Hot Button Topic
I know now not to mess with the court system because people can't get in trouble for Internet stuff, except if you threaten somebody then you will get in trouble for harassment and that is six months in jail and harassment on your record for three years. I have been banned from this site because I was posting bible verses up and they call it spam. They said I was personally attacking people on there, but I was defending myself because they were calling me a demon possessed, calling me a mocker, calling me all sorts of names and they lying about me too. Thank you for checking it out. I think they need to do something with those kind of people that are putting other people down and then those people have to stick up for theirselves. I never said God is a sinner. God bless you.
That website is to you JMcFarland because you were wrong.
What now? I can copy and post from website that people right about. Why not? That is copyright. I am sorry about that. Have a good day. See ya. God bless you, if you trust in God.
Peeples this website is for you http://www.gotquestions.org/married-unbeliever.html
The rest of you I have many websites, but I will be nice about it. What is going on? How are you doing ? I am talking to myself. See ya. We are leaving each other a lone. Good luck to the rest of your journey.
All you would do is twist my words around so I will just give you website that you can research on.
- genaeaposted 12 years ago
0Lack of education is not something I run from. That that I know, I speak with assurance. The bible was written in part by those who had knowledge of Jesus. Their words ring within me. I am sure that theyknew what they were talking about.
Your lack of knowledge of what is done in higher education is not surprising a bit. They don't repeat exercises before an exam. That is high school that you refer to. I have gone beyond that level. I was able to regurgitate knowledge already learned and built upon based upon my analyses of the new info., which by the way, is supposed to be critically thought about.
You seem to be choosing to see only the parts of God that are to your liking, and ignoring the total picture because it is just not "nice" enough for you.
God will be doing another round of "murder", all who oppose will be on that list. I am not here to convince you that I am right, Emile. I am only speaking to the children of God. They are jolted by the life/death of Jesus. And they do not call it murder. Genaea -
I'm wondering who you think had knowledge of jesus who you claim wrote the bible or the gospelNo particular person. John and Paul and I think Peter are all close enough to me. David and Moses, before Jesus. But I believe them too.
genaea -
you get that john didn't write the gospel of john, right? Even your bible says that, if you look at the introduction to john or any of the gospels' introductions. Most bibles have a commentary that says that the authors of the gospels, and the majority of the pauline epistles are unknown. It was common practice to put someone else, someone familiar's name on your own writing throughout ancient history.
Paul never met jesus. He didn't know the man except through a vision or a dream on the side of the road. You may think that's enough, but a lot of new testament scholars are starting to doubt paul's validity, especially since paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion immediately (or in two years, the bible says both, but I don't consider 2 years to be in the realm of immediately) and argued with peter and the other apostles about doctrine - he argued with the men who supposedly spent 3 years or more with jesus himself. Then immediately following the meeting, paul insults peter and the other apostles, and continues to do things his own way. Paul is especially misogynistic, and a lot of his dogmas are simply not followed in the church today.
Moses and David? That's great, but they actually saw god face to face, according to the bible - but they didn't actually write it. David wrote poems that became psalms, but that's it.Thank you. I have "met" Jesus.
so I am sure that it was possible for them too!
Please don't be upset. That part to me, is just not important to me. It seems like an evasion I'm sure, but I have read the bible. The words are FULL of wisdom and truth. People try to build a case against it based upon many factors. The authors were all inspired by God to write the story, and they did a marvelous job, in my opinion.
Sorry It's all I got. Thank you for the lesson.
Wait!!! Did I just take your word, uncritically??? Yep The Lord is my shepherd. He told me to read it and understand it. He did not tell me to check the authors. I guess it could be important. But not yet.I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to question YOUR faith. Your faith is personal, and it's based on personal experience. But when you say that the gospels were written by people close to jesus, that's simply not true - the fact is that we don't know who wrote them, but we do know when they were written. They were written between 40 years (Mark) and 120 years (john) after jesus' death. Before that time, they were an oral tradition.
I want you to answer honestly. If you told someone a story, and they told someone else the story, and so forth and so on for 40 years, how close would the story 40 years later from a source 100x removed from you come to the original story you told.
I know that church doctrine says that the bible was inspired by god, but what does anyone have to back up that assertion? Genuinely and from the heart, do you know how the new testament was put together?I can only answer what my heart gives me. I certainly am not attempting to be snide or cynical. I have a sincere heart to follow where I am led.
The bible says that God has secrets known to no one. I honestly believe that. Trying to figure out who wrote the stories are probably a rat race designed to divert the attentions of the readers who truly desire to be diverted. For all we know for sure, the father God could have sat down with pen and paper himself. As you have said yourself, the stories were verbally passed down in the very beginning. Since, surely, somone changed THEIR version, you yourself could have the story backwards. Right???
The holy spirit is the assurance. The bible is the written word. It is stuff that God wanted known. It may not even be in the correct order and all the information very well could be jumbled. But it makes no difference to me. The words are most important. Jesus is the way. The bible shows us how and why. Good enough for me."I can only answer what my heart gives me. I certainly am not attempting to be snide or cynical. I have a sincere heart to follow where I am led."
That certainly is not critical thinking. That is blind faith in those who wrote that book called bible that they have YOUR best interests at heart. And you said, you has some grades in what?
It is analyzing the validity of a statement not uncritical acceptance called critical thinking.
Can you rationally explain creation? Can you level out the CONTRADICTIONS in gospel. Well, if you do not even understand a simple word as 'contradiction', what do you even understand about the 'wisdom' in bible?You are now stuck on the word contradiction. I cannot help you there.
If you ask me, it is you who blindly accepts. I have evidence that cannot be faulty. It comes from inside. You, however, must keep going. It is your right to pick it apart til your heart's content. Or until you no longer are able. I have analyzed to MY satisfaction. I know that you haven't that experience, for you more than analyze what is given, you judge it.
Unfortunately, this conversation you should never really have. To you, my God is a "murderer" you are not willing to follow him. I will, until I am no longer able. Why does it bother you so???
Oh! And it was critical thinking that got me that A grade. I know how, well.Because it is who talk in contradictory terms. As you do not understand what you speak, you obviously cannot help.
I never claimed anything to blindly accept. I so far has only questioned what you said, and showed the contradiction in YOUR talk. And you fail to resolve the contradiction and prefer to talk something else instead.
Please show the evidence. The only evidence you have presented so far is a book written by ignorant savages.
Which inside? Contradictory statements and words without any particular meaning is not coherent thought or critical thinking.
Experience is not critical thinking. Experience is a subjective feeling. Critical thinking is an objective way of analyzing facts and statements.
No, it is TO YOU god is a murderer. You are the one who said YOUR god killed people in flood and condoned slavery. Where in our discourse I accused god of such heinous crimes?
You are simply boasting or even outright lying. Suppose somebody says he has got an A in medicine or engineering, we deduce what he say is correct by analyzing what he says or does. If a person who claims himself a doctor and do not know what cause fever, do you believe his claim? Similarly your A grade is just an empty claim, if not rationally explain all that is pointed out to you so many times by me.You must be severely miserable in your constant state of question.
I have no questions. I have nothing to prove. The statements that I speak upon are tried and true TO ME if you do not see what I see, the message is not for you. You constantly argue it though. Your critical analysation is lacking COMMON sense. You consider me ignorant, but you stay to argue my every point. Is that rational to you??? (you got no A to "brag" about, I can tell) You even change your persona to discuss from a DIFFERENT angle??? Have you even considered why??? No, but I have you have a hankering for tearing down my truth. Why???
That is for YOU to analyze.
Sorry, you can't move me one iota. I'm planted
God did send a flood to wipe evil humanity away. THEY'RE BAAAACK!!!
But fire will be used next time. He wants his way, and he WILL get it. Join, or don't.That's not really a choice, genaea. That's a blatant threat. You, and many other brainwashed religionists accost us with this nonsense, then expect no recoil. Your religion only causes fights...and is very dangerous to the believer and everyone else. Sorry your garbage no longer enjoys carte blanche status.
Awwwww... Take it how you want.
Surely, YOU are not frightened by some old God-threat. That 's like getting a threat from Pinocchio...yes???NO! I;m frightened by the willful acceptance of this nonsensical, childish world view. There is no god, demons, heaven, angels, etc., but, from a psychological perspective, ADULTS believing such whimsical silly BS are ALARMING. And the fact that you, and others like you, are threatening us everyday with your intrusion into civil rights with your self righteous delusional and outdated beliefs...is cause to confront you at every turn.
Now you should be writing a STERN letter to somebody. This MADNESS has GOT to stop!!!
And when you get through...I will still be speaking LOUDLY for truth.
It may not be YOUR truth, but it is truth nevertheless.Fret not. These silly childish beliefs ARE on their way out. As the secularists in society become more and more vocal, your beliefs will soon be relegated to the mentally unstable, and the completely insane of society.
Truth is objective, therefore this statement is absurd...furthermore...it suggests that the person quoting it has no idea about the objective nature of truth. Stating that one knows god... is not objective at all. In fact it's not even something a truly sane person should ever utter.
Now it is common sense, not critical thinking. Did you get an A in common sense too? Is your earth still flat?
You won't change an iota, who cares whether you change or not? Your replies are funny and entertains me. It also give me information about how a human being manipulate and ignore statements to remain in one's comfortable zone, to continue believing what one believed without reason or logic but still state that she got an 'A' in critical thinking.
"God did send a flood to wipe evil humanity away.
But fire will be used next time."
Why? Now your loving god is going to eat human barbecue. your God must be loving humans just as I love chicken.
"Persona, Different angle"
??You know what I mean "persona changes". Stay and fight if you must.
Common sense does not argue with a "fool" they have a saying for that.
Now I know that you have no trust in my senses. How are yours???
God did a miserable job wiping out evil by sending a flood. Surely He'd know that it wouldn't work because evil is hard-wired into everyone's brains? So He'd sent a flood knowing it wouldn't achieve anything. Doesn't critical thinking make one come to this conclusion?
Yes!
A little more critical thinking will allow you to realize that he knew exactly what he was doing. He knows about sin being hardwired. He knew he would have to destroy the earth again.This is hilarious. So God purposely created a race of people that he hardwired to be evil so that he could then send them to hell for an eternity unless they worshipped him in complete adoration and perfect obedience.
Talk about a sociopath with a need for attention.
Good grief, I guess when people create gods, any old fuzzy logic will do.
That was my laugh for the day!Well, you do have the ability to think. You may think the way he told you to, or you may go your own way. He hardwired freedom. Not evil. We have a choice.
Yes, humans are inclined toward evil, it is an enticing force when self is most important.
Think of it this way: Sometimes when a farmer plants a crop, a portion of the crop is bad. The prudent farmer will not throw away the entire crop. He will keep the good fruit, and throw away the bad.
God is the best farmer ever! He can see inside the skin of his fruit. He can locate a "worm" deep within its confines.
Laugh A merry heart doeth good like medicine. A broken spirit, dries the bones. (that is scripture)
Just make sure there are no "worms".Actually, some humans are inclined towards evil. But you wouldn't know that some are also inclined towards good if that inclination wasn't inside you.
And it's nice to believe that all humans are inclined towards evil if that is the way one is. It makes one feel better about oneself.Hmmm. You have admitted that you are inclined towards evil; as that was your first statement. Then you decided that it feels good. So, you know your shortcoming. You are inclined toward evil.
All is not lost. All you must do is deny that that you know is not like God. Locate your "softspot" and know that you are wrong. Humiliate yourself, and take it to God with your head held way low. He will cleanse you to a gleaming sparkle because of the faith that you have that Jesus came to save you. As your relationship with him grows, you will be able to deny yourself more and more; becoming more like Jesus.
It is not a one-day process. Some things take fasting and prayer to loose. But following Jesus will allow you to know what needs to be loosed. Then his spirit will give you the ability to loose it.
But you don't.
Genaea wrote" He knows about sin being hardwired."
Genaea wrote " He hardwired freedom. Not evil. "
A chameleon is more consistent.Ouch!!!
Ya got me!!! You are so funny. Black/white thinking sometimes turns into a fuzzy gray
You cannot win this argument, no matter how many slip-ups you catch but thank you for pointing that out, I now have an opportunity to clean that up I did catch it, but knew that those who know me, know what I meant. You especially 
Our father knew that his children would be inclined to err in judgement. The knowledge of good and evil changed them a bit. He knew that they would be inclined to sin. That is why he always gave instruction.
A selfish attitude is dangerous in that it takes one outside the realm of right pretty often. Since freedom is hardwired, one may choose his actions. The choice to sin is more appealing in selfish eyes.
I being human am inclined to err
Only worry when I am comfortable in error. Thanks again. I do not want to relay the wrong message.
Whose side are you on anyway?Then you are continuously erring. You have so far shown only contradictions and contradictions come from a confused mind. If humans beings are prone to err, they need not be punished. Who''ll punish a year old child for erring (you might, I know)? Free will is an illusion, a human is a prisoner of his brain structure and circumstances.
If all you have heard from me are contradictions, then really, you should probably talk to someone else. But, since my common sense is sharp; my critical thinking, seemingly top-notch; and spirit is with me, I know that if you were half a "smart" as you display with your witty remarks and nice pen, that you are either lying about what you think of me, or...let me get back to you on my or.
It is good that you have a very high opinion about yourself, though unfortunately it is not shared by anyone else.
"Critical thinking is a type of reasonable, reflective thinking that
is aimed at deciding what to believe or what to"
Common sense has nothing to do with critical thinking. It was common sense that the earth was flat. Spirit too has nothing to do with critical thinking. It is about making true premises and deriving valid conclusions.
You make contradictory and invalid claims.
Please state at least two objective premises and valid conclusion before simply boasting.
Why I talk to you? Because I'm a student of 'mind'. Humans make preset beliefs to wade through the world. A challenge to the belief is disturbing and instead of changing the beliefs( which can be vary painful), we tend to find reason to rationalize and internalize the conflict and skirt sidewise than facing the challenge. We come up with all sort of reasons, even absurd and bizzare ones, to rationalize and to do what we were doing and you are a fine example. Simply, in a way, you are one of my teachers. Another is Claire who claim the OT, the world and all historians are fooled by devil to make her Jesus story true.Well! I am floored
You probably dream of each cut and paste. That is well with me for sure. I am in no way intimidated by your notions of me. I am sound in my opinions there. The Lord has provided me with the tools that you think you have, and a bit more. You fight me because I am a challenge to YOUR opinions. I have no problems there. You cannot type enough objections to come out ahead. I have no "fight" with you. But your master. The "fight" is metaphoric for the war against mind and spirit. Spirit won a long time ago. We are just planting. Though you fight against it, some seeds lay upon your stones. Unfortunately, you supply your own "birds"
However, as long as you lend me your ear, you are privvy to my secrets that are not really secret. I will boast in the Lord, and not of myself. I have gone a bit far with tge knowledge of me, and for that, I apologize sincerely. This is not about me. This is about Jesus. Let us return to the track.It's logic that is sound or not. An opinion is just an opinion.
The only tool you have is your ability to separate logic and reason from your belief and your ability to turn a deaf ear to anybody who points it out.
I do not fight you, I'm questioning you. You find it as a fight because your cherished beliefs are exposed as nonsense.
That shows your indoctrination. If god is powerful enough to flood the whole earth, he could just kill this devil with a word. It is how you are taught to consider anybody who questions your belief, it help you keep away reason and logic.
Are you boasting in lord when you said you got an A in critical thinking.
Or are you boasting when you said the god is a murderer who killed whole population, who enjoy frying people, who committed adultery, who condone slavery, who killed his own son to prevent himself from doing what he intended to do?You have not been listening at all:) but your reasonability is at stake! You can't hear me. You are focused on the fire. Are you afraid? God hath not given us the spirit of fear.
Go in peace. Get to know for yourself.
You insist on gleaning from "small" minds??? I have not been able to shake you. You have wrestled with me for a long time. Obviously, it "pays" for you in some way. I really don't mind. You are one of the beautiful minds that I was warned about. Though I know your main purpose for conversating (sorry peeved one) conversing, is totally geared toward debunking Genaea. Now that you have done that, you still stay. Want to know something about Jesus?The question is are YOU afraid. I don't give a damn about your psychotic, killer adulterer god. Savages can be easily dealt with. It is the intelligent powerful persons who use this figure and the brainless fools who parrot and follow them and willing to do anything for them including making their children assess to uncritically accept anything they say, may be.
About that mythological preacher who was always with the scrum of the society? Unfortunately I know more about him than you do including the sects who told the story first and the editors who edited it later.oooh, how old are YOU??? You know a lot that we have been trying to "figure out" for ages.
And another thing... You are way more interested in my God than you must be aware. You have spoken on him for a long time now. You are trying to get to know what is hidden from your intelligence. God cannot fill a cup that is already full already.
You have a problem coming down from the high-horse that you have created, therefore you cannot receive anything of him. The highness of your attitude puts you on a level that is not reachable from a Godly perspective. If you knew of Jesus at all, you would be more humble. It would be automatic.There is nothing to 'figure out'. It's people who are fools who need to figure out.
You are very funny. Why should I be interested in YOUR psychopath? I'm interested in you arguments you make for the ordinary savage human god.
Thanks for agreeing that 'intelligence' and hence critical thinking has no role regarding your god but just blind belief in your priests.
For you god is still a human being who fill cups, deliver justice and above all, a servant for your emotional needs.
Just because he was a mythical being and because eternal damnation was preached in his name and you became 'humble' in front of the priests who garner power and money in his name is no reason for me time do that. In fact god is never a humble beggar who mingled with scrum.Nice to meet you Pharisee. You sound just like them. It is this attitude that Jesus came to combat. You are not better than your master. YOUR critical thinking and YOUR intelligence has no role here. It is my citical thinking that made me to know that my "priests" were wrong. I could not go with the messages presented then. I now know why. But you did not listen to any of that before either. Your ears are closed. Your mind/mouth is open. Makes for a horrible combination.
Thank you for admitting that critical thinking place no role in your decisions. But anybody which read your comments can agree as such. I wonder why you didn't call me devil, isn't that what you are taught? Obey like sheep and treat anybody with intelligence as wolf's that the shepherd(priest) can easily make mutton chops out of you.
No, calling you devil could hurt your walk with God and turn you away forever. I am no expert on who belongs to God. That is his business. I know what you display today, but that may not be for long. The church of old called everyone who did not accept the message, devil. I was taught that, but again, and again, and again, I say, I had to read it for myself. I had to obtain my own spirit of God and allow it to permeate my being.
You have made it very clear that you were taught that one is either working for god or working for the devil. You were taught it and unfortunately never gave it any thought. Sure you may have gone back to read it for yourself, but you regrettably give it none of your own thought. That is where critical thinking come into play. That is not what you do, because to do that you'd have to look at the bible with criticism. I know that Claire at least does that. You have not, for if you had you'd notice that the God in the account of Noah, is a vindictive genocidal murderer.
The way you see the things of God is skewed. He is no genocidal murderer. He just don't play no games. He told the people what to do, and they did not do. He started over. Why, you must ask him. I do not really care. If he started over, he must have had a reason. I trust my father. I have looked at the bible critically. I looked at the so-called contradictions first. They all checked out as far as I am concerned. I asked God to reveal and reveal he did.
The bible says, He that is not for me, is against me. I think Jesus said that. Those are his words. If he said it, I believe that he knows what he is talking about. He knows everything. I cannot apply critical thinking to Jesus, he is my bar. I cannot criticize my master. He is the one who knows what I am trying to know. I measure against what he said. It really does work.That's just what I thought, you refuse to look at the bible critically because of your early indoctrination. Because of this you can't see what there is to see.
Your words "He is no genocidal murderer. He just don't play no games. He told the people what to do, and they did not do. He started over."
Don't see that you say he killed everyone and everything, but is not a genocidal murderer, we just didn't listen to him. Just like Hitler. He have to kill the Jews because they just didn't listen. Do we follow your Gods ways? Do as he does? You've been taught to never question the bible, and that is very clever indoctrination. I do believe it's may be to late for you, as your brain is fully developed the wiring most likely can't be fixed. That's we need to teach our kids to think for themselves, to question everything, to ask themselves if these things make sense.I do not understand the declaration that I do not look at the bible critically because I stated that I cannot criticize my master. Is it because I do not care where the flood took place???
You have a strong aversion to the things of the spirit. And you look at them too critically. We cannot understand the motivations of God, but we can be sure that he does not think as we do. He has a bigger brain.
You keep criticizing if you must. Hey, you want me to help you???You are simply not understanding that it was your indoctrination that doesn't allow you to think critically at the bible. You don't have to think critically towards God or Jesus, just the bible. Many, many people believe in God, but consider the stories, just stories. It's perfectly Okay to question the bible, because it was written by people. You have no idea of what things Jesus said because the gospels were written well after his death. But because of your indoctrination you refuse to even look at the OT critically.
Why are you saying that I do not look at the bible critically??? Is it because I have not come to YOUR conclusions??? You know I'm laughing at you.
Yes, stories are just stories. Which one were you telling me again???
Where is your faith?I tell you, you don't look at the bible critically because you admit to it, and you think that's okay.
I told you flat out that I have criticized the scriptures, they just make sense to me. They all work together well. It unfolded perfectly in my eyes. I am in no way swayed by other opinions of it. good'nuf???
No not good'nuf. You also told me you can't look critically at scripture. Now you say you looked at it and it's perfect. That not critical thinking at all.
It was critical while it was critical. I answered all my questions about it. No need for criticism anymore. See? I grew up.
Your questions have all been answered. You just never like the answer. Sorry, I just can't give you any more than I have. Your logic is on a different plane. It is not spiritual. It is everything else. When you ask, you are so interested in coming up with a clever answer that you miss my response. I am speaking many circles around and around and around you.
I guess I'm a little frustrated because you claim to think critically and then say that you can't question the bible. Don't you see the irony? You can't have it both ways, Your indoctrination is limiting your ability to think for yourself. You admit to using scripture to get your answers to your questions about faith instead of using your brain.
Why do you keep overlooking the post that says that I have questioned the bible. I have no more questions. I am not skeptical of God, nor Jesus. They have answered MY questions. Why is it necessary to you that I CONTINUE to question? Because you question?
You keep making this same statement, but are unable to see where your logic is slipping.
If you say that you are not or refuse to be skeptical of God, nor Jesus then you can't say you are not indoctrinated because that is the very definition of indoctrination and you can't say you think critically if you refuse to do so.
There is quite a difference between " know about " and " know 'it' ( him, her )"
There is no way for this to be discovered from this mindset.
As it stands, the "I" is more powerful than even God. You see the contempt. God is sad. But not as sad as "I" will be on "that" day.And there is quite a difference between making a meaningful and meaningless statement like the one you just made. But if that give you a sense that you said something profound then it's ok, I take back my words.
wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Wait!!! it's not that time yet.
A story goes somehow like this : a ' one' living in a well supplied Garden, fully satisfied , telling to the 'rest ' of them how great it is to know your present and the future existence ; the 'rest' living on the obscurity of the mountains of Himalayas ,bickering : ... isn't so...I think I've been there ... Let me tell you...
... and a " game " goes on...
...and on,,, and ...
Well, listen, you didn't do a good job of proving I was wrong. You just dropped the debate we were having. All historians? I cannot see the error of my ways unless you attempt to correct it and just by dropping the conversation doesn't help me.
Unless, of course, your comment got buried and I didn't see it?Correct what? oops... prove you wrong where? Your mind is made up in all directions. Proving you wrong is easy, you just never see it.
You respond and you go on with no critical thought to what I have said. What discrepancy would you like pointed out first, again? Or are we done?It is the same regarding you and you might add 'because you are blinded by the faith'.
That is such an adversarial statement. Blinded by faith??? Now it is obvious that you have an agenda. But you're gonna have to eat smoke. He that is in me is greater.
Huh! Continuously making contradictory and nonsensical claim and claiming somebody is inside you, you are treading a very narrow path between insanity and normalcy. It is one thing to say god is a fool who killed his son but entirely another thing to say there is someone inside you.
You are "treading" with me
for a long time now. You must really be enthralled.Clearly, I rarely get this much nonsense, hence I find it very funny. Most people I come across has some intelligence at least not to write clear contradictions. You are the first one who continuously contradict yourself and boast you need no intelligence yet claim about getting an A in thinking.
I spoke of my A because I wanted you to know that you were not talking to one who cannot think. I am really good at it. The Lord provided me with it for you. My contradictions are carefully crafted by you. You badger until you find somthing with which you can screw. I am not detered. You have a point to prove. There is no God. Have you proven that to yourself??? The Lord has sent someone who does not know her abc's.
We ALL know better than that. I am prepared. You are searching. So what do you want to do?“I on the other hand, remain on the "island". God is real. He rained. He destroyed. He will destroy again.
Maybe the Egyptians had no time to get a pen with all the water coming down. And which piece of paper would have survived? For all you know, all your "evidence" could be from a different time, much later. “
Great critical thinking!!!
