A Good Man?

[MrAmerica]

We know from sources outside the Bible that the Apostle Paul died during Nero’s persecution in 64 A.D. We also know that Paul was still alive at the close of the book of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before 64 A.D. Since Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, we know that that Gospel must have been written even earlier still. Any scholar, will tell you that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Luke. This supports the writing of Mark in the 50s A.D., only about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. Outside the Gospels, no legitimate scholar will dispute that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s. This is important because Paul declares that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that letter. Galatians is another undisputed letter of Paul's written in the mid-50s. That is important because Paul discusses his interaction with Peter and James, two of Jesus’ primary disciples, at least 14 years earlier in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1. Finally, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul proclaims the earliest record of the Christian creed, in which Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and was raised from the dead three days later. Why is this early creed so important? Because scholars, using the historical records of Paul and his early travels to Damascus and Jerusalem, place the above creed at about 35 A.D., just 3 to 5 years after the death of Jesus Christ.

Atheists say that the Gospels were fabricated and that the stories of Jesus evolved into the late 1st or early 2nd century. All of the manuscript evidence presented above is important, because it establishes that basic Christian doctrine developed far too quickly for a myth to intervene and distort the historical record, especially when so many witnesses were still alive to contradict the alleged errors or myths.

Any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a "good man" is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a "good man," as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth. In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.

[Redheat]

Jesus's diety was VOTED on by men, and many religions during his time and right after didn't believe him to be a God but looked upon him as a wise man and followed his beliefs.

Not sure where how claiming to not vow him as God means he didn't exist or that people cannot appreciate and follow his teachings.

[ranger]

Jesus's diety was VOTED on by men, and many religions during his time and right after didn't believe him to be a God but looked upon him as a wise man and followed his beliefs.

Not sure where how claiming to not vow him as God means he didn't exist or that people cannot appreciate and follow his teachings.You have some solid evidence of this "vote" maybe?

[xexon]

Jesus was called a monster by more than a few people. He was a James Dean kind of rebel who spoke out against the power structure of the day. You have to remember he was put to death for being a political figure, not a religious one.



x

[MrAmerica]

Jesus was called a monster by more than a few people. He was a James Dean kind of rebel who spoke out against the power structure of the day. You have to remember he was put to death for being a political figure, not a religious one.
What were some memorable, political, rebel-like quotes of His?

[Larani]

What were some memorable, political, rebel-like quotes of His?


Matthew: Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. (Matthew 23:1-3)

[ukangel]

Jesus's diety was VOTED on by men, and many religions during his time and right after didn't believe him to be a God but looked upon him as a wise man and followed his beliefs.

Not sure where how claiming to not vow him as God means he didn't exist or that people cannot appreciate and follow his teachings.

I dont think good wise men are in a habit of calling themselves the son of God or God incarnate. He cant be just a good wise man. As Mr America rightly says either hes God or hes a liar.

[Larani]

I dont think good wise men are in a habit of calling themselves the son of God or God incarnate. He cant be just a good wise man. As Mr America rightly says either hes God or hes a liar.

In what quote did Jesus ever say he was God? Whenever his divinity came up he always left it to the person to decide. Son of God and God are two distincly different things. I am a Son of God too, and my Father is in me as I am in Him. But that doesn't make me My Father. Though I do beleive that my Father can and does speak through me since I willingly choose to allow him to do so.

[ukangel]

In what quote did Jesus ever say he was God? Whenever his divinity came up he always left it to the person to decide. Son of God and God are two distincly different things. I am a Son of God too, and my Father is in me as I am in Him. But that doesn't make me My Father. Though I do beleive that my Father can and does speak through me since I willingly choose to allow him to do so.

John 1:1,14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us..."

John 10:30-33,"I and the Father are one." 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

[MikeD4o7]

I dont think good wise men are in a habit of calling themselves the son of God or God incarnate. He cant be just a good wise man. As Mr America rightly says either hes God or hes a liar

Or he never said it. That too could have been part of the mythology that was built around him. What better way to sell the teachings of a prophet to the pagans than to imbed him in a myth in the vein of the pagan gods? Not lies, just mythological stories that were all the rage.

[MrAmerica]

In what quote did Jesus ever say he was God? Whenever his divinity came up he always left it to the person to decide. Son of God and God are two distincly different things. I am a Son of God too, and my Father is in me as I am in Him. But that doesn't make me My Father. Though I do beleive that my Father can and does speak through me since I willingly choose to allow him to do so.

Jesus was very subtle about His identity. He did not often speak directly of His divinity unless the situation called for it. His disciples did not seem to really understand until after He was resurrected, although He had told them.

"I and My Father are one." John 10:30

"And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me." John 12;45

"Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58
(I AM, was the name that God called himself when He spoke to Moses).

The "good man" theory might work if it were not for the resurrection. Both Paul and John claimed to have seen Jesus after He had returned to God. This is where faith comes in to play, because even if we could verify His existence, it would not matter without the resurrection which is the key.

"Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me...and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death." Rev. 1:12-18

[JD3]

For the record, I am really a good Catholic. But I must say this. If Jesus wanted to remove all doubt, he wouldn't have appeared to just a few. :confused:

[MikeD4o7]

For the record, I am really a good Catholic. But I must say this. If Jesus wanted to remove all doubt, he wouldn't have appeared to just a few.


Thank you. I don't see why people sound surprised that many are skeptical when we're told that God on Earth only demonstrated his miracles to far less than .001% of the population, and the rest of us are suppose to believe it based on hearsay.

[cpwill]

:lol:, not hardly; Jesus as an individual has been avalaible to every man woman and child since about 30 AD.:) i've met him, and so has Mr A.

[MikeD4o7]

, not hardly; Jesus as an individual has been avalaible to every man woman and child since about 30 AD. i've met him, and so has Mr A.

In that case let him know I told him not to be so camera shy and to grant more interviews.

[cpwill]

He's ready to talk whenever you are:)

[MikeD4o7]

I have a feeling that much like my invisible magical bunny-rabbit named george, he'll be a good listener but not too much of a talker ;)

[cpwill]

well that is the trick; you gotta be willing to shut up and actually be willing to listen every now and again:)

[mataj]

Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or our Lord and God.Theese alternatives are not mutually exclusive. It's quite possible, that all three are true: He is mendacious, lunatic god. The Old Testament pretty much proves it.

The idea of benevolent, fatherly god is attractive, but totally preposterous. If god exists, it has fangs.

[cpwill]

acutally i think it's a sword:)

[mataj]

acutally i think it's a sword:)You mean the famous Matthew 10:34? Whatever. Sword, talons, fangs, tentacles... it's all the same.

[Strel]

"Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or our Lord and God."


Please explain why these are the only alternatives. I do not see in your post where this assumption has any factual support.

______________________________________

I God exists, and I have a "feeling" that he does, then he is a comedian. We are not the audience, but rather the subject of the jokes.

[MrAmerica]

Thank you. I don't see why people sound surprised that many are skeptical when we're told that God on Earth only demonstrated his miracles to far less than .001% of the population, and the rest of us are suppose to believe it based on hearsay.

The old adage; "Seeing is believing" is not always true. A person can see something for themselves and still not trust that it is what it claims to be. The Pharisees and the Saducees were aware of Jesus' miracles, but they still did not believe in Him.

"But he said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."' Luke 16:31

The reason it is called "faith," is because seeing, or knowing facts is not enough. You have to experience what it is that Christ came to do for us, otherwise it makes no difference whether you believe He was real or not.

"Jesus said to him, 'Thomas,[4] because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'" John 20:29

[Redheat]

I dont think good wise men are in a habit of calling themselves the son of God or God incarnate. He cant be just a good wise man. As Mr America rightly says either hes God or hes a liar.

I don't think you need to believe in jesus as a God to be good or wise. There have been millions of good wise men throughout history who were not Christian.

Jesus's divinity was decided upon in a vote. There were many people at the time who felt he should NOT be called a god. The vote was won in favor of his divinity by a narrow margin. Jesus himself never claimed to be a God, that was decided for him. How does this make me "not good or wise" if I feel that while Jesus was a teacher and that is message was good he still was a man?

As for the concept of the Son, Father and Holy Ghost well that was decided upon by Constantine and for purely political purposes.

Messiah in the time of jesus did not mean "God" as some believe today. As much that is associated with Jesus did not hold the same meaning as is being applied to today.

I don't have a problem with people believing that Jesus is God. However what I resent is this notion that there is only ONE way to view him and if you don't view him in that one way you are not a good person or that your are evil and godless.

I believe Jesus did exist but I don't believe he was a God but a mortal man. He teachings were in line with Buddahism and he never intended to start a new religion. He was astute and understood full well that he could provide certain actions that would abide by the Old Testment which would further is standing in the religious world. Fact is John the Baptist had been doing the same thing as Jesus for a long time, however he wasn't able to rise to the level Jesus did. I also think Jesus was married with children.

So Jesus can be a good man and not be a God. Just as I can be a good person and not believe him to be a God.

[MrAmerica]

Jesus's divinity was decided upon in a vote. There were many people at the time who felt he should NOT be called a god. The vote was won in favor of his divinity by a narrow margin. Jesus himself never claimed to be a God, that was decided for him.
"Lord Jesus Christ...He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen." 1 Tim. 6:14-16.

"...Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." Rom. 9:5

"But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life..." Acts 3:14, 15.

"In the beginning was the Word..., and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory..." John 1:1, 14.

It sounds like the bible writers are the ones who decided on His divinity.

