why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2015, 07:00 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2015 08:54 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid734056


EDIT: Don't TLDR me either, you can't answer questions like "disprove jesus" and fit that into a paragraph. I could write for days on this, and have many times. This is the meat and taters for you...read it.

There exists not one scrap of physical, or contemporary evidence that jesus the christ existed. Now in my personal opinion, a charismatic man named jesus may have existed and was walking around gathering a small crowd of gullible people. incidentally 1 in 20 people back then were named jesus, popular name it seems, and there were at least 2 others named jesus during that time period that thought they were prophets. But anyway, he clearly wasn't the son of a mythical god. No one at the time ever wrote down these magical events, and historians who lived in the area failed to even mention a jesus. Odd don't you think?

Lets look at two incidents:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Now if a zombie invasion had really happened, literate people at the time would have thought it noteworthy and written it down...nope...many years later some anonymous authors decided these urban legends were too good to not share with others, voila! bible.

How about another?

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 min max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two renowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened. Odd for a global mid day darkness that not one other civilization mentioned it either. You have to just love the three Fs of christianity; Fiction, Forgery and Fantasy.

So how do we know of jesus? Well the bible obviously right? So who witnessed these events and wrote them down? apparently no one.

But wait, what about the gospels? Let me guess, you think that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John actually wrote those right? Rolleyes

Acts and luke had the same authors. NO, none of the anonymous 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.

Matthew is riddled with whimsical creative writings as well. I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's line the Royal after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line. All of which is irrelevant as according to the fable; god was the father, not Joseph.


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. Mark is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

Noticing this problem, a Xtian scribe decided to add verses 9-20.

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.

Luke: The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE, the anonymous author using as his sources the Gospel of Mark, a sayings collection called Q, and some unique Lukan material called the L source.

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.

The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)

He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. In summary, the Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author. The Gospel wasn't written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.

He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110. The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.


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. John 20:30-31 - "but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye might have life through his name".......just about says it all right there, let me paraphrase; "we are making up these stories to help people believe...the story."

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I made these points 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. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.

Reference:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

What about other sources within the bible?

Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once at the beginning of James 1 and James 2 as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

The Bible claims that Jesus made the following comment:

Matthew 16:28

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus also advised against going to court over someone who steals something and also told people not to store up stocks or reserves for the future. Clearly, he thought the end was very near.

Likewise, Paul advised followers not to marry and that the end time was near. In this scripture he obviously believes that some of the people he is talking to will still be alive at the second coming.

I Thessalonians 4: 16-18

“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.”

The obvious fact is that the second coming was not forthcoming at that time, or even close to being near. The 2000-year delay is a strong piece of evidence that Christianity is a failed religion.

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. Remember that Jesus was a Jew who had no intention to deviate from the Hebrew scriptures:

“Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)”

Jesus’ immediate followers, mostly his 12 disciples, probably did not immediately identify this failure, because after Jesus’ body was likely stolen and concealed, a rumor spread that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. A sense of optimism overcame their grief about his execution and renewed some hope that he was a true messiah. If they had known then that there was to be no return in the near or long-term future, they likely would have abandoned any further activity. Despite this resurgence in their faith, they never agreed with Paul’s concept of Jesus as being divine. Anything written in the Bible to suggest that they did is probably a result of later editing by some of Paul’s followers. Such a belief would have been an exceptional departure from the Jewish faith.

What about other authors who wrote of jesus? lets take a peek..

Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

In regards to "christus".

The Christian-preferred Latin of this sentence is as follows:

Iudaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

However, it is now the scholarly consensus that the original Latin of this passage must have been the following:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

This latter version with the word Chrēsto, not Christo, is what our earliest extant manuscripts relate. Contrary to what Christian apologists and other fundamentalists assert, and despite the fact that the two words are evidently related through the roots χρίω and χράω, "Chrēsto," the ablative of Chrestus, is not an "another spelling of Christ." These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "good," "righteous" or "useful"; while Christos denotes "anointed" or "messiah." Hence, although an earlier generation of scholars believed that this passage reflected the uprisings of Jews against Christians in Rome, we are not certain at all that this purported "reference" has anything to do with Christ and Christians.

The term χρηστός chrestos was utilized not only in secular situations but also within ancient religion, philosophy, spirituality and the all-important mysteries, which concerned life and death, including near-death experiences and afterlife traditions. "Chrestos" was one of the titles for the dead in tomb writings "of the Greeks in all ages, pre-Christian as well as post-Christian." Examples of these epithets can be studied in August Boeckh's Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. We read elsewhere that the epithet "Chrestos" appears commonly on the epitaphs of most citizens of Larissa, Greece, specifically in the form of chrestos heros , this latter term meaning "hero" and "demigod." The Greek word chrestos was popular also as an epithet or on epitaphs at various Egyptian funerary sites as at Alexandria and elsewhere.

As another example of the Pagan use of the word chrestos, in 2008 an evidently pre-Christian cup or bowl was found at Alexandria, Egypt, with the genitive form chrestou inscribed on it. This artifact could predate the common era by decades, part of the genre of magical bowls used for protection and incantation. Another artifact with significance in this analysis of the uses of chrestos in antiquity is the chi-rho symbol.

Chrestus/christus being disingenuously presented to mean christ or christians is conjecture at its best.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome." But even if Suetonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.


Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

getting the picture yet? Also why didnt other prominent historians mention jesus?

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.


Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”


There is your opener, read, research, validate, learn and evolve..good luck call of the wild, I have been at this for 30+ years, have a degree in religious studies, have written many papers on the subject, you can dismiss the facts if you wish, i can and will substantiate my assertions to great detail. I have a personal library of christian scholarly research books written by *gasp* christian scholars who acknowledge these facts. When pressed, as I did in each and every theology class I took at Saint Leo University, they would admit the facts, and then go with, "its the message that matters"...or.."faith is the belief in the unseen, unproven and unknown, a transcendental world that gives us hope"...yup, that is called hopes and dreams, but not facts. good luck.

References:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

"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
[+] 12 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
10-02-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
now wildy, I have duty tomorrow, and am usually unable to access the web because of our extreme firewalls the military insists we have where I am stationed, so I may not be able to see or reply to your reply until I get back home thursday afternoon, and then I have a fuck ton of college papers to write... If you dont see a reply for a couple days.. worry not my friend, I will return. I am just really busy.

I took the time to provide you serious thought provoking information, do it the justice of reading it, and I will do the same for your reply. If not, then we are just spamming the boards with bloviations. I can't teach you if you don't read. Big Grin

Smartass

"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
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
10-02-2015, 08:12 PM
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
Alright people this debate is between GoodWithoutGod and Call of the Wild only.

All other posts will be deleted.

Yes, I'm treating this as an accepted debate since Call of the Wild already accepted in his thread.

Carry on....


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-02-2015, 01:07 PM
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
Girl_nails

"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
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
13-02-2015, 10:17 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2015 11:04 AM by Call_of_the_Wild.)
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  There exists not one scrap of physical, or contemporary evidence that jesus the christ existed.

Yet the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus existed, based on what they believe to be good evidence. Hmmmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Check the second paragraph of the above wiki article, and the citations regarding it.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Now in my personal opinion, a charismatic man named jesus may have existed and was walking around gathering a small crowd of gullible people. incidentally 1 in 20 people back then were named jesus, popular name it seems, and there were at least 2 others named jesus during that time period that thought they were prophets.

Irrelevant. That is why he was called "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus Christ", or "The Messiah", which was a common way to distinguish people from others that shared the same name, usually regarding the most common names, like Simon and John...we only know of one "Jesus of Nazareth" that was alive during that time, who just happens to have been also called, "The Christ".

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  But anyway, he clearly wasn't the son of a mythical god. No one at the time ever wrote down these magical events, and historians who lived in the area failed to even mention a jesus. Odd don't you think?

How many historians lived in that time, and in that area? How many actual historians have you bumped in to lately?

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Lets look at two incidents:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Now if a zombie invasion had really happened, literate people at the time would have thought it noteworthy and written it down...nope...many years later some anonymous authors decided these urban legends were too good to not share with others, voila! bible.

