another hack "professor" attempts to take down Christianity

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://news.yahoo.com/jesus-tomb-controversy-rages-archaeologists-explore-another-2-232201988--abc-news-topstories.html

he even tampered with the photos?!  give me a break.  Of course, all this didn't keep ABC "News" from covering the story and giving the guy airtime.  Nor did this tampering with evidence keep the Discovery Channel, the home of many hacks, from planning to showcase this "discovery" in a new "documentary" called "The Resurrection Tomb Mystery".

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

After reading the article it doesn't seem an attempt to take down Christianity so much as an attempt to make money off of its more gullible adherents by selling them books and getting royalties from Discovery Channel specials. Nope, folks like these don't want to take down Christianity - to do so wouldn't be profitable for them.

[memphis]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

...no, it claims to provide access to such realm.

[memphis]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

...no, it claims to provide access to such realm.

You think "miracles" are access points to facts and logic? Good luck with that.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

...no, it claims to provide access to such realm.

You think "miracles" are access points to facts and logic? Good luck with that.

That's not what I said, and I don't know whether presuming that you know that good and well or that you don't is more disappointing.

[memphis]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

...no, it claims to provide access to such realm.

You think "miracles" are access points to facts and logic? Good luck with that.

That's not what I said, and I don't know whether presuming that you know that good and well or that you don't is more disappointing.

You think you can seperate Western religion and miracles?

[The Mikado]

Tabor is a bit of a hack/crank, and is the leading proponent of the "Pantera" theory that few people have taken seriously for 1800 years or more that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman centurion...there's no evidence for it other than 2nd century CE pagans bashing Jesus as "Yeshua ben Pantera" and such.  That said, I never really saw him as trying to "take down" Christianity, only to deny the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.  He's (almost by definition as a believer in the Pantera theory) a very strong believer in a historical Jesus and a politically and culturally relevant and significant Jesus.

I read one of his books (The Jesus Dynasty) back in...2007?  He argues that the Church was supposed to become a family affair, with power handed down from Jesus to James to Jude and continuing through the Holy Family, but that James' murder and the subsequent destruction of the Jerusalem Church in the sack of Jerusalem ended that.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention.  One of his points in favor of the Pantera argument was literally that Pantera was from Sidon, and Jesus ends up visiting the pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon and says nice things about them and might have secretly been visiting his relatives on his father's side.  It's...pretty ridiculously weak as an argument, IMO.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

...no, it claims to provide access to such realm.

You think "miracles" are access points to facts and logic? Good luck with that.

That's not what I said, and I don't know whether presuming that you know that good and well or that you don't is more disappointing.

You think you can seperate Western religion and miracles?

I think I can separate what you apparently read from what my initial response to you actually said.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I never really saw him as trying to "take down" Christianity, only to deny the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

please don't reproduce

[asexual trans victimologist]

I never really saw him as trying to "take down" Christianity, only to deny the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

please don't reproduce

That takes down most of Christianity theologically but is really weak at taking it down culturally.

[ModerateCoward]

There is enough evidence for the populace to reject religion.

I never really saw him as trying to "take down" Christianity, only to deny the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

please don't reproduce

Woke up on the wrong side of bed today?

[afleitch]

After reading the article it doesn't seem an attempt to take down Christianity so much as an attempt to make money off of its more gullible adherents by selling them books and getting royalties from Discovery Channel specials. Nope, folks like these don't want to take down Christianity - to do so wouldn't be profitable for them.

What's ironic is that that Chrisitans who protest against this sort of junk archaeology seem not to be too bothered by junk archaeology by Christian apologists out to 'prove' the historiocity of biblical events.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I never really saw him as trying to "take down" Christianity, only to deny the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

please don't reproduce

Woke up on the wrong side of bed today?

no, I meant it as a joke...I just didn't want to use one of those cheesy emotional icons - they fail to capture the dryness of my humor.

OBVIOUSLY, anyone attempting to disprove the Virgin Birth and Resurrection...especially the Resurrection...is attempting to take down Christianity.  For without the Resurrection, Christianity is useless.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What's ironic is that that Chrisitans who protest against this sort of junk archaeology seem not to be too bothered by junk archaeology by Christian apologists out to 'prove' the historiocity of biblical events.

To whom, exactly, are you referring?  have I made a habit of presenting junk archaeology on this forum?  If not, then how, exactly, is it "ironic" that I protest this hack who just happens to be "Biblical historian James Tabor, professor and chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte"?...which means UNC is a also a hack school for putting and keeping this bozo in that position.

[True Federalist]

OBVIOUSLY, anyone attempting to disprove the Virgin Birth and Resurrection...especially the Resurrection...is attempting to take down Christianity.  For without the Resurrection, Christianity is useless.

Not useless, but it would be profoundly different from what it is.  It would transform it into a religion like Buddhism, but without the belly fat.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

OBVIOUSLY, anyone attempting to disprove the Virgin Birth and Resurrection...especially the Resurrection...is attempting to take down Christianity.  For without the Resurrection, Christianity is useless.

Not useless, but it would be profoundly different from what it is.  It would transform it into a religion like Buddhism, but without the belly fat.

Not useless?  Well, the NT disagrees with you...

1Cor 15:124 "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

[True Federalist]

OBVIOUSLY, anyone attempting to disprove the Virgin Birth and Resurrection...especially the Resurrection...is attempting to take down Christianity.  For without the Resurrection, Christianity is useless.

Not useless, but it would be profoundly different from what it is.  It would transform it into a religion like Buddhism, but without the belly fat.

Not useless?  Well, the NT disagrees with you...

