The NT gospels are full of lies. (disciples, churches, prophets)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a fun note on terminology: the OP seems to consider the Bible as received as a primary source and it is not. It is a compilation of sources, so that each different gospel could be considered as a separate source, so there you have four sources for many of the stories. That there appear to be no other sources for particular stories in those sources may be true, but there are other sources with stories and complete narratives that are outlandish in ways far more notable than what is contained in the Bible. JerZ' analysis is probably as close as we will get, and the point remains that it is not the truth of the legends that really matters, but the message of the Christ found nin the life and ministry of Jesus.
Not really. Without going back to confirm which is which,(my memory isn't as it once was), even many theologians accept that many of the Gospels were copied from one another, reducing the source significantly. There are many theories about why the story of Jesus was promoted, including the Romans calming the masses, but who really knows where it came from.
Where do you find the gospel narratives outside of the New Testament? They are not found in other gospels, the ones rejected by early Christian leaders who chose the four gospels. Apparently, they were concocted by gospel authors, which makes the gospels untruthful. To refute this accusation, other references are required.
yep. treat your neighbor nicely and help them when ya can is a pack of lies.
Where do you find the gospel narratives outside of the New Testament? They are not found in other gospels, the ones rejected by early Christian leaders who chose the four gospels. Apparently, they were concocted by gospel authors, which makes the gospels untruthful. To refute this accusation, other references are required.
(2Tim 3:16)All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2Pet 1:21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Not really. Without going back to confirm which is which,(my memory isn't as it once was), even many theologians accept that many of the Gospels were copied from one another, reducing the source significantly. There are many theories about why the story of Jesus was promoted, including the Romans calming the masses, but who really knows where it came from.
Well, I (the post you quoted here referenced my idea on this thread) was referring to how an initial mythology may have developed regarding Jesus.
By the time the story was actually being written down (i.e. what would eventually become the four books of the Gospel, as well as other stories that were later tossed out), yes, there are obvious copy-overs, as well as additions, deletions and inconsistencies obviously geared toward one audience or another.
But by then, it had been a few decades (depending upon which book you're talking about) since Jesus had died...plenty of time and then some for "tall stories" to grow even taller. A story can grow taller in even one retelling, let alone dozens. "Did you hear? Gladys found pot in her son's room." "Did you hear? Gladys found her son smoking pot." "Did you hear? Gladys found her son smoking pot. He should NEVER have been allowed to run around with the wrong crowd." "Did you hear? Gladys' son was found in a giant pot orgy with all his bad friends." "Did you hear? Gladys' son was giving out pot to dozens of other kids!" "Did you hear? Gladys' son is selling pot to all the other kids!" "Did you hear? Gladys' son was busted." "Did you hear? Gladys' son was busted by the police. He may face jail time!"
But of course, we do this to create (or boost) heroes too. "A man in the early Middle Ages led troops against the Saxons for five years." "A general in the Middle Ages led troops against the Saxons for five years." "A man led hundreds of men into battle in the Middle Ages and beat hundreds of Saxons for decades." "A man dedicated his entire life to leading thousands of men into battle and his land made him the tribal chief. He defeated thousands. Some say he must have been related somehow to royalty." "A man led thousands of men into battle and his people named him king." "A king in the early Middle Ages spurred all of Southern Britain on to a rebellion, leading on horseback." "A king taught all of Southern Britain to be horseman, which he called knights, and to obey a code of conduct. He was a visionary." "A great king in Southern Britain was accepted by the entire island as king, even though there had never been a united Britain." "King Arthur was the king of all Britain and all, from every kingdom across the land, bowed down to him." "There was never before, and has never since been, a leader as great as King Arthur. His power and vision could only have been created by God. Some day, King Arthur will return, and make the land beautiful, prosperous and brotherly once again."
The source for the Gospels specifically may be reduced as you say, but the original oral buzzword would have been something different altogether, at least as going from common man to common man.
Well, I (the post you quoted here referenced my idea on this thread) was referring to how an initial mythology may have developed regarding Jesus.
By the time the story was actually being written down (i.e. what would eventually become the four books of the Gospel, as well as other stories that were later tossed out), yes, there are obvious copy-overs, as well as additions, deletions and inconsistencies obviously geared toward one audience or another.
But by then, it had been a few decades (depending upon which book you're talking about) since Jesus had died...plenty of time and then some for "tall stories" to grow even taller. A story can grow taller in even one retelling, let alone dozens. "Did you hear? Gladys found pot in her son's room." "Did you hear? Gladys found her son smoking pot." "Did you hear? Gladys found her son smoking pot. He should NEVER have been allowed to run around with the wrong crowd." "Did you hear? Gladys' son was found in a giant pot orgy with all his bad friends." "Did you hear? Gladys' son was giving out pot to dozens of other kids!" "Did you hear? Gladys' son is selling pot to all the other kids!" "Did you hear? Gladys' son was busted." "Did you hear? Gladys' son was busted by the police. He may face jail time!"
But of course, we do this to create (or boost) heroes too. "A man in the early Middle Ages led troops against the Saxons for five years." "A general in the Middle Ages led troops against the Saxons for five years." "A man led hundreds of men into battle in the Middle Ages and beat hundreds of Saxons for decades." "A man dedicated his entire life to leading thousands of men into battle and his land made him the tribal chief. He defeated thousands. Some say he must have been related somehow to royalty." "A man led thousands of men into battle and his people named him king." "A king in the early Middle Ages spurred all of Southern Britain on to a rebellion, leading on horseback." "A king taught all of Southern Britain to be horseman, which he called knights, and to obey a code of conduct. He was a visionary." "A great king in Southern Britain was accepted by the entire island as king, even though there had never been a united Britain." "King Arthur was the king of all Britain and all, from every kingdom across the land, bowed down to him." "There was never before, and has never since been, a leader as great as King Arthur. His power and vision could only have been created by God. Some day, King Arthur will return, and make the land beautiful, prosperous and brotherly once again."
The source for the Gospels specifically may be reduced as you say, but the original oral buzzword would have been something different altogether, at least as going from common man to common man.
No one has any real proof the gospels were written decades after Jesus died. So why say it?
Also, you think the New Testament was written by people who said such and such to someone and they told it to someone who told it to someone and so forth until we arrived at the narratives we now have. But again, you have to actually PROVE that was the case.
Joh_14:26 Now the consoler, the holy spirit, which the Father will be sending in My name, that will be teaching you all, and reminding you of all that I said to you."
Where do you find the gospel narratives outside of the New Testament? They are not found in other gospels, the ones rejected by early Christian leaders who chose the four gospels. Apparently, they were concocted by gospel authors, which makes the gospels untruthful. To refute this accusation, other references are required.
yep. treat your neighbor nicely and help them when ya can is a pack of lies.
Some religions have some good advice on offer. No one denies that. All error contains a kernel of truth, at the least. Sometimes it's nearly the whole truth with a twist. People aren't dumb enough, usually, to buy complete and utter rubbish, with zero content that appeals to the "better angels of their nature".
The conceit of Christianity in regards to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" is that it is a concept they invented that would be absent from the world, but for them. People of all religious and non-religious persuasions have been selfless and loving and even self-sacrificing, since the dawn of man.
There are 4 different Gospels. They are in the Bible BECAUSE they talk about Jesus. Instead of reading them, you complain that there are not Gospels that DIDN'T get included in the canon?
My complaint is about the NT gospel narratives, they are not true. Moreover, there are no secondary sources to authenticate them. I've made no comments about the canon and I've read the four gospels. What seems to drive the NT gospels compared to those other gospels is an exciting, if not unbelievable narrative. That is my issue. NT authors were like good Hollywood screen writers, they added to the story line.
Everyone should know I believe in God. My God is the Jewish Lord. Furthermore, I believe Jesus was God. Because I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, those particular narratives (being tempted by Satan, etc.) must be lies. I would acknowledge there may have been rumors, but, mostly, because Jesus was not the son of God, they were added to make the stories exciting. If there was no son of of God, there would no such narratives. My explanation is because God is a duality, NT authors naturally assumed Jesus was both father and son. Yes, I know, I have no Bible references for God's duality. However, that is not the topic of this thread.
My complaint is about the NT gospel narratives, they are not true. Moreover, there are no secondary sources to authenticate them. I've made no comments about the canon and I've read the four gospels. What seems to drive the NT gospels compared to those other gospels is an exciting, if not unbelievable narrative. That is my issue. NT authors were like good Hollywood screen writers, they added to the story line.
And what if you are wrong?
Quote:
Everyone should know I believe in God. My God is the Jewish Lord. Furthermore, I believe Jesus was God. Because I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, those particular narratives (being tempted by Satan, etc.) must be lies. I would acknowledge there may have been rumors, but, mostly, because Jesus was not the son of God, they were added to make the stories exciting. If there was no son of of God, there would no such narratives. My explanation is because God is a duality, NT authors naturally assumed Jesus was both father and son. Yes, I know, I have no Bible references for God's duality. However, that is not the topic of this thread.
If Jesus was God Whose spirit fills heaven and earth, how can this be so based on this:
Psa_110:1 "A Davidic Psalm The averring of Yahweh to my Lord: Sit at My right Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet." ?
David's Lord was Jesus. Since David's Lord (Jesus) was told by Yahweh to Sit at Yahweh's right, how can Jesus be that Yahweh?
1Co_8:6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him."
Some religions have some good advice on offer. No one denies that. All error contains a kernel of truth, at the least. Sometimes it's nearly the whole truth with a twist. People aren't dumb enough, usually, to buy complete and utter rubbish, with zero content that appeals to the "better angels of their nature".
The conceit of Christianity in regards to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" is that it is a concept they invented that would be absent from the world, but for them. People of all religious and non-religious persuasions have been selfless and loving and even self-sacrificing, since the dawn of man.
Indeed, so...where have you found the best and most complete exposition of that concept or "Word?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