First off, Matthew doesn't give a count of how many men were resurrected from their graves in his account. So it isn't as if there was a Resident Evil or The Walking Dead thing going on...Matthew said "many holy people who had died came to life"...but how many is many? 5? 7? We just don't know. Second, Matthew's account doesn't tell us who these people were. Suppose they were people that lived hundreds of years earlier...do you think anyone would have recognized resurrected men that they never met while they were living? No. Third, the narrative states that the men was resurrected and went into the city of Jerusalem (holy city)...Jerusalem was a predominantly Jewish population so it should come as to no surprise that there are no non-Jewish sources since it occurred in a Jewish city to Jewish people.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  How about another?

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 min max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two renowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened. Odd for a global mid day darkness that not one other civilization mentioned it either. You have to just love the three Fs of christianity; Fiction, Forgery and Fantasy.

Luke is the only one that recorded it as "all the earth"...the others seem to have it as a local thing...but either way...the narratives don't say that it was a complete absolute darkness...it could have only been a "night time" darkness...I don't believe it was complete darkness, or at least the narratives aren't clear as to the extent of the darkness...second, even if the darkness did cover the earth, and it could be looked at as an "extended night time darkness", it wasn't something that extraordinary that people would have ran to their rooms to their dresser drawers to get their pen and pad to write it down. It would have been forgotten about after a while, just like anything else in history, whether extraordinary or not.

I remember back in Detroit (born and raised) in the early 00's, there was a local electricity outage that effected the whole city...all power was out for hours, and as much as modern day mankind depends on electricity, you can imagine how big the state of alarm was for local residents...but eventually, the power was restored, and here we are over 10 years later, and no one is talking about it...it is a thing of the past...no one cares anymore.

Third, you are assuming that no one wrote about it...someone could have written about it, during that time, but such written accounts could have been lost through time...that does happen, you know. You are assuming that we should have a surviving account of one particular incident that allegely happened in history...well, many things in history may have occurred that we don't know about, because such accounts may have been lost over time. Or they may be out there, we just haven't found them yet. Our knowledge of history will never be complete, you do understand that, right?

Fourth...I am sure you are familiar with Thallus, who was mentioned by a historian as to mentioned an "eclipse" of some sort during the time of Jesus' crucifixition. You mentioned in an earlier post that there is so little knowledge of Thallus that we shouldn't accept the account...but my response to that is simple...if the "darkness" thing never happened, then why would someone feel the need to give a naturalistic explanation for something that never happened...regardless of how little knowledge we have on the person that gave it.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  So how do we know of jesus? Well the bible obviously right? So who witnessed these events and wrote them down? apparently no one.

Correction: Apparently, no one wrote the events down as they OCCURRED...which is irrelevant to eyewitnesses writing down events much later, which is hardly illogical, but in my opinion, seemingly practical.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  But wait, what about the gospels? Let me guess, you think that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John actually wrote those right? Rolleyes

Correctomundo Yes

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Acts and luke had the same authors. NO, none of the anonymous authors of the gospels knew jesus.

See, that kind of assertion often baffles me. Believers will admit that the Gospels, at face value, are anonymous...no one will argue that...but to make the absolute statement that "none of the authors of the Gospels" knew Jesus is disingenuous, because you don't know WHO the authors of the Gospels knew, do you? Now what a believer can do (and what I am prepared to do) is give reasons as to WHY we believe that the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses of Jesus, and you can dispute those reasons all day long, but to make it see as if you were there when the Gospels were written, so you know who wrote what, is disingenuous.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

I strongly object to your dating of the Gospels. Of course, it is a well known tradition that will have the skeptic favoring the later dates, and the believers favoring early dates, but hey.

All Gospels can be said to have been written prior to 70AD...why? Because that is when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, and NONE of the books of the New Testament mentions this, and you would figure that they would mention such an event, not only because the event can be said to be the equivalent a Jewish "9/11", but because Jesus actually PREDICTED that the Temple would be destroyed in all three of the synoptic Gospels.

Now the point is simple, if you are attempting to paint Jesus out to be this spectacular prophecy fulfiller, and you are careful to mention every other prophecy that Jesus fulfilled, then chances are you wouldn't fail to mention such a prophecy that was fulfilled, such a prophecy that involved the sacred and holy temple that you (as a Jew) believes is the main holy sanctuary of worship. Not only isn't this fulfilled prophecy not mentioned in the Gospels, but also the other NT books as well, and this is because the event hadn't happened yet. This is the best argument against any post 70AD date.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

Care to explain why, if the pre-70 date is strongly supported, is it the minority view?

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

According to the early church fathers (Papias), Matthew, disciple of Jesus, wrote a Gospel. Plain and simple, and Papias was a lot closer to the scene in both time-span and geographical location than any "historians" who is living 2,000 years later in far away lands. If there is any evidence AGAINST Matthew writing a Gospel, then I'd like to see it. Matthew may have used Mark as a source, no problems there. Q sources weren't anything but the sayings of Jesus, and quite hypothetical, as you mention. But if Matthew (or any other Gospel) used such a source for their material, then that would only imply that the Q source had to be earlier than the Gospel, which would be yet an even earlier non-Biblical source that testifies to the words of Jesus...no problems there.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person.

Writing in the third person is a literary style that is used at the discretion of the author. No problems here.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

So just because we, living over 2,000 years after the events, haven't yet found any evidence of an earlier census, then it follows that therefore there isn't any evidence of an earlier census?? Non sequitur. When it comes to establishing historical facts, the data samples that is closer to the event in question has more value than data samples that is later than the event in question...and we should not assume that Luke was wrong in what he recorded just because we don't have any evidence of a particular census in history. Luke was closer to the scene than anyone alive today, and I will take his testimony on what occurred during that time before I take the testimony of anyone that is alive today' testimony.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

First off, I disagree with the notion that a "genocide" took place. Matthew stated that the incident happened in Bethlehem, and Bethlehem wasn't a largely populated city...it was a small town...so how many males under the age of 2 would there have been in a small town...not many. So it wasn't this large scale machete slaughter that you would like it to be in order to score debate points No

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's line the Royal after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line. All of which is irrelevant as according to the fable; god was the father, not Joseph.

Could there be a reason given as to why the genealogies are different? Gotquestions.org provides a good explanation as to why they are different...this question has had a long history of responses to the differences...here is one source to explain..

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html

But the point is simple, even if any of the responses to this is REMOTELY possible, then that makes it not a contradiction between the accounts, because true contradictions cannot be reconciled, but this can.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

Again, our earliest sources for who wrote the Gospels comes from the early church fathers, which as you mentions, states that Mark, companion of Peter, wrote a Gospel. You say that most scholars today reject this tradition…well, tell me why do they reject it??? On what grounds?? How do the scholars of today, living over 2,000 years later, know something that the early church fathers didn’t know?? And I really would like an answer to this…and only that, but when I really put it in perspective, I have to ask another question: If the early church was going to go around just attributing names to their holy books, then why not just state that the disciple Peter wrote the Gospel? After all, Peter’s name would carry more weight than Mark’s, right? Mark wasn’t even a disciple, as the early church father’s admit, so why not Peter, instead of Peter’s friend? Why not John? Why not James? All of these names carry more weight and with it more credibility than a friend, right? But to claim that a mere FRIEND of the disciple Peter wrote it as opposed to stating that Peter wrote it comes off as genuinely innocent, and credible.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Mark is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

Nonsense. First off, yes, all scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark were later interpolations. No arguments there. But I disagree with the notion than a post-mortem appearance by Jesus wasn’t at the very least implied. In Mark 16:6-7, the young man in the tomb told the women, “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell the disciples and Peter, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you”.
You can accuse later writers of interpolating all you’d like to, but let’s not pretend that a post-mortem appearance wasn’t brewing in the immediate verses preceding 9-20.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Noticing this problem, a Xtian scribe decided to add verses 9-20.

The only reason why an asterisk may be placed next to those verses is because they are not in the earliest manuscripts, which is fine, because it isn’t as if verses 9-20 contradicts what the other Gospels say on the post-mortem/ascension matter. In fact, the verses 9-20 reads exactly how you will expect them to read based on all other accounts…but it doesn’t matter anyway, because as just mentioned, a post-mortem appearance is at the very least implied anyway.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.
Luke: The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE, the anonymous author using as his sources the Gospel of Mark, a sayings collection called Q, and some unique Lukan material called the L source.
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.

