Christians, you’d think it would be included in the accounts of their faith, no? But instead, an overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars from across all Christian denominations agree that Mark had no resurrection. Instead, after the group of women went to the tomb and spoke to the young man they saw there, what happened was this. “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” (Mark 16:8) All references to the resurrection are made in the addendum to Mark and in the other, later Gospels. So, no evidence there.

But looking for evidence in religion is pointless anyway. The defining feature of religion is not fact, but faith. Science looks at natural, physical, proveable fact; religion looks at supernatural, metaphysical unproveable truth. They are two different systems of knowing.

That said, many of the world’s religions claim to have a monopoly on truth, and many people have a deep attachment to their faith. Perhaps if you chose to respect that, people would be less quick to call you the devil.

Here’s hoping you have a wonderful Easter, that any Orthodox members enjoy their Pascha celebrations next weekend, and that our Jewish friends enjoyed Pesach, catabolic or not.

Cindy

22

Great post, Polar. Catabolic though it may be, I’ve always appreciated Pesach–especially when the leader of the seder points out the relevance to current events…and, yes, there have ALWAYS been current events that seem to apply, from civil rights to regime changes.

23

Polar,
Just wandering if you have ever read the bible because in Mark 16 it does talk about Jesus resurection. Maybe my bible is not the original copy though. Consisering there has been studies and the bible has stood the test of time, in terms of passing down correct info. I just did a paper on this and 96% of the translation is known, the only parts missing are the correct punctuations. Compare that to The Oddyse which is significantly less

24

Yes, Invisble, of course I’ve read the Bible. Although I do teach English (at a Catholic highschool, no less) my degree is in Biblical Studies.

You are right in saying that your Bible mentions the resurrection in Mark. However, in most Bibles more recent than the KJV there will be a note between Mark 16:8 and Mark 16:9-20 as follows: “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” This is not some obscure piece of scholarship, but an accepted fact included in virtually all Bibles with footnotes. As I stated in my first post, “All references to the resurrection are made in the addendum to Mark and in the other, later Gospels.” So, although modern Bibles do include the resurrection in Mark, Jesus’ second appearance to Mary Magdalene, commissioning the disciples, and Assumption are all later additions made by editors.

25

PtrDR,

Please read THE AGE OF REASON. Twice.

26

Zev - I really don’t need you to go anything with my ass. Perky though it may be, please stop thinking about it.

It would be cool to have the original copy of the bible. I bet that would fetch more than a day at Jose Canseco’s house while he’s under house arrest (minimum bid = $2,500)

27

Polar…the Gospel of Mark does contain information about the Resurrection…Mark:16 is the full account of the resurrection. If he didn’t rise…then there is a big problem with a lack of finding a body. Especially in light of the fact that the Jewish leaders post guards around the tomb. So, tomb missing:…no body found. And Jesus appeared to over 500 people! Not to mention how flaky some of the apostles were at first…how much they doubted Him…then they were wiling to go to their death for a lie?..an illusion? I think not. AND…there were many Jews who did see Jesus and believed. In fact in the book of Acts…no one disputed the things Peter said to the crowd at Pentecost. They felt horrible about what had happened and asked…“what shall we do?” Of course…Peters remarks were to repent and be babtized in the name of Jesus Christ…"

28

My first response appears to have been eaten, so I’m trying again. Gggrrrr.

Invisible, not only have I read the Bible, but I have a degree in Biblical Studies. Though far from an expert, I do possess a little knowledge.

When you say that your Bible has the resurrection in Mark you’re right. However, most Bibles any newer than the KJV will have a footnote between Mark 16:8 and Mark 16:9-20 that says something like, “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” So, the truest version of Mark does end with “and they were afraid.” Not “they were rejoicing at Christ’s resurrection,” but AFRAID. As I said in my first post, “All references to the resurrection are made in the addendum to Mark and in the other, later Gospels.” Jesus’ resurrection, his second appearance to Mary Magdalene, commissioning of the disciples and Assumption into Heaven are all later editorial additions to the book.

29

Again Gggrr. First my post is apparently swallowed, so I post again. Now both posts get put up at the same time. Really, I’m not a repetitive fool. Well, at least not repetitive. :slight_smile:

30

How the hell did this thread come to this, it was interesting before.