“I spoke of my A because I wanted you to know that you were not talking to one who cannot think. I am really good at it.”
Unfortunately, you are proving again and again that not only you are not good at critical thinking you are not good at any thinking. Have you passed tenth grade and read any other book other than bible?
“ The Lord provided me with it for you.”
Lord is not a shop keeper to “provide”
“ My contradictions are carefully crafted by you.”
No you are lying again just like your ‘A’ in critical thinking. The contradictions are your own. I’ll list it once again at the end of this.
You badger until you find somthing with which you can screw. I am not detered.”
You simply state nonsense and contradictions without me badgering. You hope nobody will notice and “sheeps” will hail you.
“You have a point to prove. There is no God.”
Why should I try when you are doing to by yourself?
You say
God is incomplete and hence he needs obedience and worship
God is a murderer who drowned innocent animals, innocent kids and majority of human beings.
God is a psychopath who allowed his own son to be killed
God is also waiting to roast majority of humans.
God is an emotional nutter who like a human is angry, jealous and always making errors.
This emotional murdering and roasting of humans and killing his own son is god’s way of showing love.
God has no need to explain why he makes a fool of himself.
Sin is hard-wired in humans
But it is not sin but freedom that is hard-wired.
Jesus is not god,
But jesus is also god.
You, genaea is an expert in critical thinking,
But when you say these nasty things about god, it is not you but somebody inside you is talking.
As that somebody is talking, whatever you say, even if it is nonsense, everybody should agree to it.
Because geneae is a critical thinker every nonsense she utter is from the spirit, and it shows she got an ‘A’ in critical thinking.
And contradictions and nonsense in bible means one should not critically analyze it and pronounce it nonsense, because you genaea has already examined it and though it defies history, it should be believed because genaea says so.
And the same also means all the history is wrong because bible says so, and critical thinking can be divided into my critical thinking and your critical thinking, as critical thinking is based on “experience and spirit and common sense”
“ The Lord has sent someone who does not know her abc's.”
Are you admitting the truth that you do not know your abc?We all know better than that
I have never in all my time on this site, met one so spoiled rotten, and self-absorbed. And I say that with the utmost respect. The kicker and screamer that reminds me of a colicky infant and someone else I know and love. You carry her spirit so well!
You are good at twisting the conversation and then setting up the page so that it "looks" as if you are winning to yourself. But you never pick the right comments to rebut.
My God punished a lot for sin in the OT. Death was/is the "payment" for sin. But!!! Since YOU don't consider it a "nice" act, you LABEL it MURDER and you throw it in the face of God??? Aaaaand call him a fool??? But you are just itty-bitty 666! Don't you know that???
You NEVER reveal that you have been made aware of God's punishment, and you feel that since God is Love, he would NEVER punish the way he SAID he would??? But peep this: committing your life to sin and disobedience is UNSAFE for the children of God. He protects his own. He moves the death of sin out of their way, and he ensures that the world is a safe place for his children to "play".
Would you not clear the playground of "bullies" who are only concerned about themselves; for the kind and gentle "players" that you send off to "the playground"???
Another spot to place your supposed critical thought is here: God informed the children that he governed of the do's and dont's. he informed them also of the penalty for disobedience. In this light, the punished were asking for what they got. Only God is just. He can look on the inside and SEE your very thought. He knows a "worm" when he sees one. You??? Just itty-bitty 666. You SEE nothing but YOUR thoughts on the matter. Well, whose "fault" is that??? Selfish thoughts and attitudes are not allowed in the kingdom. You are starting to appear bully-like. But again, just itty-bitty. Your lil attitude will get you kicked off the playground. God is clearing the field for TEAM-PLAYERS who abide by the rules of the game. Not spoiled little brats who cry foul every time the other team scores a goal.Murder should not be labeled as murder as it is “nice” for you?
I think I should call you one, how many times I pointed out that it is YOU who are doing the calling. I didn’t say God is a murderer, but it is YOU who said YOUR god is a murderer. It is you who said YOUR GOD DROWNED humans and will shortly ROAST them.
So some people are god’s children, who created the rest?
Who created the bullies. You might not know, as you are not educated, but bullies suffer from psychological problem and their treatment is not murder but counseling.
You are doing that nicely
I only paste your relevant points and I clearly showed how you contradict yourself.
If possible CLEARLY explain how your contradiction is not a contradiction without using obscure language.
Why could you simply admit that you have no logic but only blind belief in your priest.
You can cut and paste, but that will not be an explanation for your contradictions.
Well, you weren't following the debate I'm sure, so you aren't qualified to comment about that. Don't say my mind is made up when you are continuously contradict yourself and still claim to be right all the time. So no one here can actually have a debate with you using critical thinking because you say they don't have the spirit, etc.
So I'm busy composing my comment about Noah and I'm looking forward to your rebuttal.You too. Contradiction seems like disease floating all around the forum. People say that the bible is flawed, yet they quote from it, and claim to believe some of it. If that aint contradictory to the nth degree, then I'll be...
However, Noah, I did respond to. Since you missed it, I will say again that God chose Noah for his faith. There was none like it in all the land. God gave instruction on what to do, Noah did it, despite all the laughs and scoffing that took place. He was laughing last though. The original laughers were too busy choking on water. So, God chose who he wanted. He started the world again with one family. He does not owe you or anyone else explanation for his decision. But you will answer to him. He is the father, we are children to him. He is running his household. If you do not like the way he runs his business, you are more than able to thumb your nose and curse him to his face, walk away kicking and screaming and never have to speak of him again. Let me ask you genaea, was that the out of Africa moment? How does that fit into play in your mind?
Um, I am not sure what you mean. Out of Africa moment/movement??? I don't know much about that either. What are you asking?
Well how does the story of how your God committed genocide on his own people fit into the all human originated from Africa fact.
Well, to be honest, when I considered where humans originated from, I ran around in circles until I realized that it does not matter. We are here. We have instructions. God raining on all for forty days could have happened in America, Venezuela, Czechoslavakia, Africa or Spain. What does that matter?
He rained the earth for over a month and drowned all who were not in the boat.But you have no evidence that the earth was ever completely washed with water over the tallest mountain. Once again, the story doesn't jive with what we know of history archeology. About 60,000 years ago humans began to move out of Africa and completely spread across the entire planet. There is no evidence of a mass extinction of humans a few thousand years ago. Think critically.
Um, the bible says that there was a flood. I know that there was because I know that the bible is true. There is no proof of it??? I heard that a boat was found at the peak of a mountain. It may have been erroneous, but I do not care. Do you have evidence that there absolutely was no flood???
Of course there is plently of evidence that there was never a world wide flood as depicted in the story of Noah. Archaeological evidence shows that some humans migrated out of African 60,000 years ago and reach North American at least 13.500 years ago. There is no evidence of a world wide mass extinction of all mammals, reptiles, birds, insect and plants a few thousand years ago.
Ok. That does not change my mind. There was a flood because the bible says so. I want to be sure that you understand how I feel. I am convinced that the bible is real because the spirit of the Lord has informed me. You are no match. You can never know more that God.
But there is no God. It's your indoctrination that is telling you this.
But there is a God. It is your mistaken belief that you can get around that.
No, I don't have a mistaken belief because I don't have a belief.
Is it a mistake, when I say " the God ?" There He was when I was a little, just observing the people around me it was fascinating, and they knew He is, -- manifested in their daily
lives, was he or wasn't? No one was pushing agenda in opposite direction, because people were busy with daily- living- providing production, and no time left for evil- wrong- doing ( it used to be said " sin- ing?!"
Only the marxistic- communistic era, violently to replace this " none existing God" - started this " indoctrination". Still hard to understand, WHY so much effort to deny someone or something who/which doesn't exist at all ?I'm not trying to "deny" anything. I'm participating in a discussion. As an atheist, I have a lack of a belief in god. I do not have to prove he doesn't exist. His followers have to prove that he does. The burden of proof is on the people making the positive assertion - therefore those that are claiming that a god exists are fundamentally responsible for demonstrating it.
Why continue talking about it so long? Because I find it humorous, and I enjoy the conversation. I have no ulterior motives, I'm not trying to convert people to atheism, I've studied the bible, theology and apologetics in great depth and I find it humorous that I know the bible better than most of the believers I run into.It actually is humorous for a person on the outside looking into talking about spirits and stuff. The only way I can describe it to believers is to imagine talking with a group of adults trying to convince you that Santa and the tooth fairy are real. You can through all kinds of facts and data at them, but they keep insisting that it's possible for Santa to hit every house in the world in one night.
and that's exactly why I enjoy these discussions. Not only are they funny (see, casting out a demon from the troll) but they're fundamentally backwards, and I enjoy discussing things with a lot of different people. I'm here because it amuses me. When it ceases to amuse me, I will no longer be here. End of story. I don't know why that's so difficult for so many people to understand.
Thanks for your fairness . You are instrumental in my slow- learning how to be " politically correct " .
At the same time, being rebuked , help me to find out ( not successfully always ) why am I causing recurring misunderstanding. Though all you advanced and well aducated people might not have time/interest for this kind of nonsense , still I admire and appreciate you talking to me.It isn't a matter of being "politically correct". I don't think you're understanding the fundamental meaning of that word.
What I'm doing, however, is trying to point out that if you make false assertions (like the fact that I'm trying to take away someone's faith, or deny something to someone or deny something regardless of incontrovertible evidence, then you have to face the consequences. You are not in a position to assume things about me, since you don't know me. You are free to make observations based on what you've seen in the conversation, but there's a difference between making an observation and making an assertion.This again is caused by indoctrination. They are taught that if someone tries to tell you the bible is wrong they are evil and are tempting. They sometimes think we are in with the devil and are trying to covert them to the dark side.
yeah, except that the devil doesn't exist any more than god does. If the bible is to be believed, then a few fundamental things need to be made clear.
1) Who creates a system that is designed for the creator of the system to fail, by default? The answer is - no one. By believer's own determination, all human beings were created by god. Humans were born sinful, therefore you have the concept of original sin. Sinning is inherent. Unless you believe in this god, and worship him and sacrifice your life to try and make him happy, the devil wins by default.
Ironically, the devil is NOT god's enemy, according to the old testament. They're betting buddies. Satan is allowed to walk into heaven whenever he wants. He and god make bets together, and god gives satan permission to go torment one of his devoted followers just to prove a point. That notion is ridiculous.
Additionally, the only thing you need to know to prove that the bible is neither just nor moral is the concept of an eternal hell. God created hell - originally it was supposedly only meant for satan and his angels (as a side note, if angels do not have free will, and that's why god created human beings, then HOW exactly did satan, with irrefutable proof that god existed, choose to turn away from him?) and ultimately, god made the rules that send people there. Christianity is the only religion in the world that believes in an eternal hell, where nonbelievers are punished INFINITELY for finite crimes. That's the goodness that jesus brought with him, because the jews didn't actually believe in a hell - or a heaven. If the christians get bored in heaven, however, they can always look around into hell and enjoy the torment of others. Sounds like a perfect system to me.
My sentiment exactly. I likened it to arguing and arguing about the existence of Pinocchio. But I don't think anybody "understood" the metaphor.
I, personally, would not visit the OP that says, "Pinocchio is actually the ruler of the world, here's why..."And yet you are more than willing to hold up your end of the argument.
There was no boat found at the peak of a mountain, and the ark that the bible describes is actually impossible to build - especially with bronze age tools. I know, you'll dismiss it as a miracle of god. But there IS no evidence of a world-wide flood, period. You want evidence, consider this. The egyptian culture was already alive and well at the time the flood supposedly happened. They don't mention it. At all. We have laundry lists and grocery lists from egypt. They wrote everything down. They failed to mention that a flood wiped them all out.
100 years after the flood supposedly happened, the bible tells us about the tower of babel. Who were all the people there that tried to build a tower to heaven? in 100 years, Noah and his descendants bred so much that they were able to populate a whole city, and incidentally forget all about the god that supposedly saved them from a global flood? Try as they might, no archeological evidence has been produced that proves that a global flood ever happened - it doesn't matter what your bible says. It simply didn't happen.
Additionally, if the flood did happen exactly like the bible said it did and there were either 2 or 7 of each type of animal aboard the ark, according to the measurements that the bible provides, each animal would have little more than 1 inch aboard the boat. Does that seem possible to you? What did the lions eat? What did the other carnivores eat? Where did they store all the food for the animals that didn't eat meat for over 40 days?
Oh I did reply and I thought as well, there were too many comments and cut and paste bible quotes, one easily miss. Didn't I tell you, I once missed your reply.
And of course for you, anybody who doesn't agree with your Jesus story is influenced by Satan, at least that is what I understood from your replies.No, I don't believe you did because I get e-mail notifications from this hub and then I scroll down from where I last looked.
It is most possible that your comment got buried because of that wretched Jessica Here is my comment:
Riddle666: If so then the whole OT is bogus. And as even Israel now acknowledge, there was no exodus, there is nothing in OT worth considering. It was history, the history of slaves written by themselves to glorify them.
Why must you insist because there is corruption then the whole of the OT must be wrong? The truth history is in the literal translation of the OT which unfortunately you cannot learn about. You are right; there is no proof of exodus, etc. History has been manipulated.
So the question, why jesus went o the jews and called all non-jews, dogs(according to jesus)? Why this son of god selected the most fanatic of the races?
Jesus had to come through some blood-line and the Jews were the most monotheistic even though many were pagan. We cannot say all Jews were fanatical. Jesus did not call all non-Jews dogs. You are referring to this, aren't you?
Matthew 15:21-28
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
Jesus mingled with the Gentiles and obviously did not think they are inferior. He did not believe she was a dog; He was just using the name giving for gentiles to test her faith. He was showing that it doesn't matter if someone is a Gentile or a Jew, if they have faith in Him they will receive Him. Jesus often treated people in a certain way to demonstrate how great faith is. He wanted to see if she would continue asking Him in faith or just accept she was a "dog". And He praised her for her faith. She had humbled herself and submitted to the Lord and recognized she was not worthy. We have to do the same. He need to acknowledge that we will never received the Holy Spirit unless we acknowledge we sin and humble ourselves.
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
He obviously had admiration and respect for her.
Why was god unable to prevent the contamination of[i] his book?[/i]
I've just answered that question. God had to rely on God-inspired people because He has given us free will. It was out of man's free will that Jesus was crucified.
“"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. " – Matthew 10.35,36.
I already explained this one to you.
" If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my " – Luke 14.26.
The NT was not written in English. It was written in Greece so this is a translation issue. The Greek AND Hebrew equivalent to hate is love less.
Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=781
Here's the Hebrew explanation:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Talmudim, 'students' of Jewish rabbis were taught to place their affections for their teachers higher than that for their fathers, for:
"his teacher has priority, for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher, who has taught him wisdom, brings him into the world to come".
But 'hatred'? Surely that is taking loyalty to your teacher too far - even if your teacher is God in human form. For another commandment is that of honouring ones parents - which itself cannot be contradicted. Indeed, this verse in Luke has caused much anguish and pain between zealous Christian sons or daughters and their parents, who believing they were expressing their devotion to Jesus, had no regard or worse still, hatred, for their parents.
But what we have here is another Hebrew problem. Biblical Hebrew lacks the necessary language to exactly define the comparative sense, i.e., 'more than' or 'less than'. Instead it tends to express two things which may be comparatively of different degree like 'first' and 'second' as extremes such as 'first' and 'last'. In this way love and hate whilst appearing as opposites may in fact be related but lesser terms such as 'love more' and 'love less'.
"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
A Jewish man was not allowed to abandon a 'hated' wife's son's rights of inheritance. But more than this, the Deuteronomy passage describes favouritism between two wives, not absolute love and hatred, for the man bears children by both. Hence, different Bible versions struggle with the phrase "hated" and some adopt "unloved" or "disliked", as softer phrases. However, the Hebrew word used in the second phrase is sânê' (Strong’s #8130) which in its more than 140 uses is always translated by 'hate' or by words indicating 'foe' or 'enemy'. Literal versions cannot soften the apparent invective, only an idiomatic understanding or paraphrase can explain the metaphor.
The Hebrew sânê' is the opposite of love which could mean 'non-election'. This contrast is the same in Genesis 29:31 between Leah ('hated' senû’âh from sânê’) and Rachel, who in the previous verse is described as "loved more than Leah", a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate. Compare also the passages in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 above; 1 Samuel 1:5; Proverbs 30:23; 2 Samuel 19:6; and even Exodus 20:3 which speaks of preferring others gods as equivalent to hating God (cf. Matthew 6:24 on serving God and mammon, loving one and hating the other).
The Jewish midrash on Exodus describes God as hating the angels, and not just the fallen ones. It does not mean he dislikes Michael and Gabriel! It means that he chooses to give man the Torah, rather than the angels:
"By three names is this mount known: The mountain of God, Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai. . . . Why The mountain of God? (Exodus 18:5). Because it was there that God manifested His Godhead. And Sinai? Because [it was on that mount] that God showed that He hates the angels and loves mankind." (Exodus Rabbah 51.8, Soncino edition)
There is actually a Hebrew wordplay here, for Sinai sounds like the Hebrew for hate, although it begins with a different Hebrew letter and may mean 'thorny'. Similarly, Malachi speaks of God's preference for Jacob over Esau:
"... yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau..." (Malachi 1:2-3)
But Esau, like Ishmael instead of Isaac, was not hated absolutely, only "rejected" as the Aramaic targum (paraphrase) prefers to render it. In Aramaic sanah can mean 'to hate' and 'to separate', so the gospels could be saying separate yourselves from your parents if you want to follow me. This is a possible interpretation, but still against Jewish and biblical culture which is very supportive of family. Apart from Jesus' 'separating' and staying behind in the temple when he was younger he was a very dutiful son."
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
Jesus was saying that He must be put first before His parents. People must love their parents less than Him.
This can be backed up by:
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:37)
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." – Matthew 10.21.”
These are strong words, indeed, for a pacifist, who asked to love one another.
It's not what Jesus wants but families were divided because some remained Jews and others Christians. Perhaps family members were betrayed and given over to the Romans to be put to death. It will be the case again in the future. Families were give up their own when Christians will be executed and that is coming.
Nestorians also believed it is the “man” part not god part who died. Again if we look carefully, there was no jesus [i]as described in bible. There might have been an obscure jewish preacher, but he was not the mighty miracle working revolutionary to be noticed by anyone of merit. Different sects started with or without the help of this particular jesus and hoped for their “messiah”. Finally Constantine and the sects who got upper-hand put down all other sects.[/i]
Since Nestorians were from Syria and Asia Minor, they must have formed their beliefs from the gospels that are preached today. After all, Jesus was not crucified in Syria and so there were no eye-witnesses from Syria.
Gentiles converted to Christianity before Constantine. The power of Christ was great and instead of fighting this power, Constantine chose to tolerate it and stopped the persecution of Christians. He had absolutely nothing to do with choosing gospels. It was Irenaeus.
"St. Irenaeus ( /aɪrəˈniːəs/; Greek: Εἰρηναῖος), (2nd century C.E. – c. 202) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyons, France). He was an early Church Father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp,[1] who in turn was a disciple of John the Evangelist.
Irenaeus' best-known book, Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies (c. 180) is a detailed attack on Gnosticism, which was then a serious threat to the Church, and especially on the system of the Gnostic Valentinus.[2] As one of the first great Christian theologians, he emphasized the traditional elements in the Church, especially the episcopate, Scripture, and tradition.[2] Against the Gnostics, who said that they possessed a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles — and none of them was a Gnostic — and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture.[3] His writings, with those of Clement and Ignatius, are taken as among the earliest signs of the developing doctrine of the primacy of the Roman see.[2] Irenaeus is the earliest witness to recognition of the canonical character of all four gospels.[4]"
If I tell you dinosyus was the real jesus, and all the opposing stories regarding dinosyus was lie(for he too was a son of god, died and resurrected), there is no way for you to disprove it.
You have your facts wrong about Dionysus:
Dionysus was the son of Zeus and thus not the son of God. He traveled around teaching people how to make wine. No miracles, however.
He was also killed as an infant but resurrected. That part is true. However, he resurrected into another form because he was eaten.
http://www.geneseo.edu/~easton/humanities/Dionysus.html
http://www.men-myths-minds.com/Dionysus-greek-god.html
That sounds nothing like Jesus.
“Isaiah 53:4-6:
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth."
Do not appear like that of jesus. No where it is said “jesus”. No where it is said he is going to be crucified. A wild extrapolation just like Nostradamus’s predictions. And to make matters worse the translations is edited so many times to change the word disease to infirmity. It is just like the “space”, you described below. People translated it to fit their belief, not the other way round.And it also helps that the words after hundreds of years change in meaning and scope.
No one said Jesus' name was mentioned. It is not hard to put two and two together now. Disease? Infirmity? Please elaborate. It was the Rabbis that decided what would be included in the Tanach and so Isaiah 53 was not edited. I'd like to ask you what you believe Isaiah 53 is about.
Was Jesus given a grave with the wicked?
This is the explanation for that:
Isaiah 53:9
Does Isaiah contradict the New Testament Gospels?
Isaiah 53:9 in the King James Bible reads, “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death.”
I have received two takes on this that claim an inaccuracy or contradiction in the King James Bible.
Take #1: Jesus actually was with the WICKED in death and with the RICH in his grave. In other words, Isaiah got it BACKWARDS.
Take #2: The new translations are more accurate and their translation of Isaiah 53:9 is better than the King James Bible.
Answers:
Take #1 To answer this first accusation, was must refer you to the King James reading above while remembering that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself.
In Romans 6:23, we are told that the wages of sin is DEATH. 2 Corinthians 5:21 then tells us that Jesus was “made… to be sin for us.” In other words, Jesus never sinned but became sin on the Cross. In this way, He became our SUBSTITUTE and paid for the sin of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
Only the WICKED die. Jesus made his grave with the wicked because the sins of the wicked were placed on Him. And that is exactly what Isaiah said would happen.
Also, the text says that he “made his grave… with the rich in his death.” This is absolutely true. He died as the wicked do and was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea according to Mark 15:42-47, which describes the preparation and burial in terms that clearly indicate that Joseph of Arimathaea was a man of considerable wealth. He spent serious money on the preparation and owned a tomb originally intended to be used for his own body. ONLY “rich” Jews of the 1st century could pull this off.
Claire:"It's a pity you can't watch the video I posted. I'm assuming you are talking about Elijah going up to heaven in a chariot? Well, in the literal translation of the OT, it says Elijah went out into space in a space-craft. You know, the flames that come from blast-off. So now if that translation is correct, then Jesus is correct in saying no man hath ascended to heaven."
Don’t you think you are being a little outlandish? What is the difference between space and heaven? What about Enoch?
No, I didn't write the OT.
Anyway, people flying on vehicles of flames is not unique to the OT.
In the ancient texts when a god or Taoist emporer is said to have flown to heaven on a dragon, the vehicle is apparently the dragon.
The flying crafts of the ancient gods were called heavenly “boats” by the Egyptians, “flaming chariots” by the Hebrews and “dragons” in China and several other countries.
The dragon’s fiery breath most likely referred to a rocket’s flaming exhaust.
http://amirfatir.tripod.com/sitebuilder … res/et.htm
I'm actually startled at how much the Quran supports the Ancient Astronaut theory.
The Hakatha (Laws of the Babylonians) states:
"The privilege of operating a flying machine is great. The knowledge of flight is among the most ancient of our inheritances. A gift from 'those from upon high'. We received it from them as a means of saving many lives."
The Mahabharata
"At Rama's behest the magnificent chariot rose up to a mountain of cloud with a tremendous din..."
"Bhisma flew with his Vimana on an enormous ray which was as brilliant as the sun and made a noise like the thunder of a storm."
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/viman … anas_4.htm
Did you see this comment?
Well, I like to talk about this in depth so that people can see that Jesus contradicts the God of the OT and those who believe the OT in its entirety are fooled by Satan.CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
“Why must you insist because there is corruption then the whole of the OT must be wrong? You are right; there is no proof of exodus, etc. History has been manipulated.”
Precisely for that reason, the history in bible is manipulated. So we cannot depend on OT for knowing the history. And there is no way we can identify the manipulated from the uncorrupt. As long as we are unable to differentiate grain from chaff, we cannot take anything on face value.
You say spirit, but it is the same spirit genaea is quoting to say god drowned and killed human beings.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
I've just answered that question. God had to rely on God-inspired people because He has given us free will. It was out of man's free will that Jesus was crucified.
Why an all powerful god had to rely on simple minded humans. Why didn’t he give a book just like the one given to Moses by him, personally hand written? And if he just wanted to inspire, why he didn’t do it in a better way, to be more precise and why didn’t he made the ones who are about to write his book intelligent enough. And why he didn’t prevent later corruptions?
Free will is an illusion. We are prisoners of our brain structure and our circumstances. A sociopath is a sociopath is not by choice, but by nature. And jews are instructed to kill anybody who claim himself as god. Then if they did just that, was it the fault of them or jesus?
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
“ It's not what Jesus wants but families were divided because some remained Jews and others Christians. Perhaps family members were betrayed and given over to the Romans to be put to death. It will be the case again in the future. Families were give up their own when Christians will be executed and that is coming. “
OK, let’s agree on that, but that still won’t answer the condemning of humans to eternal hell. We used to kill offenders, but now we are realizing it as a barbaric practice and more and more nations are against the death penality. So, condemning somebody to eternal hell, for what he is, is barbaric.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
”Since Nestorians were from Syria and Asia Minor, they must have formed their beliefs from the gospels that are preached today. After all, Jesus was not crucified in Syria and so there were no eye-witnesses from Syria.
It is not that they were from Syria. There was no definite Christianity as we know today. Everybody believed different things. As the book you quoted pointed out, there was a sect who believed jesus was laughing from above the cross. What I said is there were different sects who believed entirely different things about jesus.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE ”Gentiles converted to Christianity before Constantine. The power of Christ was great and instead of fighting this power, Constantine chose to tolerate it and stopped the persecution of Christians. He had absolutely nothing to do with choosing gospels.
Constantine was a crooked fellow. He wanted to usurp power, he just choose one of the powerful and fanatic sects to his side. He was the overseer of the council. He wanted to unify because that would give him more strength in his power struggle. Also do not forget that a good number of Christian sects were founded by his mother.
“power of Christ was great” You just said the power of god is not enough to keep his own book uncorrupted. It is not the power of jesus Constantine was after, but his fanatic followers’.
If I tell you dinosyus was the real jesus, and all the opposing stories regarding dinosyus was lie(for he too was a son of god, died and resurrected), there is no way for you to disprove it.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE “You have your facts wrong about Dionysus:”
You got me wrong. The fact about Dionysus was there is no Dinoysus. The story is important. There was no person, but there was a story. And Zeus was the god of ancient Greece, the king god. Even now, when humans talk they tend to exaggerate. Stories changes over time. A simple story when change hands get more and more additions. Jesus story is also similar. An obscure preacher of Judea, who was elevated to god level by his followers, nothing more.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE “No one said Jesus' name was mentioned. It is not hard to put two and two together now. Disease? Infirmity? Please elaborate. It was the Rabbis that decided what would be included in the Tanach and so Isaiah 53 was not edited. I'd like to ask you what you believe Isaiah 53 is about. “
This book was not written by single person, nor is written in a period of a few years. The prophesy is as accurate as that of a Nostradamus’s.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE ” No, I didn't write the OT.
It is not that. Ancient people didn’t know the difference between sky, space or heaven or up above, for them all are same. So it doesn’t matter whether it was to heaven or to sky. Also as much as I remember, jews didn’t believe much about life after death or heaven. For them sin causes god punishing them by making them slaves of another nation and reward bringing them back to their nation.
Now of course, there is the problem of translations. I once try to read hamlet in its original form. Reading a single page was enough to cure me of that, didn’t understand a thing though it was English. So a language changes. Now you can imagine how difficult it will be to translate ancient Greek and Hebrew, especially with the “free will” problem. The marginal writings of later people too was later included in bible. So how accurate that could be?
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE ”.
Well, I like to talk about this in depth so that people can see that Jesus contradicts the God of the OT and those who believe the OT in its entirety are fooled by Satan.
OK, let us. We will examine how we know very little about jesus or his teaching and the four gospels are simply what THEY THOUGHT jesus was like and what his teachings were.CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
“Why must you insist because there is corruption then the whole of the OT must be wrong? You are right; there is no proof of exodus, etc. History has been manipulated.”
riddle666: Precisely for that reason, the history in bible is manipulated. So we cannot depend on OT for knowing the history. And there is no way we can identify the manipulated from the uncorrupt. As long as we are unable to differentiate grain from chaff, we cannot take anything on face value.
You say spirit, but it is the same spirit genaea is quoting to say god drowned and killed human beings.
Actually, I look for evidence from pagan cultures to see where the truth my lie in the OT and it has been very interesting. As for what is genuine in the OT? All that doesn't contradict Jesus. It's that simple.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
I've just answered that question. God had to rely on God-inspired people because He has given us free will. It was out of man's free will that Jesus was crucified.
riddle666: Why an all powerful god had to rely on simple minded humans.
Often it is the "simple-minded" that understand Jesus best. The more one is inspired by Jesus, the more accurate their interpretations are going to be.
riddle666:Why didn’t he give a book just like the one given to Moses by him, personally hand written?
You and I both agree that those Moses stories are fictitious so Moses being given a book is a moot point.
riddle666:And if he just wanted to inspire, why he didn’t do it in a better way, to be more precise and why didn’t he made the ones who are about to write his book intelligent enough. And why he didn’t prevent later corruptions?
How could He have done it in a better way? Are you suggesting those who wrote the Gospels were backward? Lol. That is ridiculous. I'd also like to know how God could prevent corruptions when they are corrupt beings out there. Look at the world and how corrupt it is. It would seem weird for God to preserve a book perfectly and not think of the rest of the world.
I think you'd agree with me on this but even if God made the most perfect scriptures that He wrote Himself it would not convince the whole world. People would still call it fairy-tales and written by shepherds, etc.
riddle666:Free will is an illusion. We are prisoners of our brain structure and our circumstances. A sociopath is a sociopath is not by choice, but by nature.
We are born with certain tendencies but God can make us rise above those flaws. That's the power of the Holy Spirit. Sociopaths are nurtured to behave in a certain way and it is in their nature but it can change. There just needs to be the will. So we are not prisoners of our circumstances. Two different children can come from an abusive home but one can kill later on in life and the other one can be stable. Yes, people can be victims of circumstance but they can change it.
riddle666:And jews are instructed to kill anybody who claim himself as god. Then if they did just that, was it the fault of them or jesus?
Well, someone can instruct me to kill someone but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it. Only evil or brain-washed people would do that. Would every Jew obey the instructions to kill someone like Jesus? No. So it is most certainly not the fault of Jesus. Should He lie about Himself?
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
“ It's not what Jesus wants but families were divided because some remained Jews and others Christians. Perhaps family members were betrayed and given over to the Romans to be put to death. It will be the case again in the future. Families were give up their own when Christians will be executed and that is coming. “
riddle666:OK, let’s agree on that, but that still won’t answer the condemning of humans to eternal hell. We used to kill offenders, but now we are realizing it as a barbaric practice and more and more nations are against the death penality. So, condemning somebody to eternal hell, for what he is, is barbaric.
First of all, we need to consider the definition of hell: It is the complete separation from God. Where there is an absence of God, Satan rushes in and makes you suffer for the penalty of evil. Jesus is warning that unrepentant sin leads to the complete separation from God. If one is evil, they will reject God. How can then God force them to be with Him? Ironically, it is not God who sends them to hell but themselves! Why else do you think Jesus died for our sins? So that we can reconcile with God and thus not be separated from Him.
It is an act of love. Nowhere did Jesus ever threaten gentiles with hell. He often commended them for their faith. It was the Pharisees he warned of hell that would be their destiny should they not part with evil.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
”Since Nestorians were from Syria and Asia Minor, they must have formed their beliefs from the gospels that are preached today. After all, Jesus was not crucified in Syria and so there were no eye-witnesses from Syria.
riddle666:It is not that they were from Syria. There was no definite Christianity as we know today. Everybody believed different things. As the book you quoted pointed out, there was a sect who believed jesus was laughing from above the cross. What I said is there were different sects who believed entirely different things about jesus.
Yes, but the one I take seriously is the gospel that was preached immediately after Jesus' died. So New Agers in the form of Gnostics can make their own versions all they like but it is not original Christianity. Jesus never preached how to become a Christ. Anyone, I don't care what they believe. It is what I personally know that counts.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE ”Gentiles converted to Christianity before Constantine. The power of Christ was great and instead of fighting this power, Constantine chose to tolerate it and stopped the persecution of Christians. He had absolutely nothing to do with choosing gospels.
riddle666:Constantine was a crooked fellow. He wanted to usurp power, he just choose one of the powerful and fanatic sects to his side. He was the overseer of the council. He wanted to unify because that would give him more strength in his power struggle. Also do not forget that a good number of Christian sects were founded by his mother.
That's not the point. Constantine had nothing to do with the selection of the Gospels. Iraneus did. God can take good out of evil. Yes, it is true that Constantine wanted unity for political reasons but without Him, the true gospels would not have been brought to the forefront.
Was Constantine at logger-heads with his mother?
riddle666: “power of Christ was great” You just said the power of god is not enough to keep his own book uncorrupted. It is not the power of jesus Constantine was after, but his fanatic followers’.
The power of Christ is great through those who love Him and we aren't infallible. As I said regarding Constantine, God can use malicious intentions for His will.
If I tell you dinosyus was the real jesus, and all the opposing stories regarding dinosyus was lie(for he too was a son of god, died and resurrected), there is no way for you to disprove it.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE “You have your facts wrong about Dionysus:”
riddle666:You got me wrong. The fact about Dionysus was there is no Dinoysus. The story is important. There was no person, but there was a story. And Zeus was the god of ancient Greece, the king god. Even now, when humans talk they tend to exaggerate. Stories changes over time. A simple story when change hands get more and more additions. Jesus story is also similar. An obscure preacher of Judea, who was elevated to god level by his followers, nothing more.
That's not the point. You erroneously claimed that Dionysus (as in his legend) was the son of God, died and resurrected which you are implying that Jesus is a copycat of pagan gods. True?
How do you know Jesus was elevated to God level? What benefit did His followers have by claiming that? They were persecuted and put to death for that.
What argument is there that the gospels are reliable?
Quote: http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable- … raditions/
"As we’ve said, form criticism has tended to embrace the view that, in all likelihood, neither Jesus nor anyone in his inner circle was literate. They thus assumed that writing played no regulative role in the oral transmission of early material about Jesus, which made it easier for this material to be significantly and quickly altered as it was passed along. However, while no one disputes that first century Jewish culture was an orally dominated culture, there is increasing evidence that reading and writing was not as rare in the ancient world in general, and in ancient Palestine in particular, as was once generally thought.
For example, whereas some scholars have argued that only the wealthy in the ancient world could have received the education needed to become literate, we’ve now discovered clear evidence of writing among military personal, builders and even slaves! (1) So too, whereas it was commonly assumed in the past that writing materials were very rare and expensive in the ancient world, we now have evidence that certain kinds of writing materials were actually rather inexpensive and were utilized by significant segments of the middle and lower classes. (2) We’ve also discovered texts that were intended to inform the general public (for example, publicly posted notices), which of course presupposes some degree of literacy among the general populace. (3)
If the ancient world was in general more literate than previously thought, we have reason to believe ancient Jews would have been much more so. After all, as New Testament scholar John Meier notes,
“The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that simply was not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century. . . To be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.” (4)
Thus, as Birger Gerhardsson argues, “the milieu in which Jesus and the original disciples ministered, and the milieu in which remembrances of Jesus’ life and teaching were passed on, was one that revered the written word and thus valued literacy.” (5)
In light of this, we have no reason to question the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus as not only being able to read (e.g. Lk 4:16-30) but as impressing crowds with his learning (e.g. Jn 7:15). Nor do we have any reason to suppose that all of Jesus’ disciples were illiterate. At the very least, Matthew’s occupation as a tax collector would have required some level of literacy. It’s perhaps significant in this regard that an early second century church father named Papias — a man who seems to have been a direct disciple of the Apostle John — mentions that Matthew was the designated note-taker among the earliest disciples."
So for Jesus' story to digress to the extent it was false is just unlikely.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE “No one said Jesus' name was mentioned. It is not hard to put two and two together now. Disease? Infirmity? Please elaborate. It was the Rabbis that decided what would be included in the Tanach and so Isaiah 53 was not edited. I'd like to ask you what you believe Isaiah 53 is about. “
riddle666:This book was not written by single person, nor is written in a period of a few years. The prophesy is as accurate as that of a Nostradamus’s.
So how did the prophecy change over the years? No you have other references to Isaiah 53 that is different to the ones we have now?
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE ” No, I didn't write the OT.
riddle666:It is not that. Ancient people didn’t know the difference between sky, space or heaven or up above, for them all are same. So it doesn’t matter whether it was to heaven or to sky. Also as much as I remember, jews didn’t believe much about life after death or heaven. For them sin causes god punishing them by making them slaves of another nation and reward bringing them back to their nation.
Ancient people didn't know the difference between sky, space and heaven? I'll have you know that there were those in mystery schools who had advanced knowledge. How else where the pyramids of Giza built? Unless aliens built them. Traditional Judaism does include the after life. It is true that they believed punishments and rewards were done on earth. There are allusions that there was a believe in the after-life in the OT. See Gen. 25:8 (Abraham), 25:17 (Ishmael), 35:29 (Isaac), 49:33 (Jacob), Deut. 32:50 (Moses and Aaron) II Kings 22:20 (King Josiah). This gathering is described as a separate event from the physical death of the body or the burial.
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm
riddle666:Now of course, there is the problem of translations. I once try to read hamlet in its original form. Reading a single page was enough to cure me of that, didn’t understand a thing though it was English. So a language changes. Now you can imagine how difficult it will be to translate ancient Greek and Hebrew, especially with the “free will” problem. The marginal writings of later people too was later included in bible. So how accurate that could be?
There are people familiar with ancient languages and they weren't translated a century ago, either. Is Hamlet completely different to what it is in modern English now? Also, ancient Greek is taught in Greece.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE ”.
Well, I like to talk about this in depth so that people can see that Jesus contradicts the God of the OT and those who believe the OT in its entirety are fooled by Satan.
riddle666:OK, let us. We will examine how we know very little about jesus or his teaching and the four gospels are simply what THEY THOUGHT jesus was like and what his teachings were.
Go for it.CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
Often it is the "simple-minded" that understand Jesus best. The more one is inspired by Jesus, the more accurate their interpretations are going to be.
The more simple minded the easier it is to fool them. If you look at the history of religions (recent) and cults, it is the common folk that first flock to new religions, people who “believe” instead of applying logic, people who are looking for easier solutions than the proper analysis and correct but difficult solutions. The intelligent will flock only after they have analyzed the business potential. And the simple minded will not write books but spread stories and exaggerate stories, they defend the cult. The more they are inspired the more fantastic their stories going to be.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
How could He have done it in a better way? Are you suggesting those who wrote the Gospels were backward? Lol. That is ridiculous. I'd also like to know how God could prevent corruptions when they are corrupt beings out there. Look at the world and how corrupt it is. It would seem weird for God to preserve a book perfectly and not think of the rest of the world.
Isn’t god supposed to be the all powerful and “love” humans very much. At least he should device a way which his words are not corrupted, and non-contradictory. He could preserve the NT with only the numbers being corrupted, but failed to do so with almost the entire OT.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
I think you'd agree with me on this but even if God made the most perfect scriptures that He wrote Himself it would not convince the whole world. People would still call it fairy-tales and written by shepherds, etc.
People call it written by shepherds because of the fairy tale elements, exaggerated stories and inconsistencies, not the other way round.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
We are born with certain tendencies but God can make us rise above those flaws. That's the power of the Holy Spirit. Sociopaths are nurtured to behave in a certain way and it is in their nature but it can change. There just needs to be the will. So we are not prisoners of our circumstances. Two different children can come from an abusive home but one can kill later on in life and the other one can be stable. Yes, people can be victims of circumstance but they can change it.
You just said god couldn’t preserve his book because people are corrupt, now you say god can make us rise above the flaws.
Sociopaths are “nurtured”?; you forgot the brain structure part. It is nature and nurture both, which we cannot control. The children of the same house are different because their brain (micro) structure are different, the nature part. We react to the external based on our internal structure.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
someone can instruct me to kill someone but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it. Only evil or brain-washed people would do that. Would every Jew obey the instructions to kill someone like Jesus? No. So it is most certainly not the fault of Jesus. Should He lie about Himself?
For the Jews of that time, it was god who instructed not any ordinary person. You are forgetting the OT punishments. They may be corrupt to you, but the jews of that time it was god’s words.
And gospel says everybody asked him to be crucified instead of barabas. And according to gospel jesus went there knowing he would be killed and took judas knowing he would be betrayed. The fault is as much as jesus's.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
Yes, but the one I take seriously is the gospel that was preached immediately after Jesus' died. So New Agers in the form of Gnostics can make their own versions all they like but it is not original Christianity. Jesus never preached how to become a Christ. Anyone, I don't care what they believe. It is what I personally know that counts.
The problem is what you personally know is not what it is. The gospels original gospels are not available because the dominant Christian sect managed to brand the rest heresies and managed to destroy it. The rest of it we will discuss later.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
That's not the point. Constantine had nothing to do with the selection of the Gospels. Iraneus did. God can take good out of evil. Yes, it is true that Constantine wanted unity for political reasons but without Him, the true gospels would not have been brought to the forefront.
Suppose Constantine was living now and he selected Pope Benedcit to unify the Christians, whose version will prevail. Constantine selected the most dominant sect and Iraneus who branded all other versions that are different from him as heresies. If Constantine selected a Nestorian(for eg), you would now be arguing for that.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
That's not the point. You erroneously claimed that Dionysus (as in his legend) was the son of God, died and resurrected which you are implying that Jesus is a copycat of pagan gods. True?
There are not one but two points there
1) Zeus was Greek’s god but was later taken up by Romans as Jupiter. The name and stories changed to fit roman version. Similarly why shouldn’t jesus be a jewish version of a pagan god? A preacher, with people making stories about him will certainly help. People first will consider him a saint, then attribute stories and miracles to him elevating his status.
2) A story was made about Dionysus as god even though there was no dinoysus. So why not we allow the jews some creativity for their own? It was a time of great turbulence for jews, there were many messiah claimants. The different groups elevated their gurus to godly status, and one among them later got a good following and fascination of Constatine.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
How do you know Jesus was elevated to God level? What benefit did His followers have by claiming that? They were persecuted and put to death for that.
People believing and dying for a cause is not a proof of the veracity of the truth, it just shows the tenacity of their beliefs.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
So how did the prophecy change over the years? No you have other references to Isaiah 53 that is different to the ones we have now?
As I already told that was a time of great turbulence for jews, books prophecies were abound. At 5r2 he started to lament about Israel and later it became a person. But there is no clarity regarding the prophesy and whena prophesy is already there it is easier to fit a man to the prophesy. As you said, Isaiah got it backwards, but the one who tried to fit jesus the prophesy didn’t get all of it right.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
Ancient people didn't know the difference between sky, space and heaven?
The mystery schools are just like the various religions trying the show that bing bang is their in their religious text books. Heaven or sky is the abode of god, when they say he went to sky in chariot(especially sent by god), they certainly does not mean he is floating in sky.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
There are people familiar with ancient languages and they weren't translated a century ago, either. Is Hamlet completely different to what it is in modern English now? Also, ancient Greek is taught in Greece.
Then why they couldn’t translate the “hate” exactly as meant in bible. Even now in all testaments, it is hate and in English hate is the exact opposite of love and not less love. We have no way of exactly knowing the correct expression and meaning of an ancient word. It changes over time.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
Go for it.
In time, even this reply has become too long for my liking.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
Often it is the "simple-minded" that understand Jesus best. The more one is inspired by Jesus, the more accurate their interpretations are going to be.
riddle666: The more simple minded the easier it is to fool them. If you look at the history of religions (recent) and cults, it is the common folk that first flock to new religions, people who “believe” instead of applying logic, people who are looking for easier solutions than the proper analysis and correct but difficult solutions. The intelligent will flock only after they have analyzed the business potential. And the simple minded will not write books but spread stories and exaggerate stories, they defend the cult. The more they are inspired the more fantastic their stories going to be.
I said often simple-minded, not all. Paul most certainly was not simple-minded. Some of the disciples were illiterate and some weren't. As for the exaggeration of stories, etc, please consult the page I gave you.
http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable- … raditions/
In order for the Jesus story to have spread, eye-witnesses would have repeated what had happened or else no one would believe the resurrection. You can't go to someone and say Elvis has risen from the dead without proof. You'd want to see it for yourself.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
How could He have done it in a better way? Are you suggesting those who wrote the Gospels were backward? Lol. That is ridiculous. I'd also like to know how God could prevent corruptions when they are corrupt beings out there. Look at the world and how corrupt it is. It would seem weird for God to preserve a book perfectly and not think of the rest of the world.
riddle666 god supposed to be the all powerful and “love” humans very much. At least he should device a way which his words are not corrupted, and non-contradictory. He could preserve the NT with only the numbers being corrupted, but failed to do so with almost the entire OT.
As I said, even if the Bible was perfect and written by God, Himself, would you automatically believe it? Even if it was not contradictory, would you believe it? Because God so loved the world, He gave us free will and thus left it to those who love Him to testify about His son. Most of those who wrote the OT were influenced by the devil as obviously seen by the content.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
I think you'd agree with me on this but even if God made the most perfect scriptures that He wrote Himself it would not convince the whole world. People would still call it fairy-tales and written by shepherds, etc.
riddle666 People call it written by shepherds because of the fairy tale elements, exaggerated stories and inconsistencies, not the other way round.
First of all, you are assuming there are fairy tale elements, etc. I'm sure it was deemed a fairy tale that the earth revolved around the sun. So I'm wondering how shepherd stories eventually led to the composition of the gospels in early Christianity.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
We are born with certain tendencies but God can make us rise above those flaws. That's the power of the Holy Spirit. Sociopaths are nurtured to behave in a certain way and it is in their nature but it can change. There just needs to be the will. So we are not prisoners of our circumstances. Two different children can come from an abusive home but one can kill later on in life and the other one can be stable. Yes, people can be victims of circumstance but they can change it.
riddle666 You just said god couldn’t preserve his book because people are corrupt, now you say god can make us rise above the flaws.
Rising above flaws such as alcoholism, for example, hardly makes us unerring and infallible.
riddle666 Sociopaths are “nurtured”?; you forgot the brain structure part. It is nature and nurture both, which we cannot control. The children of the same house are different because their brain (micro) structure are different, the nature part. We react to the external based on our internal structure.
I said it was both nature and nurture. Sociopaths are not demented. They know the difference between right and wrong so there is culpability. Schizophrenia is a different story. How God can help is led them to help.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
someone can instruct me to kill someone but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it. Only evil or brain-washed people would do that. Would every Jew obey the instructions to kill someone like Jesus? No. So it is most certainly not the fault of Jesus. Should He lie about Himself?
riddle666: For the Jews of that time, it was god who instructed not any ordinary person. You are forgetting the OT punishments. They may be corrupt to you, but the jews of that time it was god’s words.
And gospel says everybody asked him to be crucified instead of barabas. And according to gospel jesus went there knowing he would be killed and took judas knowing he would be betrayed. The fault is as much as jesus's.
Well, that is one of the reasons why Jesus came to earth to display the absolute lies that it was God's will that stoning is permitted. He demonstrated that to be wrong. I mean, isn't murder breaking one of the ten commandments? So stoning someone is murder, right?
You don't know the reason why Jesus came to this earth. He had to die to save us from sin and that is why He knew He had to go to Jerusalem to die. Judas was instrumental in this because someone had to betray Him for Him to die and resurrect from the dead.
Jesus has much compassion for Judas as he is forever associated with evil which we all have done. We have all betrayed Jesus when we sin.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE:
Yes, but the one I take seriously is the gospel that was preached immediately after Jesus' died. So New Agers in the form of Gnostics can make their own versions all they like but it is not original Christianity. Jesus never preached how to become a Christ. Anyone, I don't care what they believe. It is what I personally know that counts.
riddle666: The problem is what you personally know is not what it is. The gospels original gospels are not available because the dominant Christian sect managed to brand the rest heresies and managed to destroy it. The rest of it we will discuss later.
Yes, I actually do know it personally is and I've got the devil to thank for helping that to be validated. Why should I take Gnosticism seriously when it is Satanism? No wonder it was called heresy.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
That's not the point. Constantine had nothing to do with the selection of the Gospels. Iraneus did. God can take good out of evil. Yes, it is true that Constantine wanted unity for political reasons but without Him, the true gospels would not have been brought to the forefront.
riddle666: Suppose Constantine was living now and he selected Pope Benedcit to unify the Christians, whose version will prevail. Constantine selected the most dominant sect and Iraneus who branded all other versions that are different from him as heresies. If Constantine selected a Nestorian(for eg), you would now be arguing for that.
It doesn't matter which version should prevail, the strongest sect is ultimately going to survive and that sect was based on eye-witness accounts. Christians of the gospels we had today aren't suddenly going to change their views because there is another version that would prevail. Now if I wasn't aware of any other versions and a Nestorian supported the Gnostic gospels that become dominant, then I'd probably be arguing for that. However, it is not the case.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
That's not the point. You erroneously claimed that Dionysus (as in his legend) was the son of God, died and resurrected which you are implying that Jesus is a copycat of pagan gods. True?
riddle666: There are not one but two points there
1) Zeus was Greek’s god but was later taken up by Romans as Jupiter. The name and stories changed to fit roman version. Similarly why shouldn’t jesus be a jewish version of a pagan god? A preacher, with people making stories about him will certainly help. People first will consider him a saint, then attribute stories and miracles to him elevating his status.
Well, you need to prove that Jesus pagan god stories match Jesus'. Many people claim Jesus is a Jewish version of pagan gods not realizing there stories are very different. You are stating "what ifs" when there is no proof that should make you come to that conclusion. What would elevating Jesus to a god status achieve? What did Paul benefit from it but get persecuted and eventually beheaded? Who brain-washed him? I mean, He once persecuted Christians and then suddenly became one.
If the Gospels only existed when the Catholic Church came into existence then I'd be very suspicious because it is entrenched with paganism.
riddle666: 2) A story was made about Dionysus as god even though there was no dinoysus. So why not we allow the jews some creativity for their own? It was a time of great turbulence for jews, there were many messiah claimants. The different groups elevated their gurus to godly status, and one among them later got a good following and fascination of Constatine.
Well, those gurus didn't exactly rise from the dead and there has never been a claim as such. This is why Christianity became so powerful because of the resurrection. Jesus is alive.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
How do you know Jesus was elevated to God level? What benefit did His followers have by claiming that? They were persecuted and put to death for that.
riddle666: People believing and dying for a cause is not a proof of the veracity of the truth, it just shows the tenacity of their beliefs.
What made the disciples believe that Jesus was the son of God? To his subsequent followers, what was special about Jesus that anyone would even consider He was divine? How did they get people, who cannot all be indoctrinated, to believe this?
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
So how did the prophecy change over the years? No you have other references to Isaiah 53 that is different to the ones we have now?
riddle666: As I already told that was a time of great turbulence for jews, books prophecies were abound. At 5r2 he started to lament about Israel and later it became a person. But there is no clarity regarding the prophesy and whena prophesy is already there it is easier to fit a man to the prophesy. As you said, Isaiah got it backwards, but the one who tried to fit jesus the prophesy didn’t get all of it right.
Why do you assume that the person part evolved from the lamentations of Israel? I don't see how Israel could be pierced for our transgressions. Are there any Jews that think Isaiah 53 was corrupted?
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
Ancient people didn't know the difference between sky, space and heaven?
riddle666: The mystery schools are just like the various religions trying the show that bing bang is their in their religious text books. Heaven or sky is the abode of god, when they say he went to sky in chariot(especially sent by god), they certainly does not mean he is floating in sky.
Ah, no. In the ancient world, those in the mystery schools knew advanced occult knowledge. The pyramids were not built by ignoramuses. The Sumerians also knew the solar system. Sirius was known even though it is not visible to the naked eye. Even the Dogons, an African tribe, knew this. And, of course, the Mayans mathematics is astounding.
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
There are people familiar with ancient languages and they weren't translated a century ago, either. Is Hamlet completely different to what it is in modern English now? Also, ancient Greek is taught in Greece.
riddle666: Then why they couldn’t translate the “hate” exactly as meant in bible. Even now in all testaments, it is hate and in English hate is the exact opposite of love and not less love. We have no way of exactly knowing the correct expression and meaning of an ancient word. It changes over time.
It is so not hard to figure out what "hate" meant in the Bible. Really, that is not enough to make out that a translation could lead to a fabricated legend.
Here is the meaning:
Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=781
Here's the Hebrew explanation:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Talmudim, 'students' of Jewish rabbis were taught to place their affections for their teachers higher than that for their fathers, for:
"his teacher has priority, for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher, who has taught him wisdom, brings him into the world to come".
But 'hatred'? Surely that is taking loyalty to your teacher too far - even if your teacher is God in human form. For another commandment is that of honouring ones parents - which itself cannot be contradicted. Indeed, this verse in Luke has caused much anguish and pain between zealous Christian sons or daughters and their parents, who believing they were expressing their devotion to Jesus, had no regard or worse still, hatred, for their parents.
But what we have here is another Hebrew problem. Biblical Hebrew lacks the necessary language to exactly define the comparative sense, i.e., 'more than' or 'less than'. Instead it tends to express two things which may be comparatively of different degree like 'first' and 'second' as extremes such as 'first' and 'last'. In this way love and hate whilst appearing as opposites may in fact be related but lesser terms such as 'love more' and 'love less'.
"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
A Jewish man was not allowed to abandon a 'hated' wife's son's rights of inheritance. But more than this, the Deuteronomy passage describes favouritism between two wives, not absolute love and hatred, for the man bears children by both. Hence, different Bible versions struggle with the phrase "hated" and some adopt "unloved" or "disliked", as softer phrases. However, the Hebrew word used in the second phrase is sânê' (Strong’s #8130) which in its more than 140 uses is always translated by 'hate' or by words indicating 'foe' or 'enemy'. Literal versions cannot soften the apparent invective, only an idiomatic understanding or paraphrase can explain the metaphor.
The Hebrew sânê' is the opposite of love which could mean 'non-election'. This contrast is the same in Genesis 29:31 between Leah ('hated' senû’âh from sânê’) and Rachel, who in the previous verse is described as "loved more than Leah", a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate. Compare also the passages in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 above; 1 Samuel 1:5; Proverbs 30:23; 2 Samuel 19:6; and even Exodus 20:3 which speaks of preferring others gods as equivalent to hating God (cf. Matthew 6:24 on serving God and mammon, loving one and hating the other).
The Jewish midrash on Exodus describes God as hating the angels, and not just the fallen ones. It does not mean he dislikes Michael and Gabriel! It means that he chooses to give man the Torah, rather than the angels:
"By three names is this mount known: The mountain of God, Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai. . . . Why The mountain of God? (Exodus 18:5). Because it was there that God manifested His Godhead. And Sinai? Because [it was on that mount] that God showed that He hates the angels and loves mankind." (Exodus Rabbah 51.8, Soncino edition)
There is actually a Hebrew wordplay here, for Sinai sounds like the Hebrew for hate, although it begins with a different Hebrew letter and may mean 'thorny'. Similarly, Malachi speaks of God's preference for Jacob over Esau:
"... yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau..." (Malachi 1:2-3)
But Esau, like Ishmael instead of Isaac, was not hated absolutely, only "rejected" as the Aramaic targum (paraphrase) prefers to render it. In Aramaic sanah can mean 'to hate' and 'to separate', so the gospels could be saying separate yourselves from your parents if you want to follow me. This is a possible interpretation, but still against Jewish and biblical culture which is very supportive of family. Apart from Jesus' 'separating' and staying behind in the temple when he was younger he was a very dutiful son."
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
Jesus was saying that He must be put first before His parents. People must love their parents less than Him.
This can be backed up by:
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:37)
CLAIRE EVANS WROTE
Go for it.
riddle666: In time, even this reply has become too long for my liking.
If it becomes too long for your liking, then don't say there are contradictions about Jesus, etc. These things need to be discussed thoroughly. Are you really interested in the truth or not?Paul was not simple minded. He was the intelligent part I mentioned. I never said only in oral traditions there are exaggerations. What I said is when people exchange ideas there are exaggerations. There are stories about Washington which he never said. It is very simple, attribute stories to the known heros. Even the gospel writers put the name of the apostles than their own, to gain authority. Also even in the later history of bible, notes put on the margin by later people were incorporated in the bible.
Are you sure? Is it because there was a Dionysus, or Asclepius or Zeus or Jupiter that such stories spread? Was there any vampires or werewolves? When we hear stories, if it is from a source we trust, we never bother to check the authenticity. Then we tell the next person “our” version of what we heard. Someone may bother to write it down, which will be revised later to add the “new” information. Nothing to do with whether something really happened. Even today quacks get as much number of patients as a good doctor, if not more.
If it is non-contradictory and consistent with the history why should somebody question it? It is because it is not consistent with history and it is because it is written like a fairy tale with lots of magic that it has no validity.
Sun revolving around the earth is what we see daily, so that is not a fairy tale ,if somebody can properly explain that it is not sun but earth that is revolving. How stories get prominence? Check any book on cult formation.
That will make as more intelligent and let us think consistently. You are not talking about a doctor helping a patient getting rid of alcoholism, but an omnipotent god.
Absolutely wrong. Sociopaths do not know about right and wrong.
People with antisocial personality disorder typically have no regard for right and wrong. They may often violate the law and the rights of other, landing in frequent trouble or conflict. They may lie, behave violently, and have drug and alcohol problems. And people with antisocial personality disorder may not be able to fulfill responsibilities to family, work or school.
Antisocial personality disorder is sometimes known as sociopathic
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antiso … er/DS00829
Forget about sociopaths. Even hard core criminals who do crimes do not believe they are doing any wrong. Only those people who mistakenly do crimes think they did wrong. Why, we the common people rarely admit we do wrong. There is no inherent right and wrong, it is cultural. Then there is no such thing as free will. We merely react to the circumstances based on our brain structure and memories. You might have been depressed at some point of time(without any cause), most have. Some will get over it after a few hours, some take days and some need counseling. Some people even need to ‘correct’ the chemical imbalances that happened in the brain. Nothing we can do, can prevent the depression. It simply happens, we can’t will it away unless the chemical balances restore spontaneously or with the help of drugs. So is with everything we do, no free will. Just because we can think so many options we think we have free will, but our final outcome of the thought depends on the brain structure and experiences – pre-conditioning. A man is a schizophrenic(or any personality disorder) not by will but by nature. A person is born in a home were parents constantly fight, that alters his nature and outlook, again not choice.
Why jesus need to die? If god wants to forgive he should not set any ‘conditions’. Suppose you want to forgive your kids, will you beat yourself up?
No wonder all differing views are called heresy and work of devil!
You were not aware of Nestorians when you were young to imprint it on your brain. It does not need be ‘eye-witness’ to be strong, but it need more fanatic followers who are willing to kill and die, that make it strong.
No, no what ifs. It is not a must that the stories should be a word by word copy of pagan. But the elements of hero dying, resurrection and like are seen in almost all pagan cultures. It can even be argued that, that was the norm of ancient cultures; they considered anything extraordinary as divine, including kings. Just as any other ancient people, Jews too can come up with such stories, and it was against such that they were guarded by awarding death penalty to anyone who worship other gods.
Paul? How many normal religious people whom you know, who will go to persecute other people who do not believe like them? It is also not worthy to not that Paul has never seen or studied anything from Jesus, nor has he given any quotes from jesus. In all his letters, the authority was his own. He had a spiritual jesus, not earthly jesus.
That is almost a greatly exaggerated claim. In no religion god dies permanently. All the god lives even after deaths. The Krishna and Rama you gave as examples earlier, after death simply ascended to heaven in true form. Again, if jesus is god, what is the meaning of death to him? Chritisnaity became powerful because it copied the fanaticism of jews, but was open to all. The religion that followed it in it heels, Islam is also just as powerful today. There was a time when Islam was more powerful. Saladdin, Bayazid I, Timur are some muslim names that made Christian Europe tremble.
People can be made to believe anything? Do you think Thor or Imhotep or Zeus or satan came to give their stories to ancients? How do you think we still have a large following for charlatans, gurus and swamis? What do you think made mormons follow Smith, muslims Muhammad or Venice Il Bragadino? When people are ill, lost money or glory it is easier to make them follow you. People have a need to believe. Heard of the Chicago group by Dr. Thomas Armstrong and Marian Keech?
Dale Carnegie says about a time when a student of his public speaking course said about a chemical that can change green grass to blue and how some of his fellow students believed him.
He was simply lamenting and raving. He didn’t this man will be put to death in a cross
or anything specific, a vague prophesy which made it convenient for the later editors to manipulate. Was there no other prophesy? It also helps that the last part of Isaiah was written when gradual Messiah, savior and liberator stories or actual people started to arise. That may be even a proto jesus story.
That does not make them know computer or any of the modern science. The Egyptians might have used some simple mechanisms. The more simple the secret, the more wonderful the magic and the more difficult it to fathom.
But there are mistakes in translation, is it not? When there are mistakes, gradually the meaning change. Whatever be the Hebrew meaning, in English hate is the opposite of love and does not mean less love. Millions of people who read the English bible read it as hate and not less love. The Mathew quote also proves Luke got it wrong(or may be right), for if he wanted Luke could have written that. And not only in english, some other languages which I checked also say hate not less love. And other is the same author who translated look, translated Mathew. What I said is there are translation mistakes, misquotes, later additions and so on
It is easy for you as you are a women and can easily multi track, which I admit is not my strength.
Isn’t it simple? God is not a human to have animal emotions. He does not need friends or enemies. He does not need to love or hate. He does not to do or something done to him. He has no family wife or children. He is GOD not Human.I think one has to look at the consistency of the gospels. They corroborate one another quite well so the gist of the story never changes. And there are extra-biblical sources that refer to Christians believing Jesus is the son of God. The only way one can truly be vindicated is by having a relationship with God. That confirms the authenticity of the gospels.
I just told you that those stories of those gods aren't like Jesus. Anyway, the Jews were under the control of the Romans and thus exposed to many pagan gods. I hardly think they'd accept Jesus if He sounded like a pagan god. They rejected them. I believe that vampires and werewolves are based on some truth to be honest. I already gave you information on how the gospels are considered reliable. So what you say is baseless conjecture. The Jesus story never evolved. Paul clearly demonstrates that.
Not consistent with history? Wow, do you know of the extra-bibilical sources like Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, etc? Nothing in history is seamless. People a thousand years from now, etc, shouldn't believe 9-11 happened just because there are an enormous contradictions to the story.
The sun does not revolve around the earth. That is what is looks like so can you blame uneducated people in the Middle Ages from believing that even though it is not true? The earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its own axis.
It is ingrained in our DNA to be sinful so how can we ever be infallible? Giving your life to God does not mean we will forever by infallible? What was the purpose of Jesus then if that was the case?
Having no regard for right and wrong is not the same as not knowing the difference between right and wrong. They just don't have a conscience about it. They fully are aware of the difference between right and wrong.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/77736 … -behavior/
No come on. Hard core criminals run away from the police so they must know they are doing something wrong. Are you telling me that if a hard core criminal shoots someone in the head that they cannot possibly know what they are doing is wrong. If a psychotic person kills someone they may believe they are doing something right. That is why people have to be psychiatricly evaluated before they are deemed competent to stand trial, for example. Let's take Anders Breivik, the Norwegian shooter, for example. He was accused of being psychotic but the psychiatrists disagreed. He said something to this effect, "I committed a small barbarism to prevent a larger barbarism." Therefore he is acknowledging he did something wrong.
If there is no such thing as free will then are you being coerced to respond to me? How is making you respond to me? It is pre-conditioned in my genes to abuse alcohol. Then why have a broken away from it?
As for parents constantly fighting, a person does not have to stick with that outlook forever. There is psychological help. My father was not good to my mother and thus I didn't like men. Over the years it has changed. It is just so easy to say, "Oh well, my circumstances say I'm like this so I can not possibly change. I think it is right to beat my wife because my parents did it."
That's the same as saying, "The devil made me do it."
Jesus broke the bondage of sin and death. He showed us that there is life after death to those who accept Him. Do you believe that people would truly know Jesus if He died of old age? The ultimate act of love is dying for another. It was out of the free will of others that Jesus was put to death, not God's.
Gnosticism is not merely a different view but Satanism. That is fact.
Well, Christians who were brought up as children to believe Jesus is the son of God can become atheists. Some atheists can become Christians even though they were taught there was no God. In other words, people don't automatically become fanatics because they believe in a different version. Jesus' followers were not fanatic. They actually were put to death for their believes and did not kill non believers. It become different in the Middle Ages but the gospels were long established by then.
Which pagan god's body resurrected and ascended in bodily form? Why would the Jews make up a story based on a pagan god? I ask you again: what did the Jews achieve by making up Jesus? If the Jews were so familiar with previous gods why make up a new pagan god? If the Jews made up Jesus then they seriously stuffed off their story. They wanted a messiah who would be the King of Israel. Instead, they make up a character who died naked on the cross with the worst criminals. I don’t think they would suddenly go from expecting a Jewish messiah to suddenly inventing a god who was pagan. In fact, the Romans called Christians atheists because they didn't believe in their pagan gods. Did Paul persecute those who didn't believe like him? Paul was in contact with the eye-witnesses even Luke.
In death, gods went to heaven or the like in spiritual form. They did not rise in bodily form and then ascend to heaven. Krishna never ascended to heaven. He died when a deer hunter shot him in the foot. Rama's soul ascended to heaven and not his body.Anyway, Rama only become deified in the centuries after Jesus.
Satan came to give his story to the ancients and he is known by many names including Thor. Why do Mormons follow Smith and Muslims Mohammed, etc? They grew up with that thinking. The Jews did not grow up being brain-washed into believing a Jesus figure. They expected an earthly king not some Jewish carpenter. Jesus expected a lot of people that would not be considered attractive. He said abandon all for Him. Families were divided because some remained Jews and others become Christian. What was appealing about that to die for that? People often stick to a cult/religion because they think it offers them something earthly. It is not the case with Jesus.
He was ranting and raving, hey? Conjecture much? I'm not sure what else he meant other than a man dying for the sins of mankind. There is no other interpretation.
You haven't proven that Isaiah was in any way manipulated. The Jews most certainly don't think so. What prove do you have that Isaiah was written when Messiah stories were known? Like which ones that Isaiah could have referenced? Anyway, it is true that this is a partial prophecy because Jesus did not become King of Israel. However, who else is Isaiah referring to? The earliest Isaiah was written is 701 BC. What pagan god could have influenced Isaiah. We also have the prophecy of Jesus's birth in Isaiah. Who else does this refer to?
Really now? You do know that Leonardo DiVinci knew about the helicopter before it was invented. I think space crafts are pretty advanced for the ancients.
You are talking nonsense know. No way could "hate" actually meaning love less lead the creation of a legend. That is absolute nonsense. Luke did not get it wrong. He did not write in English, you now. I wonder why some people in other languages interpreted as hate? Because they knew that hate means love less based on the Hebrew writings. It is not mistakes but different usages of this word. The same word can have different meanings. So for you to insinuate that something like this could lead to a completely fabricated legendary figure is asinine and you know it.
I
Women good at multi-tasking? Well, I wish I was good at that when I was a waitress. LOL! You don't need to multi-task composing this comment.
Animal emotions? Where do you think emotions like love came from? From God and so He is not inheriting our emotions as a human being. He wants the company of those who love Him and He can't help making enemies. There are just some out there, including Satan, who hate all good.
It's sad that people believe God is some distant being who wants nothing to do with His creation and does not want to love them and that He is just devoid of emotion.Hire can you possibly say that the gospels are consistent with themselves, our with history as a whole? Have you read them?
Isn't the gist of the gospels the same? His ministry, death and resurrection? What exactly do you have a problem with?
Well I have a problem with all of it, and that's why I'm an atheist.
Specifically, however:
The gospels do not agree on the year or even who was in charge when Jesus was supposedly born. They don't agree on whether or not the family fled to Egypt. They get geography wrong. They get prophecy wrong. They have Jesus dying on different days. They have vastly different accounts of his death itself. They don't agree on the resurrection or who was there or what they did afterwards. None of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. In fact, NO ONE actually knows who wrote them. Mark its the earliest, and it was written 40-70 years after Jesus died. The rest came even later. Pals letters contradict the gospels. Should I go on?Just elaborate on the year part and who was in charge at the time of Jesus' birth, the geography and prophecy, please.
Jesus dying on different days? Don't agree on the resurrection?
As for the gospels not being written by the eye-witnesses we need to consider this. Oral tradition was the main communication of the gospels. Now people argue that oral tradition leads to legends but Paul wrote about the gospels as we have it and we definitely knew Peter an obvious eye-witness.
People assume that oral traditions were the only way to convey events. This is not true as writing was a common thing among the Jews.
Quote from consulted website:
"For example, whereas some scholars have argued that only the wealthy in the ancient world could have received the education needed to become literate, we’ve now discovered clear evidence of writing among military personal, builders and even slaves! (1) So too, whereas it was commonly assumed in the past that writing materials were very rare and expensive in the ancient world, we now have evidence that certain kinds of writing materials were actually rather inexpensive and were utilized by significant segments of the middle and lower classes. (2) We’ve also discovered texts that were intended to inform the general public (for example, publicly posted notices), which of course presupposes some degree of literacy among the general populace. (3)
If the ancient world was in general more literate than previously thought, we have reason to believe ancient Jews would have been much more so. After all, as New Testament scholar John Meier notes,
“The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that simply was not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century. . . To be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.” (4)
Thus, as Birger Gerhardsson argues, “the milieu in which Jesus and the original disciples ministered, and the milieu in which remembrances of Jesus’ life and teaching were passed on, was one that revered the written word and thus valued literacy.” (5)"
So the gospels, not the ones we have today in the Bible, must have been written down.
People argue extended narratives could not have been possible in oral traditions. They argue that it is not possible for people to remember Jesus' sermons and what He said in detail.
"One of the assumptions that is now being overturned in the discipline of orality studies is the longstanding idea that oral traditions are incapable of transmitting extended narratives. It was commonly assumed that long narratives simply would have been too difficult to remember to be passed on reliably. Unfortunately for this assumption, a large number of fieldwork studies over the last several decades have “brought to light numerous long oral epics in the living traditions of Central Asia, India, Africa, and Oceania, for example.” Hence, argues Lauri Honko, “[t]he existence of genuine long oral epics can no longer be denied.” (6) In fact, oral narratives lasting up to 25 hours and requiring several days to perform have been documented! (7) Indeed, oral performances — that is, times when the community’s narrator (or “tradent”) passes on oral traditions to the community — almost always presuppose a broader narrative framework even when the narrative itself is not explicitly included in the performance. (8) There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors."
In the case of oral traditions, they were guided by form and freedom. In other words, writers had to portray the events and the core as they were. They could not alter events or make them up but they had flexibility in how they portrayed the gospels. I think there were some supposed events, like the pigs being driven in the sea, that allowed for too much creative thinking and actually turned out to symbolic.
Oral tradition was community based. In other words, anything written about Jesus that wasn't true would be picked up in general. In other words, things that would digress from the gist of the gospels would be thrown out.
http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable- … raditions/
How does Paul's letters contradict the gospels?
Perhaps there are a few thing you are unaware of Claire.
1. the gospels are not perfectly consistent. You have 4 versions of the same story.
2. the gospels were written in succession well after the supposed death of Jesus. It's very likely and there is evidence that the second, third and forth had read the earlier gospels. You will notice that the first had few miracles while the others become more miraculous as they go forward.
Extra sources referring to Christians believing in Jesus as the Son of God is not news and only shows that Christians believed Jesus to be the son of God not that Jesus was the son of God.
You can't really have a relationship with an imaginary friend. It's only a relationship if two are communicating.Of course they are not perfectly consistent. What is?
What do you mean well after Jesus' death? They were written during the time of the eye-witnesses. For example:
“We were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming again. We have seen his majestic splendor with our own eyes” (2 Peter 1:16NLT).
Since Paul knew Peter, it is no wonder that He mirrored the gospels in so far as the resurrection, etc. Much of the NT is based on Paul's letters. If the gospels were written in the 2nd century then I would most likely not believe it.
I am sure that one's like Mark were consulted. However, it is worthy to note that because the gospels are not in perfect harmony with others it excludes a collusion.
Often eye-witnesses to an accident scene will have variations in their accounts, some may even be contradictory. However, this does not change the fact that an accident happened. It is erroneously to believed because there is no perfect consistency then the whole accident scene must have been made up. Another example of the accuracy of the Old Testament is the fact it is written that it was women who first saw the resurrected Jesus. For anyone who is trying to convince people that Jesus rose from the dead writing the gospels, it would be considered a fatal mistake to write that the women first saw Him. Women were deemed as liars back then and could not even testify in court. So anyone lying about the resurrection of Jesus and wanted to convince followers would most certainly not write women discovered Jesus alive.
Often forgers would present themselves in the best light possible most likely thinking it would bolster their credibility:
"Most writers don’t want to publicly embarrass themselves. Historians have therefore observed that documents containing embarrassing revelations about the authors are generally to be trusted. What did the New Testament authors say about themselves?
Surprisingly, the authors of the New Testament presented themselves as all too frequently dimwitted, cowardly, and faithless. For example, consider Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus or the disciples’ arguments over which of them was the greatest—both stories recorded in the Gospels. As respect for the apostles was crucial in the early church, inclusion.