Again, I have to ask, why do they reject the view? A person can systematically reject anything…why do they reject the authorship of Luke? Based on reasons already mentioned, the dating of Luke cannot be said to precede 70AD, so we can just work backwards on the timeline from there. Since Acts is part 2 of Luke, Acts could not have preceded Luke…and if Luke used Mark as a source, then Mark had to be before Luke..and since Acts doesn’t record the death of Paul, who died at about 67AD, the book of Acts can be said to have been written prior to 67AD…which means that the book of Luke had to have been written between 63-66AD, which means that Mark can be said to have been written between 59-63AD.
See how that works? That is a systematic case for the dating of the Gospels, and why we believe that the Gospels were written prior to 70AD. You’ve provided no such case for any post-70AD case, and if you have a case, then I’d like to hear it.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)

Well first off, Luke began his preface by stating that not only did he carefully investigated everything himself, but also that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us”. He also stated that the information that he received had been “HANDED DOWN TO US by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word”.

So my point is simple, you can reject the early church fathers testimony that Luke wrote a Gospel…fine…but at the very least, according to WHOEVER wrote the Gospel of Luke, whomever that may have been, the author is telling readers that the information that he is giving has been handed down by eyewitnesses. Now this is a key point, because if Jesus never existed, then how would there be claims that there were eyewitness accounts to a man that never actually existed?

My third point is, if the author of Luke truly investigated things like he said he did, then if he used Mark as a source for his material, then he obviously felt that Mark was a reliable source…after all, he said that he “carefully investigated” everything…and a person that carefully investigates everything doesn’t use faulty sources.

My fourth point is what you said regarding the alleged contradictions between (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) and (Gal 1:17-24), and I must ask; what contradictions? I just don’t see any.
In Gal 1-16-17, Paul stated that after his conversion, he didn’t go to Jerusalem first, but he went immediately to Arabia and Damascus. Simple enough, right? Now compare that to Acts 9-1-31, where it is stated that after he was converted, he “spent several days with the disciples in Damascus.”

Either way you look at it, the Arabian peninsula and Damascus are all in the same vicinity/region, and depending on where Paul was coming from, his travels apparently took him through Arabia and into Damascus…as maybe there was a road that went through the peninsula and into Damascus.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.

This is a blank assertion without any justification whatsoever. I need specifics.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  In summary, the Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author. The Gospel wasn't written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.
But the Gospel does claim that the information within the book was handed down to him from eyewitnesses. If the information contained is ultimately connected to eyewitnesses by the very root, then you can make a big deal about the authorship all day long, but the reliability cannot be questioned.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.

I’ve already argued in favor of pre 70AD dating…you’ve provided no reasons why we should favor the later dating. And the good thing about it, I have other arguments for early dating as well. But I will let that marinate with you for a minute.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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. John 20:30-31 - "but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye might have life through his name".......just about says it all right there, let me paraphrase; "we are making up these stories to help people believe...the story."

The Gospel of John is controversial not because we don’t know that John wrote it, but because we don’t know WHICH John wrote it. Was it John the Apostle or John the Evangelist? Or are they the same person? Due to the nature of this Gospel, I conclude that it was John the Apostle, or at the very least it was written by disciple of John the Apostle. I conclude that John the Apostle wrote it because it seems more personal…specifically because of John 19:25-27, that to me seems very personal…and also because of John 21:21-23..that also seems personal. Now you are right, the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is not specifically named…but whoever wrote verse 24 is vouching for the integrity of whoever the disciple was…and whoever this disciple was wasn’t just a later believer, but it was one of the very disciples that was present at the last supper…as verse 20 indicates.

So my point is very simple…at WORSE, according to the narrative, the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.

No, Paul never met Jesus, but guess what, according to his own testimony, he met with Peter and James…who WERE not only contemporaries to Jesus, but direct eyewitnesses. To get any closer to Jesus himself after meeting with Peter would be to actual MEET Jesus himself.

Its fine for us, in our limited perspective to say “No one wrote about Jesus during his life”…well, Paul wrote about Jesus during the life of those that knew Jesus personally. That is almost as contemporary as you can get. Paul wasn’t dealing with 2,000 year old sources, like we are…he was certainly alive during the time of Jesus, and during the time of his disciples….if that isn’t contemporary, I don’t know what is.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  What about other sources within the bible?

Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it.

Even though I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of the Living God…I don’t need to use the Epistles of Peter as sources for the case for the Resurrection
(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once at the beginning of James 1 and James 2 as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

Nor James.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

Nor Jude.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Paul’s job wasn’t give an account of the life of Jesus, but to preach the Word to the Gentiles….his goal was to preach against false teachings, provide insight on Christ-like living, and to teach Christian theology. Second, you mention that his “accounts about Jesus came from believers or his imagination”, and you call it hearsay. It can’t be hearsay if Paul received some of his theology from direct eyewitnesses to Jesus (1Corin 15:3-7). That information was first-hand testimony from direct eyewitnesses. Imagination my ass lol.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Matthew 16:28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

I am not sure what Jesus meant by this, but he is obviously stating that some people will be alive during the “coming of his kingdom”, and some will be dead, which leads me to believe he was talking about a near future event that some will be alive to see, and some unfortunately won’t.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Jesus also advised against going to court over someone who steals something and also told people not to store up stocks or reserves for the future. Clearly, he thought the end was very near.

Which, in my opinion, has absolutely nothing to do with Matt 16:28.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Likewise, Paul advised followers not to marry and that the end time was near. In this scripture he obviously believes that some of the people he is talking to will still be alive at the second coming.

I Thessalonians 4: 16-18

“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.”

First off, what does being married have to do with anything regarding the second coming? Second, he is obviously using “we” as a figure of speech, meaning “those of us that are alive”. Unless you are claiming that Paul knew when the second coming would take place and that he would be included in the Rapture, I don’t see how you can draw that conclusion.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. Remember that Jesus was a Jew who had no intention to deviate from the Hebrew scriptures:

“Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)”

Am I supposed to care what Stephen Harris thinks compared to what the disciples and early church fathers thought?

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Jesus’ immediate followers, mostly his 12 disciples, probably did not immediately identify this failure, because after Jesus’ body was likely stolen and concealed, a rumor spread that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead.

If you admit that Jesus’ disciples stole his body, then you are admitting that there was a body there, so not only are you admitting to the historical Jesus of Nazareth (which you claimed above was no evidence for), but you are also admitting that there was an empty tomb. Second, if you are claiming that the disciples stole the body and made up the Resurrection story, then that contradicts the actual Gospel narratives, which state that the disciples were so naïve, they weren’t even EXPECTING a Resurrection, and even when the women told them that the tomb was empty, they thought the women was talking nonsense. Third, Matthew stated that guards was placed at the tomb just in the very case that the disciples DID steal the body.

The old “disciples stole the body” objection is played out anyway.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  A sense of optimism overcame their grief about his execution and renewed some hope that he was a true messiah. If they had known then that there was to be no return in the near or long-term future, they likely would have abandoned any further activity. Despite this resurgence in their faith, they never agreed with Paul’s concept of Jesus as being divine.

Nonsense. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning”.

And unless you are a Jehovah’s Witness, I don’t expect any false rendering of this verse.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Anything written in the Bible to suggest that they did is probably a result of later editing by some of Paul’s followers. Such a belief would have been an exceptional departure from the Jewish faith.

So Paul’s followers wrote the book of John?

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  What about other authors who wrote of jesus? lets take a peek..
Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;
1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Ok, so Josephus was born in 37AD…which would mean that by the time of Paul’s death, he was about 30, a grown ass man. So he was well into adulthood during the lifetime of the disciples and Nero’s persecution of the Christians in the 60’s AD. Second, you are right, everyone knows that the short passage about Jesus was interpolated, but the problem is, the entire passage wasn’t interpolated, just the obvious theological claims. If you omit the obvious interpolations, what do you have? The historical Jesus.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

He said that Christians were singing hymns to Christ as if to a god, he is not questioning whether or not Christ ever existed.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Yeah, but what you conveniently fail to mention is the fact that he was also born long after Pontius Pilate as well, but he also mentions Pontius Pilate in the same context as he did Jesus, claiming that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate just as the Gospels indicate. He isn’t linking Jesus to Pilate in a way that would suggest that he is merely stating that “Christians believe he was crucified by Pilate”, he is stating it in passing, as if it was a given that Pilate had Jesus crucified.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  In regards to "christus".
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."
The Christian-preferred Latin of this sentence is as follows:
Iudaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit
However, it is now the scholarly consensus that the original Latin of this passage must have been the following:
Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit
This latter version with the word Chrēsto, not Christo, is what our earliest extant manuscripts relate. Contrary to what Christian apologists and other fundamentalists assert, and despite the fact that the two words are evidently related through the roots χρίω and χράω, "Chrēsto," the ablative of Chrestus, is not an "another spelling of Christ." These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "good," "righteous" or "useful"; while Christos denotes "anointed" or "messiah." Hence, although an earlier generation of scholars believed that this passage reflected the uprisings of Jews against Christians in Rome, we are not certain at all that this purported "reference" has anything to do with Christ and Christians.

He is obviously talking about Christ, and however you get to that conclusion is on you…but he is clearly talking about Christ…he said that a “mischievous” superstition resulted after the death of this mysterious man…which is in perfect harmony with Christian theology, that a man died, and was Resurrected, and is the worshipped as the Messiah…now for a pagan man like Tacitus probably was, then hell yeah, that sounds like a hellava superstition to him.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

First, off, I disagree with the notion that we even need extra-Biblical sources. The Gospels are four independent books, all writing in the genre of biographies, which are written accounts of a person’s life. And the Gospels don’t need any outside sources to substantiate them, and to think otherwise is being prejudiced…as if the Gospel’s can’t be true unless they have extra-Biblical sources to validate them, which is blatantly false…similar to me saying that in order for King Tut to have existed, I need an extra-Egyptian source that is dated during the time of the alleged boy king. Thankfully, that is not how history works.

Second, I believe the letters of Paul are all valid, which is an early source which tells us what the ORIGINAL disciples believed…and Paul is a contemporary to Jesus and the disciples. I believe that the nature of Tacitus writings is enough to establish the historical Jesus, and that Josephus is enough to establish the historical Jesus. All of the other extra-Biblical sources, I believe those are valid as well, but I hold Tacitus and Josephus to a brighter light because of the context of their passages. So I have four independent biographies, letters from a former skeptic and new convert in Paul, at least two non-Christian sources which place Jesus in the same context as other historical figures, and the origin of the Christian faith which started based on a crucified man and rapidly spread through Rome by the 60’s AD.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself.

I agree, there is a such thing as “to long after the event”, but that is not the case with the Resurrection. Paul’s writings predate all the Gospels, and he met with the eyewitnesses. The belief in the Resurrection was not something that was BELIEVED decades after the events. It was something that was believed shortly after the cross…and the origin of the Christian faith is derived from that. You are talking about when stuff was written down, and I am merely stating that the BELIEF itself..the origin of the BELIEF itself is something that was very early. Even if the Gospels were written around the time that you think (which I don’t for one minute believe), that still doesn’t mean that the information within the Gospels didn’t originate from eyewitnesses. So the sources for the material can be dated much earlier.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.
Again, Paul had contemporary sources.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.

Philo didn’t write about Gamaliel either, and Gamaliel was Jewish…so therefore, Gamaliel didn’t exist? Fallacious. Second, I am not sure that Philo didn’t write about Jesus…you make it seem as if our current knowledge of history is closed with no hint of future findings. Maybe he did write about Jesus and these works are lost? Maybe they are out there waiting to be found. Who knows?

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  There is your opener, read, research, validate, learn and evolve..good luck call of the wild, I have been at this for 30+ years, have a degree in religious studies, have written many papers on the subject, you can dismiss the facts if you wish, i can and will substantiate my assertions to great detail. I have a personal library of christian scholarly research books written by *gasp* christian scholars who acknowledge these facts. When pressed, as I did in each and every theology class I took at Saint Leo University, they would admit the facts, and then go with, "its the message that matters"...or.."faith is the belief in the unseen, unproven and unknown, a transcendental world that gives us hope"...yup, that is called hopes and dreams, but not facts. good luck.

Light work, GWG…light work.
Find all posts by this user
13-02-2015, 11:35 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2015 10:36 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
lol *wipes tear* wow, smoke, mirrors and very little substance to no surprise. I will eviscerate this drivel tomorrow. I like how there are ZERO citations or sources, just blah blah blah opinions....did you do all of your research on wikipedia or answersingenesis? No matter, the schooling will commence tomorrow.

Smartass

EDIT: Okay, good morning, I appreciate the time you took to reply, and I fear if I try to counter reply it is just going to be a big mess and too hard for the readers to decipher. What I am going to attempt to do, is *ugh* reply quickly with bolded type my replies to your counters. Then I will start a new post below that one with a shorter assertion so we can deal with one small area at a time as this is not a subject one can type up a paragraph and voila! substantiated assertion proving/disproving jesus is made! This is a fascinating area of mythology and I enjoy discussing it...now I am off to bang away at my keyboard for awhile.

"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
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
14-02-2015, 11:22 AM
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
(13-02-2015 11:35 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  lol *wipes tear* wow, smoke, mirrors and very little substance to no surprise.

Not even you believe such a tale.

(13-02-2015 11:35 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I will eviscerate this drivel tomorrow.

Ohhh big boy talk huh? Yes

(13-02-2015 11:35 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I like how there are ZERO citations or sources, just blah blah blah opinions....did you do all of your research on wikipedia or answersingenesis?

I am giving you the actual factuals. Everything I said can be verified...in the time it takes to go through your lengthy (and lousy) source materials, trying to find out what source applied to what quote, I could have just googled it..that would have been much easier.

Google is your friend. Hug

(13-02-2015 11:35 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No matter, the schooling will commence tomorrow.

Yeah, so show up, you might learn something.

(13-02-2015 11:35 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  EDIT: Okay, good morning, I appreciate the time you took to reply, and I fear if I try to counter reply it is just going to be a big mess and too hard for the readers to decipher. What I am going to attempt to do, is *ugh* reply quickly with bolded type my replies to your counters. Then I will start a new post below that one with a shorter assertion so we can deal with one small area at a time as this is not a subject one can type up a paragraph and voila! substantiated assertion proving/disproving jesus is made! This is a fascinating area of mythology and I enjoy discussing it...now I am off to bang away at my keyboard for awhile.

Cool. Hopefully my response didn't come across as muffled. I will follow your lead.
Find all posts by this user
14-02-2015, 01:44 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2015 03:31 PM by DLJ.)
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
My replies to you will be in bold, click snip to view document, thank you DLJ to fixing my mess!!.

(13-02-2015 10:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  There exists not one scrap of physical, or contemporary evidence that jesus the christ existed.

Yet the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus existed, based on what they believe to be good evidence. Hmmmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Check the second paragraph of the above wiki article, and the citations regarding it.

You talking about a man named jesus that the myth was fabricated from post death or the literal son of a god, miracle performing, rise from the dead hero god? Argument from popularity does not evidence make. There is ZERO physical evidence for jesus, all writing s of jesus were penned long after his death by non-eyewitnesses, and since these stories aren't about Jesus the carpenter, but about jesus the son of god miracle performing superstar, then they require better evidence.


(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Now in my personal opinion, a charismatic man named jesus may have existed and was walking around gathering a small crowd of gullible people. incidentally 1 in 20 people back then were named jesus, popular name it seems, and there were at least 2 others named jesus during that time period that thought they were prophets.

Irrelevant. That is why he was called "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus Christ", or "The Messiah", which was a common way to distinguish people from others that shared the same name, usually regarding the most common names, like Simon and John...we only know of one "Jesus of Nazareth" that was alive during that time, who just happens to have been also called, "The Christ".

Did you note the word I used "may"? My intent here is to look at all evidence and perspectives, as any thinking person should do when validating a story...a man named jesus "may" have existed, who some people referred to as jesus of nazareth. I assume when the authors of the various writings were fabricating their hero god construct, he may have come to mind as a basis for the story, to give it credibility..the best fictional stories are rooted in actual times and of actual people. That does not establish he was a miracle performing son of a mythical fabricated god of the abrahamic faith.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  But anyway, he clearly wasn't the son of a mythical god. No one at the time ever wrote down these magical events, and historians who lived in the area failed to even mention a jesus. Odd don't you think?

How many historians lived in that time, and in that area? How many actual historians have you bumped in to lately?