As for the concept of the Son, Father and Holy Ghost well that was decided upon by Constantine and for purely political purposes.
"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word (and the word became flesh), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

These are not Constantine's words, nor are they political.

I don't have a problem with people believing that Jesus is God. However what I resent is this notion that there is only ONE way to view him and if you don't view him in that one way you are not a good person or that your are evil and godless.
No one said you can't be a good person without believing Jesus is God. Gandhi was a good person. The only problem is that some people insist that the biblical view of Him is wrong (such as you are doing). You say we should believe whatever we want as long as it is not a belief in what the bible actually says. That seems to be a little repressive.

I believe Jesus did exist but I don't believe he was a God but a mortal man. He teachings were in line with Buddahism and he never intended to start a new religion.

No, He never intended to start a new religion. According to Him, there was only ONE true religion. Not multiple paths to enlightenment. So how does that somehow fall in line with Buddism?

So Jesus can be a good man and not be a God. Just as I can be a good person and not believe him to be a God.
I'm sure you are a fine person. That is not the point. It's not about you.

[ukangel]

I don't think you need to believe in jesus as a God to be good or wise. There have been millions of good wise men throughout history who were not Christian.

Agreed, I never said you did. What I said was, that a good wise man would not have claimed to be God as Jesus did.
Jesus's divinity was decided upon in a vote. There were many people at the time who felt he should NOT be called a god. The vote was won in favor of his divinity by a narrow margin. Jesus himself never claimed to be a God, that was decided for him. How does this make me "not good or wise" if I feel that while Jesus was a teacher and that is message was good he still was a man?
Jesus divinity was not decided on a vote, you can not decide someones divinity on a vote. It might have been accepted on a vote but it wasnt decided on one.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things
were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him
was life, and that life was the light of men. (JOHN 1:1-4)

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in
your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For
it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is
with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (ROMANS 10:9-10)

Besides he could perform miracles and rose from the dead that is not a feature of good people I know.

As for the concept of the Son, Father and Holy Ghost well that was decided upon by Constantine and for purely political purposes.

Messiah in the time of jesus did not mean "God" as some believe today. As much that is associated with Jesus did not hold the same meaning as is being applied to today.

I don't have a problem with people believing that Jesus is God. However what I resent is this notion that there is only ONE way to view him and if you don't view him in that one way you are not a good person or that your are evil and godless.
There is only one way to view him that is consistent with the evidence in the bible. Either Jesus is divine or the bible is wrong. If you believe he was merely a good person with good teachings then you have to explain a way the miracles, his fulfillment of Old testament prophecy and the resurrection. You also have to explain St Paul and everything he said.

If you are viewing Jesus seperate from the bible then what basis are you viewing him on?
I believe Jesus did exist but I don't believe he was a God but a mortal man. He teachings were in line with Buddahism and he never intended to start a new religion. He was astute and understood full well that he could provide certain actions that would abide by the Old Testment which would further is standing in the religious world. Fact is John the Baptist had been doing the same thing as Jesus for a long time, however he wasn't able to rise to the level Jesus did. I also think Jesus was married with children.

Well again what basis are you viewing him on? He didnt perform certain actions he fulfilled the old testament prophecices of the Christ, would a good man misrepresent himself in this way? There no record of John the Baptist performing miracles and when John the Baptist was asked who he was he clearly said he was the precursor to Christ. To make John the Baptist the same as Christ you are changing what John the Baptist said.

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the desert of Judea and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah, "A voice of one calling in the desert, "Prepare the way for The Lord, make straight paths for Him." (Matthew 3:1-3)

John's ministry became so popular that some wondered if he was the messiah. He answered, "I am not the Christ, but I am sent ahead of Him." (John 3:28). With the ministry of Jesus Christ then begun, John recognized that his own mission was nearing its end: "He must become greater; I must become less." (John 3:30)
So Jesus can be a good man and not be a God. Just as I can be a good person and not believe him to be a God.
Jesus can not be a Good man and not divine, you say he didnt say he was God I say he did. But in any case if he was good man why wouldnt he say categorically that he wasnt Christ as John the Baptist did? Wouldnt a good man have done that? Would a good man have accepted to be worshipped as God.

Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." (Matt14:33) Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John20:28)


You however Red can certainly be a good person and not believe Jesus was God and if you reread my comment I never implied otherwise.

[ukangel]

"Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or our Lord and God."


Please explain why these are the only alternatives. I do not see in your post where this assumption has any factual support.



Jesus claimed to be divine, he allowed himself to be worshiped as he was divine.

Three possibilites

(1) He was divine.
(2) He wasnt divine and he lied about his divine nature, he was a liar
(3) He wasnt divine but he genuinely thought he was, he was a lunatic.

[Larani]

Jesus was very subtle about His identity. He did not often speak directly of His divinity unless the situation called for it. His disciples did not seem to really understand until after He was resurrected, although He had told them.

"I and My Father are one." John 10:30

"And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me." John 12;45

"Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58
(I AM, was the name that God called himself when He spoke to Moses).

The "good man" theory might work if it were not for the resurrection. Both Paul and John claimed to have seen Jesus after He had returned to God. This is where faith comes in to play, because even if we could verify His existence, it would not matter without the resurrection which is the key.

"Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me...and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death." Rev. 1:12-18


, not hardly; Jesus as an individual has been avalaible to every man woman and child since about 30 AD. i've met him, and so has Mr A.

You see and who is not to say that Paul and John were not just like cpwill and MrAmerican? Both those men claim to have seen him and so to do cpwill and Mr.American.

As a man of faith I can believe many things, but I also must remain humble to that which I cannot know for certain do to mans imperfection, especially Paul's. I do believe in Jesus and his crucifiztion because it is very plausible. You cannot challenge Authority the way he did without that authority wanted to get rid of you. I also believe in a Creator a spiritual force within all of us, why becuase Jesus said so, and if I read his writings I can find no flaw in anything that he spoke. Everything he said when put to the test of rationality and logic passes with flying colors.

Some may say I am condemn to hades for not believing certain things, but like me they cannot actually know that just as I cannot know. In those matters I leave them to God himself, that not my Job, that is his and I in no way care to do his Job because without being privy to 100% of his knowledge and wisedom I would surely screw it up. :)

[Strel]

Jesus claimed to be divine, he allowed himself to be worshiped as he was divine.

Three possibilites

(1) He was divine.
(2) He wasnt divine and he lied about his divine nature, he was a liar
(3) He wasnt divine but he genuinely thought he was, he was a lunatic.


(4) Jesus never claimed to be divine, that aspect was added later, for political reasons, to make his philosophy more palatable to the superstitious masses of the times who required some kind of supernatural endorsement of anything claiming authority.

My problem is that the three possibilities listed are all based on the assumption that the account given in the New Testament is accurate and relatively contemporaneous to the events it describes.

[Larani]

(4) Jesus never claimed to be divine, that aspect was added later, for political reasons, to make his philosophy more palatable to the superstitious masses of the times who required some kind of supernatural endorsement of anything claiming authority.

My problem is that the three possibilities listed are all based on the assumption that the account given in the New Testament is accurate and relatively contemporaneous to the events it describes.

I agree Strel. In my understanding whenever Jesus was ask he pretty much put in squarely back on the shoulders of the questioners. What do you believe?

So they say you are the King of the Jews? Well are you?

Whatever you say I am, I am. :)

So as you believe so shall it be. For your beliefs will form your perceptions and your perceptions will become your reality.

[ukangel]

(4) Jesus never claimed to be divine, that aspect was added later, for political reasons, to make his philosophy more palatable to the superstitious masses of the times who required some kind of supernatural endorsement of anything claiming authority.

My problem is that the three possibilities listed are all based on the assumption that the account given in the New Testament is accurate and relatively contemporaneous to the events it describes.

Well I would take slight issue with that in that only (1) is consistent with the new testament. Beyond that its prolematical as the whole of the New Testament would have to have been falisfied and also in the eye witness period. So no resurrection after cruxifiction, no miracles no claim of divinity or fulfillment of prophesys. I think that stretches credibility. In any case why and for that matter how?

[Larani]

Well I would take slight issue with that in that only (1) is consistent with the new testament. Beyond that its prolematical as the whole of the New Testament would have to have been falisfied and also in the eye witness period. So no resurrection after cruxifiction, no miracles no claim of divinity or fulfillment of prophesys. I think that stretches credibility. In any case why and for that matter how?

fulfillment of prophecy? Question UK do you believe in free will? and if you do how can anyone predict a outcome? with 100% certainty?

[ukangel]

fulfillment of prophecy? Question UK do you believe in free will? and if you do how can anyone predict a outcome? with 100% certainty?

But why fulfll the prophesy at all? and why with an obscure 30 year old carpenter?

I believe in free will and No.

[Larani]

But why fulfll the prophesy at all? and why with an obscure 30 year old carpenter?

I believe in free will and No.

Maybe because Jesus wanted to teach us something about oursleves that he believed was worth dying for. Many our willing to kill for what they believe is it so hard to believe Jesus wouldn't be willing to die for the same?

He died for us, that is what he wanted hence he died too also for himself.

[Strel]

Well I would take slight issue with that in that only (1) is consistent with the new testament. Beyond that its prolematical as the whole of the New Testament would have to have been falisfied and also in the eye witness period.

Larani brought up a good point. Everyone's perception is their own reality. Arguing with believers is an exercise in futility - because if they cannot even entertain the idea that they could be wrong (even just for the sake of argument), then there is no way they can be objective about it.

(1) may be consistent with the New Testament - but why is this the only source to look to or standard to meet? Where is the historical information from disinterested, unbiased sources? The Romans kept pretty good records -- where is their take on all this?