In The Story of Civilization, Will Durant wrote about the apostles, “These men were hardly of the type that one would have chosen to remold the world. The Gospels realistically differentiate their characters, and honestly expose their faults.”[21]"
I don't know if you heard of the story of the rugby team that crashed into the Andes mountain on a chartered flight to Chile in 1972? A book was written about their experience by Piers Paul Read. The survivors of that ordeal were not happy that the author portrayed some of them in an unflattering way, for examples, writing about cowardly acts of some of the survivors. He replied that he had to write it as it was because his book was based on facts. He was tempted to fictionalize some parts to dramatize the story but believed the facts spoke for themselves. He knew that if he had made some things up completely, they'd point it out and would not approve. It is the same with the Gospels. The eye-witnesses would certainly have spotted liars.
There were many unflattering things that were written about Jesus, for example his family called him crazy. Fanatics most certainly would not write these things about Jesus. So it appears as if the writers were inspired by the truth.
I was trying to illustrate to you that the gospels are consistent with history as what the Christians believed. A legend does not evolve so far as to raise Jesus to god status overnight. That is what I was trying to say.
Aren't you afraid your kids will be brain-washed into having an imaginary friend?Just because they were written as first hand accounts doesn't mean they were. Harry Potter was written as a first hand account as well.
Mark: c. 68–73, c. 65–70
Matthew: c. 70–100. c. 80–85.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c. 80–85
John: c. 90–100, c. 90–110, The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
No Catholics are not like evangelists. They don't pretend God speaks directly to them. Plus I've planted the seed of doubt. That's really all you need to do, teach them to think for themselves.We have to remember that the gospels were firmly established because Paul's letters testify to this. He also met the apostles around 35 AD. Well, he met Peter and he definitely was a first hand witness.
The first three gospels had to have been written before 70 AD because the destruction of the temple which Jesus had prophesised had not yet occurred because the gospels don't mention it. As for John, it is also surmised that it was written before 70 AD.
"Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes (John 5:2)"
Notice how it is written in the present tense. It did not exist in 70 AD because Jerusalem was razed to the ground in 70 AD.
Bottom line is that the gospels were written during the life-time of the eye witnesses. The official gospels were written later but it existed as oral tradition and other unofficial writings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
Catholics teach that Jesus is the son of God and that Mary is the mother of God and they pray to her. It is steeped in paganism. So now we have people who tell your kids that Jesus is the son of God and then we have you who say it is not true. Aren't you confusing them? I assume you are not one of those people who say religion ought to be kept out of schools. I also assume you don't think religion poisons the minds of others.
Would you consider sending your kids to a Muslim school or Anglican Christian school? What about a Jewish school? Would you be pleased if your kids were taught that Allah is the true god?
If you send your kids to a Catholic school, they will be brain washed and thus can't think for themselves.Claire - I've studied biblical history and literature at one of the biggest bible colleges in the world, and your claims are so far out of line with almost all reputed, well-known biblical scholars that it leads me to believe that you don't know what you're talking about.
Mark was the first gospel written, and mark doesn't even CLAIM to be an eyewitness. He is supposedly a disciple of Peter's, and his gospel was not written until AD 70-80 at the EARLIEST because it references Josephus AND the fall of Jerusalem - and it gets Josephus WRONG. Matthew and Luke had to come after Mark because they copy a large majority of his work, and correct his mistakes. John came much later after that. Saying that they were written by eyewitnesses or within the timeline of eyewitnesses is so far outside of reality to be ridiculous.
Paul either went to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion or 3 years later, depending on what account you read - and when he met with Peter and the other apostles, they fought about doctrine and Jesus' teachings. He never met jesus, but he argued with the people who supposedly lived with him for 3 years and followed him around. Then, as soon as he left Jerusalem, he basically called Peter an idiot - and went on doing things his own way.
there are no extra-biblical sources that mention the jewish zombies walking around Jerusalem at the moment of Jesus' death. There are no sources that mention an earthquake or hours of darkness after the crucifixion - at least no extra-biblical sources that were written by secularists - not christians who are already pre-disposed to repeating their own legends.
You're dead wrong, and with all due respect - you don't know what you're talking about. You're repeating legends about things that you've been taught like a parrot - and you're wrong.Three cheers for the understatement of the year.
This is not the only subject, either!
Claire, nothing against you writing/contributing whatever you wish, but some in-depth knowledge instead of simple cutting and pasting would be beneficial.To be fair to Claire, she at least acknowledges that the OT is hogwash. I for one can't understand anyone who could read that and think that God is just and caring.
I've read the OT and I believe with all my heart that God is just and caring. BUT, I am not a fundy
Bible thumper either, remember. I believe that the Old Testament is filled with allegorical and anecdotal stories meant to teach lessons. I don't believe the earth was created in six 'days.' I don't believe it's only 6000 years old, and I don't discount evolution. Aside from the books of the OT that are specifically historical, the entire OT, in my opinion, is allegorical. In terms of the law ... given to a specific subset of people (e.g., the Levites) among the Jews, not meant to apply to the Jews, and never meant to apply to followers of Christ who came from the Gentiles.
That's my take on it.
I really have to write that hub someday.Your take is very Catholic. I've heard and was taught the very same thing. However I decided to reread Genesis a while ago because of Headly's argument and I have to say, (most likely because of perspective) I saw it in a whole new light. You are right in that it was directed towards particular people, but if you look at it as being written for these people it becomes clear that it's propaganda directed to give entitlement to Jewish men (not women) and relieve them of the culpability of their actions.
Oh - with that I do not disagree. That's the whole problem with God asking humans to do anything for Him. We usually muck it up pretty badly.
There are so, so many parts of the Bible that are simply reflected of the time and culture in which it was written. For example..women aren't expected to cover their heads in Western society, even in Church, in 2012. Times do change, fortunately. I have said to people many times that just because a practice, a behavior, or an ideology is present in the Bible does not mean that it is advocated by God. For example, polygamy, slavery...David's adultery and murder...acknowledged historically in Scripture, but NOT advocated by God.Lets not forget incest. I enjoyed the story of Abraham and his wife/sister going into town and telling everyone that they were brother and sister and so the king (I think) takes Sara as his wife, but God intervenes and tell the king of all the terrible stuff that will happen if he doesn't give her back. But God says nothing to Abraham nor his wife. Then there's the story where Sara gives Abraham her slave to make a baby. When the slave gets pregnant she gets depressed and runs away, only God intervenes and tells her to give herself to her master. Again nothing is said to Abraham or Sara.
Right....because the folks penning the story want to reinforce that Abraham and Sarah are chosen of God. Yes, they are. BUT, that doesn't mean they always do what He says, and often that they do exactly what He has forbidden. Pointing out that they have done wrong goes against the purpose of the writer, who wishes only to show that they are chosen.
Which goes to show how little God had to do with the writing of the text.
While I don't necessarily agree with that summation, I do understand how one can arrive at that conclusion. Sadly, without explaining my own experiences while reading the text, I have no logical defense that would help you to arrive at any other conclusion. Because we begin from a different premise, it's difficult for us to arrive at the same one.
I will say, however, that you're one of my favorite folks to disagree with. You're respectful of my beliefs and opinions, even when they differ from yours. Well, maybe not respectful of my beliefs and opinions, but certainly my right to hold them, and respectful of me as a person. I appreciate that.Thanks Mo, those are kind words and I will say I completely respect your beliefs and opinions while I may not agree with them. I'm not sure if that is because I was raised as a Catholic or the fact that you give respect and understanding to each and every person here. It probably doesn't even matter. I do believe I've seen just about every Atheist back you up, it's all about mutual respect. You've got mine.
Mark did not write the gospel. It is the gospel according to Mark. Just tell me where in Mark Josephus is referenced? As for the fall of Jerusalem, that was a prophecy. It didn't happen yet. Scholars say that Mark 13 is a reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Might I add that oral tradition existed before the gospels were written. What mistakes Mark make? Is it the pig story?
You also didn't address this:
"Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes (John 5:2)"
Tell me, did this exist after the fall of Jerusalem?
Which doctrines did Paul argue with the disciples?
Well, I think that zombies walking around Jerusalem was a misinterpretation. What most likely happened was that the earthquake was so powerful, it actually threw the bodies out of the graves.
As for the darkness and earthquake, it's rather fascinating.
According to Julius Africanus, who mingled with kings and emperors, he found a reference to the eclipse by Thallus. Thallus was a pagan chronologist:
Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:
"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]
If the darkness was a legend, Thallus would not attempt to refute it. It must have been known it happened.
Phlegon, a secular historian, wrote:
"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place . . . "
and
'In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32-33), and eclipse of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day, so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea."
Olympiades, fragment 17.http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … el_of_Mark
The majority of biblical scholars, christian and secular alike, agree that the destruction of Jerusalem in the gospel of Mark is not a prophecy at all - it is a relating of the event itself. Therefore it cannot be prophecy, since it happened after the fact. At least we agree that Mark didn't write the gospel. The fact of the matter is that NO ONE KNOWS who actually wrote the gospels. None of them.
i dont have the time to address the rest now, be back laterWhat passage in the Bible indicates the event already happened? Mark 13 clearly is a prophecy.
"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
Notice the "will" in the sentence. Will I might add indicates the future. Now the disciples didn't know what He was talking about. Surely the gospel writers would have included that this prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD?
I mean, what is so hard about that?
Of course we have Paul who acknowledged the scriptures as already been established.
1 Corinthians 15:4
"New International Version (©1984)
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"
This was written in 57 AD
It is accepted, I have found out, that Luke actually wrote Luke before Acts. Luke wrote about prophecies in Acts:
Acts 11:28 (NASB95)
28 One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.
He did not mention the fulfillment of the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. He didn't mention that nor did he mention Nero who ruled until 68 AD. He mentioned Christian martyrs like Stephen but not those who died for Christ under Nero.If I write a book now, which is set in 1800, my hero can easily prophesy 9/11 with accurate details. I think that will make my hero a super-hero and even a real one!
You're assuming that Mark was written after 70 AD. Go read my discourse with JMcFarland.
Mark was written by whom? We do not know. All we know is that there are three layers of mark which was added at different times. There is no prophesy, and if it was correctly prophesied, the author just want to make sure that his hero is a super human.
The last chapter was added later, after the death part, so what not is added by later people?If you wrote that book, you'd write that prophecy prior to the event happening. What's the the use in that? Mark 13 was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
If can you did not notice, Mark ended very abruptly and the story was incomplete. It is clear the rest was lost. Might I add, Mark was not the only source for the other gospel writers.If I write the book I make the setting of the story earlier to make my hero an authentic prophet, just like if I write a story now, I would make the setting 1880 and my hero correctly predicting 9/11.
Yes there was no end to mark but now we have a complete mark, that is the ending was manipulated and later added, so you are vouching for the authenticity of a work that is clearly manipulated later. Yes there were different sources and the reason why Iraneous felt it wise to destroy the other sources.Riddle666 . I write the book I make the setting of the story earlier to make my hero an authentic prophet, just like if I write a story now, I would make the setting 1880 and my hero correctly predicting 9/11
Reply :Surely the gospel writers would have written that prophecy had been fulfilled? That they would have written it in the gospels if it was written after 70 AD? If you had written that book about an 1880 guy predicted 9-11 wouldn't you have included later in the book that it had actually happened?
Riddle666 there was no end to mark but now we have a complete mark, that is the ending was manipulated and later added, so you are vouching for the authenticity of a work that is clearly manipulated later. Yes there were different sources and the reason why Iraneous felt it wise to destroy the other sources
Reply : First of all, you need to prove that Mark actually had a different ending that was changed if you are going to say it is manipulated. The sources I am talking about are those from oral tradition and other writings that probably did not survive considering Jerusalem was burnt to the ground.
About oral tradition:
"One of the assumptions that is now being overturned in the discipline of orality studies is the longstanding idea that oral traditions are incapable of transmitting extended narratives. It was commonly assumed that long narratives simply would have been too difficult to remember to be passed on reliably. Unfortunately for this assumption, a large number of fieldwork studies over the last several decades have “brought to light numerous long oral epics in the living traditions of Central Asia, India, Africa, and Oceania, for example.” Hence, argues Lauri Honko, “[t]he existence of genuine long oral epics can no longer be denied.” (6) In fact, oral narratives lasting up to 25 hours and requiring several days to perform have been documented! (7) Indeed, oral performances — that is, times when the community’s narrator (or “tradent”) passes on oral traditions to the community — almost always presuppose a broader narrative framework even when the narrative itself is not explicitly included in the performance. (8) There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors."
About writing:
"For example, whereas some scholars have argued that only the wealthy in the ancient world could have received the education needed to become literate, we’ve now discovered clear evidence of writing among military personal, builders and even slaves! (1) So too, whereas it was commonly assumed in the past that writing materials were very rare and expensive in the ancient world, we now have evidence that certain kinds of writing materials were actually rather inexpensive and were utilized by significant segments of the middle and lower classes. (2) We’ve also discovered texts that were intended to inform the general public (for example, publicly posted notices), which of course presupposes some degree of literacy among the general populace. (3)
If the ancient world was in general more literate than previously thought, we have reason to believe ancient Jews would have been much more so. After all, as New Testament scholar John Meier notes,
“The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that simply was not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century. . . To be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.” (4)
http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable- … raditions/
What sources did Iraneus destroy?Will you include?
If I write a book as happened in 1900 where will I write that the event happened?
Again if I write that then the readers will automatically know that the event has already happened when I was writing it and the prophesy is what I put in the mouth of the hero.
Why are continuously rambling that the oral tradition is steadfast to a word when it is shown that even the written tradition is manipulated?
Scholars agree that there are more than one layer of mark. You yourself agree that the last part is missing or was not there and was later added. Now I have to prove that an ending that was later added is manipulated? A work where the author's name is not mentioned, contain miracles and magic just like any other myths of that age, contain the common misconceptions of the age its writing, a book that was edited and re-edited over centuries and an ending added later, that is what you are treating as a historic treatise, true to the word?
There were not but several accounts of jesus which differ, which included jesus not dying but laughing from above the cross. Where are they now? Where there no oral traditions for that, but somebody one fine morning simply wrote that? What happened to the gnostic gospels, the Nazarene gospels.....?
The books that are destroyed?, ask Luke.
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
Many had written(that to by eyewitness!!) but among the many only two got place in the bible, what happened to the rest? The eyewitness accounts, that to copied from faithful oral traditions didn't get a place in bible, but the non-eyewitness accounts got, how?Riddle666 I write the book I make the setting of the story earlier to make my hero an authentic prophet, just like if I write a story now, I would make the setting 1880 and my hero correctly predicting 9/11
Reply The problem is that you are making your setting 1800 when writing it in the 21st century. The gospels were written in the life-time of Jesus it's not like they could make up a prophecy if it had already happened.
Claire :Surely the gospel writers would have written that prophecy had been fulfilled? That they would have written it in the gospels if it was written after 70 AD? If you had written that book about an 1880 guy predicted 9-11 wouldn't you have included later in the book that it had actually happened?
Riddle666Will you include?
If I write a book as happened in 1900 where will I write that the event happened?
Again if I write that then the readers will automatically know that the event has already happened when I was writing it and the prophesy is what I put in the mouth of the hero.
Reply I don't know, maybe you could fast forward into the future in your book and make people think your hero was some sort of Nostradamus. I very much assume your book is fiction so of course the readers would know it already happened especially if your book was published in 2012.
Riddle666 there was no end to mark but now we have a complete mark, that is the ending was manipulated and later added, so you are vouching for the authenticity of a work that is clearly manipulated later. Yes there were different sources and the reason why Iraneous felt it wise to destroy the other sources
Reply It's obvious that there was an ending to Mark that was missing. It ends abruptly. Now let's say you are right and that the ending of Mark was manipulated. How do you think Mark intended the story to end? He already wrote about the resurrection so what how else could it have ended?
Claire : First of all, you need to prove that Mark actually had a different ending that was changed if you are going to say it is manipulated. The sources I am talking about are those from oral tradition and other writings that probably did not survive considering Jerusalem was burnt to the ground
Riddle666Why are continuously rambling that the oral tradition is steadfast to a word when it is shown that even the written tradition is manipulated?
Reply Because you don't know oral tradition for the Jews back then! Why aren't you getting this? You make these blanket statements without doing the research to know the context.
Riddle666Scholars agree that there are more than one layer of mark. You yourself agree that the last part is missing or was not there and was later added. Now I have to prove that an ending that was later added is manipulated? A work where the author's name is not mentioned, contain miracles and magic just like any other myths of that age, contain the common misconceptions of the age its writing, a book that was edited and re-edited over centuries and an ending added later, that is what you are treating as a historic treatise, true to the word?
Reply Do scholar agree that Mark had a completely different ending to the other gospels and that the ending of Mark was all made up? Yes, you do have to prove that the gospel writers were deliberately manipulating Mark. They could have contributed to Mark deriving from other sources. You have to prove that the missing part of Mark originally written was completely different. There must have been various authors for the gospels not just one. You assume that because you don't believe in miracles, then people are lying or superstitious. This is a serious stumbling block for you. How are you ever going to know the truth when you are so close-minded? Life isn't what you think it is.
Claire : What sources did Iraneus destroy?
Riddle666There were not but several accounts of jesus which differ, which included jesus not dying but laughing from above the cross. Where are they now? Where there no oral traditions for that, but somebody one fine morning simply wrote that? What happened to the gnostic gospels, the Nazarene gospels.....?
Reply Who could have witnessed Jesus dying on the cross when the Gospel of Thomas was written? No eye witnesses were alive in the 2nd century. We still have the Gospel of Thomas. It wasn't destroyed because it was found in 1945. Gnostic writings were destroyed because quite frankly, Gnosticism is from the devil. I discussed that earlier. We still have the Nazarene gospels, too.
Riddle666The books that are destroyed?, ask Luke.
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
Reply : First of all, this doesn't prove Iraneus destroyed any books. Luke is professing to give a full regular account of the gospels in consultation with the eye-witnesses instead of other writings which were mere conjecture and broken and incomplete. Writers of other gospels did not consult with eye-witnesses and could not be good judges of the gospels. This is what he was trying to explain to Theophilus who needed reassurance about his Christianity.
So this has absolutely nothing to do with any books being destroyed.
Riddle666Many had written(that to by eyewitness!!) but among the many only two got place in the bible, what happened to the rest? The eyewitness accounts, that to copied from faithful oral traditions didn't get a place in bible, but the non-eyewitness accounts got, how?
Reply: Only two got place in the Bible? We have four gospels. As I said, the other gnostic gospels were mere conjecture or just plain fictitious because no eye-witnesses were consulted. Without eye-witnesses it cannot be considered reliable. Which eye witness accounts didn't make it in the Bible? And what non eye witness accounts didn't?I know that you're not talking to me, as you've made abundantly clear (rather rudely) but, again, NO eyewitness accounts are in the bible. Out of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only 2 could possibly even CLAIM to be eyewitnesses, but none of the people who's names are on the books actually wrote them. No matter how many times someone tells you that, you keep asserting that it's true. I'm sorry that it doesn't fit into your view of the gospels, but it's still true.
Rather rudely? That's a bit rich coming from you. Should I just sit back while someone attacks me for no reason?
I've already addressed those points to you in a previous comment to you which you did not reply and in my discussion with Riddle666. I'm not here to repeat myself.you see that as an attack? What thin skin you have :-)
You are wasting your time JMc, she will not listen to you. According to her the OT is corrupted by Satan and the translators messed up the NT and it was written much earlier than was discovered by the scholars and the other gospels that didn't get place in NT are written later and guided by satan. How can anyone argue against such salient points? Any unpalatable things in NT, according to her, is mistranslation and only she knows the correct translation. But that is good, the future translators can correct the mistakes in NT and make it more palatable for the new generation though it will change what jesus preached but no need to worry, Jesus is not here to correct.
Just to check, are you still interested in conversing with me since you see it as futile?
Do I think I can change you, I don't think so. Do you think I'll accept "your" interpretations which is not accepted by scholars yet? I do not think so. Have you ever heard anybody changing their opinions because somebody else told them, I haven't.
So if it is not with an intention to do the impossible, yes we can continue.I thought Christianity is corrupt to you. So why should you think what scholars say is gospel? Why must they be always be right? I'll tell you something that really pisses me off about Christianity. It's this, "Everything in the Bible is true and don't dare challenge that." I like looking at the facts and what makes sense to me. If it doesn't sound right to another that is their business. What I do expect of others (well, maybe that's too much to ask for) is to entertain other possibilities whether it turns out to be right or wrong. Just because something doesn't go with the original line doesn't mean it is wrong. If other possibilities aren't considered then not much will be discovered in life.
"I like looking at the facts and what makes sense to me"
The problem is that you see only that which you like and ignore and disregard what you do not.
Say most scholars say Mark was written by AD 70 and Thomas between AD 40 and 140. But for you Mark was written by AD 50 and Thomas 2nd century. Scholars also agree that most oral traditions started similarly(but they are all christains and start with the assumption that there was a christ instead of the blank slate a true study demands and you take it to the extreme) and branched into so many sects including the gnostics, but for you the select one(which was selected by Constantine, which you got because of the selection), was the only ones started from oral tradition while the others are later "inventions" and "fiction". So that is what I meant by scholars say, what we know about history, not what is written in gospel.
Also god and satan as two beings is a contradiction, either there is god or there is none. There is nothing that is absolute bad, but only relative because good and bad is subjective.
"If other possibilities aren't considered then not much will be discovered in life."
That possibilities has to be within reason and logic, we cannot consider any or every possibilities.Claire : "I like looking at the facts and what makes sense to me"
riddle666: The problem is that you see only that which you like and ignore and disregard what you do not.
Say most scholars say Mark was written by AD 70 and Thomas between AD 40 and 140. But for you Mark was written by AD 50 and Thomas 2nd century. Scholars also agree that most oral traditions started similarly(but they are all christains and start with the assumption that there was a christ instead of the blank slate a true study demands and you take it to the extreme) and branched into so many sects including the gnostics, but for you the select one(which was selected by Constantine, which you got because of the selection), was the only ones started from oral tradition while the others are later "inventions" and "fiction". So that is what I meant by scholars say, what we know about history, not what is written in gospel.
Reply : None of them could have been written later than 70 AD. We agree that John was the the last gospel to be written and here we have a passage from that gospel:
"Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes (John 5:2)"
Let me remind you that Jerusalem was burnt to the ground in 70 AD. Therefore it is not possible for that pool to still have existed after 70 AD. Should John had been written AFTER 70 AD, it would have been written:
"Now there WAS in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes".
Gospel of Thomas written at the earliest 40 AD? Most scholars do NOT believe that. It is true that there are scholars who believe it but the majority don't.
Robert E. Van Voorst states:
Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older.[32]
Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels. The vast majority of mainstream scholars fall in to the "late" camp[33][34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
The problem with the Gospel of Thomas is that it has no historical or geographical basis It only includes alleged sayings of Jesus which looks as it was copied from the New Testament.
riddle666 Also god and satan as two beings is a contradiction, either there is god or there is none. There is nothing that is absolute bad, but only relative because good and bad is subjective.
Reply : It's relative when it comes to human beings but not when it comes to God and Satan. There is NOTHING evil about God and NOTHING good about Satan.
Claire: "If other possibilities aren't considered then not much will be discovered in life."
riddle666 That possibilities has to be within reason and logic, we cannot consider any or every possibilities.
Reply : “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Reason and logic is not all there is in this life and you mustn't just assume that.Unfortunately MAJORITY agree that John was written after 110AD. It was (all gospels were) written in a running commentary format as though the writer was with Jesus, and that easily explains your sentence.
It is the same problem with all the gospels, no historical basis. It only contains magic. To that age it was normal because people believed in magic and alchemy, for us it is just another myth.
Since you know so much about good and bad, feel free to define it objectively. There is NO absolute good and bad. What is good for me may be bad for you. With god and satan what is good for god may be bad for satan. Whatever one does is good for that person only. As god do not do anything and satan is a concept, your sentence is meaningless.
A good play writer Shakespeare is and may be a good philosopher too. Yes, in life there are emotions too, to give color. But emotionally I want to be the king of the world but in reality I am just another human being, understand the difference? Emotionally you want a satan and a god to fight against satan and protect you. In reality you are alone against the world,iIf you do not want to be deceived use reason and logic.Claire Evans
None of them could have been written later than 70 AD. We agree that John was the the last gospel to be written and here we have a passage from that gospel: "Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes (John 5:2)" Let me remind you that Jerusalem was burnt to the ground in 70 AD. Therefore it is not possible for that pool to still have existed after 70 AD. Should John had been written AFTER 70 AD, it would have been written: "Now there WAS in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes".
Riddle 666 Unfortunately MAJORITY agree that John was written after 110AD. It was (all gospels were) written in a running commentary format as though the writer was with Jesus, and that easily explains your sentence.
Reply:Reading your comments to Heavynoggin, I see you have changed your comment from John only being written after 110AD to it being in its final version then. Therefore you are acknowledging that John must have started to have been written much earlier You say that it was running in a commentary format? Aren't all the gospels like that?