There were at last count about 227 various historians, royal scribes, astronomers, literate people who lived in the area and time of jesus, who wrote down things that were happening...odd not one wrote of jesus.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Lets look at two incidents:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Now if a zombie invasion had really happened, literate people at the time would have thought it noteworthy and written it down...nope...many years later some anonymous authors decided these urban legends were too good to not share with others, voila! bible.

First off, Matthew doesn't give a count of how many men were resurrected from their graves in his account. lol, come on COTW, that can't truly be the way you convince yourself of this.. So it isn't as if there was a Resident Evil or The Walking Dead thing going on...Matthew said "many holy people who had died came to life"...but how many is many? 5? 7? We just don't know. Doesn't matter how you wave your hands in front of your eyes, and try to do a twister impression to reword what the bible clearly says...it could have been ONE corpse walking about and that would have been noteworthy enough to have caused a reaction.. Second, Matthew's account doesn't tell us who these people were. Suppose they were people that lived hundreds of years earlier...do you think anyone would have recognized resurrected men that they never met while they were living? No. I can't stop laughing about this assertion..really? did you reread this? What the fuck does it matter if it is a "fresh" corpse or a skeletonized zombie? If they could recognize the corpse or not? it was a fucking WALKING CORPSE Third, the narrative states that the men was resurrected and went into the city of Jerusalem (holy city)...Jerusalem was a predominantly Jewish population so it should come as to no surprise that there are no non-Jewish sources since it occurred in a Jewish city to Jewish people. There are no sources PERIOD to establish this zombie invasion at the time with the single exception of the laughable fictional gospels. Think about that. You can't point to one scripture and say that is fact, and wave aside all of the plethora of inconvenient obvious fictional ones under the guise of parables and say, oh, that was just an allegory written to create a message....no...if you remove all of the parables, allegorical writings, interpolations and pseudepigrapha from the bible, not much would be left...

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  How about another?

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 min max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two renowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened. Odd for a global mid day darkness that not one other civilization mentioned it either. You have to just love the three Fs of christianity; Fiction, Forgery and Fantasy.

Luke is the only one that recorded it as "all the earth" Cherry picking again?...the others seem to have it as a local thing...again...no one at the time wrote of this, all of the royal scribes, historians, literate people...thought the world shaking, the temple tearing in twain, and the sky going dark at mid day was an event worthy of writing down...but either way...the narratives don't say that it was a complete absolute darkness..sigh, you know, if you cover your ears, while stomping your feet hard enough, you may be able to cover the sound of the screams of doubt reverberating throughout your head as you wrote that....it could have only been a "night time" darkness...I don't believe it was complete darkness, or at least the narratives aren't clear as to the extent of the darkness..say it a few more times, you just may convince yourself, come on COTW, you seem to be an intelligent fellow, surely you hear the hollowness of your own statements...second, even if the darkness did cover the earth, and it could be looked at as an "extended night time darkness", it wasn't something that extraordinary that people would have ran to their rooms to their dresser drawers to get their pen and pad to write it down. It would have been forgotten about after a while, just like anything else in history, whether extraordinary or not. Truly? The earth shaking, temple torn in twain, corpses bursting out of graves and walking around town, the sky going dark midday..."meh, no biggie, time to go milk the goats."

I remember back in Detroit (born and raised) in the early 00's, there was a local electricity outage that effected the whole city...all power was out for hours, and as much as modern day mankind depends on electricity, you can imagine how big the state of alarm was for local residents...but eventually, the power was restored, and here we are over 10 years later, and no one is talking about it...it is a thing of the past...no one cares anymore. Really? did the earth shake? buildings tear in two? corpses come shuffling out of the morgue and graveyards and walking into town? Again, surely you hear the hollowness of your own words..

Third, you are assuming that no one wrote about it...someone could have written about it, during that time, but such written accounts could have been lost through time...that does happen, you know. You are assuming that we should have a surviving account of one particular incident that allegely the first thing you have said with any degree of accuracy..ALLEGEDLY. happened in history...well, many things in history may have occurred that we don't know about, because such accounts may have been lost over time. Or they may be out there, we just haven't found them yet. Our knowledge of history will never be complete, you do understand that, right? You do understand you are grasping at straws right? I expected better from you.

Fourth...I am sure you are familiar with Thallus, who was mentioned by a historian as to mentioned an "eclipse" of some sort during the time of Jesus' crucifixition. You mentioned in an earlier post that there is so little knowledge of Thallus that we shouldn't accept the account...but my response to that is simple...if the "darkness" thing never happened, then why would someone feel the need to give a naturalistic explanation for something that never happened...regardless of how little knowledge we have on the person that gave it. People tell stories, people love to exaggerate stories, so if someone made up a story about the earth going dark, he was most likely trying to explain this, but the problem is the earth doesnt go dark during an eclipse for more than 7.5 mins, not the 3-6 pm as per the story. Get it?

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  So how do we know of jesus? Well the bible obviously right? So who witnessed these events and wrote them down? apparently no one.

Correction: Apparently, no one wrote the events down as they OCCURRED...which is irrelevant to eyewitnesses writing down events much later, which is hardly illogical, but in my opinion, seemingly practical. Perhaps you should read the bible, or take a theological course, or three....the writers of the stories, wrote them down based on "tradition"..which means the oral passing of stories. The point IS the authors of the gospels were not born or present during these miraculous events. I can write about that for pages, but I am not typing all of that up, which is why I provide references...use them...learn about the very thing you seem to insist is so important to you...becareful though, that is how I went from christian to atheist, you more you learn, the less you will believe.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  But wait, what about the gospels? Let me guess, you think that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John actually wrote those right? Rolleyes

Correctomundo Yes lol, do some research then.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Acts and luke had the same authors. NO, none of the anonymous authors of the gospels knew jesus.

See, that kind of assertion often baffles me. Believers will admit that the Gospels, at face value, are anonymous...no one will argue that...but to make the absolute statement that "none of the authors of the Gospels" knew Jesus is disingenuous, because you don't know WHO the authors of the Gospels knew, do you? Now what a believer can do (and what I am prepared to do) is give reasons as to WHY we believe that the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses of Jesus, and you can dispute those reasons all day long, but to make it see as if you were there when the Gospels were written, so you know who wrote what, is disingenuous. We know WHEN they were written, and tell me dear friend, what happened to the disciples after jesus's death? Did they enjoy a long retirement, write a few novels, go on a world tour? I know the answer, do you? So when you figure out, which I am sure you are smart enough to, that the gospels were written after these guys were dead, they couldnt have written them...unless you think their ghosts did...did you believe in ghosts too? What is the place you draw the line between reality and supernatural?

http://www.christianity.com/church/churc...29558.html


(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

I strongly object to your dating of the Gospels. Of course, it is a well known tradition that will have the skeptic favoring the later dates, and the believers favoring early dates, but hey. You can object all day long, that is why I provided you a citation, straight from my history of christianity textbook. Now why in the world would they admit these dates are accurate, yet COTW objects strongly?

All Gospels can be said to have been written prior to 70AD...why? False Because that is when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, and NONE of the books of the New Testament mentions this, and you would figure that they would mention such an event, not only because the event can be said to be the equivalent a Jewish "9/11", but because Jesus actually PREDICTED that the Temple would be destroyed in all three of the synoptic Gospels.

Let me try again, maybe if I say it slower... "Mark was written around 70 CE; Matthew and Luke, sometime between 80 and 90 CE; and John sometime between 95 and 100 CE. Matthew Mark and Luke make up the synoptic Gospels, although differing greatly in important details. John is unique: it has a different chronology and geography, things show up in John not found in the Synoptics and vice versa, and it has an entirely different feel to it. The Jesus of the Synoptics speaks in parables, but in the Gospel of John, symbolism pervades" (Stewart, 2008, p.36).
Citation:
Stewart, Cynthia. The Catholic Church: A brief popular history. Winona, MN. Anselm Academic. 2008. Print.

“According to the most widely accepted critical scholarly theory, the Gospel of Mark was the first of the Gospels, written approximately 65 – 70 CE. Since Jesus died around the year 30, we must assume a gap of approximately 35 to 40 years during which historical traditions about his life are passed down orally. Jesus spoke Aramaic; the Gospels are written in Greek. Translational errors are prevalent. Because the Gospel writers were explicitly writing to encourage faith, some scholars argue that they were not interested in historical accuracy. John writes, “but these [signs of Jesus] are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God” (20:31); Luke writes his account to Theophilus “that you may realize the certainty of the teachings [basic theological beliefs about Jesus] you have received” (1:4). Thus the Gospel writers cannot be accepted as objective witnesses to historical events (Albl, 2009, pp.281-282).
“Writings of the Gospels: Mark (65 – 75 CE), Matthew (80 – 90), Luke (80 – 90), and John (80 – 110) (Albl, 2009, p.283).
Citation:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.


