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.
You are misreading what the Bible says. Matthew says no such hing ...
The Return to Nazareth
19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt
20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”
21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.
22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee,
23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
... and Luke says His parents went up every year but it says Jesus went when He was 12.
I know, that is what I said.
Luke says they (his parents, with or without Jesus) visited Jerusalem (in Judea) at least once a year until Jesus was 12.
That may have been your conclusion, but your conclusion is not logical.
No, your argument was not rational. The conclusion was rational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
I am not saying the mentions of Jesus are true.. You have said He is not mention by secular historians, but the link shows He was.
No, the link asserts he was. But several are later interpolations; others are based on the Bible, so are not independent; and several do not even mention Jesus.
Instead of your usual opinion, go and find what Phlegon actually said.
As usual, pontification with no supporting evidence.
There is lots of evidence. Go read a book, or listen to a podcast, or (if that's too much trouble) just use Wikipedia. Even apologists are generally careful to say things like "....TRADITION holds that the gospels were written by MMLJ," but scholars agree they were written anonymously, with the names assigned much later.
However, I feel that a statement in Wikipedia sums it all up pretty well for me, although I realize others may see it differently:
"The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels."
But once again, I feel christians are on the wrong path. Rather than try to prove the un-provable, they should discuss the validity of the "teachings".
I don't need Josephus. I just posted a link where several historians mentioned Jesus b y name. I don't need them either. Jesus is mentioned in the 4 gospels, by men who considered bearing false witness a sin against God, and several of the epistles. Unless you have evidence they are lying, their records is more than you have that Jesus is not a real person.
I don't know id Eusebius was a fundie or not, but I am a fundamentalist and their is a difference in the secular understanding of fundie, that is false.
In all honesty, we know virtually NOTHING about those four men, about their honesty, about their lives, etc.
I just posted a link that gave several historians who mentioned Jesus by name.
If you goggle "Jesus mentioned by name" you will find many references.
Can they all be wrong?
Omega, you're lying again. The link is no good. I've googled "historians who mention the name, Jesus." Only Josephus comes up. See how deceptive you are??
Readers, THIS is why Christians *ARE FORCED* To Tell Lies To Defend Their Faith
I am not saying the mentions of Jesus are true.. You have said He is not mention by secular historians, but the link shows He was.
come now. We know that Jesus was at times mentioned by historians - but they were evidently repeating Christian claims, not attesting to his existence of their own knowledge. That's if they even refer to Jesus at all. Pliny, for instance only talk about Christians. Suetonius talks about a "Chreshtus" who may not be the Jesus of the gospels at all.
On the other hand, Bar Serapeon talks about the Jews killing their own king. Though Jesus isn't mentioned, that (by process of elimination) has to be whom he means. But the idea that the 'Jews killed their king' is evidently repeating the Christian belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
I don't need Josephus. I just posted a link where several historians mentioned Jesus b y name. I don't need them either. Jesus is mentioned in the 4 gospels, by men who considered bearing false witness a sin against God, and several of the epistles. Unless you have evidence they are lying, their records is more than you have that Jesus is not a real person.
I don't know id Eusebius was a fundie or not, but I am a fundamentalist and their is a difference in the secular understanding of fundie, that is false.
Circular argument. The question of whether we can believe what the gospels say is answered that we can because you believe what they say. However, the discrepancies and contradictions are so glaring (you chose to ignore luke refuting John when I put it to you) are clear evidence that they cannot be trusted. I have no doubt that those Gospel -writers - as Bible apologists do now - do not consider dishonesty in the cause of Religion is not 'bearing false witness'. In other words - lying for Jesus is not a sin.
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.