As for the whole New Testament being falsified - I don't see that as being much of a problem, especially if it were done after the fact - like when the whole thing was translated into Greek, for instance.

So no resurrection after cruxifiction, no miracles no claim of divinity or fulfillment of prophesys. I think that stretches credibility.

Are you actually saying that the non-occurence of physically impossible events stretches credibility? I rather think it is the other way around...

In any case why and for that matter how

I already explained the why - the very same reason that Divine Right was invented to justify a king's authority over his subjects: "If you mess with me, you mess with God." People of that age were typically disinclined to listen to authority figures or philosophers that lacked divine endorsement (with a small number of notable and brief exceptions), hence the reason for deifying the Emperor, etc. The how is easy enough. In the days before photocopiers and electronic documents, how many copies of anything existed at any one time, especially something new?

[ukangel]

Larani brought up a good point. Everyone's perception is their own reality. Arguing with believers is an exercise in futility - because if they cannot even entertain the idea that they could be wrong (even just for the sake of argument), then there is no way they can be objective about it.

(1) may be consistent with the New Testament - but why is this the only source to look to or standard to meet? Where is the historical information from disinterested, unbiased sources? The Romans kept pretty good records -- where is their take on all this?

As for the whole New Testament being falsified - I don't see that as being much of a problem, especially if it were done after the fact - like when the whole thing was translated into Greek, for instance.

There would come a time though when a revised new testament would come into conflict with the received oral tradition in any case.

The bodmer copy of St John is dated at 200AD and that contains 2/3 of the complete gospel. Theres a fragment that goes back to AD130. Now the Carsten Theide in the Jesus Papyrus dates some fragments back to AD60 which puts it bang in the eyewitness period. But lets assume for the sake of argument its 200AD any fundamental rewriting would clash with the oral tradition in a shocking way and any change when it was translated would give us two radically different gospels. In that case wheres gospel #1?

Are you actually saying that the non-occurence of physically impossible events stretches credibility? I rather think it is the other way around... No what I mean is that if you were to add those events it would violate the oral tradition in quite a shocking way. Would Jesus followers at the time not have noticed?

I already explained the why - the very same reason that Divine Right was invented to justify a king's authority over his subjects: "If you mess with me, you mess with God." People of that age were typically disinclined to listen to authority figures or philosophers that lacked divine endorsement (with a small number of notable and brief exceptions), hence the reason for deifying the Emperor, etc. The how is easy enough. In the days before photocopiers and electronic documents, how many copies of anything existed at any one time, especially something new?

Yes but the Christians were a oppresed people for centuries, they had no power there was no benefit in co-opting and changing thier faith. Christianity was even legal in the Roman empire till AD313. One hundred and thirteen years after the bodmer copy of St John.

[Redheat]

Yes but the Christians were a oppresed people for centuries, they had no power there was no benefit in co-opting and changing thier faith. Christianity was even legal in the Roman empire till AD313. One hundred and thirteen years after the bodmer copy of St John.

Constantine used the Church in Rome for political reasons. It wasn't that he believed in Christanity but that he wished to use it's power to control the masses.

During the time of Jesus there were battles between the Jews and the Romans. Jesus was a part of this battle, not unlike today the zealots fought in anyway they could the oppression of the Roman Empire.

Much of the New Testement was translated by different people and during the translation into Greek words and meanings were changed. So there is most times a discrepency between believe or percieved events for the purpose of the Gospels and actual historical fact.

The Crucifixtion has many inconsistencies that would suggest it wasn't a means of proven divinety but not unlike any other event of the time. The Gospels description of the event doesn't conicide with historical fact of the time. Not to mention it's very odd given that Jesus was a part of the rebel faction fighting Rome to have Rome be absolved of all responsibility in the death of Jesus. That doesn't seem odd to anyone? Given that crucifixtion was a punishment practiced by the Roman Empire against Zealots and not one practiced by the Jewish authority of the time.

There is also some speculation which as provable as the crucifixtion itself that suggests it was staged and that Jesus lived a full life after. Also that someone else was put to death on the cross so Jesus could live. Much of the Gospels again describing this even is in contrast of the historical facts of the time.

So what this all boils down to is faith. There is nothing wrong with Faith or belief but it's when you assume it is the ONLY way and think it's within your rights to decide that for others where the problems exist.

[Strel]

There would come a time though when a revised new testament would come into conflict with the received oral tradition in any case.

Unless, of course, the oral tradition had long since been lost....which is not something we can really cerify one way or another.

The bodmer copy of St John is dated at 200AD and that contains 2/3 of the complete gospel. Theres a fragment that goes back to AD130. Now the Carsten Theide in the Jesus Papyrus dates some fragments back to AD60 which puts it bang in the eyewitness period. But lets assume for the sake of argument its 200AD any fundamental rewriting would clash with the oral tradition in a shocking way and any change when it was translated would give us two radically different gospels. In that case wheres gospel #1?

Given life expectancies during that time, AD 60 is stretching it for an actual adult eyewitness. Even so, you seem to assume that an eyewitness would relate an accurate account, or that an eyewitness would not be part of the conspiracy. Why not? Someone (and it would be few, if any) who was an eyewitness alive 30 years after the fact is in an even better position to embelllish a story than someone who never saw the action themselves...and possibly in a better position to bebefit from such embellishment.

No what I mean is that if you were to add those events it would violate the oral tradition in quite a shocking way. Would Jesus followers at the time not have noticed?

Would they? How many of them could read? How many of the (small) literate subset would not be in on the gag? You have a good point - but there is also the possibility that the oral tradition was corrupted before the written version was ever made in the first place. In fact, now that I think about it, it is probably even more likely.

Take the Epic of Gilgamesh for instance. This predates the New Testament by millenia. We know from archaological evidence that Gilgamesh was very, very likely a real person and was a Sumerian king (I think it was Sumeria). The stories about him, though, are largely mythological - battling the dragon Tiamat, fighting demigods, etc. The point being: we don't have a problem with understanding that Gilgamesh was real but that the stories are embellishments. Why the problem with Jesus? We have even less objective evidence of his existence than that of Gilgamesh!

[cpwill]

who conspires to start a movement wherein the conspirators are dedicated to service (not recieving) and are most likely to die in brutal executions after being repeatedly jailed, beaten, and tortured.

[Strel]

who conspires to start a movement wherein the conspirators are dedicated to service (not recieving) and are most likely to die in brutal executions after being repeatedly jailed, beaten, and tortured.

Happens every damn day. Watch the news. Martyrs are good for starting religions and energizing existing ones.


Plus, we are talking about early on here. Christianity hadn't even begun to annoy the Romans until much later. If Jesus was as big a deal at the time as his followers (later?) made him out to be, he would have made a much bigger splash with both the Romans and the Jews at the time. There would be contemporaneous records of this, no? Such records are conspicuously absent.

___________________________________

Here's my theory - and unlike evolution, it is really only a theory:

Jesus was a real person, from Nazareth, possibly born in Bethlehem to an unmarried mother. After years as a carpenter he became a rabbi, officially or not. He began preaching for reform and some new ideas in the Jewish religion and annoyed some people. He had a small but very dedicated following, and some really great ideas that were too advanced and controversial for the time. The local bigwigs get permission from the Romans to lynch him. The Romans don't give a crap and acquiesce to get the locals to shut the hell up. He gets lynched - possibly he survives the initial attempt, hence the resurrection story. Small group of followers (possibly only 12, who knows?) decides to carry on his work. They realize that no one is going to buy this great set of new and controversial ideas from Jesus Schmoe, so they reinvent him as Jesus Christ as part of a brilliant marketing strategy.

The plan struggles in fits and starts until they get themselves a real expert in the profession - Saul of Tarsus. Saul (Paul) genuinely believes in the message they are trying to get out and gives them more advice on how to make it more marketable. He writes some letters for them to get the ball rolling. The movement grows and starts causing headaches for the Romans. The Romans react by giving them a lion's share of stage time at the Coliseum. When it becomes politically expedient, Constantine has a vision and the rest, as they say, is history.

You may now call me a blasphemer and describe how I am to be tossed into a lake of fire, whatever.

[MrAmerica]

Some may say I am condemn to hades for not believing certain things, but like me they cannot actually know that just as I cannot know. In those matters I leave them to God himself, that not my Job, that is his and I in no way care to do his Job because without being privy to 100% of his knowledge and wisedom I would surely screw it up. :)

No, I think each of us has to be convinced in our own hearts, and follow God according to our own consciences. I would attempt to persuade you of certain things, but I will not condemn you for what you believe or think any less of you. You seem like a level headed peaceful person to me. :angel:

[ukangel]

Constantine used the Church in Rome for political reasons. It wasn't that he believed in Christanity but that he wished to use it's power to control the masses.
Supposition and even if true doesnt actually prove anything.
During the time of Jesus there were battles between the Jews and the Romans. Jesus was a part of this battle, not unlike today the zealots fought in anyway they could the oppression of the Roman Empire.

Much of the New Testement was translated by different people and during the translation into Greek words and meanings were changed. So there is most times a discrepency between believe or percieved events for the purpose of the Gospels and actual historical fact.

What? This is utter supposition. In any case if meanings were changed it would take out of parallel with the oral tradition. An example of a discrepancy would be? I cant even rebut this because theres nothing of consequence to rebut.

