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.
I see you skipped over my other question, so let me reask it.
By your standards, I suppost teaching your children about "sex" in school is okay even if it's contrary to what they are taught at home. Hey, it's just information. Right?
I would hope that you can at least be honest and admit and agree that "disproving" the Bible is your attempt and goal.
Forgive me, never saw this.
I have no idea/context of what your question has to do with this subject. I'm lost.
Of course. The Bible (well the Christians who read it) makes bold claims, claims that supposedly will/should affect my life. I simply check them and speak out against them on a free, public forum. Call it disproving, but is that right illegal 'round these parts?
Oh by the way, there are other things/subjects I disprove also. This one just happens to be religion.
D. So he was delusional then? To the point of being willing to take on the HORRIBLE death via crucifixion? I think that's along the lines of "insane". No?
What about Peter? Was he delusional too? What about the witnesses who saw "and are still alive today to testify" when the letter was written?
E. That's a bit of a stretch and has been argued for 2000 years and disproven. Any small amount of research rules that out.
Scholarly opinions on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse. At the extremes, they range from the view that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus,[5] to the view that they provide no historical information about his life.[6] As with all historical sources, scholars ask: to what extent did the authors' motivations shape the texts, what sources were available to them, how soon after the events described did they write, and whether or not these factors lead to inaccuracies such as exaggerations or inventions.
While it is true that most reputed scholars agree that Jesus was a real historical figure, the line blurs considerably from that point on as to the accuracy of everything that was said about him.
Excuse me for interrupting this peeing contest but I just wanted to point out the previous misnomer.
We have evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus of the scripture existed. There is much evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus was here, was crucified by the Roman's - convicted by his own people (the Jews) for his claims.
It's a matter of historical record outside of the bible in Roman writings, and other Hebrew works of the day.
So, he was here, he claimed to be God, he claimed to be a "savior", he was subjected to crucifiction for said claims to the point of death. It's written that over 500 people were witness to his appearance afterwards. Peter claims his eyewitness as well.
"2Pe 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
"1Pe 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:"
Jesus (And Peter) was either
A. Telling the truth.
B. Insane
C. Lying. (And willing to die a HORRIBLE death for that lie)
What will you do with Jesus and his claims? That's what it really comes down to.
Reject ____
Accept ____
You chose.
Ya''ll/You Guys/Yous/Yins may continue argueing about the minutia now.
Sorry to interrupt.
1. The only other Jewish first century writer to even mention Christos or something like that but not Jesus, I think, was Josephus and part of what the existing manuscripts say about this Christos are historically very questionable. No non-Jewish or non-Christian--that is to say, not one pagan historian or other writer within 100 years of Jesus even mentions his name.
2. You have confused a claim within a book that there were 500 witnesses with evidence that there were 500 witnesses. A claim that there is evidence or that there were witnesses is never considered evidence in a courtroom trial. And there is no and cannot be any empirical evidence that some spirit swept over 500 people 2,000 years ago or any other time.
3. I accept that the Jew Jesus existed. Whether he claimed to be God is not established. If he had then I'd pick the option that he was delusional as did most Jews of his day. Of course their main reaction would be that he'd spoken blasphemy and, given the passion such exceptional blasphemy would have aroused, I suspect he'd been stoned to death on the spot and never made it to Pilate--capital punishment disallowed or not. In other words, that he was here, even if established, does not prove the claims about him were true.
4. It's interesting how some Christians believe the Devil's greatest success was convincing people he did not exist, how many people believe Donald Trump even when he prefaces his remarks with "this is true" or "believe me." Again, neither in a courtroom or anywhere else, except among those already ready to believe, is it considered evidence or evidence of the truth of alleged evidence if the "witness" says"This is not made up."
5. Paul might have ascribed some divine qualities to Jesus but no one explicitly said he was God until almost the end of the century and that was the author of the Gospel of John. Before that, he was called the Son of God. Neither Paul nor the earliest Gospel writer (Mark) mention a virgin birth.
6. Most of what the New Testament writers and conservative Christians today take as Old Testament prophecies weren't prophecies. If you write a story that matches up with certain verses and then point to those verses and say, "See!", that does not make them prophecies. The people who wrote those verses do not see them as prophecies, much less of Jesus. If you say,"Well, sure they don't; they rejected Jesus," that's just an ad hominem argument. They rejected the reinterpretations of their scriptures too. Many are not even in the future tense and some are in the past tense and some are clearly or less than clearly talking about other figures or events.
