Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(02-05-2014 03:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 10:31 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The problem with "Christianity" as we know it, however, is that it is a jumble of different "threads" put together for political purposes

What evidence/argument/support do you have for this view?




(02-05-2014 10:31 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  if Christians fail to appreciate that it just doesn't "wash" with intelligent people to try to get them to believe in virgin birth, miracles and resurrection,

Are you saying that there are no intelligent people who believe in Jesus Christ, i.e. intelligent people who designate themselves as Christians?

(02-05-2014 10:31 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  not to mention the fact that the NT is all over the place and riddled with inconsistencies which intelligent, thinking people are just not prepared to brush under the carpet and forget about so they can accept concepts which they find absurd and ridiculous.

Name one inconsistency.

inconsistency?

Gee where shall we begin???

1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

2. The "slaughter of the innocents" (Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen.

The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

None of the authors of the gospels knew jesus;

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I have made these points many times before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact.

Speaking of things that never came to fruitation..i.e. prophesies that never came true….

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
02-05-2014, 07:15 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
[Image: eating-cookie.gif]

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 07:47 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(02-05-2014 05:04 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 03:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What evidence/argument/support do you have for this view?





Are you saying that there are no intelligent people who believe in Jesus Christ, i.e. intelligent people who designate themselves as Christians?


Name one inconsistency.

inconsistency?

Gee where shall we begin???

1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

2. The "slaughter of the innocents" (Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen.

The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

None of the authors of the gospels knew jesus;

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I have made these points many times before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact.

Speaking of things that never came to fruitation..i.e. prophesies that never came true….

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

And if I were to prove to you that none of the above constitute an inconsistency/contradiction and that the Holy Bible was indeed the record of Gods dealings with man, what would you do with this knowledge?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
That he was a sociopath who liked money and power and used people beliefs in order to control people.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 07:57 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(02-05-2014 07:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  And if I were to prove to you that none of the above constitute an inconsistency/contradiction and that the Holy Bible was indeed the record of Gods dealings with man, what would you do with this knowledge?

LOL -- As IF. Hobo

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 08:08 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(02-05-2014 07:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 05:04 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  inconsistency?

Gee where shall we begin???

1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

2. The "slaughter of the innocents" (Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen.

The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

None of the authors of the gospels knew jesus;

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I have made these points many times before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact.

Speaking of things that never came to fruitation..i.e. prophesies that never came true….

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

And if I were to prove to you that none of the above constitute an inconsistency/contradiction and that the Holy Bible was indeed the record of Gods dealings with man, what would you do with this knowledge?

good luck with that. You have enough of an obstacle proving anyone who wrote of jesus actually knew him, let alone proving the existence of god or the other plethora of delusional fabricated drivel contained within the bible, but I digress, bestow your brilliance upon me. Drooling

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
02-05-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(02-05-2014 07:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  And if I were to prove to you that none of the above constitute an inconsistency/contradiction and that the Holy Bible was indeed the record of Gods dealings with man, what would you do with this knowledge?

Laugh out load I'd love to see this proof. I really would, because somehow this one little scrap of evidence, that apparently only the unthinking among you have (hence faith), is enough to make glaring inconsistencies, improbabilities and impossibilities just disappear. Please tell me how this would happen without letting go of nearly all of thinking power you would suppose had been bestowed upon you by your deity.

This evidence would turn modern academia on its head, so if you're a big enough megalomaniac to think that you have some answer that has eluded thousands of people who have made the subject of the holiness of scripture their life's work, by all means share.

And yes, I am mocking you.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 09:08 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(02-05-2014 08:08 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 07:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  And if I were to prove to you that none of the above constitute an inconsistency/contradiction and that the Holy Bible was indeed the record of Gods dealings with man, what would you do with this knowledge?

good luck with that. You have enough of an obstacle proving anyone who wrote of jesus actually knew him, let alone proving the existence of god or the other plethora of delusional fabricated drivel contained within the bible, but I digress, bestow your brilliance upon me. Drooling

You did not answer the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 09:09 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(02-05-2014 08:15 PM)Anudist Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 07:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  And if I were to prove to you that none of the above constitute an inconsistency/contradiction and that the Holy Bible was indeed the record of Gods dealings with man, what would you do with this knowledge?

Laugh out load I'd love to see this proof. I really would, because somehow this one little scrap of evidence, that apparently only the unthinking among you have (hence faith), is enough to make glaring inconsistencies, improbabilities and impossibilities just disappear. Please tell me how this would happen without letting go of nearly all of thinking power you would suppose had been bestowed upon you by your deity.

This evidence would turn modern academia on its head, so if you're a big enough megalomaniac to think that you have some answer that has eluded thousands of people who have made the subject of the holiness of scripture their life's work, by all means share.

And yes, I am mocking you.


You did not answer the question I asked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 09:21 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(02-05-2014 09:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You did not answer the question I asked.

The answer to your question is simple. I would take the "knowledge" that you provide, and do with it as anyone should, scrutinize it. If it doesn't pass the test of scrutiny, it will be discarded, regardless of what it means to you, or what you think it should mean to others.

The burden of proof is a heavy one, isn't it, mate?

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: