Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The canonical gospels themselves, which in their present form, do not appear in the historical record until sometime between 170-180 AD/CE, and they were all found to be written in Greek, which is not the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of the area of the purported events in the bible. Their pretended authors, the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places.The birth date of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark", and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, so that he may "fulfill prophecy." Christ is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is around three years. "Matthew" relates the Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount" before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly form each other, and no one states how old he was when he died. In addition, in the canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings.
If you depend on the (usually pathetic) attempts by the Christian haters to discredit the New Testament, you get some of the stuff you posted here. If you read the scriptures through the eyes of those who wrote and edited together the texts that we have, you get a much different perspective. I highly recommend that you do the latter.
The New Testament discredits itself by all the contradictions, inconsistencies, and anachronistic history. OK, I'll edit some scriptures together and you tell me what perspective I am suppose to glean from them. Help me out here.
Explain these contradictions in the resurrection story. This is going to be somewhat lengthy and I apologize for the length, but I feel I need to do it to make my point.
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.
2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."
3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.
5. To whom did Jesus appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Jesus appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what they found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.
6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?
7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!
8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus there, not in or near Jerusalem!
9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).
10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven, a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).
If these books were truly authored and inspired by the One and Only Divine Author, GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't see:
1- Third-party narrations narrated by mysterious authors.
2- Ridiculous variations and contradictions as clearly seen above. Some Christians claim that these variations "compliment" each others. This is absurd to say the least, because the contradictions of missing characters, events, and/or places are obvious, and the so-called "variations" only create confusion and further prove that they weren't authored by One Author (GOD Almighty), because we don't know based on the narrations above what really took place! Different versions, different events and different contradicting accounts.
Dude stop copying and pasting websites. That entire post comes from here: Contradictions In the Resurrection Story in the BibleContradictions In the Resurrection Story in the Bible I notice you took the part out right at the end where the true author identifies himself.
You did the same thing here: Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where you copied and pasted from here and attempted to pass it off as your own argument: https://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/11-the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament
Provide the sources you are plagiarizing from please...or better yet try creating your own arguments instead of ripping off other people
Yes, that is one of those sites that appears to be a pro-Islamic and anti-Christian site. Maybe used to train Islamic terrorists to hate Christians? Who knows?
I don't know him at all so I'll allow AudeSapere benefit of the doubt and won't second guess his agenda. But the Bible itself tells us there will be scoffers and those who will do their damndest to shake the Christians' faith. I do not pretend to understand what drives such people; I just accept that they exist. And my role against it is to just keep posting better information and hope that most are able to discern which is the lie and which is the real deal.
I am just saying if he is going to make an argument he should make his own argument or cite the website he is copy and pasting from. I have no problem with someone who disagrees with me. I can't stand people who plagiarize. I will call that out every time I catch it.
The canonical gospels themselves, which in their present form, do not appear in the historical record until sometime between 170-180 AD/CE, and they were all found to be written in Greek, which is not the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of the area of the purported events in the bible. Their pretended authors, the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places.The birth date of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark", and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, so that he may "fulfill prophecy." Christ is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is around three years. "Matthew" relates the Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount" before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly form each other, and no one states how old he was when he died. In addition, in the canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings.
If you depend on the (usually pathetic) attempts by the Christian haters to discredit the New Testament, you get some of the stuff you posted here. If you read the scriptures through the eyes of those who wrote and edited together the texts that we have, you get a much different perspective. I highly recommend that you do the latter.
The New Testament discredits itself by all the contradictions, inconsistencies, and anachronistic history. OK, I'll edit some scriptures together and you tell me what perspective I am suppose to glean from them. Help me out here.
Explain these contradictions in the resurrection story. This is going to be somewhat lengthy and I apologize for the length, but I feel I need to do it to make my point.
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.
2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."
3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.
5. To whom did Jesus appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Jesus appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what they found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.
6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?
7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!
8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus there, not in or near Jerusalem!
9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).
10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven, a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).
If these books were truly authored and inspired by the One and Only Divine Author, GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't see:
1- Third-party narrations narrated by mysterious authors.
2- Ridiculous variations and contradictions as clearly seen above. Some Christians claim that these variations "compliment" each others. This is absurd to say the least, because the contradictions of missing characters, events, and/or places are obvious, and the so-called "variations" only create confusion and further prove that they weren't authored by One Author (GOD Almighty), because we don't know based on the narrations above what really took place! Different versions, different events and different contradicting accounts.
Dude stop copying and pasting websites. That entire post comes from here: Contradictions In the Resurrection Story in the BibleContradictions In the Resurrection Story in the Bible I notice you took the part out right at the end where the true author identifies himself.
You did the same thing here: Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where you copied and pasted from here and attempted to pass it off as your own argument: https://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/11-the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament
Provide the sources you are plagiarizing from please...or better yet try creating your own arguments instead of ripping off other people
Alright, I will start citing my sources that I use in my arguments and you need to stop dictating how I want to frame my arguments. You're a bit of a control freak. I can copy and paste from websites to assist in my argument as long as I cite the source and it's not a lengthy citation.
Alright, I will start citing my sources that I use in my arguments and you need to stop dictating how I want to frame my arguments. You're a bit of a control freak. I can copy and paste from websites to assist in my argument as long as I cite the source and it's not a lengthy citation.
Yep you can. The problem is you have been copy and pasting ridiculously long sections and not citing the source. Also your phrasing subtly suggests that they are your own creation when they are not. If you want to say "Here's an argument I find convincing and I would like to see how you respond to this", post a paragraph or two, and provide the link to the rest....fine. Do what you have been doing and you are going to get called out for engaging in plagiarism and no one is going to listen to a word you say.
Alright, I will start citing my sources that I use in my arguments and you need to stop dictating how I want to frame my arguments. You're a bit of a control freak. I can copy and paste from websites to assist in my argument as long as I cite the source and it's not a lengthy citation.
Yep you can. The problem is you have been copy and pasting ridiculously long sections and not citing the source. Also your phrasing subtly suggests that they are your own creation when they are not. If you want to say "Here's an argument I find convincing and I would like to see how you respond to this", post a paragraph or two, and provide the link to the rest....fine. Do what you have been doing and you are going to get called out for engaging in plagiarism and no one is going to listen to a word you say.
We discussed this already. There's no need to keep going over it. You're rather bossy and controlling. Again, you don't need to lecture me on how to frame my posts.
No there was no need to rehash it bossy and I can choose to ignore as wellAlright, I will start citing my sources that I use in my arguments and you need to stop dictating how I want to frame my arguments. You're a bit of a control freak. I can copy and paste from websites to assist in my argument as long as I cite the source and it's not a lengthy citation.
Yep you can. The problem is you have been copy and pasting ridiculously long sections and not citing the source. Also your phrasing subtly suggests that they are your own creation when they are not. If you want to say "Here's an argument I find convincing and I would like to see how you respond to this", post a paragraph or two, and provide the link to the rest....fine. Do what you have been doing and you are going to get called out for engaging in plagiarism and no one is going to listen to a word you say.
We discussed this already. There's no need to keep going over it. You're rather bossy and controlling. Again, you don't need to lecture me on how to frame my posts.
Well apparently there was a need to. I have had my say and I am out of here. You may resume getting pummeled by foxfyre and providing your cute little mythicist arguments without further interruption.
Enjoy your beating.
-The Phantom
p.s. foxy......he is a newbie. Maybe only go after him with one arm until he gains some street cred. We wouldn't want to shatter the delicate teacup now would we?
When examined, the “Historical Jesus” movement of the last 100 years has unearthed nothing that undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that Jesus was merely a “good man.” There is no “new evidence” debunking the accounts of miracles and the resurrection based on new analysis of “myth theory” over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the nature and content of the New Testament record than ever before - See more at: Historical Jesus
Interesting topic. I don't have any way to know how reliable or credible your linked source is, but I don't have a lot of argument with their point of view on this subject. Given the evidence that we have, and given the variances in testimony that you would expect among authentic eye witnesses and those who knew them or immediately followed them, I think there is much stronger evidence for believing in the historical Jesus than there is to disbelieve.
Christianity is not a 'religion' like other religions. It is a relationship with the living God.
The canonical gospels themselves, which in their present form, do not appear in the historical record until sometime between 170-180 AD/CE, and they were all found to be written in Greek, which is not the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of the area of the purported events in the bible. Their pretended authors, the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places.The birth date of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark", and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, so that he may "fulfill prophecy." Christ is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is around three years. "Matthew" relates the Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount" before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly form each other, and no one states how old he was when he died. In addition, in the canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings.
If you depend on the (usually pathetic) attempts by the Christian haters to discredit the New Testament, you get some of the stuff you posted here. If you read the scriptures through the eyes of those who wrote and edited together the texts that we have, you get a much different perspective. I highly recommend that you do the latter.
The New Testament discredits itself by all the contradictions, inconsistencies, and anachronistic history. OK, I'll edit some scriptures together and you tell me what perspective I am suppose to glean from them. Help me out here.