Oh there are so many reasons to be skeptical. My favorite one does not back up my skepticism as much as my disinterest in taking the poster's claims seriously: that there is no story of the Fall of Man in Genesis unless the reader reads one into it. Even the people who gave us Genesis--the Israelites/Jews, generally do not believe in either Satan or the Fall. If there was no Fall, there is no need for salvation. Plus there is no proof that Satan or Hell or Heaven or immortality exist or that anyone has attained immortality by believing in J.C.
Different authors giving different details. No two biographies of George Washington use the exact same words.
...but you don't get one historian saying that George was assassinated and and another not mentioning it at all...which are the sort of differences we find in the gospels.
You should find it suggestive that the earliest (Paul) make no mention of a virgin birth, raising the dead or walking on water kinds of miracles. A little healing but no big "WOW" except the resurrection. The next earliest source, Mark, adds a few miracles but no virgin birth and no raising people from the dead. Matthew has a virgin birth and even more miracles. Luke adds to the virgin birth and presents a slightly more miraculous being. John takes it another step by making Jesus the son of a god, raising Lazarus and generally being more spirit than human. The later the source the more fantastic the reports.Like this...
- Jesus dies.
- Paul adds resurrection.
- Matthew/Luke add virgin birth.
- John makes him a god.
As I say, that should be suggestive of something to you. If nothing else Paul and the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke should have noticed something as phenomenal as the raising of Lazarus from the dead, especially Paul. That would have been something that he would have made a very big deal about.
Quote:
What's your point?
His point is probably that scriptures that have been written by authors that were allegedly guided/Inspired by an omnimax deity should not contain such glaring anomalies,
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryasIS
My point in this thread was to highlight what appears to be an interpolation, an incredulous story that was added in later at some point to further bolster the claim that Jesus was indeed someone more than just a man. What makes this criticism valid is the fact that in other portions of the Book of Matthew, the writer proves he pulled out all stops to prove to the Jews that Jesus was their Messiah. He possibly made up a nice birth legend concerning Jesus (hey, every son of god has to have a corresponding magical birth complete with angles and visiting dignitaries) and claimed prophetic fulfillments about Jesus when they were in fact none.
I think you can put your last cent on that one friend.
Quote:
first of all all the gospels refer Jesus as messiah. and for the virgin birth matthew and luke has it in.
...with differing genealogies and a differing nativity
Quote:
The lack of telling it in the other 2 to me is oh well a weak argument.
You think that not mentioning a virgin birth if there was one is a weak argument??
Quote:
...do I need to list the 300 of them or more he already fulfilled?
Yes please. I'd love to hear them...but not the ones that were predicted in the OT and confirmed in the NT. That is just the Bible confirming itself. Give me 300 that were predicted in the OT and confirmed and verified as happened extant of the Bible.
Ah! Just I though. All you have is the Bible saying that something is going to happen and the Bible saying that it did happen. Let me explain how that works. The authors of the NT were very familiar with the stories in the OT and the predictions made in it regarding a 'Messiah'. The authors of the NT simply wrote the story of Jesus in such a way as to make it look as if JtC WAS the predicted Jewish Messiah. Unfortunately for them, the Jesus character did not fulfil the criteria for the Jewish Messiah.That's why the Jews don't accept him as their Messiah.
l
Quote:
ol you know it funny people sue the same arugment pretty much all the time christians twist the gospel or old testasment.
...but they do. It is a fact of history and the Bible, more than any other, has been changed, cut and added to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
Excuse me for interrupting this peeing contest but I just wanted to point out the previous misnomer.
We have evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus of the scripture existed. There is much evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus was here, was crucified by the Roman's - convicted by his own people (the Jews) for his claims.It's a matter of historical record outside of the bible in Roman writings, and other Hebrew works of the day.
Citation please. What is your evidence extant of the Bible....and please, don't waste our time with Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Tactus or the other half a dozen that have been debunked so many times it has become a joke.
Quote:
So, he was here, he claimed to be God, he claimed to be a "savior", he was subjected to crucifiction for said claims to the point of death. It's written that over 500 people were witness to his appearance afterwards.
Yes...in the Bible! Where is the evidence OUTSIDE of the Bible.
Quote:
Peter claims his eyewitness as well.
Claims are just that...claims.
Quote:
"2Pe 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
"1Pe 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:"
Do you have any evidence other than your Bible? I mean...something that can be verified...real evidence?
Quote:
Jesus (And Peter) was either
A. Telling the truth.
B. Insane
C. Lying.
...or he didn't exist.
