Archaeology of the New Testament

Ichabod Stain said:
in this context there is no meaningful difference.

he still is having an approach to spiriutality that is devoid of faith.

he's still trying to rationalize it.
Click to expand...
Seek help, end your pain and find eternal peace, Fredo. All it takes is a little courage and faith on your part.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
yes. you're a fucking idiot with no rebuttal.

carry on, fool.
Click to expand...
For those who are in pain but have faith, eternal peace is at hand. If you lack the courage or your faith falters, ask someone to help you pass through the veil. It's not hard since it's only an illusion. Those with faith know what I mean.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. It was the symbol of the fish, the Ichthys, since Jesus preached that his disciples would be a fisher of men.

In the New Testament, the waters gain a new master: Christ. He gives them a new meaning. He boldly instructs his followers to go straight to the waters of the nations and become “fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19). Fishing imagery is also found in one of Jesus’ parables in Matthew: “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers together all kinds of fish” (Matthew 13:47). This verse is representative of God’s plan for the New Covenant, one that embraces nations as his “chosen people” rather than solely the Israelites. Water is also the element he chooses to baptize his followers with and to bring them new life. Instead of splitting the sea to drown his enemies, he walks upon it and reminds us to love our enemies. The “waters” and water-related imagery are essential for God’s revelation of Christ’s mission.

Though the precise origins of the fish symbol in early Christianity remain uncertain, the deep thematic significance of the waters and sea creatures in the New Testament suggests that the Christian usage of the fish symbol does not stem solely from past traditions such as paganism and Judaism. The fish was used to signal one’s faith to other Christians, to spread Christianity, and to mark burial sites. Early Christian literature evokes fish and fish-related imagery to address fellow Christians.....

...The Ichthys, beyond being a symbol for Christ, was also a popular Greek acronym which stood for “Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter.” St. Augustine explains this in his fifth century work City of God: “But if you join the initial letters of these five Greek words, ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστος Θεοῦ υἰὸς σωτήρ, which mean, ‘Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Saviour,’ they will make the word ἰχθὺς, that is, ‘fish,’ in which word Christ is mystically understood, because He was able to live, that is, to exist, without sin in the abyss of this mortality as in the depth of waters” (Augustine, 562). Augustine’s interpretation of the waters is more attuned to the Old Testament. The waters represent the fallen world, which Christ was able to navigate and command because of his sinless nature. However, because of Christ, the waters are redeemable.
https://twitter.com/x/status/2040114112521195784
View: https://x.com/JoshuaBarzon/status/2040114112521195784
Click to expand...
Of, so that's where the fish symbol came from. (y)
 
NiftyNiblick said:
My take is this: for those who believe in deities, it is perfectly reasonable for Jesus to have actually died and then have a resurrection.
A deity is an entity capable of accomplishments not possible for humans or other life forms.

There are apparently reasons for some to believe, without benefit of actual physical evidence, that a god or gods exist.
I may be a secular person, but while it seems perhaps illogical to me,
I obviously cannot be totally positive that a supreme being doesn't exist in some form.
None of us can easily prove a negative.

That's why I have no grievance whatever with believers.
I have serious grievance with theocracy and theocrats, however.
Of the three major Semitic religions, Judaism seems the least theocratic or proselytizing.
Islam and Christianity have historically gotten out of hand--and still do today in the Middle East and in America.
Click to expand...
Yeah, theocracy is bullshit.

There are perfectly sound reasons to be a rational religious person or a rational atheist. It's up to every individual to decide which way the evidence points.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
he's a fucking idiot trying to make some idiotic distinction between proof and evidence.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Science functions on evidence, not on proof. Science cannot prove any of it's theories beyond all possible doubt. It can only discover evidence that points to the most likely explanation.

Proof is only really possible in mathematics.
 
Cypress said:
Incorrect. Science functions on evidence, not on proof. Science cannot prove any of it's theories beyond all possible doubt. It can only discover evidence that points to the most likely explanation.

Proof is only really possible in mathematics.
Click to expand...
you're still approaching religion on a rational basis.

that's the point.

you're a fucking idiot.
 
Cypress said:
Of, so that's where the fish symbol came from. (y)
Click to expand...
It's still commonly seen around this part of Texas. Mostly on the back end of cars.

Recently I was reading about how 30something new parents start attending church more. The implication was more for their kids, but also for themselves.

www.barna.com

Does Having Children Make Parents More Active Churchgoers? - Barna Group

How does having a child change a parent's level of church involvement? A nationwide study conducted among nearly 700 parents of children under the age of 18 asked respondents to describe how having children affected their connection to a church or faith community.
www.barna.com www.barna.com
Key Findings
There are essentially five ways in which parents describe how having children influenced their involvement with a church.
  • No influence. The largest share of parents (50%) reported that having children did not influence their connection to a church. This perspective was most common among parents in the Northeast and West as well as among college graduates. Among atheists and agnostics, nine out of 10 said that becoming a parent had no influence on their connection to a faith community. The same was true among nearly seven out of 10 adults associated with a faith other than Christianity. However, among parents who are Christian, a notably smaller share (47%) said that the presence of children was unrelated to their church life.
  • Reconnected. About one-sixth of parents (17%) said that having a child helped them reconnect with church after a long period of not attending. Lower income homes were more likely than average to offer this assessment. Hispanic parents were also likely to describe their parenting path in this way.
  • More active. Another one-fifth of parents (20%) said they were already active but become more involved. Political conservatives and Republicans were among the parents most likely to describe an increased level of church activity after becoming parents.
  • Less active. Overall, 4% of parents said that having children actually decreased their involvement with a church. This was most common among parents who are single and never married as well as Asians.
  • New commitment. Parenthood rarely sparks brand-new experiences of faith for people: only one out of every 20 parents (5%) said that having children helped them become active in a church for the first time. Midwest parents were among the most likely to express this view, as were Catholics and Hispanics.