The Crucifixtion has many inconsistencies that would suggest it wasn't a means of proven divinety but not unlike any other event of the time. The Gospels description of the event doesn't conicide with historical fact of the time. Not to mention it's very odd given that Jesus was a part of the rebel faction fighting Rome to have Rome be absolved of all responsibility in the death of Jesus. That doesn't seem odd to anyone? Given that crucifixtion was a punishment practiced by the Roman Empire against Zealots and not one practiced by the Jewish authority of the time.
How doesnt the historical events coincide? What rebel faction was Jesus a part of?

There is also some speculation which as provable as the crucifixtion itself that suggests it was staged and that Jesus lived a full life after.

Also that someone else was put to death on the cross so Jesus could live. Much of the Gospels again describing this even is in contrast of the historical facts of the time.

Oh priceless :lol: How do you stage a cruxifiction? Yes now I can see that Jesus would have lived a full life after, that would have impressed his followers :lol: Oh thats right they were in on the deception with the Romans and the Sadduces and pharisees and perhaps the Bilderberg group and the Skull and bones as well :lol:

According to the gospel accounts, Jesus went through six different trials before He was condemned to die on a cross. Three of the trials were before Gentiles and three were before the Jews. He was repeatedly put before people to be tried and the whole time He was under heavy guard. They knew who Jesus was. So, this excludes the possibility of mistaken identity. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the Romans would have crucified a man by mistake. Remember, Jesus had been performing many miracles and was quite well known in the area. Since the Roman soldiers had Him in their possession during the trials, during the beatings, and finally on the way to the cross, the most logical conclusion is that they did not make a mistake and crucified someone else instead of Jesus. Therefore, we can logically conclude that Jesus really did die on a cross.

The real issue of the resurrection deals with its evidence. This evidence consists of the testimony of many people who stated that they had seen Jesus after His crucifixion and death. The same people who testified of the resurrection of Christ also gave up their social and economic security and put their lives on the line in order proclaim that Jesus had risen. Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen? Why would they do that? Does it also make any sense that they would continue in this lie while being persecuted, ostracized from family and friends, beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for what they believed? It makes more sense to believe that their actions were consistent with their teaching. In other words, they taught about self-sacrifice, dedication to truth, love, peace, etc., and they based it all on the risen Lord. It was based upon the truth that they had seen.

So what this all boils down to is faith. There is nothing wrong with Faith or belief but it's when you assume it is the ONLY way and think it's within your rights to decide that for others where the problems exist.
Again you are attributing motives to me and this is getting very tiresome when have I decided to tell others how to live?

[MikeD4o7]

Here's my theory - and unlike evolution, it is really only a theory:

Jesus was a real person, from Nazareth, possibly born in Bethlehem to an unmarried mother. After years as a carpenter he became a rabbi, officially or not. He began preaching for reform and some new ideas in the Jewish religion and annoyed some people. He had a small but very dedicated following, and some really great ideas that were too advanced and controversial for the time. The local bigwigs get permission from the Romans to lynch him. The Romans don't give a crap and acquiesce to get the locals to shut the hell up. He gets lynched - possibly he survives the initial attempt, hence the resurrection story. Small group of followers (possibly only 12, who knows?) decides to carry on his work. They realize that no one is going to buy this great set of new and controversial ideas from Jesus Schmoe, so they reinvent him as Jesus Christ as part of a brilliant marketing strategy.

The plan struggles in fits and starts until they get themselves a real expert in the profession - Saul of Tarsus. Saul (Paul) genuinely believes in the message they are trying to get out and gives them more advice on how to make it more marketable. He writes some letters for them to get the ball rolling. The movement grows and starts causing headaches for the Romans. The Romans react by giving them a lion's share of stage time at the Coliseum. When it becomes politically expedient, Constantine has a vision and the rest, as they say, is history.

You may now call me a blasphemer and describe how I am to be tossed into a lake of fire, whatever.


I think you're probably pretty close. My theory is basically the same, only I have my doubts that Jesus was executed at all. I don't think it's an absurd idea at all to say that Jesus' own followers may have imbedded his story in a mythological one in the vein of the pagan gods in order to be able to sell it to the pagans... or simply to emphasize what a great man he was. Like I've said before, Jesus was not the only historical figure that was deified by his followers.

I think there's some interesting things to learn from reading early christian apologists works. For example, Origen writes an entire book countering an early Christian critic named Celsus (whose own work is lost, probably burned). Here is a very interesting quote that Origen takes from Celsus' work.

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."
-- Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28

Just something to chew on for anyone who's interested. It's possible that Celsus was just completely making that up... but considering we don't have any of Celsus' work to study and verify for validity, we'll never be able to do anything beyond really speculate... but it's something to think about nonetheless.

[ukangel]

Unless, of course, the oral tradition had long since been lost....which is not something we can really cerify one way or another.
If there was no oral tradition and no written tradition then where did it come from? How did it survive?

Given life expectancies during that time, AD 60 is stretching it for an actual adult eyewitness. Even so, you seem to assume that an eyewitness would relate an accurate account, or that an eyewitness would not be part of the conspiracy. Why not? Someone (and it would be few, if any) who was an eyewitness alive 30 years after the fact is in an even better position to embelllish a story than someone who never saw the action themselves...and possibly in a better position to bebefit from such embellishment.

Thirty years after? I dont think it is. Whats this conspiracy? Why is there a conspiracy? Who is organizing it? What function does it perform? Pure unadultered supposition.

Would they? How many of them could read? How many of the (small) literate subset would not be in on the gag? You have a good point - but there is also the possibility that the oral tradition was corrupted before the written version was ever made in the first place. In fact, now that I think about it, it is probably even more likely.

How do you corrupt an oral tradition? You send your agents around to tell the people that their tradition has changed, and this is the new one? You think thats likely? or even possible?

Take the Epic of Gilgamesh for instance. This predates the New Testament by millenia. We know from archaological evidence that Gilgamesh was very, very likely a real person and was a Sumerian king (I think it was Sumeria). The stories about him, though, are largely mythological - battling the dragon Tiamat, fighting demigods, etc. The point being: we don't have a problem with understanding that Gilgamesh was real but that the stories are embellishments. Why the problem with Jesus? We have even less objective evidence of his existence than that of Gilgamesh!

This is a slightly better point but it comes down to textual integrity. It could be said that the Bible is a book of history -- and it is. The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not if some events and locations described therein are true or false. So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.
Nevertheless, many used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But, an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people named Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts accurately.
Also, the walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea proving it existed. Finds have verified Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet of people who had been crucified have been uncovered demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones).
There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome.

Find the same backing for gilamesh and we can argue it.

[MrAmerica]

(4) Jesus never claimed to be divine, that aspect was added later, for political reasons, to make his philosophy more palatable to the superstitious masses of the times who required some kind of supernatural endorsement of anything claiming authority.

My problem is that the three possibilities listed are all based on the assumption that the account given in the New Testament is accurate and relatively contemporaneous to the events it describes.

How can you say Jesus never claimed to be divine, when I posted a few quotes of His which caused the Jews to try and stone Him for blasphemy? The only way you can say that the aspect of divinity was added later is to cast doubt on the scriptures all together. As I posted in the original post of this thread, most of the epistles were written before the gospels, and only shortly after Christ's death (30-50 years). This was posted in order to demonstrate that the Gospels could not have been fabricated 100 years after the fact, as some insist.

[MrAmerica]

Just something to chew on for anyone who's interested. It's possible that Celsus was just completely making that up... but considering we don't have any of Celsus' work to study and verify for validity, we'll never be able to do anything beyond really speculate... but it's something to think about nonetheless.

So we can pretty much take for granted the word of an unreliable source, just as long as it contradicts the bible?

No one has ever even heard of Celsus.

[ukangel]

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."
-- Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28

Just something to chew on for anyone who's interested. It's possible that Celsus was just completely making that up... but considering we don't have any of Celsus' work to study and verify for validity, we'll never be able to do anything beyond really speculate... but it's something to think about nonetheless.


I take it these magical powers allowed him to perform the miracles? Which other egyptians had these magical powers? So possesing these magical powers he spent three years as an itinerant preacher before being crucified between a thief and a murderer. If I was him I would have asked for my money back.

[Redheat]

Here's my theory - and unlike evolution, it is really only a theory:

Jesus was a real person, from Nazareth,

Just one comment, there was no such place as Nazareth. What is more likely is that he was referred to as "Jesus the Nazerene" which was mistranslated.

Supposition and even if true doesnt actually prove anything

Facts support my supposition more then they do yours


What? This is utter supposition. In any case if meanings were changed it would take out of parallel with the oral tradition. An example of a discrepancy would be? I cant even rebut this because theres nothing of consequence to rebut.

Again fact would support my supposition more then yours. Gospels were written several years after the death of jesus. There were Gospels not included why? these Gospels were far more current with the life of jesus then those put in the bible. Much of the Gospels not only contridict but are in contrast of the times. You can dismiss this theory all you want, but bottom line is your supposition isn't anymore provable then mine. Sorry

How doesnt the historical events coincide? What rebel faction was Jesus a part of?

Well the Jews were uprising against the Romans yet the bible would have you believe it was all peace and love. Zealots were fighting a war against Rome for the taxation they were being forced to pay. Even jesus in the bible speaks of taking up the sword, what do you think this was in reference to? he wanted to cut a piece of cheese? Masada ring a bell?