Explain these contradictions in the resurrection story. This is going to be somewhat lengthy and I apologize for the length, but I feel I need to do it to make my point.
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.
2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."
3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.
5. To whom did Jesus appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Jesus appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what they found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.
6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?
7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!
8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus there, not in or near Jerusalem!
9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).
10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven, a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).
If these books were truly authored and inspired by the One and Only Divine Author, GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't see:
1- Third-party narrations narrated by mysterious authors.
2- Ridiculous variations and contradictions as clearly seen above. Some Christians claim that these variations "compliment" each others. This is absurd to say the least, because the contradictions of missing characters, events, and/or places are obvious, and the so-called "variations" only create confusion and further prove that they weren't authored by One Author (GOD Almighty), because we don't know based on the narrations above what really took place! Different versions, different events and different contradicting accounts.
Dude stop copying and pasting websites. That entire post comes from here: Contradictions In the Resurrection Story in the BibleContradictions In the Resurrection Story in the Bible I notice you took the part out right at the end where the true author identifies himself.
You did the same thing here: Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where you copied and pasted from here and attempted to pass it off as your own argument: https://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/11-the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament
Provide the sources you are plagiarizing from please...or better yet try creating your own arguments instead of ripping off other people
Josephus documents daily life for the Hebrews during the formation of the NT. There's probably no better source. Greek wasn't just for scholars, it was the language of the common man as well, Koine Greek, more informal. The NT books and letters weren't written by scholars for scholars. And the story can't prove the existence of Jesus, it's a matter of faith.Yes, and a lot of evidence for it is in the New Testament itself, which makes it obvious that most of the theology and historical references to contemporary Jewish events and Jewish culture is indeed from the early 1st Century, as no other time frame fits, so circa B.C. 14-A.D. 40 is a pretty accurate estimate. See Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, by Joachim Jeremias, for an excellent book, using Jewish sources, for a detailed, heavily foot-noted study of the time and place. When I get some time I'll cite some from it, re the rise of scribes, the oral esoteric traditions, etc., and the apocalyptic literature and why Jesus was so radical a Rabbi.
As for the Hebrew versus Aramaic claims, Hebrew was a 'sacred language', and not widely known outside the priesthood itself, and not known by most Jews, and as for Aramaic, it also was not widespread through the Roman Empire, while Greek was the language of scholars Empire wide, so it was the natural language to use for such a movement, not Aramaic, and the use of Greek itself, along with the language of the Gospels and Epistles, is also evidence those who wrote it were not just a bunch of crazy cranks yanking chains; they were very knowledgeable scholars and intellectuals with a detailed knowledge of both the Torah and the Talmuds and Mishnahs. More on that later, got to go make some breakfast ... I'm an atheist myself, so I'll leave all the supernatural arguments to those interested in them, but it's fairly certain an actual Jesus existed, imo, and Christianity wasn't just some dream fantasy pulled out of some loon's ass; it just wouldn't have been so abruptly popular so quickly if it were a mere cult. It would have taken a much longer time to have become one if it were merely made up, and its texts wouldn't have been so detailed and complex; cranks wouldn't have bothered.
When examined, the “Historical Jesus” movement of the last 100 years has unearthed nothing that undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that Jesus was merely a “good man.” There is no “new evidence” debunking the accounts of miracles and the resurrection based on new analysis of “myth theory” over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the nature and content of the New Testament record than ever before - See more at: Historical Jesus
Interesting topic. I don't have any way to know how reliable or credible your linked source is, but I don't have a lot of argument with their point of view on this subject. Given the evidence that we have, and given the variances in testimony that you would expect among authentic eye witnesses and those who knew them or immediately followed them, I think there is much stronger evidence for believing in the historical Jesus than there is to disbelieve.
Yes, and a lot of evidence for it is in the New Testament itself, which makes it obvious that most of the theology and historical references to contemporary Jewish events and Jewish culture is indeed from the early 1st Century, as no other time frame fits, so circa B.C. 14-A.D. 40 is a pretty accurate estimate. See Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, by Joachim Jeremias, for an excellent book, using Jewish sources, for a detailed, heavily foot-noted study of the time and place. When I get some time I'll cite some from it, re the rise of scribes, the oral esoteric traditions, etc., and the apocalyptic literature and why Jesus was so radical a Rabbi.