Claire Evans
The problem with the Gospel of Thomas is that it has no historical or geographical basis It only includes alleged sayings of Jesus which looks as it was copied from the New Testament.
Riddle 666 It is the same problem with all the gospels, no historical basis. It only contains magic. To that age it was normal because people believed in magic and alchemy, for us it is just another myth.
Reply:Don't talk absolute nonsense. First century historians acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure. Even Pilate is definitely one:
"The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of limestone, the Pilate Stone, was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Judaea (Iudaea). Bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum,[12] the dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus Iudaeae), that is, prefect of Judaea. The early governors of Judaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in AD 44. The inscription was discovered by a group led by Antonio Frova and has been dated to AD 26–37. The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, while a replica stands at Caesarea."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate
As for the town of Nazareth. It was such an insignificant place that it wasn't even worth mentioning. However, archaeology has discovered it did exist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8867515
Associated Press Writer= NAZARETH, Israel (AP) â Just in time for Christmas, archaeologists on Monday unveiled what may have been the home of one of Jesus' childhood neighbors.
The humble dwelling is the first dating to the era of Jesus to be discovered in Nazareth, then a hamlet of around 50 impoverished Jewish families where Jesus spent his boyhood."
It was inscribed on Jesus' cross, "Jesus of Nazareth - King of the Jews". This clearly is meant as a severe insult. They are seeing He is a king of an unimportant hamlet.
There is also an inscription of Caiaphas on an ossuary.
"Called an ossuary, the limestone box could reveal the home of Caiaphas, the high priest involved in the crucifixion of Jesus. The Israel Antiquities Authority, which confiscated the ossuary from looters three years ago, passed it along to Prof. Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Archaeology who led the authentication effort.
"Beyond any reasonable doubt, the inscription is authentic," Goren said, after conducting a thorough examination of the limestone box, which boasts decorative rosettes in addition to the inscription."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/ … z2HePbz13m
Claire Evans
It's relative when it comes to human beings but not when it comes to God and Satan. There is NOTHING evil about God and NOTHING good about Satan.
Riddle 666 Since you know so much about good and bad, feel free to define it objectively. There is NO absolute good and bad. What is good for me may be bad for you. With god and satan what is good for god may be bad for satan. Whatever one does is good for that person only. As god do not do anything and satan is a concept, your sentence is meaningless.
Reply:What is bad for Satan is anything good which is from God. The very source of sin and evil cannot accept any shred of good. They are not subject to circumstances like we are so there is no relativity. There are no shades of grey. I'll tell you this much. Having being acquainted with both God and Satan, I can assure you that they share nothing in common but the need for human souls. I know Satan only wants the worst for me and God only the best for me.
Claire Evans
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” ― William Shakespeare, Hamlet Reason and logic is not all there is in this life and you mustn't just assume that.
Riddle 666 A good play writer Shakespeare is and may be a good philosopher too. Yes, in life there are emotions too, to give color. But emotionally I want to be the king of the world but in reality I am just another human being, understand the difference? Emotionally you want a satan and a god to fight against satan and protect you. In reality you are alone against the world,iIf you do not want to be deceived use reason and logic.
Reply: I'll let you know that Shakespeare, or rather Francis Bacon (real author of what is said to be Shakespeare), was an occultist and Freemason and so was into Lucifer worship. He would know things like lie beneath the surface that most people couldn't dream of.
I am alone in this world? And you know for a fact that God and Satan don't exist? If you know what's good for you, I'd research other things that go beyond what you see. You ought to research the occult since that is what our world leaders are into.Written around AD100+/- 10. I already told you all oral traditions started around the same time and evolved as they go by(as more followers were added at different places and it came across different people). As it evolved the story changed and we can see the change in the gospels which I explained earlier.
And this was what I wrote to you "It was (all gospels were) written in a running commentary format " so you won't find much past tense in relation to jesus. Jesus went saw that that is what they will write and events that had to happen after jesus time -prophesy.
Which are the historians who agree who really studied about Jesus? There are some who do some excavations and finds the "chariot wheel"under the see. They are some who were specifically employed by the church to find things, other than that who else?
Pilate? When did I say he is fiction? I only said what is written about him in the gospel is fiction. Didn't you read what I wrote? I said Pilate was a cruel and greedy one and not the pliable one in gospel. Have you heard of historical fiction?There are some real characters and places, does that make it real? There is King-cross railway station and London in harry potter, does that make it real?
According to bible Nazareth is a town/city(which it became after 1st century) with a cliff. A place with hardly 50 impoverished family live is a slum not city/town? And which is the cliff?
What a great unbiased news source, fox news is it?
I cannot acquaint with someone who is not a person and something that does not exist. What is good for god is not good for satan, that is called relative. But what is good for satan is good for satan, is it not? Human souls? What either of them do with human concepts, immaterial nonexistent thoughts, write story?
" Having being acquainted with both God and Satan,."
Such statements make me question your sanity.
And why do they need human souls? Play?
Ultimately you are alone, it is you who have to face the world. All others are allies who will leave you at some point of time(just like you and I too will leave this world).
I told god exist and Satan do not, both cannot exist together.
" I'd research other things that go beyond what you see"
What is seeing got to do with it? You yourself acknowledged that soul is immaterial that is, it is a concept. Then you say satan has got to do something with this concept and it is that concept that strengthens satan. Concepts do not strengthen but food do, or people who are willing to fight for you do.And how are you going to research? read more book by occultists or magicians, taking their nonsense seriously?After 3500 postings in this Hub, and I occasionally look back into it, I see Claire is still talking nonsense. She tries to appear intelligent, yet there is very little good hard logic to what she writes.
Do you suppose there will be anything more intelligent by the time the posts amount to 4500?
I will un-follow again.No! Don't go! I was just now going to say something new and interesting.
I find her interesting. She is the only person who can find some reason for her belief, others when find that logic is not on their side either leave or start insulting. And it is her reasons, though irrational, that I'm interested in.
Claire Evans Reading your comments to Heavynoggin, I see you have changed your comment from John only being written after 110AD to it being in its final version then. Therefore you are acknowledging that John must have started to have been written much earlier You say that it was running in a commentary format? Aren't all the gospels like that?
riddle666 Written around AD100+/- 10. I already told you all oral traditions started around the same time and evolved as they go by(as more followers were added at different places and it came across different people). As it evolved the story changed and we can see the change in the gospels which I explained earlier.
Reply I feel somewhat that I'm going around in circles. You assume that oral tradition always evolves even though I told you what the Jewish oral tradition is like. You never addressed that. Jesus has always been the son of God from Mark to John. They all say He rose from the dead. So what are you talking about this change? Of course there are some deviance in details but that is natural.
riddle666 And this was what I wrote to you "It was (all gospels were) written in a running commentary format " so you won't find much past tense in relation to jesus. Jesus went saw that that is what they will write and events that had to happen after jesus time -prophesy.
Reply Referring back to the Bethesda being referred to in the present tense. If this scripture had been written after 70 AD, would not the gospel writers write that Jerusalem had been destroyed? Why only end with Jesus' ascension? If I was writing a running commentary on the lives of people who worked at the World Trade Center would I not eventually include that the towers no longer existed?
Claire Evans
Don't talk absolute nonsense. First century historians acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure. Even Pilate is definitely one:
riddle666 Which are the historians who agree who really studied about Jesus? There are some who do some excavations and finds the "chariot wheel"under the see. They are some who were specifically employed by the church to find things, other than that who else?
Are so you are saying the finding of Pilate's name etched in stone is a fake? Prove that.
riddle666 Pilate? When did I say he is fiction? I only said what is written about him in the gospel is fiction. Didn't you read what I wrote? I said Pilate was a cruel and greedy one and not the pliable one in gospel. Have you heard of historical fiction?There are some real characters and places, does that make it real? There is King-cross railway station and London in harry potter, does that make it real?
Reply You said there is no historical basis to the gospels. Therefore that means you don't believe Pilate is real because he is an historical figure. Yes, Pilate was a cruel and greedy man. The gnostic gospels don't mention historical places like the gospels do. Anyway, how can you be so sure Pilate was real and then not believe Jesus the way He is depicted in the gospels?
Claire EvansAs for the town of Nazareth. It was such an insignificant place that it wasn't even worth mentioning. However, archaeology has discovered it did exist.
The humble dwelling is the first dating to the era of Jesus to be discovered in Nazareth, then a hamlet of around 50 impoverished Jewish families where Jesus spent his boyhood."
riddle666 According to bible Nazareth is a town/city(which it became after 1st century) with a cliff. A place with hardly 50 impoverished family live is a slum not city/town? And which is the cliff?
Claire EvansRead more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/ … z2HePbz13m
riddle666 What a great unbiased news source, fox news is it?
Reply I was waiting for this one! LOL! You didn't open it up did you?
Prof. Goren's finding is reported in the Israel Exploration Journal. The Israel Exploration Journal is the source.
The cliff that is suspected to be the place where Jesus was nearly thrown off is the brow of Har Nitai and it is the near the western coastline of the Sea of Galilee. This is not confirmed however.
http://www.reocities.com/athens/parthen … /naz3.html
I don't know why it is called a city. Archaeology has confirmed it was just a hamlet.
Claire Evans What is bad for Satan is anything good which is from God. The very source of sin and evil cannot accept any shred of good. They are not subject to circumstances like we are so there is no relativity. There are no shades of grey. I'll tell you this much. Having being acquainted with both God and Satan, I can assure you that they share nothing in common but the need for human souls. I know Satan only wants the worst for me and God only the best for me.
riddle666 I cannot acquaint with someone who is not a person and something that does not exist. What is good for god is not good for satan, that is called relative. But what is good for satan is good for satan, is it not? Human souls? What either of them do with human concepts, immaterial nonexistent thoughts, write story?
Reply It's not relative because their goodness and badness cannot overlap as in the case of relative good and evil. By what is "good" by Satan means what is beneficial to him.
" Having being acquainted with both God and Satan,."
riddle666 Such statements make me question your sanity.
Reply Yes, everything you don't understand must mean insanity.
riddle666 And why do they need human souls? Play?
Reply For God, why wouldn't He want the companionship of those He created? He created love and He wants to love us. Satan, on the other hand, wants our souls to torment. He feeds off the suffering of people.
Claire Evans
I am alone in this world? And you know for a fact that God and Satan don't exist? If you know what's good for you, I'd research other things that go beyond what you see. You ought to research the occult since that is what our world leaders are into.
riddle666 Ultimately you are alone, it is you who have to face the world. All others are allies who will leave you at some point of time(just like you and I too will leave this world).
I told god exist and Satan do not, both cannot exist together.
Reply So you know as 100% truth that I am alone and that Satan and God don't exist. Why cannot they co-exist? I mean, isn't that a Christian teaching?
" I'd research other things that go beyond what you see"
riddle666 What is seeing got to do with it? You yourself acknowledged that soul is immaterial that is, it is a concept. Then you say satan has got to do something with this concept and it is that concept that strengthens satan. Concepts do not strengthen but food do, or people who are willing to fight for you do.And how are you going to research? read more book by occultists or magicians, taking their nonsense seriously?
Reply Yes, the soul is immaterial but it is also animated. I know usually refers to physical things but I think saying suspended animation in this case is also appropriate. After all, the soul is energy. I do research beyond what the media tells us. You'd be horrified about what you'd learn. And our world leaders are occultists. Maybe that is why people think the government is full of nonsense.
lol, I see your point.
Not to mention she left a comment on one of my hubs that just said "TURN THIS INTO A FORUM THREAD" then never bothered to show up when I did.
I don't have the time for silliness. Real conversations, sure. People that recognize that forums are open and anyone can comment on anything at any time, sure. Everything else, not so much.
People like that seem to me to be educated JUST ENOUGH to be dangerous, but not enough to actually know the basis for the things that they're saying - and their impossible to defend.Please, remember friends whenever you type " L O L " you're copying the devil worshipers greeting
" lucifer our lord "you get that "satanists" don't actually worship satan, don't you?
LOL means "laughing out loud" I have no idea where you came up with the other definitionIf you want, you have my apology. I was reading it in your American-English publication
As soon as I come to it you'll see it on this page. It has been shown as " warning " sign to " Christians" , not to use it for that reason. Please, give me a brake, this is my beginning here in this your game of blame and my preference is courteousness . Thank you
This is a good argument against evolution.
i was just asking a question - I wanted to know the source
Because you deserve satisfactory,complete answer, here is my best for you: it's entirely posted on my FB, just for you . ( for some previous viewers , well it's " mistakenly " repeated )
You see me as being rude? What thin skin you have.
Me Yes, people already believed there was a jesus as son of god and by the time jesus became a major figure that is by the beginning of 2nd century everything had already taken place. So mark could insert a prophesy that already happened and make his hero a prophet too.
Claire: Because you don't know oral tradition for the Jews back then! Why aren't you getting this? You make these blanket statements without doing the research to know the context.
Me Aren’t we discussing Christians? I proved (rather biblical scholars proved) and you agree that Mark had an ending later added and these books were written down and changed/edited later. Read carefully, if a written document which is very difficult to be changed can be changed, oral tradition is so much easier. Second there is not one account but several as is shown by the available gospels. Almost all gospels started at around the same time but written down at various times, and what is written shows as that the accounts vary differently. So we have many stories that got edited over a century. Even the available four shows improvement as the edition progresses, the first mark starts with a near human jesus and the last john after half a century ends with a god jesus.
Claire: Who could have witnessed Jesus dying on the cross when the Gospel of Thomas was written? No eye witnesses were alive in the 2nd century. We still have the Gospel of Thomas. It wasn't destroyed because it was found in 1945. Gnostic writings were destroyed because quite frankly, Gnosticism is from the devil. I discussed that earlier. We still have the Nazarene gospels, too.
MeThough you very much want the gospel of Thomas to be written after 2nd century most scholars say it was written between 40 and 140 AD, and it was written down means there was an oral tradition and people following that tradition was already there. And we found it by luck alone. So it naturally means there were gospels with different accounts that were already destroyed or waiting to be discovered.” It wasn't destroyed because it was found in 1945” it was discovered ony because somebody managed to hide it well from his fellow Christians.
You can also take into account that with four written down gospels we have a thousand sects. So what would have occurred before it was written down, we had so many sects that follow so many different stories. The one sect that got sufficient followers and sufficient political clout survived and the rest perished. Nothing to do with the truth of the story but mere politics.
From devil? That is the most ridiculous arguments I have heard. This argument is usually from charlatans who want to divide people to create and keep followers, the us against them, the gods chosen against the devils followers. What better way to keep rivals at bay than demonizing them? They are from devil only because they failed to get enough followers to gain power. What you are saying is that what you do not accept is from devils and one has to be too naïve to utter such ridiculous arguments. Sorry such arguments take away all credibility.
Claire: “Only two got place in the Bible? We have four gospels. As I said, the other gnostic gospels were mere conjecture or just plain fictitious because no eye-witnesses were consulted. Without eye-witnesses it cannot be considered reliable. Which eye witness accounts didn't make it in the Bible? And what non eye witness accounts didn't?”
Me Only two carry the names of the eyewitness. But actually none are eyewitness accounts. Not only Gnostic but all gospels are conjectures or just plain fictions. Just because you like some doesn’t make it more credible or your dislike make any other fictitious.
But you can take a leaf from your own book. You know that the Gnostic gospels were written without a real figure. So you agree that people can make, write and follow stories, it is the same with the existing gospels. Just because you were born into one particular and you desperately need to cling to one to form a world view doesn't make the mythical accounts a reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
"Attempts have been made to establish the exact date of Good Friday by assuming the darkness described at Jesus's crucifixion was a solar eclipse. This research has not yielded conclusive results, and Good Friday is recorded as being at Passover, which is held at the time of a full moon. In the Western hemisphere, there are few reliable records of eclipses before 800 AD, until the advent of Arab and monastic observations in the early medieval period. The first recorded observation of the corona was made in Constantinople in 968 AD."
I thought it would be interesting if a total eclipse had occurred as you described, so I did a little research and found no evidence on any unbiased sites. I caused me to wonder Claire during this Christmas season, what you think Matthew 24:32 where it's said Jesus says then end of the world will come before his generation passes?
“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it's is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
That being said Merry Christmas Claire!Isn't it amazing that all this argument and conjecture is aimed at justifying the season of "Christmas?" !!!!
When really, if any of us is sound of limb and mind, we should be out celebrating the fact that we are alive and well, that we have our faculties, that we have something unique (each of us, that is) to share with those who might less fortunate than "me."
Not being perfect, (surprise, surprise!) I am doing my best though.Matthew 24:32-36
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.Hi Rad, There is no specific date.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
I don't think, my opinion, there should be any emphasis on "the end," which is different for everyone.34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
This generation was 2000 years ago.I'm not disagreeing with you that this was 2000 years ago. However, that is not inconsistent with no man knows the day nor the hour. It could be 20000 years more or 400000 years more. It could be next week. When no one knows .... no one knows!
I'll try one more time. What do you think he meant by "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled"?
This generation meaning his generation.You will continue to be frustrated Rad Man. You will not change Diane's opinion. She does not want you to. I don't want to change my views back towards Diane's religion, because I have been there, done that. Same with yourself, I suspect.
Each of us believes what we want to believe. It does not have to be rational, sensible, true; just attractive concepts for the mind. (Although yours and mine are probably a bit more rational and sensible than others, I hope.....)
No one will let the matter rest here, because it might spoil a long-running Hub!You're correct Jonny, but I just want to hear her rationalize that one line away. If the bible says Jesus says the end of time will come within his generation, and we are still here 2000 years later, what does that say about either the accuracy of the bible or the accuracy of Jesus's/god's prediction?
I can only accept and understand those texts in terms of my life (i.e. the life of each one of us, lived, fully conscious, aware of what makes "me" tick), and see that "this generation" and "the end of time," refers to my becoming aware of my place within the "creation," if you like to call it that.
If that person that people like to imagine as Jesus was an enlightened, deeply aware person, able to magnetize individuals into a new way of thinking and acting in their lives, he would not have been using the scriptures existing in his day and his culture to limit his "father." The "father" as I understand it, would have been everything embodied in the "God" which he had been taught about in his culture and community. He would have understood his being, his place in his world, as being the "son" of that "father," trying to convey deep truths about our human psyche and aspirations.
The real problem as I see it today is that people want to have everything explained simply and placed on a plate in front of them; simple solutions and remedies for all the problems we find in our world; the lifting of guilt; personal effort not really needed because you can place all the onus into the lap of Jesus..... very convenient! When the REAL solutions lie inside each one of us. Hence the picturesque language and metaphors used to describe principles to those people of 2000+ years ago.
If there is one question we can all ask this Christmas, whether or not we accept any religious interpretation, is "Have I changed in relation to those circumstances 2000 years ago?" Or do I think and talk with the same set of prejudices and ego-driven complacency which led an innocent man to his death?
Rad I am not a theologian. It looks like the operative phrase is "this generation" so I looked it up:
[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
This generation of men now living shall not pass till all these things be done - The expression implies, that great part of that generation would be passed away, but not the whole. Just so it was. For the city and temple were destroyed thirty-nine or forty years after.
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.p … mp;com=wes
------
Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass
Not the generation of men in general; as if the sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there should be always a set of Christians, or believers in Christ in the world, until all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live till all these things were fulfilled;
see ( Matthew 16:28 ) as many did, and as there is reason to believe they might, and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this: and certain it is, that John, one of the disciples of Christ, outlived the time by many years; and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, many of the Jewish doctors now living, when Christ spoke these words, lived until the city was destroyed; as Rabban Simeon, who perished with it, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others: this is a full and clear proof, that not anything that is said before, relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commenta … 24-34.html
------
This generation ... - This age; this race of people. A generation is about 30 or 40 years. The destruction of Jerusalem took place about forty years after this was spoken. See the notes at Matthew 16:28.
http://bible.cc/matthew/24-34.htm
This generation shall not pass - Η γενεα αυτη, this race; i.e. the Jews shall not cease from being a distinct people, till all the counsels of God relative to them and the Gentiles be fulfilled. Some translate η γενεα αυτη, this generation, meaning the persons who were then living, that they should not die before these signs, etc., took place: but though this was true, as to the calamities that fell upon the Jews, and the destruction of their government, temple, etc., yet as our Lord mentions Jerusalem's continuing to be under the power of the Gentiles till the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, i.e. till all the nations of the world should receive the Gospel of Christ, after which the Jews themselves should be converted unto God, Romans 11:25, etc., I think it more proper not to restrain its meaning to the few years which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem; but to understand it of the care taken by Divine providence to preserve them as a distinct people, and yet to keep them out of their own land, and from their temple service. See on Mark 13:30 (note). But still it is literally true in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. John probably lived to see these things come to pass; compare Matthew 16:28, with John 21:22; and there were some rabbins alive at the time when Christ spoke these words who lived till the city was destroyed, viz. Rabban Simeon, who perished with the city; R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it; R. Zadoch, R. Ismael, and others. See Lightfoot.
Again, these comments are from theologians. I am not one. I didn't really get what you were talking about until you said "generation." Obviously you guys are not getting ready for the holiday so you are just sitting here typing. I've been to Honeybaked, hairdresser, 2 grocery stores, and now I have a whole lot to do.
I'm not trying to sound like a "know it all." I am far from that. I study and learn. Thank you for bringing this up. I'm sure I will have to refer to professors on this or anything that comes up.
-----
Celebrating Christmas as is being manifested mostly glorifies man and pleases man's desires . How come ? If that would be to the Glory of God , there will be countess reports of manifestation victoris IN THE NSME OF JESUS over evil one and his demonic power...
"I want to do what is good, but I don't. I don't want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway." Romans 7:19
Christmas is but one of the many things we don't do correctly. You are so right. When we do what we should the Lord blesses us.
It was not a solar eclipse from what I have researched but a lunar eclipse which happened in AD 33. That, of course, is not enough normally to plunge the place into darkness but if you take into account the supernatural element, it is most possible. What does support the lunar eclipse is that the moon was red blood which is consistent with a lunar eclipse.
"When the Apostle Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost cites a list of the fulfilled signs of the “day of the Lord” predicted by Joel, the words “The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood” (Joel 2:31; Acts 2:20) do not seem to puzzle the audience at all."
Of course this was confusing to a lot of people including historians and others during that time who just described it as "darkness". Julius Africanus was a Christian chronologist who scoffed at pagan chronologist Thallus' assertion that it was a solar eclipse which Africanus knew was impossible. I think Thallus was just desperate to explain it away.
He was not the only one. Phlegon also said it was a solar eclipse even though it didn't happen. Being a secular historian, I don't think he'd consider the supernatural element.
Geologists have found that a great widespread earthquake did occur during Pontius Pilates' reign.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -date.html
As for Matthew 24, generation does not mean the generation of Jesus' time. Generation can also mean age. In other words, it means the passing of the earth's existence. It could mean the end of the age Pisces. The problem is, no one knows when the Age of Aquarius starts.
We now that Jesus was referring to age because He was discussing the signs of the end of the age with His disciples.
Generation can also mean race which may indicate signs of the end of the human race.I suggest trying to correlate ancient beliefs and superstitions with modern scientific knowledge is a bit pointless and never going to reconcile differences of opinion.
Better, in my opinion, on Christmas morning, is to look right next to each of us; at our "neighbour," and reconcile there if at all possible.
When buying a present for anyone, focus on that person in your mind; really try to think what he or she needs/ would like to receive.
This will help Claire, and riddle666, and jerami, and ATM, and Diane, and me, and everyone else who is and has been contributing to these Hubs over the past year or so, to find new meanings and joy, regardless of opinion and belief.
Blessings to every one of you. Long may our discussive relationships last!We don't have to reconcile differences of opinions. Some of us just like a good ol' debate. And if you want to be noble and things and want the best for people then start with how you treat those who don't believe the way you do. You are always so condescending towards me. So practise what you preach.
Wishing you a happy day too, Claire, with all the good company you desire.
Johnny thank you so much for thinking of me. Please have a Blessed, Merry Christmas. I'm off to LA to visit sick and shut in!
I have seen christians going extra mile to justify the nonsense written in their holy books, but this is ridiculous. A generation is anything but a generation and sun is now moon.(Luke 23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst)
Thallus did what?? You might be knowing that we have no documents available from Thallus. Oh, we have the quote from Africanus? But wait, none of his works survive. All we have is a 9th century christian apologetic, Syncellus, paraphrasing Africanus.
Phlegon said? None of his works survive too. All he said was a earth quake in Bithynia(coast of black sea), the christian apologetics quoting him linked it to Jerusalem and eclipse. And Phlegon was a 2nd century writer, cannot be an eyewitness.