Oh priceless How do you stage a cruxifiction? Yes no I can see that Jesus would have lived a full life after, that would have impressed his followers Oh thats right they were in on the deception with the Romans and the Sadduces and pharisees and perhaps the Bilderberg group and the Skull and bones as well

Well first no one was allowed to be up close to the cross. However it would be easy to say he had died and then place him in care which would allow him to live. During that period the use of the cross was a means to ensure a slow death, if the death was to be quickened they would break their legs. However Jesus died quickly and was whisked off before anyone could view his body. Again nothing you claim is anymore provable then what I claim. You need to get past this idea that your faith is fact and that it is more truthful then my beliefs.



According to the gospel accounts, Jesus went through six different trials before He was condemned to die on a cross. Three of the trials were before Gentiles and three were before the Jews. He was repeatedly put before people to be tried and the whole time He was under heavy guard. They knew who Jesus was. So, this excludes the possibility of mistaken identity. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the Romans would have crucified a man by mistake. Remember, Jesus had been performing many miracles and was quite well known in the area. Since the Roman soldiers had Him in their possession during the trials, during the beatings, and finally on the way to the cross, the most logical conclusion is that they did not make a mistake and crucified someone else instead of Jesus. Therefore, we can logically conclude that Jesus really did die on a cross.

The Gospels said it, ok so how does that prove it? Jesus died on the cross to you, he didn't to me. Simple we just don't agree on this and it doesn't make me wrong or you wrong.

Again you are attributing motives to me and this is getting very tiresome when have decided to tell others how to live?

:confused: Who's telling anyone how to live? I'm just saying your faith in the subject doesn't show proof and my belief in events doesn't show proof either. So just don't tell me I'm wrong because you have the truth when there is no way for you to demonstrated this in anything other then your faith. You are free to worship, believe, and have faith in anything you wish. As do I, that simple.

[Gale_Force15]

SOn of God or Liar, you cant beat the fact that he helped people out, and even today, people say when they Found jesus, their life got better. I'm not sure who he was, but I do know what he was.

[MikeD4o7]

SOn of God or Liar, you cant beat the fact that he helped people out, and even today, people say when they Found jesus, their life got better. I'm not sure who he was, but I do know what he was.


Again, this argument and everyone like it relies on the assumption that the gospels are complete historical fact rather than part myth. Personally, the fact that there are so many common links between Jesus' story and a thousand other pagan myths leads me to believe that the gospels are not completely factual.

[MikeD4o7]

So we can pretty much take for granted the word of an unreliable source, just as long as it contradicts the bible?

No one has ever even heard of Celsus.


We shouldn't accept any source simply because it contradicts another, I think I made that clear. I was just shedding light on what some other people in that time period believed. You may have never heard of Celsus, but the very eminent christian apologist Origen definitely heard of him... and for some reason thought it necessary to write an entire book in response to him. Leads me to believe that Celsus may have been a little more than a nobody.

[MikeD4o7]

I take it these magical powers allowed him to perform the miracles? Which other egyptians had these magical powers? So possesing these magical powers he spent three years as an itinerant preacher before being crucified between a thief and a murderer. If I was him I would have asked for my money back.


Personally I doubt the magical powers were really magical... or even powers at all. It's possible that Jesus' trip to Egypt enamored him with mysticism and pagan "magic". Honestly I don't know... nobody does. All of the pertinent evidence that we would need to make a definitive historical decision was lost when the Library of Alexandria burned to the ground. It's all speculation one way or another... whether you want to speculate that Jesus was divine or not. I simply go with the explanation that doesn't have to resort to the supernatural.

[Gale_Force15]

Again, this argument and everyone like it relies on the assumption that the gospels are complete historical fact rather than part myth. Personally, the fact that there are so many common links between Jesus' story and a thousand other pagan myths leads me to believe that the gospels are not completely factual.

My argument relies on the gospel being true, yours relies on the gopsel being not entirely true. Neither of which can be proven. When discussing religion, science and reasoning have no place.

[ukangel]

Just one comment, there was no such place as Nazareth. What is more likely is that he was referred to as "Jesus the Nazerene" which was mistranslated.

Nazareth itself was not a site of historic or major strategic importance &, thus, did not merit notice in any ancient text apart from the gospel references to it as the place of Jesus' origin. The earliest non-Christian reference is an inscription discovered in the synagogue of Caesarea Maritima that names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the Hadrianic war [135 CE]. But Nazareth remained a small Jewish village until the 4th c. CE when Constantine constructed a church that became a center for Christian pilgrimages. It was elevated to the status of city in the 7th c. CE. Since the 17th c. the Franciscans have developed it into the largest Christian center in the land of Israel.
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/nazareth.html
Facts support my supposition more then they do yours
Difficult for me to comment as I am still waiting for your first fact.
Again fact would support my supposition more then yours. Gospels were written several years after the death of jesus. There were Gospels not included why? these Gospels were far more current with the life of jesus then those put in the bible. Much of the Gospels not only contridict but are in contrast of the times. You can dismiss this theory all you want, but bottom line is your supposition isn't anymore provable then mine. Sorry
The "lost books" were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place.
The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship, they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies
Well first no one was allowed to be up close to the cross. However it would be easy to say he had died and then place him in care which would allow him to live. During that period the use of the cross was a means to ensure a slow death, if the death was to be quickened they would break their legs. However Jesus died quickly and was whisked off before anyone could view his body. Again nothing you claim is anymore provable then what I claim. You need to get past this idea that your faith is fact and that it is more truthful then my beliefs.

The swoon theory falls apart quickly when you consider that Jesus had undergone six trials, been beaten, then scourged with 39 lashes that left His back raw, exposed, and bloody, had a crown of thorns forced upon His head, ripping His scalp, been crucified with nails in the hands and feet, hung there for six hours bleeding and dehydrating, had his side pierced with a spear which emitted blood and water, was left in a tomb for three days, and was tightly wrapped up. Was anyone in this condition able to revive, get himself out of the tight wrappings, walk on pierced feet, and single handedly move a large stone with hands that were unusable due to the wrist piercings which severed the median nerve in the hands and paralyzed them, and then some how got by the armed guards given the charge of watching the grave side? Are we to further believe that Jesus managed to walk a long distance on feet which had been pierced through and appear to the disciples as a victorious conqueror of death? It makes no sense. In fact, it would take more to believe this ridiculous conjecture than it would to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

[MrAmerica]

Just one comment, there was no such place as Nazareth. What is more likely is that he was referred to as "Jesus the Nazerene" which was mistranslated.
There most certainly was AND IS a Nazareth.

Again fact would support my supposition more then yours. Gospels were written several years after the death of jesus. There were Gospels not included why? these Gospels were far more current with the life of jesus then those put in the bible. Much of the Gospels not only contridict but are in contrast of the times. You can dismiss this theory all you want, but bottom line is your supposition isn't anymore provable then mine. Sorry
You have already unequivically stated things that you supposedly KNEW to be true about the bible, that I disproved you. You never refuted my points. How do you know the Gospels are contradictory or not current with life back then? Are we to believe that you know more about Israel 2000 years ago then the people who lived then?

Well the Jews were uprising against the Romans yet the bible would have you believe it was all peace and love. Zealots were fighting a war against Rome for the taxation they were being forced to pay. Even jesus in the bible speaks of taking up the sword, what do you think this was in reference to? he wanted to cut a piece of cheese? Masada ring a bell?
It was not all peace and love. Where did you get that information? The Jews were looking for a Messiah who would free them from the Romans. That is why they could not accept Jesus.
Barabas was a Israeli rebel insurgent, and Jesus never said anything about taking up the sword. I have serious doubts about your credebility. If you are going to make an argument, you should know what you are talking about.

Well first no one was allowed to be up close to the cross.
Where did you get that info? Crucifixions were common all through the Roman empire. Perhaps crowds were not allowed, but the bible only mentions close friends and family (mother). I suppose you can prove that was not the case?

However it would be easy to say he had died and then place him in care which would allow him to live. During that period the use of the cross was a means to ensure a slow death, if the death was to be quickened they would break their legs. However Jesus died quickly and was whisked off before anyone could view his body. Again nothing you claim is anymore provable then what I claim. You need to get past this idea that your faith is fact and that it is more truthful then my beliefs.
Do you really believe that the Roman soldiers would just allow someone to wisk away the body of a crucified man without making sure he was dead? The Roman military was in charge. The bible says they pierced His side with a spear.

The Gospels said it, ok so how does that prove it? Jesus died on the cross to you, he didn't to me. Simple we just don't agree on this and it doesn't make me wrong or you wrong.
So what are you doing on a religion board arguing about Christianity?

:confused: Who's telling anyone how to live? I'm just saying your faith in the subject doesn't show proof and my belief in events doesn't show proof either. So just don't tell me I'm wrong because you have the truth when there is no way for you to demonstrated this in anything other then your faith. You are free to worship, believe, and have faith in anything you wish. As do I, that simple.
But YOU are the one who is on a religion board telling others what they should NOT believe.

[MikeD4o7]

My argument relies on the gospel being true, yours relies on the gopsel being not entirely true. Neither of which can be proven. When discussing religion, science and reasoning have no place.


I agree... reason and science don't support it, nor can they disprove it... too much of the evidence has been lost.

[Strel]

I think you're probably pretty close. My theory is basically the same, only I have my doubts that Jesus was executed at all. I don't think it's an absurd idea at all to say that Jesus' own followers may have imbedded his story in a mythological one in the vein of the pagan gods in order to be able to sell it to the pagans... or simply to emphasize what a great man he was. Like I've said before, Jesus was not the only historical figure that was deified by his followers.

I think there's some interesting things to learn from reading early christian apologists works. For example, Origen writes an entire book countering an early Christian critic named Celsus (whose own work is lost, probably burned). Here is a very interesting quote that Origen takes from Celsus' work.

