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.
Three years? I am sure it was under two months, if you believe Luke (which I don't). Where does three years come from?
The synoptics say 1 year. John (or whoever was writing using his name), if we use the number of Passover meals as a guide, expanded it to 3. Right there you have a gargantuan flaw that cannot be explained away, even by Mike. That's partly why John places Jesus throwing all the money changers out of the temple at the beginning of his gospel instead of at the end as the synoptics do.
Quote:
The Synoptic Gospels imply a ministry of only one year. Everything in those accounts fits nicely into one year. There is no indication that Jesus made multiple trips to Jerusalem in Mark, Matthew, or Luke.
John records three Passovers which would be two years (Passover-1 then a year later Passover-2 then the final Passover a year later). Assigning specific dates to the particular Passovers is pure guesswork.
The 3-year ministry of Jesus is a later tradition. The Bible doesn't teach it.
Here is a bit more evidence that Justin Martyr had no knowledge of the gospels. Writing about the moment the disciples deserted Jesus, he states that they deserted AFTER the crucifixion:
Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles.
--[First Apology ch. 50]
Moreover, the prophet Zechariah foretold that this same Christ would be smitten, and His disciples scattered: which also took place. For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths.
-- [Dialogue with Trypho ch. 53]
Why would he say that the disciples deserted Jesus AFTER the crucifixion when, if he had access to the gospel narrative, he would have plainly read that they had all done a runner the night BEFORE the crucifixion.
This story about the disciples doing a runner also brings up another WTF moment. According to the Gospels, these guys had followed Jesus around for 3 years. They had seen him perform dozens, perhaps hundreds of miracles; healing the sick and crippled with a touch, walking on water, changing water to wine, feeding thousands with a few fishes and loaves of bread, bringing the dead back to life, etc.
Also, three of them had witnessed the man-god's 'transfiguration' on a mountain top in which Jesus begins to shine with bright rays of light; and that's not all - the prophets Moses and Elijah appear next to him and he speaks with them. Jesus is then called "Son" by a voice in the sky; and according to Matthew (10:1), 'Jesus had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.'
So, now the apostles also had miraculous powers given to them by the man-god and Acts 8:5-8 tells us that they actually used these special powers.
Pretty amazing stuff, huh? That would have been more than enough to convince me that this guy was god, the son of god, or both. Yet, after all this, on the night before his crucifixion, all of Jesus disciples did a runner - didn't want to know - denying they knew him and staying away.
Hell, even Jim Jones followers stuck with him to the end, willingly drank the Kool-Aid. They obviously believed Jones was a legitimate prophet who was in god’s inner circle. Yet, Jones never showed them any miracles, was never transfigured, and never passed on any special powers to his followers. How much more evidence did the apostles have of Jesus' importance? Yet they still abandoned him.
Of course, it makes a good story doesn't it. Poor Jesus...abandoned and alone.
Good points. It seems that the stories were circulating, but it wasn't set down what happened when. John doesn't mention a fleeing but Jesus asking that his disciples be allowed to go, and even then Simon starts laying about him with his sword and then he follows Jesus - in all four gospels,apparently just to find himself denying his master. Interesting ambivalent attitude of the Gospels towards Simon. Reminds me a lot of Ananda and even little John. The closest, and most trusted top follower, and yet a bit dumb and always being the stooge for snappish correction.
Interesting that Luke doesn't have the disciples fleeing. Nor does John. so it's just Matthew and Mark, and you know, Matthew and Mark are also the ones to have Jesus quoting from Psalms (rather absurdly) on the cross? They do have some common material the others didn't.
That is why I say Luke often reflects the original form, where even Mark (nearest the simpler original synoptic) has the additional material he shares with Matthew.
Thus the original story did not have the disciples fleeing and betraying Jesus, but more or less left behind, and John suggests that Jesus said they should be let go. So the Betrayal by the disciples was added to the story in the additional material used by Matthew and Mark (I call it "M" material or sometimes "P" document ). Why? We already know that Judas 'Betrayed' Jesus and paid for it, though of course if he hadn't there wouldn't have been salvation. So God's plan needed Judas to do his work, and if Satan entered into Judas, as Luke says, Satan was doing his familiar work of Gofor God.