Now the point is simple, if you are attempting to paint Jesus out to be this spectacular prophecy fulfiller, and you are careful to mention every other prophecy that Jesus fulfilled, then chances are you wouldn't fail to mention such a prophecy that was fulfilled, such a prophecy that involved the sacred and holy temple that you (as a Jew) believes is the main holy sanctuary of worship. Not only isn't this fulfilled prophecy not mentioned in the Gospels, but also the other NT books as well, and this is because the event hadn't happened yet. This is the best argument against any post 70AD date. COTW, do some research, with the exception of a very few, the VAST majority of scholars admit the above dates, as indicated by the very textbooks they use to teach the faithful, based on critical analysis of the writings and comparison to historical events and validations from various known sources, i.e. dead sea scrolls etc.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

Care to explain why, if the pre-70 date is strongly supported, is it the minority view? Strongly supported as in vehemence of those that purport earlier dates, not strongly supported via evidence.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

According to the early church fathers (Papias), Matthew, disciple of Jesus, wrote a Gospel. Plain and simple, and Papias was a lot closer to the scene in both time-span and geographical location than any "historians" who is living 2,000 years later in far away lands. If there is any evidence AGAINST Matthew writing a Gospel, then I'd like to see it. Matthew may have used Mark as a source, no problems there. Q sources weren't anything but the sayings of Jesus, and quite hypothetical, as you mention. But if Matthew (or any other Gospel) used such a source for their material, then that would only imply that the Q source had to be earlier than the Gospel, which would be yet an even earlier non-Biblical source that testifies to the words of Jesus...no problems there.

Actually big problems here...Papias (60 – 130 CE), a Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, referred to the Gospel writer Mark as “an interpreter” of the stories passed down from Peter (Albl, 2009, p.284). Keyword there is “interpreter” and “stories” and “passed down”. Note the years he was alive also. So his beliefs, of the accuracy of the Gospels, or who wrote them or when they were written is irrelevant. Papias wrote one book, Explanations of the stories of the Lord, towards the end of his life. We do not have that book. We only have various brief quotations from and descriptions of it (mainly in Irenaeus and Eusebius), in which Papias himself says he lived when none of the original apostles still did, but contemporary with some men who claim to have known them… A claim that was not necessarily true; from the quotations we have, we can tell Papias was a very gullible fellow, so much so that even Eusebius called him “a man of very little intelligence” (Eusebius, history of the church). Papias also said he rejected what books said and instead relied only on hearsay, because he considered that to be more reliable (Eusebius, history of the church). He was thus clearly the least reliable sort of source we could possibly want. Papias’s various musings and writings were of complete nonsense. Please feel free to research, to reference him as an argument from authority is laughable at best.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person.

Writing in the third person is a literary style that is used at the discretion of the author. No problems here. I won't even bother to answer this absurdity.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

So just because we, living over 2,000 years after the events, haven't yet found any evidence of an earlier census, then it follows that therefore there isn't any evidence of an earlier census?? Non sequitur. When it comes to establishing historical facts, the data samples that is closer to the event in question has more value than data samples that is later than the event in question...and we should not assume that Luke was wrong in what he recorded just because we don't have any evidence of a particular census in history. Luke was closer to the scene than anyone alive today, and I will take his testimony on what occurred during that time before I take the testimony of anyone that is alive today' testimony.

Missing the point yet again, Luke didn't write that.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

First off, I disagree with the notion that a "genocide" took place. You disagreeing isn't a valid counter. The bible says it, and if infanticide had occurred, it would have been recorded....nothing...didn't happen, yet another of the vast number of BS lies within the bible. Matthew stated that the incident happened in Bethlehem, and Bethlehem wasn't a largely populated city...it was a small town...so how many males under the age of 2 would there have been in a small town...not many. So it wasn't this large scale machete slaughter that you would like it to be in order to score debate points No

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's line the Royal after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line. All of which is irrelevant as according to the fable; god was the father, not Joseph.

Could there be a reason given as to why the genealogies are different? Gotquestions.org provides a good explanation as to why they are different...this question has had a long history of responses to the differences...here is one source to explain..

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html

But the point is simple, even if any of the responses to this is REMOTELY possible, then that makes it not a contradiction between the accounts, because true contradictions cannot be reconciled, but this can. lol, dude come on. I read the link in its entirety, that is just such sad tap dancing. "One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” at the end of the day it is amusing as Joseph wasn't the father, his sperm had nothing to do with the conceiving of jesus. Do you get that? clearly they didn't.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

Again, our earliest sources for who wrote the Gospels comes from the early church fathers, which as you mentions, states that Mark, companion of Peter, wrote a Gospel. You say that most scholars today reject this tradition…well, tell me why do they reject it??? On what grounds?? How do the scholars of today, living over 2,000 years later, know something that the early church fathers didn’t know?? And I really would like an answer to this…I have provided you the answer, many times, you aren't very good at this are you? Biblical scholars and those that study the original copies, dead sea scrolls, writing styles, scribe errors, historical events discussed in the parables etc...can figure out who, and when it was written. There are vast book written on this, take a theological class...there is a reason I have a degree in religious studies, so I can dismantle it from within...and only that, but when I really put it in perspective, I have to ask another question: If the early church was going to go around just attributing names to their holy books, It is called pseudepigrapha, look it up, it is such a rampant issue, they have a name for it..then why not just state that the disciple Peter wrote the Gospel? After all, Peter’s name would carry more weight than Mark’s, right? Mark wasn’t even a disciple, as the early church father’s admit, so why not Peter, instead of Peter’s friend? Why not John? Why not James? All of these names carry more weight and with it more credibility than a friend, right? But to claim that a mere FRIEND of the disciple Peter wrote it as opposed to stating that Peter wrote it comes off as genuinely innocent, and credible. No it comes across as what it is, pseudepigrapha. People don't write books after they are dead. People dont establish facts by talking to someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who heard a story about this guy name jesus who was healing the sick like Benny Hinn on a world tour.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Mark is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

Nonsense. First off, yes, all scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark were later interpolations. No arguments there. Glad you agree with established fact. But I disagree with the notion than a post-mortem appearance by Jesus wasn’t at the very least implied. In Mark 16:6-7, the young man in the tomb told the women, “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell the disciples and Peter, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you”.

You may want to research early christian writing and the culture of writing to validate the newest god hero construct, traceable back for many years. Lets look at the actual scripture you seem confused with.