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."
-- Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28

Just something to chew on for anyone who's interested. It's possible that Celsus was just completely making that up... but considering we don't have any of Celsus' work to study and verify for validity, we'll never be able to do anything beyond really speculate... but it's something to think about nonetheless.

There is another theory as well - I forget the author of The Lost Years of Jesus that says that Jesus went to India in his teen years and learned a great deal about medicine, philisophy, Hinduism, etc., and brought some of this knowledge back to Judea.

One of the things that make this theory interesting to me is the Sermon on the Mount - which could be regarded as the "thesis" of the of New Testament, the core and summary of Jesus' teachings. Thing is, it matches almost word for word Vedic writings from India from several hundred years prior....

Add that to the frequent appearance of the martyr/resurrection/avatar (or son) of a monotheistic God model (Krishna, Mithras, et al), and it becomes very hard for me to be a "believer" in the sense that the Bible is accurate.

Whew! Sorry for the progression of the following posts, I don't mean to hog the thread but it seems I have a lot to reply to this morning!

[MikeD4o7]

There is another theory as well - I forget the author of The Lost Years of Jesus that says that Jesus went to India in his teen years and learned a great deal about medicine, philisophy, Hinduism, etc., and brought some of this knowledge back to Judea.

One of the things that make this theory interesting to me is the Sermon on the Mount - which could be regarded as the "thesis" of the of New Testament, the core and summary of Jesus' teachings. Thing is, it matches almost word for word Vedic writings from India from several hundred years prior....

Add that to the frequent appearance of the martyr/resurrection/avatar (or son) of a monotheistic God model (Krishna, Mithras, et al), and it becomes very hard for me to be a "believer" in the sense that the Bible is accurate.

Whew! Sorry for the progression of the following posts, I don't mean to hog the thread but it seems I have a lot to reply to this morning!


I think I had heard of that connection to the Vedic writings. The only thing I would say in response to him travelling to India though is that I think I also read that those same Vedic passages were mirrored in other pagan legends as well, so I'm not sure if a trip to India for Jesus would have even been necessary for that to have developed that way.

I'm not 100% sure though... I'll look into it and get back to you later today.

[Strel]

If there was no oral tradition and no written tradition then where did it come from? How did it survive?

Who said there was no oral tradition? I only raised the possibility that an oral tradition would automatically be more suspect than a written one. Also, there is a written tradition - but that fact has no relevance to the question of whether the written tradition we have accurately portrays what happened or that the account is free from embellishment. Jesus could have been standing on a sandbar. Jesus may have made the crowd of people feel guilty and they shared the loaves and fishes they already had, Jesus could have learned a great deal about medicine (which would go a long way to explain some of the "medical" miracles). Given the ignorance of science of the time it wouldn't be too difficult to embellish actual events to a degree that made them seem supernatural.


Thirty years after? I dont think it is. Whats this conspiracy? Why...

Why not? Do you have any idea what the average life expectancy was in those days? 30? 40 tops? It would be unusual for someone to live to be 60 back then. Not rare, but at least uncommon.

Of course my conspiracy theory is supposition. So is the belief that Jesus is divine. That was kind of my point... :eek:

How do you corrupt an oral tradition?...

Yes, why not? Actually it would work more like "no, you are telling it wrong, this is what really happened". it doesn't have to be deliberate - oral accounts mutate and deteriorate with the retelling all on their own. What may have started out as stories about this nice young rabbi with some great ideas may have grown and been embellished in the retelling into the story you know today - especially considering that the Bible has gone through numerous translations and edits. I had a Greek Orthodox girlfriend years ago that insisted that the original version was in Greek - and she was probably correct that this is the language in which it was first written down. I said that maybe it was the oldest written account, but that it wasn't the original story. The original story would have been in Aramaic, no? How much has been lost in translation? How much embellished or added? Nobody knows.

I think that corruption or embellishment of this kind of story is not only possible, but very likely indeed. The Jesus story resembles older stories of avatars or sons of Gods that were sacrificed and rose again (Mithras, Krishna, Osiris...) and the text of the Sermon on the Mount is practically ripped off verbatim from older Sanskrit texts from India.

This is a slightly better point but it comes down to textual integrity. It could be said that the Bible is a book of history -- and it is. The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. ....

if I wanted to write a book of believable historical fiction, I would cite to and base the story on actual events and persons too. Just ask James Michener and Gore Vidal - they got rich doing it. Much of the Bible IS historical - but this history is written from the point of view of the writer and could reflect as much that writer's perceptions as any kind of objective reality.

Nevertheless, many used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But, an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people named Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts accurately.

So? Given my response above, how does this prove that Jesus was divine or that he actually performed miracles? An account of one of his miracles from a disinterested eyewitness is what you are looking for, but this evidence does not exist as far as anyone has been able to determine. I don't believe the Romans even had a record of his trial - though they kept records of people tried contemporaneously. We know Pontius Pilate was a real person, but that does not mean that he presided over the trial of Jesus. We know that Abraham Lincoln was a real person, but that does not mean that Vidal's book in which he is a character is nonfiction.

Also, the walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea proving it existed. Finds have verified Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet of people who had been crucified have been uncovered demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones).

Again, so what?

They have found records of Gilgamesh - but you are talking about a MUCH older situation there. Archaeologists believe that Gilgamesh lived, was a real person, and that over the centuries was deified - in other words, his story was embellished. The average plebian citizen of Rome thought that Claudius was a god, right? Does that mean he was?

Fact is, back in those days there wasn't much of a pure fiction writing culture. Greek mythology is based on places and events as well. There really was an Oracle at Delphi - but does this mean that Apollo was real?

[Redheat]

There most certainly was AND IS a Nazareth.

Maybe to you there was, but according to scholars and historical maps of the time there was no such place.

You have already unequivically stated things that you supposedly KNEW to be true about the bible, that I disproved you. You never refuted my points. How do you know the Gospels are contradictory or not current with life back then? Are we to believe that you know more about Israel 2000 years ago then the people who lived then?

No I have not "unequivically" stated things, I've only stated my opinion of facts and theories I have read about and in that agree with. If you read my posts I don't claim to be right, and I don't claim you to be right because the fact of the matter is neither of us can prove a think beyond doubt. I know Gospels are contradictory because I've read them, and again because I've read about the subject. I don't claim to know more then anyone, you are getting a bit defensive and not seeing clearly what I'm writing. However 2000 years ago things were a tee bit different don't ya think? Language, writing, culture, traditions. So you cannot apply those standards to today. That is my point, everything is up for interpetation and in that interpetation is what that person is experienced with. You act as though you can compare documents written today in today's culture with that during the time of jesus and they are exactly the same. They are not, that is my point.

It was not all peace and love. Where did you get that information? The Jews were looking for a Messiah who would free them from the Romans. That is why they could not accept Jesus.
Barabas was a Israeli rebel insurgent, and Jesus never said anything about taking up the sword. I have serious doubts about your credebility. If you are going to make an argument, you should know what you are talking about.

I get that information from again actual history that we know of. You seem to think the bible is a historical documentation , it is not. You cannot prove anything within the bible and cannot prove it to be a story based in actual historical fact. Jesus did say something about taking up the sword. Simon was also a Zealot and it's a fact that the Jews were involved in a struggle with the Roman Empire. You don't have to trust my credibility but you are confusing being able to prove something with having faith. I'm not telling you that you're lying or that you are not stating what you believe to be fact am I? You want to demean me because you believe something to be true and since you believe it to be true then it's the truth. Well sorry I'm here to tell you that the world doesn't revolve around YOU and you are not the last word on truth. I don't believe what you believe it's that simple. You base your truth on faith and that is fine, I want to go a bit further and base mine on what can actually be proven.



Do you really believe that the Roman soldiers would just allow someone to wisk away the body of a crucified man without making sure he was dead? The Roman military was in charge. The bible says they pierced His side with a spear.

Where did I say Roman Soliders? and yes if there was a deal struck between Pilot and other influential jews of the time. Doesn't the fact that the bible tries to diminish the blame of Pilot in the death of Jesus strike you as odd? I know what the bible says, and I'm saying that is not what the times and punishment support. Believe what you want but again just because YOU believe doesn't make it so.

So what are you doing on a religion board arguing about Christianity?

:confused: I'm not sure I get the meaning behind this. Am I to be lead to understand that because I don't agree with everything in the bible that I am not allowed to express my opinion? or that my sole purpose for discussion is to prove I'm right and you're wrong and could not just possibly be a means to learn, discuss and just exchange ideas? I'm sorry but my sphere of debate isn't as small and confined as yours appears to be.

But YOU are the one who is on a religion board telling others what they should NOT believe.

:confused: Where did I ever post that (I) was implying that YOU couldn't believe something? That doesn't make any sense since I've actually done the opposite on several occassions.

So Mr. America we need to get something straight. I don't proclaim to be the all knowing on the subject. I have my opinions based on what I've read and learned, and my own personal experiences. I have a right to that opinion and I have a right to my beliefs, and yes that right exists even if YOU don't agree. I also think YOU have a right to your beliefs and faith even if (I) don't agree. If you want to have an honest discussion on the subject you may want to try and read the responses more clearly as to not claim something that was not intended or implied.