Why, even John didn't know about such an earth quake or "eclipse" or dead corpses walking. Well if written things mean anything but what is written anything is possible. You know I had a red penguin who flew daily from Antarctica just to eat ice cream from me, which was recently killed by a robin!!I'm sorry, but I got the explanation of race from the footnote of my NIV Bible. Also:
γενεά in Greek and genea in Greek transliteration:
Gloss:
generation, one's own kind or race, descendant; fig., age, period of time (as in to all generations)
Definition:
pr. birth; hence, progeny; a generation of mankind, Mt. 11:16; 23:36, et al.; a generation, a step in a genealogy, Mt. 1:17; a generation, an interval of time, an age; in NT course of life, in respect of its events, interests, or character, Lk. 16:8; Acts 13:36
As you can see, sometimes generation can mean age depending on the context. Age means both generation and an interval of time which doesn't not automatically means descendants of previous generations.
In Matthew 28:20 says:
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age
Now I'm sure Jesus did not mean to the end of their generation. The Holy Spirit never went away when they died.
It probably means He will be with them until the demise of humanity as in the age of humans. Remember generation also means race.
How many documents from ancient authors survive? Wow, that's a bit too much to ask for. It is not true that none of Africanus' works have not survived:
http://christianbookshelf.org/africanus … index.html
So fragments of Africanus' works have survived so who is to say Syncellus did not have access to his works back then?
Historians don't write on hearsay. Anyway, you must think sources that no longer exist doesn't mean the work is inaccurate if you say that Phelgon said there was an earthquake in Bithynia. Whose to say that the earthquake that took place when Jesus died wasn't widespread?
'In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32-33), and eclipse of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day, so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea.
I don't know what else Phlegon was referring to when he said that night came on the sixth hour of the day. The Jews divided their days into 12 hours so so the sixth hour of the day was noon.
"Mark 15:33 At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour."
So it's pretty obvious what Phlegon was referring to.
John didn't write the gospel. It is the gospel according to John. The dead corpses walking story most likely came from the likelihood that the mega quake actually threw the bodies out of the graves. I wouldn't be surprised if the writer likened that to the resurrection of Jesus and thus the resurrection of those who love Him.So why age was not used in the first and generation in the second. The author clearly said(especially in the context) that the people who are witnessing, their generation will not pass. Yes it makes jesus look like a fool, and that is why all these explanations. Jesus is not here, so anyone can say anything in his name.
What are you saying. Did I say Syncellus made up the whole thing. We are referring to a particular work by thallus, and that work is not available. The work that quoted from that work is also not available. All we have is a third hand account who quoted Africanus as saying thallus is wrong, nothing else. So we only know Thallus said about an eclipse, when and where is not known.
It is not. Eusebius and Jerome who translated phegon said about the eclipses. There was 2 eclipse one on 29 and another 33. 29 was just visible from jerusalem not enough to cause a three hour darkness, 33 was clearly visible and a complete one, but Phlegon has to be in Antartica to see that. Phlegon saw only the earth quake, rest are christian extrapolations.
And solar eclipses last not more than 8 minutes.
John wrote or according to john doesn’t matter. The author is a charlatan not to use his own name. But that is not what we are discussing here. The one who wrote the last gospel, the gospel which is different from the other three, has not heard about this miraculus events. In gospels it was not bodies, but the saints who walked from the grave. And if the saints were dead for a long time, it should be the skeletons that were walking. And no technology was available then to identify faces from skulls.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/106541? … ost2293961Claire Evans
As you can see, sometimes generation can mean age depending on the context.
In Matthew 28:20 says:
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
riddle666 So why age was not used in the first and generation in the second. The author clearly said(especially in the context) that the people who are witnessing, their generation will not pass. Yes it makes jesus look like a fool, and that is why all these explanations. Jesus is not here, so anyone can say anything
Reply This is another translation issue.
This is Matthew 24:3 in Greek.
αθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ κατ’ ἰδίαν λέγοντες· εἶπον ἧμιν, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος;
Now αἰῶνος is aiōnos That means:
aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Short Definition: an age, a cycle of time
Definition: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.
There is another example besides Matthew 23:4 where Jesus speaks of an age in the context of a cycle of time. That is Matthew 13:39:
39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
ὁ δὲ ἐχθρὸς ὁ σπείρας αὐτά ἐστιν ὁ διάβολος, ὁ δὲ θερισμὸς συντέλεια αἰῶνος ἐστιν. οἱ δὲ θερισταὶ ἄγγελοι εἰσιν.
Here we have αἰῶνος again which is age.
"39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]; and the reapers are angels. 40 So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]
http://www.bridgewaybible.com/index.php … ng-forever
Here is an example of end in the context of generation and example of end as in end of the age.
"... they were written for our instruction, upon whom the end [telos] of the [times, or ages] [aion, aiwnwn] have come." 1 Corinthians 10:11
Because aion is finished off with telos it means the end of the current generation. Like when we say, "in this day and age…"
Closing the term with sunteleia means an age yet to come; that is a future age.
Here is an example of which age in the context of generation and of a future age are used in the same scriptures:
"27 Now there came to Him some of the Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection), ... 33 'In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her.' 34 Jesus said to them, 'The sons of this [toutou] age [aion, aiwnov] marry and are given in marriage. 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that [ekeinou] age [aion, aiwnov] and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:27, 33-35
Toutou means "of this age". Ekeinou means "that age".
I’m not sure if you are familiar with the Septuagint (LXX) the Greek translation compilation of the Old Testament? Koine Greek was used here and was used from 300 BC to 300 AD. It had differences to the
Byzantine Greek which was used from the 4th century onwards. Here is a quote from the Septuagint (LXX):
"but of the tree for knowing good and evil, of it you shall not eat; but on the day that you eat of it, you shall die by death [apoyaneisye] ... Then God said, 'see, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now perhaps he might reach out his hand and take of the tree of life and eat, and he will live forever [aion, aiwna]'" Genesis 2:17 with 3:22
So aiwna is forever in Greek.
We have one in Chronicles, too:
"34 Give thanks to the Lord, for it is good, for his mercy is for ever [aion, aiwna]. ... 36 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting [aion, aiwnov] and to everlasting [aion, aiwnov]: ... 41 ... his mercy endures for ever [aion, aiwna]." 1 Chronicles 16:34, 36, 41
I assume this must be Koine Greek as this was written before 300 AD.
http://www.bridgewaybible.com/index.php … ng-forever
Matthew 24:34 in Byzantine Greek is:
tini oun omoiwsw touV anqrwpouV thV geneaV tauthV kai tini eisin omoioi
Here we have "genea" which is generation but Byzantine Greek only came into existence in the 4th century! So generation is not the correct context in Matthew 24. Remember Koine Greek is what was used when the gospels were compiled.
So in my humble opinion, it could be that people wanted to believe that Jesus would return in their life-time. We have the same problem today. It could be that Gospel writers misunderstood what Jesus said. So you do have a point about translation issues but rigorous research should be done to understand the context.
http://thecrazypastor.wordpress.com/201 … -lifetime/
Claire Evans
How many documents from ancient authors survive? Wow, that's a bit too much to ask for. It is not true that none of Africanus' works have not survived:
riddle666 So fragments of Africanus' works have survived so who is to say Syncellus did not have access to his works back then?
Reply If Syncellus had access to Africanus' works, it makes it less likely it's a fraud.
riddle666 What are you saying. Did I say Syncellus made up the whole thing. We are referring to a particular work by thallus, and that work is not available. The work that quoted from that work is also not available. All we have is a third hand account who quoted Africanus as saying thallus is wrong, nothing else. So we only know Thallus said about an eclipse, when and where is not known.
Reply The onus is on you to prove Syncellus made up Africanus' account. Let's look at the quote again:
"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]
There is an allusion that the darkness that fell was not explainable. That is why Thallus tried to explain it as a solar eclipse although that is unreasonable because solar eclipses don't happen during the Passover. Thallus is wrong in that it was a solar eclipse that caused the darkness. Studies have shown, and I've done research into this, that only a lunar eclipse happened in April 33AD. I can find no evidence that a solar eclipse happened during that time. Other historians also said it was a solar eclipse because that is the only explanation they could find to explain away the darkness. It was not conceivable for them to consider a supernatural element.
http://www.astronomytoday.com/eclipses/ … part3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixio … nd_eclipse
So although there is no direct evidence that Thallus was talking about the darkness at the crucifixion, it does allude to the fact that Thallus tried to explain away something that was impossible. I do not know of any other account that mentions eclipses that were not possible.
Claire Evans
Historians don't write on hearsay. Anyway, you must think sources that no longer exist doesn't mean the work is inaccurate if you say that Phelgon said there was an earthquake in Bithynia. Whose to say that the earthquake that took place when Jesus died wasn't widespread?
'In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32-33), and eclipse of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day, so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea.
I don't know what else Phlegon was referring to when he said that night came on the sixth hour of the day. The Jews divided their days into 12 hours so so the sixth hour of the day was noon.
"Mark 15:33 At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour."
So it's pretty obvious what Phlegon was referring to.
riddle666 It is not. Eusebius and Jerome who translated phegon said about the eclipses. There was 2 eclipse one on 29 and another 33. 29 was just visible from jerusalem not enough to cause a three hour darkness, 33 was clearly visible and a complete one, but Phlegon has to be in Antartica to see that. Phlegon saw only the earth quake, rest are christian extrapolations.And solar eclipses last not more than 8 minutes.
Reply As I said, it was not a solar eclipse and so you have to entertain the possibility it was a supernatural event. So yes, solar eclipses don't last for 6 hours nor lunar eclipses but that is why it was evidence to believers that it was supernatural because of the impossibility of it.
Claire Evans
John didn't write the gospel. It is the gospel according to John. The dead corpses walking story most likely came from the likelihood that the mega quake actually threw the bodies out of the graves. I wouldn't be surprised if the writer likened that to the resurrection of Jesus and thus the resurrection of those who love Him.
riddle666 John wrote or according to john doesn’t matter. The author is a charlatan not to use his own name. But that is not what we are discussing here. The one who wrote the last gospel, the gospel which is different from the other three, has not heard about this miraculus events. In gospels it was not bodies, but the saints who walked from the grave. And if the saints were dead for a long time, it should be the skeletons that were walking. And no technology was available then to identify faces from skulls.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/106541? … ost2293961
Reply Then you must think the other three gospels are frauds because they weren't signed off either. Because no one knows the author, it does not at all detract from the reliability of it. You can only speculate.
Simon Greenleaf, of Harvard Law School, said it best about the gospels:
"There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they were all independent narrators of the same great transaction"
http://creation.com/darkness-at-the-cru … al-history
People make the mistake in that they think silence means an absence of evidence. Not everything is going to be recorded. In fact, the gospel of John contributed more on mystics than factual events. IT is most likely not recorded because it was as well known event. It's like Paul. He did not write about the gospels because he knew that everyone knew about it already.Jesus was not speaking Greek. And jesus said to his audience "this generation will not pass", so if it is not generation but age, jesus was not making any prophesy, he was simply making a fool of the listeners who will naturally think that it was to them it is addressed, as you were not there to explain to them he simply meant an "age" and not generation.
In the context it means the generation of the listeners,and is more probable as the early christians thought the end of world is near that they sold everything and gave it to apostles.
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:62 is that "you" mean the people who survive after the end of the world?
Again none of the translators recognised it as age and hence translated as generation. So are they charlatans or just common people who tried to translate the bible without any knowledge of greek?
Only problem, we have no access to say what Thallus was trying to say, we do not know to what episode Thallus was referring. . It is YOUR extrapolation that the was referring to the eclipse at the time of jesus.
In AD 33 a solar eclipse did occur though in Antarctica. The solar eclipse of middle east occurred in AD29.
Thallus said something about a darkness or solar eclipse, when where and what we have no idea...that is the truth.
And jesus was trying to hide his personality as god, before and after his death. He was explicitly prohibiting the people who were cured not say about him. After resurrection also he didn't went public, so what was god trying to do by making a 3 hour darkness? Were the son god and father god had a rift in how to save and whom to save?
Except that Phlegon wrote only about earthquake in Bythinia. The rest is christain addition by Eusebius.
"Jesus Christ..underwent his passion in the 18th year of Tiberius [32 AD]. Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea.' And the work available is a translation by Eusebius another liar for jesus.
Neither Thallu's nor Phlegon's work is available. All that is available is a quote where christian apologetics say it refer to a particular eclipse which didn't happen.
That is more like a ridiculous argument, you know earth is a globe, don't you?
Such supernatural events are called myths. We have gods going to under world, earth stopping its rotation and revolution, flying horses, walking or resurrected dead bodies..... endless accounts.
Not fraud. Just like any other mythical text or novels of the ancients, or to be more specific jus like the Iliad or Odyssey. There might be a grain of truth, but it is still fiction.
Just like Sherlock Holmes is inspired by Doyle's professor doesn't make it a work of history, gospels do not make history.
All the gospels contributed to mystical/mythical than factual events. Paul didn't write about Jesus because he didn't know much about jesus. His own authority as guided by spirit was enough. And for him jesus was not an earthly being but a god's son died and resurrected sometime in the past.
Justus Tiberius, Philo of Alexandria..or Even St. Paul who died in 64AD, they are the contemporary witnesses but none of them heard about any of these great events. Why Paul a Pharisee whom was brought up in Jerusalem went mysteriously absent during the trial and crucification and never heard that Jesus was crucified at the time of Pilate or was born in Nazerath nor they heard about the saints waking from their grave. Mythical accounts added to make jesus a god is to be treated just like that -myths.actually there's a very good explination for why paul never mentioned the gospels - they didn't exist yet. Paul's epistles are widely accepted int he scholarly community to be the FIRST early-christian writing. They predate the gospels.
Paul, jesus' supposed great authority didn't really say ANYTHING about jesus' life or teachings. He never quotes christ. He never met him. He was hardly an eyewitness to anything that went on. In fact, he seems oblivious to the fact that jesus recently lived, died and rose again in Jerusalem. He never mentions his life, his teachings or his miracles - in fact, he claims that miracles would be a "stumbling block" to the jews and would indicate a false messiah. If he knew jesus performed any, it certainly wasn't recorded.
You're right, Claire, Absence of evidence is not typically evidence of absence, but in the case of the historical jesus, there are DOZENS of contemporary historians who list an entire myriad of other messiah claims, but are completely silent on the person of jesus christ - and they were in Jerusalem or the surrounding areas when all of this supposedly took place. The only reasonable explanation is that they didn't know anything about him - although he was hailed in Jerusalem as a king, was arrested illegally in the middle of the night, had two/three show-trials and then was brutally executed in front of the entire city. Maybe they all were on vacation through all of that. Funny.Claire Evans
This is another translation issue.
Riddle666 Jesus was not speaking Greek. And jesus said to his audience "this generation will not pass", so if it is not generation but age, jesus was not making any prophesy, he was simply making a fool of the listeners who will naturally think that it was to them it is addressed, as you were not there to explain to them he simply meant an "age" and not generation.
In the context it means the generation of the listeners,and is more probable as the early christians thought the end of world is near that they sold everything and gave it to apostles.
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:62 is that "you" mean the people who survive after the end of the world?
Again none of the translators recognised it as age and hence translated as generation. So are they charlatans or just common people who tried to translate the bible without any knowledge of greek?
Reply: Jesus wasn't exactly speaking Greek when He said hate your mother and father which really means "love less". How can Jesus not be making a prophecy if He meant age? An age is way into the future. I truly believe that the concept was so hard to fathom that they assumed it would be their generation even if Jesus said otherwise. People will believe what they want to believe. How many people over the centuries have said Jesus was coming in their times? When Jesus said, "You will see..." I'm assuming "you" meant people in general.
Also, let us consider one other important thing. If Jesus meant generation as in the life-time of His disciples, then why did God feel the need to make John of Patmos write Revelation? It's only because the Jews did not understand what Jesus was saying and perhaps wrote the "generation" passage according to their perception.
It's pretty obvious Revelation is in reference to events way into the future. As we know, the Anti-Christ is not yet in power and had not abolished Christianity yet. He is said to rule the entire earth which has never happened. The Nazis tried and the Roman Empire yet they failed.
Claire Evans If Syncellus had access to Africanus' works, it makes it less likely it's a fraud.
Riddle666 Only problem, we have no access to say what Thallus was trying to say, we do not know to what episode Thallus was referring. . It is YOUR extrapolation that the was referring to the eclipse at the time of jesus.
Reply: There is an allusion that the darkness that fell was not explainable. That is why Thallus tried to explain it as a solar eclipse although that is unreasonable because solar eclipses don't happen during the Passover. Thallus is wrong in that it was a solar eclipse that caused the darkness. Studies have shown, and I've done research into this, that only a lunar eclipse happened in April 33AD. I can find no evidence that a solar eclipse happened during that time. Other historians also said it was a solar eclipse because that is the only explanation they could find to explain away the darkness. It was not conceivable for them to consider a supernatural element.
In AD 33 a solar eclipse did occur though in Antarctica. The solar eclipse of middle east occurred in AD29.
Claire EvansI do not know of any other account that mentions eclipses that were not possible.
Riddle666 said something about a darkness or solar eclipse, when where and what we have no idea...that is the truth.
Reply: I think my explanation is rather reasonable. Can you tell me what other event in history darkness was not explainable and so mysterious that it was blamed on a solar eclipse even though it did not happen?
Anyway, Thallus was also quoted as saying in Africanus' Chronography: “On the whole world, there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Origen also testified to the earthquakes:
"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place . . . ” - Origen, "Against Celsus", Book 2.33
I was post the article again of the scientific study that was conducted to prove that earthquakes did happen at the time of Jesus' crucifixion:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -date.html
So have you any suggestions what darkness fell and the earthquakes that happened at the time time was in reference to?
Riddle666 And jesus was trying to hide his personality as god, before and after his death. He was explicitly prohibiting the people who were cured not say about him. After resurrection also he didn't went public, so what was god trying to do by making a 3 hour darkness? Were the son god and father god had a rift in how to save and whom to save?
Reply: The reason why He didn't want people to tell others because they would flock to Him without faith. When He healed people, He did it in front of others to demonstrate the faith of others. Anyway, if Jesus wanted to hide His divinity He would have called these demons a liar:
Mark 3:11.
"Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God."
Jesus did not stop people from worshiping though only God may be worshiped.
Actually Jesus did go out in public after the resurrection. He went to the beach (John 21)
And, of course, we don't who Jesus met along the way. He probably met a few that wanted Him dead. Now the Pharisees had heard of the prophecies Jesus made that He would resurrect and and so they made sure that didn't happen by assigning guards to the tomb. They were afraid that the disciples would steal the body and claim He resurrected. No, they didn't want more followers of Jesus. In fact, they were eager to expose this as a fraud. They were anticipating a conspiracy from the disciples and wanted to thwart it. If the body had been removed by the disciples, they would pounce on it and expose the fraud.
Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, summarizes the strength of this argument:
"With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body? … The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection"
No Jewish figure in antiquity has ever denied Jesus was buried and claimed that the resurrection was a hoax.
http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/6-jesus-rise-dead.php/6/
Perhaps the most interesting argument for the resurrection comes from Chuck Colson, implicated in the Watergate scandal during President Nixon’s administration. He said:
“I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world – and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.”
http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/6-jesus-rise-dead.php/8/
As for the three hours of darkness, I have no idea. You will have to ask God that one day. What makes you think there was a rift between Jesus and God on how to save and whom?
Claire Evans
Historians don't write on hearsay. Anyway, you must think sources that no longer exist doesn't mean the work is inaccurate if you say that Phelgon said there was an earthquake in Bithynia. Whose to say that the earthquake that took place when Jesus died wasn't widespread?
Riddle666 Except that Phlegon wrote only about earthquake in Bythinia. The rest is christain addition by Eusebius.
"Jesus Christ..underwent his passion in the 18th year of Tiberius [32 AD]. Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea.' And the work available is a translation by Eusebius another liar for jesus.
Reply: Considering that Bythinia is a Roman province, it would make sense that a Roman historian would write about about the earthquake in Bithynia. Perhaps he was there? Historians don't tend to write about hearsay and he may not have felt he could verify what happened in Jerusalem. Now you need to prove Eusebius lied about what Phlegon said. Also, if you believe Eusebius is a liar, then why wouldn't he have written Phlegon said that there was darkness in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified? Why would Eusebius say Phelgon claimed it happened in Bithynia and not Jerusalem as well?
Riddle666 Neither Thallu's nor Phlegon's work is available. All that is available is a quote where christian apologetics say it refer to a particular eclipse which didn't happen.
Reply: Oh, so you were there? You know for a fact the darkness didn't occur?
Claire Evans]As I said, it was not a solar eclipse and so you have to entertain the possibility it was a supernatural event. So yes, solar eclipses don't last for 6 hours nor lunar eclipses but that is why it was evidence to believers that it was supernatural because of the impossibility of it.
Riddle666 That is more like a ridiculous argument, you know earth is a globe, don't you?
Yes, and your point is?
Riddle666 Such supernatural events are called myths. We have gods going to under world, earth stopping its rotation and revolution, flying horses, walking or resurrected dead bodies..... endless accounts.
Reply: Well, I guarantee your mind will be changed one day.
Claire EvansThen you must think the other three gospels are frauds because they weren't signed off either. Because no one knows the author, it does not at all detract from the reliability of it. You can only speculate.
Riddle666 Not fraud. Just like any other mythical text or novels of the ancients, or to be more specific jus like the Iliad or Odyssey. There might be a grain of truth, but it is still fiction.
Just like Sherlock Holmes is inspired by Doyle's professor doesn't make it a work of history, gospels do not make history.
Reply: Aren't charlatans frauds? You wrote:
"John wrote or according to john doesn’t matter. The author is a charlatan not to use his own name. But that is not what we are discussing here. The one who wrote the last gospel, the gospel which is different from the other three, has not heard about this miraculus events. In gospels it was not bodies, but the saints who walked from the grave. And if the saints were dead for a long time, it should be the skeletons that were walking. And no technology was available then to identify faces from skulls."
So what grain of truth did the charlatans write about in the gospels?
Claire EvansPeople make the mistake in that they think silence means an absence of evidence. Not everything is going to be recorded. In fact, the gospel of John contributed more on mystics than factual events. IT is most likely not recorded because it was as well known event. It's like Paul. He did not write about the gospels because he knew that everyone knew about it already.
Riddle666 All the gospels contributed to mystical/mythical than factual events. Paul didn't write about Jesus because he didn't know much about jesus. His own authority as guided by spirit was enough. And for him jesus was not an earthly being but a god's son died and resurrected sometime in the past.
Reply: I haven't met Jesus but I do know Him. The Holy Spirit introduces one to those who love Him. I have already proven to you that Paul did not believe Jesus was not an earthly being. For heaven's sake, you go onto say He died and resurrected. To die, Jesus needed to have flesh. Therefore He must have been an earthly being.
Riddle666 Tiberius, Philo of Alexandria..or Even St. Paul who died in 64AD, they are the contemporary witnesses but none of them heard about any of these great events. Why Paul a Pharisee whom was brought up in Jerusalem went mysteriously absent during the trial and crucification and never heard that Jesus was crucified at the time of Pilate or was born in Nazerath nor they heard about the saints waking from their grave. Mythical accounts added to make jesus a god is to be treated just like that -myths.
Reply: So why should Justus Tiberius and Philo of Alexandria and Paul automatically know about Jesus? Would they be interested in every crucifixion and should they be interested in just another miracle worker? Should they be interested in a religious leader whose followers are causing a scuffle? How do you know that Paul didn't know Jesus was born in Nazareth? As for saints waking from the graves, I'll agree that is a myth.http://www.nazoreans.com/nazareth.html
"There is, in fact, no record of Narazeth's existence at that [Jesus'] time...Nazareth is not to be found in any book, map, chronicle or military record of the period so far discovered."—(Gardner, 2007, p. 53)Me Have you studied classical geek or are you just quoting some apologetic site, for none of the 20 translators think as you do? We do not know what jesus really spoke. What we have is Luke’s and Mathew’s interpretation of what jesus said. And according to luke he said hate. If it was love less for luke too, he definitely would have used the same word as Mathew, but he didn’t. And “hate” is the exact opposite of love and not love less though however much you want it to be love less.
If I have a collection of people in front of me and I tell them that this generation will not pass, it means their generation. If I mean the whole humanity, then it is a wild guess just like that of Nostradamus and I am fooling them and then it is not a prophesy. And you can fit it to anything you want as there won’t be any human left to verify it.
Claire If Jesus meant generation as in the life-time of His disciples, then why did God feel the need to make John of Patmos write Revelation?
Me Is it the same reason god feel the need to make Rowling write Harry potter? A metaphorical nonsense has nothing to do with what we are discussing. And jesus is not the chief protagonist in revelation.
Claire So have you any suggestions what darkness fell and the earthquakes that happened at the time time was in reference to?