I suspect... hypothesize..that the ambivalent attitude towards the disciples comes from the Christian writers who amended the story. As it seems, the author of "M" decided to say that the disciples deserted Jesus, and Matthew and Mark simply wrote that in their versions when they got hold of M (as Matthew and Luke got hold of "Q". This reflects the ambivalent attitude of the Greek Christians towards the apostles, partly reflecting Paul's ambivalent attitude, but partly an ongoing Greek detestation for Jews. The writer of "M" couldn't resist it.When Jesus was dragged off, leaving the disciples behind,,they were made to flee, deserting and betraying Jesus. I had an idea that one of them dug out a "Prophecy"of the sheep being scattered, but I couldn't find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbyrd009
well, this may not be taking into account that Christ acquiesced to the authorities, rather than "passing through" them as He did in other places. He gave Himself up, iow, and we have much evidence that the Apostles didn't really hear Him when He said "I am going to die, and come back."
You are puttin' us on. Jesus practically shouted it at them, but they "Did not Understand" and I can only suppose that God did a Pharaoh on them to make sure they didn't until he sorta flipped on On switch after the resurrection - Sunday night according to John and on Pentecost a couple of months later according to Luke, but what hey, not at all, from what Matthew and Mark say about it, but after all they were no more there than you and I were, and our guesswork is as good as theirs.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-18-2016 at 10:20 AM..
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
John 21:25
Well clearly we don't expect to hear about what days and what time the Christian man-god went behind a bush. We would expect to hear about him saying - I was alone but in order that my words, thoughts and deeds could be relayed to humanity, I told my gang about what happened and what I said when we met up later down at the tavern.
When we have important ****-ups like John quoting verbatim what the man-god said when he wasn't even there, it is not enough to invent things like ...'maybe Jesus told them some other time' unless you have support for that because...maybe he didn't tell them and so problem hasn't gone away.
Well clearly we don't expect to hear about what days and what time the Christian man-god went behind a bush. We would expect to hear about him saying - I was alone but in order that my words, thoughts and deeds could be relayed to humanity, I told my gang about what happened and what I said when we met up later down at the tavern.
When we have important ****-ups like John quoting verbatim what the man-god said when he wasn't even there, it is not enough to invent things like ...'maybe Jesus told them some other time' unless you have support for that because...maybe he didn't tell them and so problem hasn't gone away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
The synoptics say 1 year. John (or whoever was writing using his name), if we use the number of Passover meals as a guide, expanded it to 3. Right there you have a gargantuan flaw that cannot be explained away, even by Mike. That's partly why John places Jesus throwing all the money changers out of the temple at the beginning of his gospel instead of at the end as the synoptics do.
I believe Corvette was referring to the teaching period after the resurrection before he ascended (according to Luke, 40 days, as I recall) which was when Jesus was able to explain what he did at Gethsemane while they were asleep to explain how they knew. She could not sensibly be referring to the whole ministry which was a year or so. I wouldn't trust John's Passovers. He seems to have half the stuff happening at Passover. And the hoot is that the one time they all agree that something happened at Passover, I would bet my ass that it didn't.
Well so far it looks to me like Jesus is having a struggle to Exist - and I think he did! God is going to find it tough going indeed to look like he exists.
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
John 21:25" (The Corvette)
Oh that takes me back! When I was first challenged to read the gospels, and I did and reported back with the results, after a bit of fiddling about about explaining away miracles (Jesus waded through water, rather than walked on it) and appeal to "Look at the Big Picture" (1) he ended up with just that 'Many other things that Jesus did" quote, and he ain't the only one.
Friends, let me translate from the Theist -English dictionary.
(Theist) "Jesus did many other things"
(English) "There is probably some perfectly good explanation".
I have a book 'Evidence for Jesus" (2) where there was a bit of discussion of the Nativities and it was grudgingly admitted that they were irreconcilable. But the book ended up with a sort of "Many other things" (meaning "some explanation will turn up") parting shot to the effect that he would go on half believing it was true in the expectation that some Explanation will turn up to make Matthew fit Luke. (3)
(1) I replied:"This IS the Big Picture". But it was his faith that he spoke of. And it was a waste of time speaking of it to me.
(2)Which contains the Evidence for Jesus of...fishooks found in Capernaum!