Use primary sources only when making your case.

I’m reminded of a guy I know who went to seminary school to study theology, but came out an athiest because nothing could be reconciled. He said there were a lot of people like him in these institutions.

31

The ommission of 9-20 is irrelevent it talks about his resurection prior to this. Unless of course the messenger was out right lying? Not to mention your whole defense of your thought is based upon the “fact” that the other three writers JUST used Marks gospel for info which is nothing but a lie. Luke had eyewitness accounts of everything. But the greatest problem with your “theology” is that John was with Jesus even before he died. That is why the style of the book is so different. So please stop wasting your time talking about stuff that your undoubhtably ignorant about

32

mkee-just wanted to point out how you just contradicted yourself.

Use primary sources...blah, blah

My friend is an atheist and so is everyone else to go to seminary. Makes sense, thats probably why there are so many christian churches around. But thanks for posting

33

Polar,
also about your point on how the women were afaid, dont you think you would be to if you come to see the body of a man, he’s not there and you see an angel! Who tell’s you he’s risen.
if everyone was so scared then why did most of the apostles die for the cause. Would you die for something you thought might have happened, or something you KNEW happened from eye witness accounts. Anyways the bottom line is he did rise from the dead and he lives inside my heart and one day I will live with him forever.

Phillipians 2:10,11
“that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

34

Invisible,

People are here to discuss training and nutrition, not theology, I’m sure, but I’ll allow myself just one more post. (My apologies to others. This is REALLY my last post on this topic.)

Just so you know, I’m also a Christian, and was not attacking Christianity. I simply found it offensive that someone, out of the blue, in a training forum, would suggest that Jewish people ought to convert to Christianity. It was inappropriate and unasked for. I would have been equally offended if anyone felt the need to suggest that I, or anyone of any denomination should convert. Religion is based on faith,and just that. There is no more factual proof that Jesus rose from the dead than that YHWH gave Moses the Torah on Mt. Sinai. The faith we choose to follow is a personal matter and will in no way affect our max bench, favorite style of training or what we prefer as a post workout meal. Why should it have ever been mentioned?

Also, I have not suggested anything radical or unusual, or in any way strayed beyond the accepted scholarly tradition of exegesis. A quick look at the basic footnotes in an academic version of the Bible such as the NRSV would show this. And my defence is not based on an assumption of the other three Gospels using Mark as a sole source. In fact I mention that the source commonly known as Q was also used by the other synoptics, and John, well, John is in another tradition and always doing something different.

If you want to talk about religion, I’m sure we can find a more appropriate place to do so. Otherwise, just let this thread die.

35

Holy crap kids…JEWISH BODYBUILDERS…NOT CARPENTERS…I repeat NOT CARPENTERS!

Jesus. H. Freakin Christ, your reading skills are shit.

  1. Goldberg IS a Bodybuilder just not a professional one.
  2. Craig Licker

“In Jewish history there are no coincidences”

~ Elie Wiesel

36

POLAR PRINCESS…
I respectfully think you are a little presumptous.
Numer 1) I never said the originator of this post ought to do anything except do the research for himself. ( I think INVISIBLE 3 has done a great job at correcting the other errors in your arguments)
Number 2) How do you know that I am not Jewish by birth myself and found out the truth for myself???

I have nothing against practicing Jews. Just that they should do the research for themselves THEN decide on Jesus Christ and Him crucified and ressurrected. DON’T BE CLOSE MINDED IN OTHER WORDS!!

Don

37

Dear Christians,
Just workout and leave the Jews alone. Let them worship their God without human form. Let them try to uplift the world BY THE EXAMPLE of their faith. Let them practice their religion in which they neither seek to convert others nor reject those who sincerely want to convert. And if you’re going to use THEIR books to try to base the legitimacy of YOUR faith, at least give them some respect and know the right place and time for a discussion. Brent is right. This is the Training/Nutrition forum.

38

Sandy Koufax was one of the greatest left handed pitchers of all time and Jewish.
Remember religion is a faith based enterprise. Arguing over it won’t solve or convince anyone else.

39

Irondoc

But researching the facts just might! Its done it for countless other ones…even formerly hardcore atheists! Like CS Lewis…one of the most famous English writers of all time.

40

Someone ought to tell Brock about this thread. If he is still around.