As for the Hebrew versus Aramaic claims, Hebrew was a 'sacred language', and not widely known outside the priesthood itself, and not known by most Jews, and as for Aramaic, it also was not widespread through the Roman Empire, while Greek was the language of scholars Empire wide, so it was the natural language to use for such a movement, not Aramaic, and the use of Greek itself, along with the language of the Gospels and Epistles, is also evidence those who wrote it were not just a bunch of crazy cranks yanking chains; they were very knowledgeable scholars and intellectuals with a detailed knowledge of both the Torah and the Talmuds and Mishnahs. More on that later, got to go make some breakfast ... I'm an atheist myself, so I'll leave all the supernatural arguments to those interested in them, but it's fairly certain an actual Jesus existed, imo, and Christianity wasn't just some dream fantasy pulled out of some loon's ass; it just wouldn't have been so abruptly popular so quickly if it were a mere cult. It would have taken a much longer time to have become one if it were merely made up, and its texts wouldn't have been so detailed and complex; cranks wouldn't have bothered.
The canonical gospels themselves, which in their present form, do not appear in the historical record until sometime between 170-180 AD/CE, and they were all found to be written in Greek, which is not the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of the area of the purported events in the bible. Their pretended authors, the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places.The birth date of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark", and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, so that he may "fulfill prophecy." Christ is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is around three years. "Matthew" relates the Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount" before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly form each other, and no one states how old he was when he died. In addition, in the canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings.
If you depend on the (usually pathetic) attempts by the Christian haters to discredit the New Testament, you get some of the stuff you posted here. If you read the scriptures through the eyes of those who wrote and edited together the texts that we have, you get a much different perspective. I highly recommend that you do the latter.
The New Testament discredits itself by all the contradictions, inconsistencies, and anachronistic history. OK, I'll edit some scriptures together and you tell me what perspective I am suppose to glean from them. Help me out here.
Explain these contradictions in the resurrection story. This is going to be somewhat lengthy and I apologize for the length, but I feel I need to do it to make my point.
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.
2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."
3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.
5. To whom did Jesus appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Jesus appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what they found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.
6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?
7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!
8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus there, not in or near Jerusalem!
9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).
10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven, a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).
If these books were truly authored and inspired by the One and Only Divine Author, GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't see:
1- Third-party narrations narrated by mysterious authors.
2- Ridiculous variations and contradictions as clearly seen above. Some Christians claim that these variations "compliment" each others. This is absurd to say the least, because the contradictions of missing characters, events, and/or places are obvious, and the so-called "variations" only create confusion and further prove that they weren't authored by One Author (GOD Almighty), because we don't know based on the narrations above what really took place! Different versions, different events and different contradicting accounts.
Dude stop copying and pasting websites. That entire post comes from here: Contradictions In the Resurrection Story in the BibleContradictions In the Resurrection Story in the Bible I notice you took the part out right at the end where the true author identifies himself.
You did the same thing here: Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where you copied and pasted from here and attempted to pass it off as your own argument: https://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/11-the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament
Provide the sources you are plagiarizing from please...or better yet try creating your own arguments instead of ripping off other people
Ironic that Foxfyre thanked your post and yet she insists that links are not required in her SDZ threads.
Personally I agree that if you are quoting from another source that you should always provide a link to the source otherwise you open yourself to charges of plagiarism.
The canonical gospels themselves, which in their present form, do not appear in the historical record until sometime between 170-180 AD/CE, and they were all found to be written in Greek, which is not the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of the area of the purported events in the bible. Their pretended authors, the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places.The birth date of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark", and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, so that he may "fulfill prophecy." Christ is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is around three years. "Matthew" relates the Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount" before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly form each other, and no one states how old he was when he died. In addition, in the canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings.
If you depend on the (usually pathetic) attempts by the Christian haters to discredit the New Testament, you get some of the stuff you posted here. If you read the scriptures through the eyes of those who wrote and edited together the texts that we have, you get a much different perspective. I highly recommend that you do the latter.
The New Testament discredits itself by all the contradictions, inconsistencies, and anachronistic history. OK, I'll edit some scriptures together and you tell me what perspective I am suppose to glean from them. Help me out here.
Explain these contradictions in the resurrection story. This is going to be somewhat lengthy and I apologize for the length, but I feel I need to do it to make my point.
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.
2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."
3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.
5. To whom did Jesus appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Jesus appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what they found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.
6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?
7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!
8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus there, not in or near Jerusalem!
9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).
10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven, a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).
If these books were truly authored and inspired by the One and Only Divine Author, GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't see:
1- Third-party narrations narrated by mysterious authors.
2- Ridiculous variations and contradictions as clearly seen above. Some Christians claim that these variations "compliment" each others. This is absurd to say the least, because the contradictions of missing characters, events, and/or places are obvious, and the so-called "variations" only create confusion and further prove that they weren't authored by One Author (GOD Almighty), because we don't know based on the narrations above what really took place! Different versions, different events and different contradicting accounts.