“… Just as he told you”. Then they went out and ran away from the tomb, beside themselves with Tara. They said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid. (Mark 16:1 – 8). The most ancient manuscripts of Mark and at this point, one of the strangest and most unsatisfying moments in all the Bible, depicting fear and silence on Easter morning and lacking a resurrection appearance. But within 50 years, at least five separate attempts were made by various Christian imaginations to rewrite Marks disappointing story; they appear in the long ending and the short ending of Mark, and in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. The first two are second century interpolations in some texts of Mark and are identified as such in any responsible modern text. They are Mark 16:9 – 20, an unskillful paraphrase of resurrection appearances in other Gospels; and Mark 16:9 in a few other late manuscripts, in which the women followed the youth’s instructions to tell the disciples, a statement that conflicts with verse eight of the original text.
The first large-scale effort to rewrite Marks account and make it more pleasing to the faithful took place with Matthew and was written in the last two decades of the first century. Although the major written source of his information was Mark, the authors of Matthew made striking changes in Marks resurrection narrative. Mark’s account ends with the women running away from the tomb in terror and in their fear saying nothing to anybody. Matthew did not like this ending, however, so he changed it, consciously constructing a fictional narrative that more closely fit what he and his Christian community wanted to have happen on Easter morning: “they hurried away from the tomb in awe and great joy, and ran to tell the disciples” (Matthew 28:8). How did Matthew feel justified in making such a major change in Mark, a source he obviously regarded as authoritative? The answer is that Matthew was a conscious literary artist who sincerely believed in the resurrection; moreover, he believed he had the authority, granted him by his church and by its interpretation of the Old Testament, to “correct” Mark’s gospel and theology. He had corrected Mark many times before, often doing so on the basis of what he regarded as his superior understanding of the oracles in the Old Testament. I will stop there, as I do not need to write 100 pages worth of substantiating evidence to validate this, do your research.
Luke, like that of Matthew, is an expanded revision of Mark. Of Mark’s 661 verses, some 360 appear in Luke, either Word for Word or with deliberate changes. Let’s look at Mark again, “he has been raised again; he is not here; look, there is the place where they laid him. But go and give this message to his disciples and Peter:…… They said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid. (Mark 16:6 – 8). Luke’s is strikingly different: “finding that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb, they went inside; but the body was not to be found. While they stood utterly at a loss, all of a sudden two men in dazzling garments were at their side. They were terrified, and stood with eyes cast down, but the men said, “why search among the dead for one who lives? Remember what he told you while he was still in Galilee, about the son of man: how he must be given up into the power of sinful men and be crucified, and must rise again on the third day. Then they recalled his words and, returning from the tomb, they reported all this to the 11 and all the others. (Luke 24:2 – 9). What prompted Luke to make such radical changes in Mark, a source he relied on heavily, having already used more than 300 of its verses? The authors of Luke perceived that Mark was transparent upon the book of Daniel, and went directly to the latter for some of its variations for Mark. Whereas Matthew had taken Daniel’s attribution to the Angel at the tomb a face that shone like lightning, Luke applied this detail to the angels clothing, for the “dazzling garments” and Luke are literally “lightning like” (Luke 24:4). Since Daniel is now the conversation let’s take a peek at him as well.


The Book of Daniel is often paired with the Book of Revelation as providing the road map of future end-time events. Many alleged prophecies in Daniel were fulfilled, but is that because Daniel was a divinely inspired seer? Critical scholars see a more mundane explanation. Daniel might actually be a Jew from the Hellenistic period, not a person from the Babylonian court. His so-called prophecies were made ex eventu, or after the fact, so that he could pass himself off as a genuine seer. The book itself betrays more than one author. Chapters 1–6 were written in Aramaic, while chapters 7–12 are in Hebrew. Daniel makes many historical errors when talking about the Babylonian period, the time in which he supposedly lived. For example, he claims that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Nabonidus Cylinder found in Ur names Nabonidus as Belshazzar’s actual father.

Also, Belshazzar was a crown prince but never a king, contrary to Daniel’s claim. In Daniel 5:30, Daniel writes that a certain Darius the Mede conquered Babylon. It was actually Cyrus the Great, a Persian and not a Mede, who overthrew Babylon. On the other hand, Daniel writes about events of the Hellenistic era with extreme accuracy. Chapter 11, presented as prophecy, is on the mark in every detail. This leads to the conclusion that Daniel was witness to these events but not to those of the Babylonian period, on which he is vague and unfamiliar.

Scholars thus place the writings of Daniel at around 167–164 B.C., during the persecution of the Jews by Syrian tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes. The book was meant as inspirational fiction to encourage the Jews in their time of trial. Daniel did take a shot at making a real prophecy, predicting the death of Antiochus in the Holy Land. This genuine prophecy turned out to be wrong. Antiochus actually died in Persia in 164 B.C.

Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE). Its exclusion from the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) was probably because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an apocalypse.

Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous. Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10. The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.

Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

The actual historical setting of the book is clear from chapter 11, where the prophecy is accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author knows about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he knows nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or the actual circumstances of the death of Antiochus in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. (Wiki)

Now the good stuff:

Today the consensus of scholars understands the whole book of Daniel to be put together by an author editor who first collected traditional stories in chapters 1-6 about the boy hero Daniel showing his courage during the persecutions of exile, and added to them the visions of chapters 7 – 12 that predicted the coming end of Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution. This kind of writing is called a Vaticinium ex eventu, a “prediction after the fact,” in which an author creates a character of long ago and puts into his mouth as predictions all the important events that have already happened right to the author’s own time and place. The language is often coded with symbolic animals and colors and dates to protect its message from the persecuting authorities. Its focus is not on predicting the future, but getting some meaning to present happenings by explaining the past events that led up to this terrible situation (Boadt 1984, p509).

To achieve such an important purpose, the authors mixed historical facts with older religious traditions and even pagan myths (Boadt 1984, p509).

It is important to note that the entire book claims to take place in the sixth century BC and to report a series of visions that come to the boy Daniel, who is remarkable for his great wisdom and his ability to receive divine revelation about the future. Very few scholars today, however, believe that this book originated in any way during the days of the Babylonian exile. And the ones who do usually have a very difficult time explaining the references to historical people and places which seem to be grossly wrong.

Darius the Mede is called the son of Xerxes in 5:31 and 9:11, both are wrong:

Darius was not a Mede but a Persian and the father of Xerxes. Belshazzar is called the king of Babylon in chapter 7 and the son of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 5. He was neither: he was only crown prince under his father Nabonidus.

In chapter 6 Cyrus succeeds Darius as King of the Persians. This too has history backward, since Cyrus was the founder of the Persian dynasty. The author seems to be quite confused about his facts and either lived long afterward or else intended the giant bloopers to warn the audience that what follows is not intended as history but a story of faith; similar to the approach of the book of Judith (Boadt 1984, p508).

Although the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written during the Babylonian exile by an official of King Nebuchadnezzar, modern scholars date its writings to the second century BCE. The reasons for this include:

• It is listed in the writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 B.C.E.)
• Parts of the book (2.4 – 7.28) were written in Aramaic, which suggest a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.
• The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents Babylon in the sixth century BCE.
• The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with sixth century B.C.E. Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official of King Nebuchadnezzar.
• Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8.16 and 9.21 and Michael and 10.13, 10.21, and 12.1). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.
• The absence of Daniel’s name in the list of Israel’s great men in Ecclesiasticus.
• Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king’s name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.
• In 2.2 the Kings wise men are called “Chaldeans.” But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, “Chaldean” would have referred to the nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer.

Do you see how these books were put together not by whom you think, not when you think and how they are allegorical writings based on parables, meant to drive a message and purposely designed in a hubris attempt to give them credibility? This was the driving force for me losing my faith, an intelligent person can't ignore facts, and the facts have been laid out. The more I learned, the more I thought, the less I believed.


You can accuse later writers of interpolating all you’d like to, but let’s not pretend that a post-mortem appearance wasn’t brewing in the immediate verses preceding 9-20.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Noticing this problem, a Xtian scribe decided to add verses 9-20.

The only reason why an asterisk may be placed next to those verses is because they are not in the earliest manuscripts, which is fine, because it isn’t as if verses 9-20 contradicts what the other Gospels say on the post-mortem/ascension matter. In fact, the verses 9-20 reads exactly how you will expect them to read based on all other accounts…but it doesn’t matter anyway, because as just mentioned, a post-mortem appearance is at the very least implied anyway.

You really need to do some studying of the construction of the Bible, the stories within, and how they were fabricated and changed throughout time. Then perhaps, you will be able to comprehend how the New Testament was written in such a manner that it would appear that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah from the Old Testament. Don’t you get that? The Old Testament in older stories do not validate Jesus, Jesus was constructed to match the expectations as indicated from the old writings, in a lame attempt to give it credibility.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.
Luke: The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE, the anonymous author using as his sources the Gospel of Mark, a sayings collection called Q, and some unique Lukan material called the L source.
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.

Again, I have to ask, why do they reject the view? A person can systematically reject anything…why do they reject the authorship of Luke? Based on reasons already mentioned, the dating of Luke cannot be said to precede 70AD, so we can just work backwards on the timeline from there. Since Acts is part 2 of Luke, Acts could not have preceded Luke…and if Luke used Mark as a source, then Mark had to be before Luke..and since Acts doesn’t record the death of Paul, who died at about 67AD, the book of Acts can be said to have been written prior to 67AD…which means that the book of Luke had to have been written between 63-66AD, which means that Mark can be said to have been written between 59-63AD.
See how that works? That is a systematic case for the dating of the Gospels, and why we believe that the Gospels were written prior to 70AD. You’ve provided no such case for any post-70AD case, and if you have a case, then I’d like to hear it.