[MikeD4o7]

The "lost books" were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place.
The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship, they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies


None of the four gospels that made it into the NT are actual eye-witness accounts either though. Mark was most likely written by a follower of Peter around 70-75 CE, but also relied on oral traditions and other sources for his gospel. Matthew was also not an eye witness and relied very heavily on Mark's Gospel for his own. Luke was possibly an acquaintance of Paul, but he also relied heavily on Mark as a source. And John... well there are a couple of different theories about who wrote John, but neither of them involve the apostle John... and the gospel was written anywhere between 90-120 CE. So really, if you want to look at only completely independent sources... you're left with the writings of Paul, and possibly Mark.

Again, isn't it odd that Paul had so much more success convincing people of the story of Jesus in Rome than he did in Judea? What is the alternative explanation for that?

The swoon theory falls apart quickly when you consider that Jesus had undergone six trials, been beaten, then scourged with 39 lashes that left His back raw, exposed, and bloody, had a crown of thorns forced upon His head, ripping His scalp, been crucified with nails in the hands and feet, hung there for six hours bleeding and dehydrating, had his side pierced with a spear which emitted blood and water, was left in a tomb for three days, and was tightly wrapped up. Was anyone in this condition able to revive, get himself out of the tight wrappings, walk on pierced feet, and single handedly move a large stone with hands that were unusable due to the wrist piercings which severed the median nerve in the hands and paralyzed them, and then some how got by the armed guards given the charge of watching the grave side? Are we to further believe that Jesus managed to walk a long distance on feet which had been pierced through and appear to the disciples as a victorious conqueror of death? It makes no sense. In fact, it would take more to believe this ridiculous conjecture than it would to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.


Which all rests on the assumption that both the cruxifiction and the resurrection stories are factual in nature... which I think there is some reason to doubt. It seems off that anti-semetic Pilate would listen to the sanhedrin who considered Jesus a religious threat. It's even more odd when you take into account the fact that there's no recorded evidence of any kind of custom to release prisoners during a festival or anything as Pilate supposedly did with Jesus and Barrabas. It just doesn't really make too much sense.

[Redheat]

Nazareth itself was not a site of historic or major strategic importance &, thus, did not merit notice in any ancient text apart from the gospel references to it as the place of Jesus' origin. The earliest non-Christian reference is an inscription discovered in the synagogue of Caesarea Maritima that names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the Hadrianic war [135 CE]. But Nazareth remained a small Jewish village until the 4th c. CE when Constantine constructed a church that became a center for Christian pilgrimages. It was elevated to the status of city in the 7th c. CE. Since the 17th c. the Franciscans have developed it into the largest Christian center in the land of Israel.
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/nazareth.html

When Constantine constructed a church? So it didn't exist during the time of Jesus. That was my point, not that it didn't exist at all later! but not during the time of Jesus thus the bibles saying he lived there would be false.


Difficult for me to comment as I am still waiting for your first fact.

Maybe I wasn't clear so please let me correct that now. I don't think either of us can post fact because there is no way to show it as fact The means that your posts don't consist of fact either.


The "lost books" were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place.
The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship, they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies

I am typing English right? When did I say there were lost? You seem to be justifying based on Religious canons. I'm only saying and this is pretty simple. SOME GOSPELS WERE NOT INCLUDED BUT DELIBERTELY EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL VERSION OF THE BIBLE. This decision wasn't done by God but by man.


The swoon theory falls apart quickly when you consider that Jesus had undergone six trials, been beaten, then scourged with 39 lashes that left His back raw, exposed, and bloody, had a crown of thorns forced upon His head, ripping His scalp, been crucified with nails in the hands and feet, hung there for six hours bleeding and dehydrating, had his side pierced with a spear which emitted blood and water, was left in a tomb for three days, and was tightly wrapped up. Was anyone in this condition able to revive, get himself out of the tight wrappings, walk on pierced feet, and single handedly move a large stone with hands that were unusable due to the wrist piercings which severed the median nerve in the hands and paralyzed them, and then some how got by the armed guards given the charge of watching the grave side? Are we to further believe that Jesus managed to walk a long distance on feet which had been pierced through and appear to the disciples as a victorious conqueror of death? It makes no sense. In fact, it would take more to believe this ridiculous conjecture than it would to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

See here is where the confusion begins. You seem to be under the impression as well as Mr. America that the bible is a historical document or that it can be shown to be true. Sorry but neiter exists. The story of the crucifixtion is a "story" and it's based on the Gospels which is written by men long after Jesus was gone. It's an 'INTERPETATION" and that doesn't mean it's fact.

FACT:
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened


2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something


3. piece of information: a piece of information such as a statistic or a statement of the truth


So unkangel my point is that you cannot show anything you are posting as "fact" anymore then I can. Both of us have to rely on writings of others and their interpetations while making up our own minds to what is "fact" to us.

[Strel]

A note to the Christians on this thread:


"Becuzdabiblesezso" is not a logical, valid argument on its own.

I don't mean to be rude, but I see a problem rapidly developing here. Certain people are getting rather defensive because the logic of their arguments is being questioned.

Let me explain - it is a logical fallacy to argue a proposition by beginning with a conclusion that the proposition itself is true. We could assume it is true and then look for counterexamples, but arguing "Becuzdabiblesezso" only tends to prove that religious "believers" abandon logic and rationality in favor of superstition and blind, unthinking faith.

One cannot support an argument about whether the New Testament is historically accurate by citing to the same text that is under debate as conclusive proof of its accuracy.

Get it?

[ukangel]

When Constantine constructed a church? So it didn't exist during the time of Jesus. That was my point, not that it didn't exist at all later! but not during the time of Jesus thus the bibles saying he lived there would be false.
I am copying and pasteing english right? When Constantine constructed a church it became more than small village. It became a site of pilgramages. It obivously existed before that as the there was a migration there in AD135 which was before the fourth century.
Maybe I wasn't clear so please let me correct that now. I don't think either of us can post fact because there is no way to show it as fact The means that your posts don't consist of fact either.
Funnily enough I though the quote on Nazerath was a fact.
I am typing English right? When did I say there were lost? You seem to be justifying based on Religious canons. I'm only saying and this is pretty simple. SOME GOSPELS WERE NOT INCLUDED BUT DELIBERTELY EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL VERSION OF THE BIBLE. This decision wasn't done by God but by man.
Sorry, I bad, I am assuming more knowledge than you actually have.The lost books is the name for the books abovethat you are calling Gospels. They are qualitatively different from the actual books that are included in the Bible.

See here is where the confusion begins. You seem to be under the impression as well as Mr. America that the bible is a historical document or that it can be shown to be true. Sorry but neiter exists. The story of the crucifixtion is a "story" and it's based on the Gospels which is written by men long after Jesus was gone. It's an 'INTERPETATION" and that doesn't mean it's fact.
Tell me read do you regard Tacitus histories as historically reliable? or perhaps Ceasers accounts of the Gallic wars?

Maybe we can compare these. The Gallic wars Oldest surving copy 900 years after the events. Number of ancient copies in existence 10.
Tacitus the historys Oldest surving copy 1100AD One thousand years after the events modern copies in existence 2.
The bible 100 years after (This is very conservative by the way as there as fragments in the eye witness peiod) modern copies in existence 5600.

The Bible is an order of magnitude more reliable than any other source from that time period. If you want to dispense with the bible you have to dispense with all the other historys from this time period.

All the more remarkable when you consider that the bible isnt primarily a history but a work of Theology. But even as a history is destroys any comparative work of that period.

So unkangel my point is that you cannot show anything you are posting as "fact" anymore then I can. Both of us have to rely on writings of others and their interpetations while making up our own minds to what is "fact" to us.

True but that really applies to everything doesnt it. Do you know the American civil war was fact. Maybe its a conspiracy and all the information was fabricated. Silly argument.

[Larani]

A note to the Christians on this thread:


"Becuzdabiblesezso" is not a logical, valid argument on its own.

I don't mean to be rude, but I see a problem rapidly developing here. Certain people are getting rather defensive because the logic of their arguments is being questioned.

Let me explain - it is a logical fallacy to argue a proposition by beginning with a conclusion that the proposition itself is true. We could assume it is true and then look for counterexamples, but arguing "Becuzdabiblesezso" only tends to prove that religious "believers" abandon logic and rationality in favor of superstition and blind, unthinking faith.

One cannot support an argument about whether the New Testament is historically accurate by citing to the same text that is under debate as conclusive proof of its accuracy.

Get it?

OK Strel,

Jesus said, Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

If everyone actually followed that one statement would the world be a much better place.

Jesus said keep your answers to Yes Yes and No No.

So true or False to the above?

Oh and before you say it. I not battling about the authenticity of the bible since from a logical and rational standpoint that is pointless. but i do support it commen truths from a rational and logical position because they are just that.

[MrAmerica]

I'll be out of town for a few days. Be back on Thurday 6/19.

Hold those thoughts

[ukangel]

Who said there was no oral tradition?

Unless, of course, the oral tradition had long since been lost....which is not something we can really cerify one way or another.

I only raised the possibility that an oral tradition would automatically be more suspect than a written one. Also, there is a written tradition - but that fact has no relevance to the question of whether the written tradition we have accurately portrays what happened or that the account is free from embellishment. Jesus could have been standing on a sandbar. Jesus may have made the crowd of people feel guilty and they shared the loaves and fishes they already had, Jesus could have learned a great deal about medicine (which would go a long way to explain some of the "medical" miracles). Given the ignorance of science of the time it wouldn't be too difficult to embellish actual events to a degree that made them seem supernatural.
This is just pure supposition. I dont think people at the time were so stupid as not to notice that the loaves and fishes werent around the corner waiting. In case why would Jesus have had the loaves and the fishes on his person?

Medical. Like curing the lame and raisning the dead? If he did the knowledge that a carpenter had 2000 years ago far outstrips medical science today.

Why not? Do you have any idea what the average life expectancy was in those days? 30? 40 tops? It would be unusual for someone to live to be 60 back then. Not rare, but at least uncommon.
Even if thats the case which I doubt the oral tradition in that time period would have been so strong that a chang of that magnitude wouldnt have been possible.

Yes, why not? Actually it would work more like "no, you are telling it wrong, this is what really happened". it doesn't have to be deliberate - oral accounts mutate and deteriorate with the retelling all on their own. What may have started out as stories about this nice young rabbi with some great ideas may have grown and been embellished in the retelling into the story you know today - especially considering that the Bible has gone through numerous translations and edits. I had a Greek Orthodox girlfriend years ago that insisted that the original version was in Greek - and she was probably correct that this is the language in which it was first written down. I said that maybe it was the oldest written account, but that it wasn't the original story. The original story would have been in Aramaic, no? How much has been lost in translation? How much embellished or added? Nobody knows. What you were talking about was a deliberate peversion of the oral tradition, an oral tradition may decay over time in details. However you are not talking about a decay but a fundamental rewriting. I dont believe early christians would have been so careless with thier oral history. They were prepared to die for it but couldnt be bother to stop fundamental peversions to the central tenets of thier belief? Say what?

I think that corruption or embellishment of this kind of story is not only possible, but very likely indeed. The Jesus story resembles older stories of avatars or sons of Gods that were sacrificed and rose again (Mithras, Krishna, Osiris...) and the text of the Sermon on the Mount is practically ripped off verbatim from older Sanskrit texts from India.

if I wanted to write a book of believable historical fiction, I would cite to and base the story on actual events and persons too. Just ask James Michener and Gore Vidal - they got rich doing it. Much of the Bible IS historical - but this history is written from the point of view of the writer and could reflect as much that writer's perceptions as any kind of objective reality.

You see this is really deeply unconvincing. First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture. Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life. It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature. But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances. Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication. Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed.

So? Given my response above, how does this prove that Jesus was divine or that he actually performed miracles? An account of one of his miracles from a disinterested eyewitness is what you are looking for, but this evidence does not exist as far as anyone has been able to determine. I don't believe the Romans even had a record of his trial - though they kept records of people tried contemporaneously. We know Pontius Pilate was a real person, but that does not mean that he presided over the trial of Jesus. We know that Abraham Lincoln was a real person, but that does not mean that Vidal's book in which he is a character is nonfiction.

I think we have alreadly touched on the textual integrity of the bible and we have touched on the oral tradition. No we cant prove Jesus performed miracles or was divine but it seems to me that its more likely than the alternative.

[cpwill]

True but that really applies to everything doesnt it. Do you know the American civil war was fact. Maybe its a conspiracy and all the information was fabricated. Silly argument.

UKANGEL SPEAKS THE TRUTH! :)

http://www.tektonics.org/abemyth.html

snip:Hello again. Welcome to the year 3740. This is Teachminder Phonias J. Futz, and the past few years have been quite amazing. As you know, I have been single-handedly responsible for debunking the mythology surrounding Abraham Lincoln, supposedly a great leader of the ancient nation of Usa, but as I have shown, more likely a charlatan and a scoundrel. It is with some excitement that I find now that I must upgrade, and to some degree disassociate myself from, my earlier theory. I am now convinced, based on newfound evidence, that it is quite likely that Lincoln as a man did not exist at all.

[Redheat]

Funnily enough I though the quote on Nazerath was a fact.

Which fact?

Biblical scholars and clergy alike have always had difficulty accepting the possibility that at the time of Jesus there was no city called “Nazareth.” They have always resisted this possibility and sometimes, quite vigorously.

The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, and perhaps the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records or biblical texts of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud (the Jewish law code), nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages, and Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD), a widely traveled historian who never missed anything and who voluminously describes the region. The name is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

Get it now?

Sorry, I bad, I am assuming more knowledge than you actually have.The lost books is the name for the books abovethat you are calling Gospels. They are qualitatively different from the actual books that are included in the Bible.

No you're not assuming but you're being conscending. Shall I post the definition to that?

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

Gospels of Thomas they existed, are not lost and are not included in the bible.

There is also belief that the Gospels of Mary exist.

Tell me read do you regard Tacitus histories as historically reliable? or perhaps Ceasers accounts of the Gallic wars?

Maybe we can compare these. The Gallic wars Oldest surving copy 900 years after the events. Number of ancient copies in existence 10.
Tacitus the historys Oldest surving copy 1100AD One thousand years after the events modern copies in existence 2.
The bible 100 years after (This is very conservative by the way as there as fragments in the eye witness peiod) modern copies in existence 5600.

The Bible is an order of magnitude more reliable than any other source from that time period. If you want to dispense with the bible you have to dispense with all the other historys from this time period.

All the more remarkable when you consider that the bible isnt primarily a history but a work of Theology. But even as a history is destroys any comparative work of that period.

I'm sorry but I fail to see your meaning or for that matter I fail to locate a point. However:

Zealots were known as the (kanaim) in Aramaic, or Sicarri = Latin for sikariwn, lestwn in Gk, meaning brigands in the common terminology of the Romans but more accurately we would call them revolutionaries or terrorists as they were attempting to overthrow Roman rule. The Sicarri were called this on account of their short daggers known in Gk. as mikra zifidia Rabbinic sources refer to the; in Hebrew, ( sikarim) during the siege of Jerusalem. Josephus equates the lestai as Sicarri the term Zhlwths is not a Heb word it is Gk. and therefore the Sicarri must be equated with them. In Hebrew they were called the Canaenans. Eleazar was the apogonos of Judas who was known in Heb as a Rabbi since he was known in Gk as sofisths i.e. a learned man. This was a Galilean simile for Zealot, see (Mishna Yadaim 4.8). war in Gk = polemon so lhstrikou polemon = guerilla war, Caesar = Kaisara, crhsms amfibolos = ambiguous oracle. Jonathan was appointed the High Priest by Vitellius and Caiphas deposed him in AD.36 and replaced him with Theophilus. ( it is this High Priest who it could be argued was John the author of the Gospel.) In AD.39-40 Gaius (Caligula) orders Petronius to errect a statue of Zeus in the Temple he tries to stall and infuriates the Emperor but Gaius dies before his order to Petronius to commit suicide can be delivered. James is killed by a sword on Herods orders which was a form of execution for political offenses. Stoning was used as a capital charge for religious offences. see Goguel, La naissance du christianisme, pp.126. 503n.3 The execution of John and James Zebedee, In AD.44 King Agrippa dies very suddenly ( poison?) by the Zealots?

http://www.geocities.com/aleph135/zealots.html

MT 10:1-4 "These are the names of the twelve apostels:...Simon the Zealot...." (Jerusalem Bible translation)

The Zealots achieved fairly little, except to trigger heavy Roman control over the Jews and the closing off of Jerusalem to Jews. But they were the main actors in one of the central legends in Jewish history: the defence of Masada and the subsequent collective suicide.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/zealots.htm

True but that really applies to everything doesnt it. Do you know the American civil war was fact. Maybe its a conspiracy and all the information was fabricated. Silly argument.

Ah yes I know it's a fact because there exists historical evidence to prove it. Are you saying you can't prove it? Sorry I missed again the point of that particular comparison. Yes we agree that was a silly argument. However it has little to do with the bible since that is not supported by actual evidence now is it?

[Redheat]

A note to the Christians on this thread:


"Becuzdabiblesezso" is not a logical, valid argument on its own.

I don't mean to be rude, but I see a problem rapidly developing here. Certain people are getting rather defensive because the logic of their arguments is being questioned.

Let me explain - it is a logical fallacy to argue a proposition by beginning with a conclusion that the proposition itself is true. We could assume it is true and then look for counterexamples, but arguing "Becuzdabiblesezso" only tends to prove that religious "believers" abandon logic and rationality in favor of superstition and blind, unthinking faith.

One cannot support an argument about whether the New Testament is historically accurate by citing to the same text that is under debate as conclusive proof of its accuracy.

Get it?

No it would appear as though that logic has alluded some :rolleyes:

[Strel]

OK Strel,

Jesus said, Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

If everyone actually followed that one statement would the world be a much better place.

Jesus said keep your answers to Yes Yes and No No.

So true or False to the above?

Oh and before you say it. I not battling about the authenticity of the bible since from a logical and rational standpoint that is pointless. but i do support it commen truths from a rational and logical position because they are just that.

I agree 100%.

[cpwill]

Maybe I wasn't clear so please let me correct that now. I don't think either of us can post fact because there is no way to show it as fact The means that your posts don't consist of fact either.

now that's a debating tactic i'll admit i've never seen before. deny all possibility of the existance of historical fact....

Gospels of Thomas they existed, are not lost and are not included in the bible.

they also claim that Jesus is a murderer and that women can't recieve salvation; so i'm not positive on their degree of authenticity as regards Jesus' message:)

[Larani]

I agree 100%.

Ok so in so far whether fiction or non-fiction we agree that Jesus was a Good man, for what he taught how many of us can honestly say this week we treated everybody the way we would (be honest) want to be treated?

I know I can since this is my montra. :) Before reacting to others I always ask myself is this the way I would want them to be reacting to me.

Oh and remember Just because you forgive someone doesn't mean they will get it so don't expect a initial return on your investement sometimes it requires a lifetime commintment.

[ukangel]

No it would appear as though that logic has alluded some :rolleyes:

That your using insults as a substitute for debate getting that loud and clear :)