Dude stop copying and pasting websites. That entire post comes from here: Contradictions In the Resurrection Story in the BibleContradictions In the Resurrection Story in the Bible I notice you took the part out right at the end where the true author identifies himself.
You did the same thing here: Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where you copied and pasted from here and attempted to pass it off as your own argument: https://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/11-the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament
Provide the sources you are plagiarizing from please...or better yet try creating your own arguments instead of ripping off other people
Ironic that Foxfyre thanked your post and yet she insists that links are not required in her SDZ threads.
Personally I agree that if you are quoting from another source that you should always provide a link to the source otherwise you open yourself to charges of plagiarism.
I know what not to do on this board now. I was testing the waters yesterday. Wow! You notice how BluePhantoms' first line in the first reply commanded that I stop copying and pasting from websites. Then the bottom line states," [Provide the sources you are plagiarizing from please]...or better yet try creating your own arguments instead of ripping off other people" It could be that BluePhatom zeroed in on me because of the subject matter and I struck a nerve.
The reason I didn't provide a link from the resurrection contradictions was it came from an author who is Muslim and I didn't want people to think that I was a Muslim, which I'm not, that was attacking Christianity. I probably could've and should've prefaced it by stating that I was not a Muslim but, I found this Muslim authors' compilation of contradictions of the resurrection story pretty compelling. There's a growing animosity between Christians and Muslims because of the events taking place in the ME and I did not want to open that can of worms.
BluePhatom suggests that I try creating my own arguments and I can, believe me I can...and it's not like all my posts and replies are going to be copy and pastes from websites, but when they help make my point I am going to copy and paste, with a sourced link of course.
I see people quoting Bible scripture, and I have no problem with that really, but, I wonder if BluePhatom would view those people as creating their own arguments by ripping off from the Bible?
Muslims is human beans
Muslims is human beans
As opposed to Christians is couch potatoes?
I see see the gas cloud over Mecca now...A comparison
between muslims and beans could lead to peace
I actually find your explanation "I didn't want anyone to think I am muslim"------to be a little----uhm (sorry) SILLY. Muslims is human beans
both potatoes and beans are excellent sources of nutrition----
folate----complex carbohydrate----potassium A comparison
between muslims and beans could lead to peace
I actually find your explanation "I didn't want anyone to think I am muslim"------to be a little----uhm (sorry) SILLY. Muslims is human beans
That's your opinion and you know what is said about opinions. It could be your opinion was formed out of prejudice.
I find this statement "Muslims is human beans".....to be a little....uhm (sorry) SILLY.
Josephus documents daily life for the Hebrews during the formation of the NT. There's probably no better source. Greek wasn't just for scholars, it was the language of the common man as well, Koine Greek, more informal. The NT books and letters weren't written by scholars for scholars. And the story can't prove the existence of Jesus, it's a matter of faith.Yes, and a lot of evidence for it is in the New Testament itself, which makes it obvious that most of the theology and historical references to contemporary Jewish events and Jewish culture is indeed from the early 1st Century, as no other time frame fits, so circa B.C. 14-A.D. 40 is a pretty accurate estimate. See Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, by Joachim Jeremias, for an excellent book, using Jewish sources, for a detailed, heavily foot-noted study of the time and place. When I get some time I'll cite some from it, re the rise of scribes, the oral esoteric traditions, etc., and the apocalyptic literature and why Jesus was so radical a Rabbi.
As for the Hebrew versus Aramaic claims, Hebrew was a 'sacred language', and not widely known outside the priesthood itself, and not known by most Jews, and as for Aramaic, it also was not widespread through the Roman Empire, while Greek was the language of scholars Empire wide, so it was the natural language to use for such a movement, not Aramaic, and the use of Greek itself, along with the language of the Gospels and Epistles, is also evidence those who wrote it were not just a bunch of crazy cranks yanking chains; they were very knowledgeable scholars and intellectuals with a detailed knowledge of both the Torah and the Talmuds and Mishnahs. More on that later, got to go make some breakfast ... I'm an atheist myself, so I'll leave all the supernatural arguments to those interested in them, but it's fairly certain an actual Jesus existed, imo, and Christianity wasn't just some dream fantasy pulled out of some loon's ass; it just wouldn't have been so abruptly popular so quickly if it were a mere cult. It would have taken a much longer time to have become one if it were merely made up, and its texts wouldn't have been so detailed and complex; cranks wouldn't have bothered.
Christianity wasn't just dreamed up but a Hellenization of the Old Testament. Many errors came from the Greek translation for those Jews, the Septuagint.