1775920496885.png
 
Ichabod Stain said:
you're still approaching religion on a rational basis.

that's the point.

you're a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...
You're still approaching life on an irrational basis. You're obviously in pain, but too cowardly to do anything about it. Why? It's easy to ease your pain. If you need help, ask for it from someone close to you.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
He is more intelligent, and also more educated, than others on JPP. Mostly the MAGA morons since, like you, most are bitter, hateful, dumbasses who should get help to ease their pain.
Click to expand...
I'm probably only in the top 20th percentile. I do seem to have a penchant for keeping the mentally ill flustered and agitated!
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It's still commonly seen around this part of Texas. Mostly on the back end of cars.

Recently I was reading about how 30something new parents start attending church more. The implication was more for their kids, but also for themselves.

www.barna.com

Does Having Children Make Parents More Active Churchgoers? - Barna Group

How does having a child change a parent's level of church involvement? A nationwide study conducted among nearly 700 parents of children under the age of 18 asked respondents to describe how having children affected their connection to a church or faith community.
www.barna.com www.barna.com
Key Findings
There are essentially five ways in which parents describe how having children influenced their involvement with a church.
  • No influence. The largest share of parents (50%) reported that having children did not influence their connection to a church. This perspective was most common among parents in the Northeast and West as well as among college graduates. Among atheists and agnostics, nine out of 10 said that becoming a parent had no influence on their connection to a faith community. The same was true among nearly seven out of 10 adults associated with a faith other than Christianity. However, among parents who are Christian, a notably smaller share (47%) said that the presence of children was unrelated to their church life.
  • Reconnected. About one-sixth of parents (17%) said that having a child helped them reconnect with church after a long period of not attending. Lower income homes were more likely than average to offer this assessment. Hispanic parents were also likely to describe their parenting path in this way.
  • More active. Another one-fifth of parents (20%) said they were already active but become more involved. Political conservatives and Republicans were among the parents most likely to describe an increased level of church activity after becoming parents.
  • Less active. Overall, 4% of parents said that having children actually decreased their involvement with a church. This was most common among parents who are single and never married as well as Asians.
  • New commitment. Parenthood rarely sparks brand-new experiences of faith for people: only one out of every 20 parents (5%) said that having children helped them become active in a church for the first time. Midwest parents were among the most likely to express this view, as were Catholics and Hispanics.

View attachment 80818
Click to expand...
I've seen the Christian fish on cars, I didn't know it went back to the early church!

In California they spoof it with a Darwin fish growing legs, lol
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Most people are not as stupid as the militant atheists and militant theists believe them to be. The results indicate most people are not easily bullshitted for long. They start to see through lies and manipulation even if it takes a few years such as with Nazism in the 1930s and Trumpism in the 2020s.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Every Mormon who believes that their magical underwear is going to protect them from danger is that gullible. Every Muslim who believes they are going to get to nail 76 virgins in heaven is that gullible. Every Christian who believes that they are going to hobnob with the creator of the universe after they die is that gullible.

People were incredibly ignorant and gullible and stupid in Jesus time, which is why it was common for people to believe others were gods, or elevated to God's after death or born of parents where one of them was a god etc. Jesus unbelievable (by today's informed standards) story was in no way unique in that time in history. Jesus being born of a virgin wasn't a new concept. Jesus coming back from the dead wasn't a new concept. Jesus performing miracles wasn't a new concept.

All of those stories, which were embellished and spread by ignorant, uneducated and gullible people, are just stories and were the norm at the time.

Is it Benny Hinn who still performs miracles in front of thousands of people who attend his church?

Very, very little has changed from the time that Jesus walked the earth.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
no argument present.

go eat your dog's cum.
Click to expand...
Ichabod Stain said:
ok.

that's what we call functionally illiterate.
Click to expand...
You continue to exhibit the behavior of someone who is in pain and full of self-loathing, Fredo.

There are many ways of ending your pain be they medical, spiritual or physical. Life is an illusion. If you aren't enjoying it, then you are doing it wrong.

A Dream Within a Dream - Edgar Allen Poe

Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
Thus much let me avow —
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream;
Yet if hope has flown away
In a night, or in a day,
In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.
I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand —
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep — while I weep!
O God! can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?
 
ZenMode said:
I disagree. Every Mormon who believes that their magical underwear is going to protect them from danger is that gullible. Every Muslim who believes they are going to get to nail 76 virgins in heaven is that gullible. Every Christian who believes that they are going to hobnob with the creator of the universe after they die is that gullible.

People were incredibly ignorant and gullible and stupid in Jesus time, which is why it was common for people to believe others were gods, or elevated to God's after death or born of parents where one of them was a god etc. Jesus unbelievable (by today's informed standards) story was in no way unique in that time in history. Jesus being born of a virgin wasn't a new concept. Jesus coming back from the dead wasn't a new concept. Jesus performing miracles wasn't a new concept.

All of those stories, which were embellished and spread by ignorant, uneducated and gullible people, are just stories and were the norm at the time.

Is it Benny Hinn who still performs miracles in front of thousands of people who attend his church?

Very, very little has changed from the time that Jesus walked the earth.
Click to expand...
Every Mormon? Every Muslim? Every Christian? Is that like saying every atheist over 30 is a deluded moron?

There's no such thing as miracles, magic or anything else that violates the laws of the Universe.
I believe whatever force is behind the creation of the Universe did so with a purpose. It established rules and would be illogical to violate those rules.
I believe we were given brains and expected to use them.
I believe we are given choices and it's up to us to make them.

You're free to hate, spit and disclaim everyone and everything. It's a choice and it's your choice to believe as you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top