As 1Cor 15:12-19 states, preaching about the Resurrection if it had not happened would be useless. And if one holds that only the one true religion is useful, and that the Resurrection of Christ is a tenet of that religion, then yes, such an altered Christianity would be useless from that viewpoint.

However, whether a Christianity without the Resurrection would be useless as a religion is a separate question.  It would be a profoundly different religion with Jesus showing a path towards enlightenment but without placing him in the role of intercessor for our sins, making it much like Buddhism in that regard.  It would be useful in the sense that it would still fulfill the role of a religion and it would be consistent with the Old Testament.  (As far as I am aware, there is no prophecy in the OT that unambiguously states that the Messiah will die and be resurrected.  There are some verses that hint at the possibility, and several that talk about a general resurrection of the dead, tho in terms that leave open the possibility of it being a figurative rather than a literal resurrection of the flesh that is meant.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Not useless?  Well, the NT disagrees with you...

As 1Cor 15:12-19 states, preaching about the Resurrection if it had not happened would be useless. And if one holds that only the one true religion is useful, and that the Resurrection of Christ is a tenet of that religion, then yes, such an altered Christianity would be useless from that viewpoint.

Ernest, you’re a genius.

[asexual trans victimologist]

There is enough evidence for the populace to reject religion.

Evidence of what?

[True Federalist]

Not useless?  Well, the NT disagrees with you...

As 1Cor 15:12-19 states, preaching about the Resurrection if it had not happened would be useless. And if one holds that only the one true religion is useful, and that the Resurrection of Christ is a tenet of that religion, then yes, such an altered Christianity would be useless from that viewpoint.

Ernest, you’re a genius.

The point you are ignoring (I think you are genius enough to not have missed it.) is that this board mainly discusses philosophy and religion from the standpoint of does it satisfy human needs and does it exhibit a consistency in its beliefs.  This board doesn't focus as much on doctrinal purity.

You do focus on that, and it is a valid focus.  Yet, I was hoping for more from you than a sarcastic "genius".  If anyone here was going to argue that the OT foreshadows a resurrected Messiah, it is going to be you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The point you are ignoring (I think you are genius enough to not have missed it.) is that this board mainly discusses philosophy and religion from the standpoint of does it satisfy human needs and does it exhibit a consistency in its beliefs.  This board doesn't focus as much on doctrinal purity.

Being a Captain Obvious shouldn’t require a Herculean Effort, Ernest – if you want to examine the consistency of a religion, you have to be willing to examine the viewpoint of a religion; and from the viewpoint of Christianity the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central tenet of the whole religion and the NT itself states that point blank.

---

You do focus on that, and it is a valid focus.  Yet, I was hoping for more from you than a sarcastic "genius".  If anyone here was going to argue that the OT foreshadows a resurrected Messiah, it is going to be you.

It would be unproductive - You’re having too much trouble grasping the obvious (or you’re simply content in being an argumentative ass) for me to waste my time.

[True Federalist]

The point you are ignoring (I think you are genius enough to not have missed it.) is that this board mainly discusses philosophy and religion from the standpoint of does it satisfy human needs and does it exhibit a consistency in its beliefs.  This board doesn't focus as much on doctrinal purity.

Being a Captain Obvious shouldn’t require a Herculean Effort, Ernest – if you want to examine the consistency of a religion, you have to be willing to examine the viewpoint of a religion; and from the viewpoint of Christianity the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central tenet of the whole religion and the NT itself states that point blank.

The viewpoint of orthodox Christianity.  There were a wide variety of unorthodox beliefs that called themselves Christian in first few centuries, and not all of them placed importance in the Resurrection.  While it didn't happen, the survival of one of them as Buddhism-like religion that called itself Christianity, was certainly possible, and as I said in my original post in this line of posts it would be "profoundly different".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The point you are ignoring (I think you are genius enough to not have missed it.) is that this board mainly discusses philosophy and religion from the standpoint of does it satisfy human needs and does it exhibit a consistency in its beliefs.  This board doesn't focus as much on doctrinal purity.

Being a Captain Obvious shouldn’t require a Herculean Effort, Ernest – if you want to examine the consistency of a religion, you have to be willing to examine the viewpoint of a religion; and from the viewpoint of Christianity the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central tenet of the whole religion and the NT itself states that point blank.

The viewpoint of orthodox Christianity.  There were a wide variety of unorthodox beliefs that called themselves Christian in first few centuries, and not all of them placed importance in the Resurrection.  

It’s OBVIOUS you don’t realize that I am the one who started this thread.  It’s OBVIOUS the whole context of this thread is an attack on orthodox Christianity.  It’s OBVIOUS the mere fact that you are arguing for an examination of Christianity beyond its orthodox foundations is simply another example of you being an argumentative ass whenever I created a thread on this board.  

If you want to discuss unorthodox Christianity, then you should OBVIOUSLY create your own thread. And as of now, you are on ignore, so that your idiocy will no longer be OBVIOUS to me.

[True Federalist]

If you want to discuss unorthodox Christianity, then you should OBVIOUSLY create your own thread. And as of now, you are on ignore, so that your idiocy will no longer be OBVIOUS to me.

Your own original post was about someone with an unorthodox interpretation of Christianity, and the thread had already veered into a discussion of unorthodox views on the Resurrection when I joined the thread on the second page.

As for being on ignore, your loss, IMO.  If you want to engage in discussions with people of the same beliefs as you, this forum is not really the place to be.  I don't like talking to an echo chamber, so I like this place, and with you I can generally count on not getting an echo.

I will promise you one thing tho.  No more comments on the horrible graphic designs of the dinner doodles when you post them.  It's clear by now that you won't listen to any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of their format.