Quote:
(And willing to die a HORRIBLE death for that lie)
Ummm. According to the story he didn't die. And what if he did. Millions of people have died horrible deaths for their beliefs...and they dies knowing that they wouldn't be coming back in three days.
Quote:
What will you do with Jesus and his claims? That's what it really comes down to.
Reject ____
Accept ____
Reject them due to lack of verifiable evidence of course...same as I do with the claims about mermaids.
Quote:
Ya''ll/You Guys/Yous/Yins may continue argueing about the minutia now.
LOL! So you make a load of unsubstantiated claims....and then run!
E. That's a bit of a stretch and has been argued for 2000 years and disproven. Any small amount of research rules that out.
What has been disproved...that the story is make-believe. Id be interested in your verifiable evidence for the story being true... so, I imagine would the rest of the known world! What you don't seem to grasp is that IF the story was true and could be corroborated with verifiable evidence, there would be no need for the Church to insist that followers believe on 'faith' would there. There is no need for faith when there is verifiable evidence. Faith become obsolete when one has verifiable evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
Why was "just a regular" guy put to death via crucifixion?
Why not? It was a common form of Roman execution that was reserved for non-Roman citizens. Many thousands of trouble makers were executed in that manner. THe other problem with the story is the 'trail' of JtC. Only Roman citizens were entitled to a trail. JtC would not have had one.
I'm not going to spend 30 minutes digging it up for you you are going to have to find it on your own. If you really care about this you will. No offense, and no it's not a blow off.
Ah! The old...'there is plenty of evidence but you'll just have to go and find it yourself' scam.
If there was actual evidence my friend, you wouldn't be telling people to go and find it themselves, you and every other Christian on the planet would be shouting it from the rooftops and proclaiming it at every opportunity! That fact that all you have is...'go and find it yourself' tells us EVERYTHING.
Quote:
You can start with the works of Josephus.
What about it? The one mention is a forgery and the other is nothing to do with your Jesus. NEXT.
Thank you Raffs. I just looked in to see how the debate about Gospel discrepancy was going. Of course it had veered off into the Historical Jesus and 'We need Christianity for morals" irrelevance.
Raffs brings it back on topic. If I hadn't said so before, it's like this.
Sure, witnesses don't always agree and there are stories we take as rue that contain stuff that we doubt. The life of Alexander of Macedon, for example. But therein lies the answer. The man lived, but not all the tales of his life are believable. It is somewhat hard t tell what is.
This is a real question. Listing discrepancies in the Bible - specifically the gospels (1) itself is not that helpful. ....ah heck...I'm going to make breakfast
(2) because, if Jesus was not the Christ -figure, then you are left with the OT...and Judaism.
Rafius, generally I agree with you when you wrote: "Let me explain how that works. The authors of the NT were very familiar with the stories in the OT and the predictions made in it regarding a 'Messiah'. The authors of the NT simply wrote the story of Jesus in such a way as to make it look as if JtC WAS the predicted Jewish Messiah. Unfortunately for them, the Jesus character did not fulfill the criteria for the Jewish Messiah.That's why the Jews don't accept him as their Messiah."
But I don't think this was quite how it worked. I agree with New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman's approach. It wasn't that they knew the prophecies and then wrote their Jesus stories to match them. It was that they turned certain verses into prophecies, saw as prophecies verses in the Hebrew Scriptures (or, more likely, the Septuagint), because they had to justify to themselves how on earth the messiah could have been executed by the Romans. For example--and perhaps most importantly--Isaiah 53 was not a prophecy of the messiah but the fourth in four Songs of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. Well-educated Jews know that Is 53 is not a messianic prophecy. The suffering servant was Israel. But bereft followers of Jesus thought it must have been about Jesus and, yes, shaped their stories with some of the details of Is 53. BTW, I don't capitalize "messiah" because Jews did not think the messiah would be a divine figure.
And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.
Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. So when the centurion, who stood opposite Him, saw that He cried out like this and breathed His last, he said, “Truly this Man was the Son of God!”
Mark 15:37-39
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”
Matthew 27:50-57
Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” Having said this, He breathed His last. So when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, “Certainly this was a righteous Man!”
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.
False claims about what's historical about Jesus
Let me explain how that works. The authors of the NT were very familiar with the stories in the OT and the predictions made in it regarding a 'Messiah'. The authors of the NT simply wrote the story of Jesus in such a way as to make it look as if JtC WAS the predicted Jewish Messiah. Unfortunately for them, the Jesus character did not fulfil the criteria for the Jewish Messiah.That's why the Jews don't accept him as their Messiah.