I get tired of beating the same horse over and over, the dates of the Gospels are pretty much carved in stone at this point. Do some research. There is a reason it is accepted but the vast majority of all scholars, those scholars by the way, are made up of Christians by a large majority. This is why I provided you citations, christian text book citations which clearly point out the dates. If your favorite google pro xtian conspiracy site says otherwise, then well....I don't know how you to understand that is false information. Do some research. Take a class, or three.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)

Well first off, Luke began his preface by stating that not only did he carefully investigated everything himself, but also that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us”. He also stated that the information that he received had been “HANDED DOWN TO US by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word”. yes, key words, "handed down to us"...oral tradition it is called, and very inaccurate. Ever play the telephone game? There is a fantastic book that you should read..."Misquoting jesus: the story behind who changed the bible and why" by Ehrman, Bart. It investigates in exhaustive detail the issue of the scribes, and how books were copied, stories written down, translations made and all of the inerrant mistakes that the process contained. It does a forensic level analysis of comparing the dead sea scrolls, oldest copies of all known ancient christian writings and the fictional book of the bible today. I highly recommend it to you.

So my point is simple, you can reject the early church fathers testimony that Luke wrote a Gospel…fine…but at the very least, according to WHOEVER wrote the Gospel of Luke, whomever that may have been, the author is telling readers that the information that he is giving has been handed down by eyewitnesses. Now this is a key point, because if Jesus never existed, then how would there be claims that there were eyewitness accounts to a man that never actually existed? I said a man named jesus may have existed, and he may have been quite the charismatic fellow, and people may have told stories about his deeds, and people love to tell stories don't they COTW? It gets better with each retelling. I have a story for you as well...

In the first century of the common era, there appeared at the eastern and of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of feast the practice of charity and piety and the shining of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he caught himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonderworker? His name was Appollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 CE, and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Appolonius. Comparative mythology scholar Joseph campbell wrote in his book “the hero with 1000 faces”, both Apollonius and Jesus are examples of individuals who shared similar hero stories, along with Krishna, Buddha and Romulus. The followers of Apollonius believed he was the true son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.

Who was Romulus you ask? When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

COTW, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.


In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.
Works cited:
Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.


My third point is, if the author of Luke truly investigated things like he said he did, then if he used Mark as a source for his material, then he obviously felt that Mark was a reliable source…after all, he said that he “carefully investigated” everything…and a person that carefully investigates everything doesn’t use faulty sources.

My fourth point is what you said regarding the alleged contradictions between (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) and (Gal 1:17-24), and I must ask; what contradictions? I just don’t see any.
In Gal 1-16-17, Paul stated that after his conversion, he didn’t go to Jerusalem first, but he went immediately to Arabia and Damascus. Simple enough, right? Now compare that to Acts 9-1-31, where it is stated that after he was converted, he “spent several days with the disciples in Damascus.”

Either way you look at it, the Arabian peninsula and Damascus are all in the same vicinity/region, and depending on where Paul was coming from, his travels apparently took him through Arabia and into Damascus…as maybe there was a road that went through the peninsula and into Damascus.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.

This is a blank assertion without any justification whatsoever. I need specifics. Sure, I will continue to educate you at great length, but lets do that in the next posting, Paul is a lengthy dismantlement.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  In summary, the Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author. The Gospel wasn't written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.
But the Gospel does claim that the information within the book was handed down to him from eyewitnesses. If the information contained is ultimately connected to eyewitnesses by the very root, then you can make a big deal about the authorship all day long, but the reliability cannot be questioned. really? Did you just say that the reliability of eyewitness information passed down via oral tradition cannot be questioned? lol. I can tell you as a Criminal Justice major (Masters with spec in Critical Incident management complete in 6 months) that the single most unreliable piece of evidence for any trial is witness testimony. I find your assertion false.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.

I’ve already argued in favor of pre 70AD dating…you’ve provided no reasons why we should favor the later dating. And the good thing about it, I have other arguments for early dating as well. But I will let that marinate with you for a minute.

I have provided you the info, backed by christian textbook citations, go to school young man.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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. John 20:30-31 - "but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye might have life through his name".......just about says it all right there, let me paraphrase; "we are making up these stories to help people believe...the story."

The Gospel of John is controversial not because we don’t know that John wrote it, but because we don’t know WHICH John wrote it. Was it John the Apostle or John the Evangelist? Or are they the same person? Due to the nature of this Gospel, I conclude that it was John the Apostle, or at the very least it was written by disciple of John the Apostle. I conclude that John the Apostle wrote it because it seems more personal…specifically because of John 19:25-27, that to me seems very personal…and also because of John 21:21-23..that also seems personal. Now you are right, the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is not specifically named…but whoever wrote verse 24 is vouching for the integrity of whoever the disciple was…and whoever this disciple was wasn’t just a later believer, but it was one of the very disciples that was present at the last supper…as verse 20 indicates.

So my point is very simple…at WORSE, according to the narrative, the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness.

Anonymous, or someone who didn't witness it, or maybe it could be one of three John's etc all make for unreliable evidence. Nice try.


(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.

No, Paul never met Jesus, correctumundo but guess what, according to his own testimony, he met with Peter and James…who WERE not only contemporaries to Jesus, but direct eyewitnesses. point? To get any closer to Jesus himself after meeting with Peter would be to actual MEET Jesus himself. I will, can shall, dismantle the writings of paul to great detail later. Of the 13 books attributed to him, he only wrote 7, did you know that?

Its fine for us, in our limited perspective to say “No one wrote about Jesus during his life”…well, Paul wrote about Jesus during the life of those that knew Jesus personally. That is almost as contemporary as you can get. Paul wasn’t dealing with 2,000 year old sources, like we are…he was certainly alive during the time of Jesus, and during the time of his disciples….if that isn’t contemporary, I don’t know what is. Paul never wrote about the earthly jesus, anything that says otherwise is an interpolation, go research, learn..

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  What about other sources within the bible?

Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it.

Even though I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of the Living God…I don’t need to use the Epistles of Peter as sources for the case for the Resurrection
(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once at the beginning of James 1 and James 2 as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

Nor James.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

Nor Jude.

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Paul’s job wasn’t give an account of the life of Jesus, but to preach the Word to the Gentiles….his goal was to preach against false teachings, provide insight on Christ-like living, and to teach Christian theology. Second, you mention that his “accounts about Jesus came from believers or his imagination”, and you call it hearsay. It can’t be hearsay if Paul received some of his theology from direct eyewitnesses to Jesus (1Corin 15:3-7). That information was first-hand testimony from direct eyewitnesses. Imagination my ass lol. Valid information my ass, take a class or three

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Matthew 16:28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

I am not sure what Jesus meant by this, Not sure how it can be taken any other way, lets look..."some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom".. but he is obviously stating that some people will be alive during the “coming of his kingdom”, yup, and that obviously didnt happen, false prophet..and some will be dead, which leads me to believe he was talking about a near future event that some will be alive to see, and some unfortunately won’t. agreed, and they all died, and 2,000 years later nothing...false prophet (although all prophets are false).

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Jesus also advised against going to court over someone who steals something and also told people not to store up stocks or reserves for the future. Clearly, he thought the end was very near.

Which, in my opinion, has absolutely nothing to do with Matt 16:28.

No reason to worry about a disputed debt when the end times are imminent....get it?

(10-02-2015 07:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Likewise, Paul advised followers not to marry and that the end time was near. In this scripture he obviously believes that some of the people he is talking to will still

"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
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
14-02-2015, 02:17 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2015 02:21 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
(14-02-2015 02:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 02:03 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  yeah probably, it is a massive paper. Spent all morning with my books and files broken out, and totally eviscerated his post, all for nothing. fuck.

It's not lost. You want I should find and fix the quotes for you?

I could never ask you to do that, this is a massive document, and I wrote within his paragraphs at specific spots countering as he went, and posted large assertions in between, I thought I was extremely careful. I would write, then bold it, and move on. So I think the easiest thing to do now will be to break it down into sizable chunks, like I have done before, reply 1A, reply 1B etc until I can find what is gooned up. Going to end up a big pain in the ass to do this for someone who found jesus from a mcdonald's billboard. But I am not not even talking to him anyway, I do this for the watchers.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
14-02-2015, 02:35 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2015 02:40 PM by DLJ.)
RE: why jesus didn't exist for... call of the wild
(14-02-2015 02:17 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ...
I could never ask you to do that,
...

You don't have to ask...

"We are here to serve"

Does it (post #8) look right?

Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: