A Challenge for Christians: Show Us Your Very Best Proof For Jesus (myths, Pilate)

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by The Last Amalekite 1Sam15

If you also built the someone's, yes.

Especially if you're omniscient


Pretty simple, huh?

The someone had free will. Why blame the builder for their decision to do evil. It is simple if you understand it properly.

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

For me, that isn't even the question to be asked. The question is; does it tell the truth, at all?

There seems less and less reason to credit much of it. There is history, yes, but not as much as we once thought. And what there is, ir merely a background to religious spin. The siege of Tyre was turned into a prophecy - retrospectively. The siege of Jerusalem was turned into a miracle when it was a deal between the two sides.

The idea of any input from a god, never mind inerrant input, seems utterly ludicrous.

It should to non-believers. Your views validate at least one truth in the Bible---I Cor 2:14. Thanks

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

You would if you could but you can't.

I will make it easy for you---list one contradiction.

Jesus' lineage, to begin with. And please don't try explaining it away with Eusebius' silly theory of levirate marriage.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Well that might be a valid argument if God knew everything that would happen in the world before He ever created it; but what if He did not? What if He has to search things out to see what is going on?

The ain't quite the "god" we thought he was.

Originally Posted by pneuma

Trying to fix that which they demolished is always a good start.







But He did and he does warn people, they just don't listen. People were warned that the water break would not stand up to a large hurricane long before New Orleans was devastated by a large hurricane. If they had of listen to those who warned them then New Orleans might not have been so devastated.



You got the evidence to support you statement of fact?



That is your concept of God, not mine. God cannot sin, therefore God cannot do everything.



He did tell us how to look after it, we just did not and don't listen. We are starting to get the picture now, but the damage might be irreversible



Nature is nature, we have screwed nature up by destroying much of it, so don't blame nature for humankind's destruction of it. Nature did not deal us this hand, we did.

It seems that our views are converging. We are responsible for fixing it -Us. That is 'evidence' you asked for.

You are already having to make God unable to do stuff. If it cant fix stuff in the universe how could it have made this universe? It is becoming the incredible shrinking god very rapidly.

You talk about the warnings going unheeded. Because they were disregarded as mere human opinion. Not a clear message from a god. So why not in fact human opinion as most of the rest of it is?

Originally Posted by pneuma

That is because you, like any fundamentalist you read everything in the bible as being literal; totally ignoring the mythos.

Our views converge even more. If you want to put it on the mythology shelf, so do I. And we can both forget about it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

yup, even trans believes Jesus was a historical person but everything written about him is all made up nonsense.

Not everything. I said there was some history both in the OT and the new - but it is doctored for religious reasons.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

You would if you could but you can't.

I will make it easy for you---list one contradiction.

Try genesis 6:19-20 with genesis 7:2-3

Or maybe you can tell us how Saul died, 1 Samuel chapter 31:4, 2 Samuel 1:10

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

The ain't quite the "god" we thought he was.

.

Thus proving you are not denying God but rather YOUR concept of God.

It seems that our views are converging. We are responsible for fixing it -Us. That is 'evidence' you asked for.

It has always been us, if we make the mess we are to clean it up. Only a child expects their parent to pick up after them.

You are already having to make God unable to do stuff. If it cant fix stuff in the universe how could it have made this universe? It is becoming the incredible shrinking god very rapidly.

I do not make God unable to do stuff, it is your concept of God that views my concept of God as being unable to do stuff.

Why should God pick up our mess? as I already stated only a child expects such from their parent. Humankind was given dominion ( you might want to check out what that means) of the earth and now they are crying they don't want dominion.

You talk about the warnings going unheeded. Because they were disregarded as mere human opinion. Not a clear message from a god. So why not in fact human opinion as most of the rest of it is?

There was this guy floundering around in the ocean praying that God would save him. A fishing boat came along and offered to pull the man out of the water.

The man said no, God will save me.

After a while the lifeguard show up and tries to help the man.

The man says no, God will save me.

Low and behold the man finally drown and come before God and says to God why did you let me drown, why did you not save me as I asked.

God replies, did you not see the fishing boat or the lifeguard I sent.