(3) though they try like mad as it is. A strenuous effort was made to try to shift Herod's death from 4 BC to 1 BC, using the rather persuasive date of a lunar eclipse mentioned by Josephus, and increasingly less persuasive arguments after that, the vacant Prefectural post of 1 BC (when it was supposed there might be an Herodian Census) the 4BC accession of the sons of Herod backdated (hypothetically) to when Herod was still alive, and even arguing about dating from Olympiads, Consulships and Josephus counting half a year as one. Though that all seemed to me to add the time rather than reduce it.
But it's all futile before it even begins, because Matthew says Jesus was born, Herod tries to kill him, Herod dies and Archelaus takes over so Joseph returning from Egypt goes to Galilee to be safe from him.
Then Archelaus is deposed, Rome takes over, Coponius and Quirinus assess the new province for tax and Joseph goes to Bethlehem to register for the tax,which is when Jesus is born, a whole Archelaus reign after he was already born.
Jesus can do as many other things as you like, but it is never going to get him born twice.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-18-2016 at 11:20 AM..
What evidence was the prime factor in convincing you to believe in the existence of the christian god? I figured that sharing this information would be very helpful to atheists to help us identify the most convincing evidence so that we can look into it further.
I am no longer a Christian, but I do believe that the authors in the Christian bible who introduced the idea that "God is love" got it right. I'm convinced that that God exists, by virtue of the fact that I've observed and experienced what it is to love and be loved (not talking about an emotion, here). There is a "spirit" that moves people to care about other beings and things beyond just their own survival and best interests, and which allows us to transcend our self-involvement. If you're a materialist, you'll likely want to debate that this is not God, but rather something arising from our physical brains. But, as far as I'm concerned, that's not a vitally important debate. I'm okay with either answer, I just lean toward the answer being [literally] "God".
well, their lack of belief that Christ was at the door, 3 days later; even some actions beforehand, suggesting that they expected Christ to accept a crown, and institute an earthly reign.
Don't get me started
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbyrd009
i wonder if "be sure in your own mind" is not a call to reflect upon the Bible as a Book of questions, rather than definitive answers.
But from what I can tell, we Hellbound satanspawn are the ones asking the questions and the believers are the ones plumping down the Flat, Plonking, Answers.
There has been no bigger 'Liar for Jesus' than Eusebius.
Except Eusebus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
I have also stated, or at least I believe that when scientists can do in the lab what nature can do--that is, create viable forms of life maybe like constructing strings of DNA and reverse transcriptase and RNA and make them all work together then I'd likely go atheist and just say nature somehow some way was able to do all this on its own.
One Believer on this forum really though Life had been created in the Lab (Urey experiments) and he said "Just because you can do it in the lab, doesn't meant that was the way it actually happened".
In fact that is not totally false, and I wouldn't blame you of you still said (if that was done) "Ok, I still think that even though you can do it, Nature couldn't without Help, and that help was God. but I admit there is an even stronger case for supposing that it could happen naturally".
Because old mate, that is exactly what I'd say, as an atheist. What abiogenesis reeds as proof, (as distinct form a plausible natural explanation that doesn't need a god) is some fossil record showing how the process actually happened. We may never get that, so the origins of life may ever remain speculative.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-18-2016 at 10:36 AM..
You are puttin' us on. Jesus practically shouted it at them, but they "Did not Understand" and I can only suppose that God did a Pharaoh on them to make sure they didn't until he sorta flipped on On switch after the resurrection - Sunday night according to John and on Pentecost a couple of months later according to Luke, but what hey, not at all, from what Matthew and Mark say about it, but after all they were no more there than you and I were, and our guesswork is as good as theirs.
i think it is very hard or impossible to hear something that is outside one's understanding. We even have contemporary experiments illuminating this, surely you know what i mean there. We are no different from the moose who cannot see the motionless archer, so to speak.
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.
Jesus practically shouted it at them, but they "Did not Understand" and I can only suppose that God did a Pharaoh on them to make sure they didn't until he sorta flipped on On switch after the resurrection - Sunday night according to John and on Pentecost a couple of months later according to Luke, but what hey, not at all, from what Matthew and Mark say about it, but after all they were no more there than you and I were, and our guesswork is as good as theirs.
He seems to have half the stuff happening at Passover. And the hoot is that the one time they all agree that something happened at Passover, I would bet my ass that it didn't.