Our views converge even more. If you want to put it on the mythology shelf, so do I. And we can both forget about it

Your understanding of mythos is probably what the term means today which is something not true. That is not what mythos meant to those who wrote many a year ago. A mythos is used to explain a truth that was hard to put into words.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Not everything. I said there was some history both in the OT and the new - but it is doctored for religious reasons.

See your getting closer to my understanding. There is history and there is mythos, it come down to knowing which is which. Which is one of the reason I have stated the sciences can actually help us out in this regard.

[The Last Amalekite 1Sam15]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

The someone had free will. Why blame the builder for their decision to do evil. It is simple if you understand it properly.

Oh the tried and true "free will " fallacy.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=OHygayJFYpo

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

You would if you could but you can't.

I will make it easy for you---list one contradiction.

I'll give you three

(1) Luke says that Joseph's family went from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the census (which on all evidence was the 6 A.D. census) and then after the birth and the circumcision rites carried out in Jerusalem (around a couple of weeks) they went back there. Matthew says that they went to Egypt until Herod had died (and that was in the years 4-3 B.C.) and his son was ruling, and that was the reason the went to Galilee at all, and that pretty clearly stated they were Judeans living in Bethlehem to start off with. What's more it looks like they were living there for near on two years before Herod was supposed to have tried to eliminate Jesus (Luke of course says nothing of this) because Herod asks the cue question about when the star appeared and then targets 2 year olds and under.

What we have are two different and utterly conflicting stories.

(2) the synoptic gospels have Jesus going to the lonely place across the sea of Galilee, which is Bethsaida, to feed the 5,000 and he returns to 'Genessaret' to his own city of Capernaum, by boat with the disciples, after catching them up by walking on the water (except Luke doesn't have that walking on the water, which is quite odd). And after the feeding of the 5,000, he is recognized as messiah and takes three disciples up a mountain where they see him transfigures and Moses and Elijah beside him.

John also has the trip to Bethsaida, the feeding of 5,000 and the return by boat and walking on the water, but where the recognition as messiah and the transfiguration should be, there is no such thing. Only Jesus scampering off into the hills because he saw that the people wanted to make him a king. (6.15) (1)

(3) here a triple contradiction. In John, Jesus arrive from Jericho, stays overnight in Bethany and then the next morning, collects his donkey to ride to the temple - but the temple cleaning - up is missing (it was shifted to 2.13). Luke has the procession and Temple bust -up on the same day, but on the same day he arrives from Jericho.
Mark also has the procession on the same day as the arrival from Jericho, but he has the temple kerfuffle on the next day.
Matthew also has the procession and Fracas on the same day - which it ought to be - though notoriously misreading scripture (2) he makes it Two donkeys. This isn't understandable slips - it is fiddling the text and it certainly clobbers the claim that they were eyewitness.

And here are three makeweights

Judas used his silver to buy a field in Acts. in Matthew he threw the silver to the priests who used it to buy a field. Add to that two quite different methods of suicide.

John has a spear thrust on the cross and indeed shows the wound in his side to the ten disciples (minus Thomas who is absent and Judas of course) but the spear thrust is absent in the synoptics and Luke indeed has Jesus shows feet and hands, but not the wound in his side, and Thomas is there, since Luke refers to the eleven disciples.

the 2 Marys find Jesus missing at the Tomb but after being given the message of resurrection by the angel, they run into Jesus who greets them. But Luke has Cleophas tell Jesus on the way to Emmaus that 'some women' found the tomb empty and reported a vision of angels, but no mention is made of their seeing Jesus, and in fact in Luke there is no mention of the seeing Jesus at all. And John has the empty tomb, but no angels there announcing Jesus risen.

I'd say that is something to get your teeth into. Let's have one credible explanation. 'witness error' simply will not do for contradictions like these, so you can save that one. Neither will evasions about "!t makes no difference to Jesus' message". It makes the greatest difference: it makes it worthless. I do not approve of rewriting to the stories to make them work, but you can try that, if you like .


(1) I actually think this is a highly significant passage. I think it describes the same event but fiddled to disguise it - in contradictory ways.

(2) because he read it it in Greek in the Septuagint.