Me Read carefully. Thallus mentioned an eclipse, and Phlegon an earthquake that occurred in Bythinia. We have no idea why they said that and to what event they were referring. We have no idea when that occurred and where. All we have is christain apologetics trying to fit those into their story. As for solar eclipses we do know when that occurred, AD 29, a partial eclipse that last for a few minutes not the 3 hours. Phlegon is a 2nd century writer and Thallus may be a second or 1st century, we do not know for sure. How does a historian, especially of the yore get his facts? He checks the written books available, and by the time of Phlegon, christains were a major factor and he might have believed their earthquake story, even then he didn’t write earthquake in Jerusalem but bythinia.
So all we have is a reference to an eclipse somewhere and earthquake in bythinia. So where exactly the eclipse was and when exactly the quake was we do not know.
Claire The reason why He didn't want people to tell others because they would flock to Him without faith. When He healed people, He did it in front of others to demonstrate the faith of others. Anyway, if Jesus wanted to hide His divinity He would have called these demons a liar:
Me So an earthquake will not make flock to him without faith? He asked the demons(imaginary) to be quiet. But I didn’t understand what you were trying to say.
Claire As I said, it was not a solar eclipse and so you have to entertain the possibility it was a supernatural event. So yes, solar eclipses don't last for 6 hours nor lunar eclipses but that is why it was evidence to believers that it was supernatural because of the impossibility of it.
Riddle666 That is more like a ridiculous argument, you know earth is a globe, don't you?
Yes, and your point is?
Me There is no super natural event, so if a three hour eclipse occur anywhere the reverberations that will be noticed all over the world. It is just like the myth of “walking saints”. The ancient people thought such nonsense can happen like the earth stopping its rotation(sun staying at the same position), but that is just their wishes.
Claire Well, I guarantee your mind will be changed one day.
Me But am not into self deception. I can see the world as it is, and I am neither depressed by it nor excited. If you are mentioning my change from a former chrsitain that happened because I stopped using figurative and poetical language (which I got from my parents because I was a child then) as you are doing now. Claire So what grain of truth did the charlatans write about in the gospels?
Me There might a grain of truth. A man, may be a bastard(?Pandira) preacher preached in or near Jerusalem and was killed, nothing more.
Claire I haven't met Jesus but I do know Him. The Holy Spirit introduces one to those who love Him. I have already proven to you that Paul did not believe Jesus was not an earthly being. For heaven's sake, you go onto say He died and resurrected. To die, Jesus needed to have flesh. Therefore He must have been an earthly being.
Me For heaven’s sake soul/spirit do not exist and it is the same claim made by all religious people to justify their nonsense –personal experience.
Death means the absolute end of everything. After death if you get after a few hours or days or weeks then we call it sleep, coma or suspended animation. That was the only quote from paul and is probably a later addition. Even if it was paul’s own, it does not say anything. You said jesus died but you cannot tell what that means. It is just a poetical language, just like you are using “death”. What happened to his soul? Gods have died before, so what? Just another meaningless statement. And I didn’t say he died and resurrected, I only said he died, the rest is the creation of myth makers.
Claire So why should Justus Tiberius and Philo of Alexandria and Paul automatically know about Jesus?
Me Because according to the “eyewitnesses”, he was a well known personality not an obscure criminal. And Paul was a ‘fanatic Pharisee’ “brought up in Jerusalem”, why he should be absent during the festival or later not inquire about his lord and what he said, he is a contemporary?
A preacher who was welcomed by whole Jerusalem singing hosanna, the whole Jerusalem condemned, during whose death there was a three hour eclipse and the contemporaries never noted anything, is a conspiracy?
Claire How do you know that Paul didn't know Jesus was born in Nazareth?
Me Because a prolific writer like paul should at least have a quote from jesus and should mention about his lord’s birthplace but he hasn’t. And there was no village/town/city named Nazerath at that time.
Claire “As for saints waking from the graves, I'll agree that is a myth.”
Me The rest is also just that - myth.Claire Evans Jesus wasn't exactly speaking Greek when He said hate your mother and father which really means "love less". How can Jesus not be making a prophecy if He meant age? An age is way into the future. I truly believe that the concept was so hard to fathom that they assumed it would be their generation even if Jesus said otherwise. People will believe what they want to believe. How many people over the centuries have said Jesus was coming in their times? When Jesus said, "You will see..." I'm assuming "you" meant people in general
riddle666 Have you studied classical geek or are you just quoting some apologetic site, for none of the 20 translators think as you do? We do not know what jesus really spoke. What we have is Luke’s and Mathew’s interpretation of what jesus said. And according to luke he said hate. If it was love less for luke too, he definitely would have used the same word as Mathew, but he didn’t. And “hate” is the exact opposite of love and not love less though however much you want it to be love less.
Reply Which 20 translators are you referring to? What exactly do you dispute with my explanation of the Greek context? To refresh your memory, look here:
http://www.bridgewaybible.com/index.php … ng-forever
ReplyAs for hate meaning "love less", I have explained that numerous times, you just ignoring the Hebrew context. I'm not explaining that again. It appears as if YOU want it to mean hate even though Jesus did not speak in English and say "hate".
riddle666If I have a collection of people in front of me and I tell them that this generation will not pass, it means their generation. If I mean the whole humanity, then it is a wild guess just like that of Nostradamus and I am fooling them and then it is not a prophesy. And you can fit it to anything you want as there won’t be any human left to verify it.
ReplyNo, generation can also mean age AND race. As I asked above, please explain how the context of age argument is not sound.
Claire Evans If Jesus meant generation as in the life-time of His disciples, then why did God feel the need to make John of Patmos write Revelation?
riddle666 Is it the same reason god feel the need to make Rowling write Harry potter? A metaphorical nonsense has nothing to do with what we are discussing. And jesus is not the chief protagonist in revelation.
ReplyDon't you think stars falling from the sky, etc, could not be considered metaphorical when Jesus said, "This generation will not pass..."? Revelation also talks about such calamities. Jesus plays an important role in Revelation. It goes further to reveal the Anti-Christ and what will happen in end times. Don't argue from what you believe but hypothetically from the viewpoint both scriptures are right. IF Jesus was prophecizing about future events that would happen within His generation, then why the need to write Revelation which speaks of future events long after Jesus' generation had died? Don't tell me it is fantasy; rather argue from the viewpoint that we lend credence to both points. It's very hard to debate with someone like you because you argue scriptures as if it was written if it suits you then dismiss others as fantasy if you don't address it.
Claire Evans So have you any suggestions what darkness fell and the earthquakes that happened at the time time was in reference to?
riddle666 Read carefully. Thallus mentioned an eclipse, and Phlegon an earthquake that occurred in Bythinia. We have no idea why they said that and to what event they were referring. We have no idea when that occurred and where. All we have is christain apologetics trying to fit those into their story. As for solar eclipses we do know when that occurred, AD 29, a partial eclipse that last for a few minutes not the 3 hours. Phlegon is a 2nd century writer and Thallus may be a second or 1st century, we do not know for sure. How does a historian, especially of the yore get his facts? He checks the written books available, and by the time of Phlegon, christains were a major factor and he might have believed their earthquake story, even then he didn’t write earthquake in Jerusalem but bythinia.
ReplyYes, I know you've argued that we have no idea but do you have any suggestions of what they MIGHT have been referring to? Read carefully:
“On the whole world, there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” Thallus
What could he have been referring to in your opinion? Do you know of any event in history that could fulfill this description?
You say that that historians account written books on hearsay and we know they state facts. Phlegon was a SECULAR Greek historian who definitely would not have thought Christian stories as reliable. An historian is not going to state things based on rumours.
riddle666So all we have is a reference to an eclipse somewhere and earthquake in bythinia. So where exactly the eclipse was and when exactly the quake was we do not know.
I think it's not that hard to put two and two together especially if we reason from the process of elimination.
Claire Evans The reason why He didn't want people to tell others because they would flock to Him without faith. When He healed people, He did it in front of others to demonstrate the faith of others. Anyway, if Jesus wanted to hide His divinity He would have called these demons a liar:
riddle666 So an earthquake will not make flock to him without faith? He asked the demons(imaginary) to be quiet. But I didn’t understand what you were trying to say.
ReplyWho says that people would automatically believe it was from Jesus when the earthquake happened? He died so how can they follow Him? Even if they did know it was from Jesus they'd still not follow a dead man.
You claimed that Jesus tried to hide His divinity. If that was the case He would have denied it when the demons acknowledged Him as such.
Claire Evans As I said, it was not a solar eclipse and so you have to entertain the possibility it was a supernatural event. So yes, solar eclipses don't last for 6 hours nor lunar eclipses but that is why it was evidence to believers that it was supernatural because of the impossibility of it.
riddle666 That is more like a ridiculous argument, you know earth is a globe, don't you?
Yes, and your point is?
ReplyWhat do you mean, "and your point is"? Supernatural events go behind natural laws.
riddle666 There is no super natural event, so if a three hour eclipse occur anywhere the reverberations that will be noticed all over the world. It is just like the myth of “walking saints”. The ancient people thought such nonsense can happen like the earth stopping its rotation(sun staying at the same position), but that is just their wishes.
ReplyI do not know if this darkness was worldwide or not.
Claire Evans Well, I guarantee your mind will be changed one day.
riddle666 But am not into self deception. I can see the world as it is, and I am neither depressed by it nor excited. If you are mentioning my change from a former chrsitain that happened because I stopped using figurative and poetical language (which I got from my parents because I was a child then) as you are doing now.
ReplyYour mind won't necessarily be changed in this life-time. When you die, Jesus will reveal the truth and there will be no self-deception. That's the truth. You aren't depressed about the world? So people dying from war and suffering is not depressing to you? Do you live in a cocoon or do you just block these things out?
Claire So what grain of truth did the charlatans write about in the gospels?
riddle666 There might a grain of truth. A man, may be a bastard(?Pandira) preacher preached in or near Jerusalem and was killed, nothing more.
ReplyOh and Pandira was crucified under Pontius Pilate like Tacitus mentioned? Did Pandira perform miracles and was he accused of using demons and tricks? Did he have a following called Christians?
That's not a grain of truth. That's fact.
Claire Evans I haven't met Jesus but I do know Him. The Holy Spirit introduces one to those who love Him. I have already proven to you that Paul did not believe Jesus was not an earthly being. For heaven's sake, you go onto say He died and resurrected. To die, Jesus needed to have flesh. Therefore He must have been an earthly being.
riddle666 For heaven’s sake soul/spirit do not exist and it is the same claim made by all religious people to justify their nonsense –personal experience.
ReplyAs you wish.
riddle666 Death means the absolute end of everything. After death if you get after a few hours or days or weeks then we call it sleep, coma or suspended animation. That was the only quote from paul and is probably a later addition. Even if it was paul’s own, it does not say anything. You said jesus died but you cannot tell what that means. It is just a poetical language, just like you are using “death”. What happened to his soul? Gods have died before, so what? Just another meaningless statement. And I didn’t say he died and resurrected, I only said he died, the rest is the creation of myth makers.
ReplyYes, our souls go into a state of suspended animation after death. There is no sense of time. On Judgement Day, that soul comes out of that animation to either be reconciled with God or go the other way. I've already explained how Jesus died. I am sorry you don't understand it.
Claire Evans So why should Justus Tiberius and Philo of Alexandria and Paul automatically know about Jesus?
riddle666 Because according to the “eyewitnesses”, he was a well known personality not an obscure criminal. And Paul was a ‘fanatic Pharisee’ “brought up in Jerusalem”, why he should be absent during the festival or later not inquire about his lord and what he said, he is a contemporary?
ReplyWho said Paul was absent during during the festival? Not every Jew witnessed the crucifixion.
For people like Paul, Jesus was not well known for he did mingle with the people Jesus did. Paul grew up in Jerusalem and Jesus made little or no impact in Jerusalem. So why should the crucifixion of Jesus interest Him? Jesus was a Galilean. Paul only became a Pharisee after Jesus' death?
Riddle666A preacher who was welcomed by whole Jerusalem singing hosanna, the whole Jerusalem condemned, during whose death there was a three hour eclipse and the contemporaries never noted anything, is a conspiracy?
What do you mean the whole of Jerusalem? Are you telling me all the people from Jerusalem praised Jesus? Which contemporaries exactly are you talking about?
None of Tiberius' works survive but Photius, a Christian scholar in the ninth century, did write:
'He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearances of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did' (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).
Claire Evans How do you know that Paul didn't know Jesus was born in Nazareth?
riddle666 Because a prolific writer like paul should at least have a quote from jesus and should mention about his lord’s birthplace but he hasn’t. And there was no village/town/city named Nazerath at that time.
ReplyThere was a place called Nazareth. I discussed that earlier. Why should Paul have at least one quote from Jesus? Why should Paul regurgitate what the Christians already know and that is Bethlehem being Jesus' birthplace?
Claire Evans “As for saints waking from the graves, I'll agree that is a myth.”
riddle666 The rest is also just that - myth.
Riiiiiiiight.To create a nonsense,
To agree/disagree on nonsense,
Is still a nonsense .Luke
New International Version (©1984)
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison--your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.
English Standard Version (©2001)
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, and even his own life--he cannot be My disciple.
International Standard Version (©2012)
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as his own life, he can't be my disciple.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
“Whoever comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even himself, he cannot be my disciple.”
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"If people come to me and are not ready to abandon their fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as their own lives, they cannot be my disciples.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
American King James Version
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
American Standard Version
If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Douay-Rheims Bible
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Darby Bible Translation
If any man come to me, and shall not hate his own father and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life too, he cannot be my disciple;
English Revised Version
If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Webster's Bible Translation
If any man cometh to me, and hateth not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Weymouth New Testament
"If any one is coming to me who does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes and his own life also, he cannot be a disciple of mine.
Young's Literal Translation
'If any one doth come unto me, and doth not hate his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yet even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple;
Mathew
New International Version (©1984)
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
New Living Translation (©2007)
"If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine.
English Standard Version (©2001)
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
The person who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; the person who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
International Standard Version (©2012)
"The one who loves his father or mother more than me isn't worthy of me, and the one who loves a son or daughter more than me isn't worthy of me.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"The person who loves his father or mother more than me does not deserve to be my disciple. The person who loves a son or daughter more than me does not deserve to be my disciple.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
American King James Version
He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
American Standard Version
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Douay-Rheims Bible
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
Darby Bible Translation
He who loves father or mother above me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me.
English Revised Version
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Webster's Bible Translation
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
Weymouth New Testament
Any one who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and any one who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Young's Literal Translation
'He who is loving father or mother above me, is not worthy of me, and he who is loving son or daughter above me, is not worthy of me,
Unfortunately the rest are in languages that you cannot understand nor are they in internet but as paper format.
You will notice that all the translators translated Luke as hate and not "love less" as you claim. And in English hate has only one meaning opposite of love. What you say is that the ones who translated are idiots compared to you. for they do not know what they were doing.
If I tell a group of people in front of me that their generation will not pass and what I mean is age, I am fooling them. And if I say age there is no prophesy. Even I can do that, when this age end there will be thunder and lightening.......
Revelation talks nonsense. Even Ulysses makes more sense and jesus, if that is jesus they are talking about, is only second to Michael. A book that nobody understand can be made to say anything, only your imagination counts.
Listen once more, that is a third hand quote about thallus not what thallus wrote. A die hard christian trying to extrapolate an eclipse mentioned by thallus to fit his story.
To know what event he was referring to, we should get what he wrote.
Phlegon was a secular historian but we do not know what he commented. here again we only have a christain extrapolation, a chrsitian trying to transplant an earth quake that occured in Bythinia to Jerusalem. We do not even know when the earth quake occurred.
It is not 2+2=4 you want, you want to make 2+2=6
The same way people follow the dead jesus now. Only the story has to be changed a little.
He told them to shut up. Again the "demons" too are just a story. There are no demons.
Huh! There is nothing after death, hence it is called death, the end of everything.
Why should I be depressed about the world? So you cried when people in japan died of the quake? There are so many good things happen around me. I have loving parents and friends around me. There are books and movies that can entertain me.....Why should I be depressed?
Have you noticed that the majority of the population is not depressed? And depression is a "disease" that need treatment.
Again your selective hearing loss is coming into play.
Tactius mentioned what christians believed. Philo didn't hear but tacitus heard about jesus, curious!
Pandira has one aspect of jesus, just like some other have some other. They might got mixed up as time passed on or events were added to the pre existing one or story that started as a "spiritual" one that later became earthly.
The miracles are added later. Nobody performed any miracles.
To understand you should use proper words and grammar. After saying soul is immaterial, a concept, then asserting that this concept can go in for suspended animation is ridiculous. Only a living cell can do that.
How do you know that paul only became a pharisee only after jesus death?
"But the high priests and elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to demand that Jesus be put to death."
During the most important festival only a few will go and a fanatical jew will never go?
"When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?" The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee,...But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant."
The whole city was made of only a few person so nobody heard or where they singing Hosanah in their mind?
And the "few persons" in jerusalem without knowing who jesus is, sang hosanah to him. They might be mad, or under the influence of satan, right?
Good a christian trying to find some historicity cannot find anything.
There was a place called nazereth. But that is not a city/town as described by gospels. There is no synagogue or cliff, so that events are also myth.
Then the story of the prostitute women is also myth(jews cannot kill or arrest anybody).
The dead saints is myth.
Miracles are myth. So what is left?
Why should paul quote, the same reason you(or anybody who try to argue some point or guide) are quoting all the scholars, to get authority and show why what he say is the correct thing. The authority should not be his, but jesus's.
Earlier you were telling that the whole gospels are correct except for the numbers, now you agree that a single clause is a myth. If that clause is a myth, then the whole sentence and by using reason the text is a myth.Do you digest anything I tell you? Those translators who say, "hate" are translating it from the Greek word miseo. That means hate. But it is clear to me that the writers of the gospel of Matthew translated it from a Hebrew perspective. In the Old Testament, the word hate was used to illustrate "love less". Here's an example:
Genesis 29:31-35
King James Version (KJV)
31 And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
This is directly translated from Hebrew
29:31 waYar' y'hwäh Kiy-s'nûäh lëäh waYif'Tach et-rach'mäH w'rächël áqäräh
-s'nûäh is the primitive root for hate
Genesis 29:30 says:
30Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.
So we can see that Leah was loved LESS. Jesus was saying you must love your parents less than Him.
So never mind those translators, Greek scholars know what the context is.
"Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575)."
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=781
If generation and age mean the same thing then what is the problem? I'm asking you to refute my argument about age with regards to this:
This is Matthew 24:3 in Greek.
αθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ κατ’ ἰδίαν λέγοντες• εἶπον ἧμιν, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος;
Now αἰῶνος is aiōnos That means:
aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Short Definition: an age, a cycle of time
Definition: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.
There is another example besides Matthew 23:4 where Jesus speaks of an age in the context of a cycle of time. That is Matthew 13:39:
39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
ὁ δὲ ἐχθρὸς ὁ σπείρας αὐτά ἐστιν ὁ διάβολος, ὁ δὲ θερισμὸς συντέλεια αἰῶνος ἐστιν. οἱ δὲ θερισταὶ ἄγγελοι εἰσιν.
Here we have αἰῶνος again which is age.
"39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]; and the reapers are angels. 40 So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]
http://www.bridgewaybible.com/index.php … ng-forever
Here is an example of end in the context of generation and example of end as in end of the age.
"... they were written for our instruction, upon whom the end [telos] of the [times, or ages] [aion, aiwnwn] have come." 1 Corinthians 10:11
Because aion is finished off with telos it means the end of the current generation. Like when we say, "in this day and age…"
Closing the term with sunteleia means an age yet to come; that is a future age.
Here is an example of which age in the context of generation and of a future age are used in the same scriptures:
"27 Now there came to Him some of the Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection), ... 33 'In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her.' 34 Jesus said to them, 'The sons of this [toutou] age [aion, aiwnov] marry and are given in marriage. 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that [ekeinou] age [aion, aiwnov] and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:27, 33-35
Toutou means "of this age". Ekeinou means "that age".
I’m not sure if you are familiar with the Septuagint (LXX) the Greek translation compilation of the Old Testament? Koine Greek was used here and was used from 300 BC to 300 AD. It had differences to the
Byzantine Greek which was used from the 4th century onwards. Here is a quote from the Septuagint (LXX):
"but of the tree for knowing good and evil, of it you shall not eat; but on the day that you eat of it, you shall die by death [apoyaneisye] ... Then God said, 'see, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now perhaps he might reach out his hand and take of the tree of life and eat, and he will live forever [aion, aiwna]'" Genesis 2:17 with 3:22
So aiwna is forever in Greek.
We have one in Chronicles, too:
"34 Give thanks to the Lord, for it is good, for his mercy is for ever [aion, aiwna]. ... 36 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting [aion, aiwnov] and to everlasting [aion, aiwnov]: ... 41 ... his mercy endures for ever [aion, aiwna]." 1 Chronicles 16:34, 36, 41
I assume this must be Koine Greek as this was written before 300 AD.
http://www.bridgewaybible.com/index.php … ng-forever
Matthew 24:34 in Byzantine Greek is:
tini oun omoiwsw touV anqrwpouV thV geneaV tauthV kai tini eisin omoioi
Here we have "genea" which is generation but Byzantine Greek only came into existence in the 4th century! So generation is not the correct context in Matthew 24. Remember Koine Greek is what was used when the gospels were compiled.
Do you agree this argument is sound?
That's a bit vague to say thunder and lightening will happen at the end of the age. It isn't anything special. However, it's a prophecy if events happen just as Jesus says it no matter how long into the future is. Nostradamus died centuries ago but he still made prophecies.
I think Revelation appears nonsense to you is that is highly cryptic. However, I think most people get the overall idea.
Where's your proof that a die hard Christian extrapolated an eclipse?
Nice cop out.
Do you always dismiss everything as Christian extrapolation when you don't have an answer for something? You'd be shown the door in a formal debate. You need to prove these things
Phlegon didn't only write about an earthquake but an eclipse that accompanied it:
"In the fourth year, however, of Olympiad 202, an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea."
Now a Christian who had the intention of extrapolating this would have said that eclipse was accompanied by an earthquake in Jerusalem and not Bithynia.
Well, at least I'm trying to make the calculation. All you do is cry, "Christian extrapolation!" when you don't have an answer for something.
Really, so those who experienced that quake were just told it was related to Jesus' crucifixion are just going to believe that the quake was from God, the Father of Jesus? How could that be special UNLESS a resurrection occurred? If a darkness fell and there was an earthquake when someone died are you automatically believe that person is somehow divine?
Yes, He told them to "shut up" but didn't correct them when they acknowledged Him as the son of God. There are no demons? It's time you had a wake-up call. You think life is all that you see? That's ignorant.
Okay, we'll see.
Actually, I did cry about the Japan quake. I don't know how you cannot be depressed about the state of the world. It's a horrible place full of suffering. It doesn't mean that one cannot enjoy the good things in life, however. Joy and depression both exist in this life. I think you lead a very sheltered life and that is why you are not getting what I'm saying. I'm not talking about clinical depression but despair about the state of the world. For example, if you mother died you don't suffer from clinical depression but from grief. And the majority of the world is not depressed? Have you considered that many people put on a veneered front? Most of the world is suffering.
Apply that to yourself.
Tacitus did not, as a historian, report on hearsay. When he said Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate he meant it as an historical fact. He was very impartial as illustrated in his Annals:
ROME at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus. Dictatorships were held for a temporary crisis. The power of the decemvirs did not last beyond two years, nor was the consular jurisdiction of the military tribunes of long duration. The despotisms of Cinna and Sulla were brief; the rule of Pompeius and of Crassus soon yielded before Cæsar; the arms of Lepidus and Antonius before Augustus; who, when the world was wearied by civil strife, subjected it to empire under the title of "Prince." But the successes and reverses of the old Roman people have been recorded by famous historians; and fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away. The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus—more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.
Philo was not a historian like Josephus. He was an ambassador to Caligula for Jewish rights in Alexandria and not Judea. So should he have heard about Jesus?
The problem with you is that you always say "might" or state things as a fact without backing them up. There is no proof for what you are claiming.
I've explained that in another comment.
During the most important festival only a few will go and a fanatical jew will never go?
How do you know that paul only became a pharisee only after jesus death?
Sorry, that was incorrect information.
I actually do not know why Paul did not know about Jesus' crucifixion. He knew about it after the fact, however. Perhaps he was too ashamed to admit he was one of those who jeered Jesus? Or perhaps he showed zero interest? I don't know.
I believe the "whole" part is a hyperbole. It's not like theses people had Twitter, you know.
I think Justus probably didn't even know about Jesus. He was the Emperor of Rome and died in Italy in 37 AD.
There is a cliff. I don't know what you are talking about. There were Synogogues in Nazareth. It apparently was situated in the middle of Nazareth old market:
http://www.biblewalks.com/Sites/SynagogueChurch.html
About the cliffs:
"In addition to the large cliffs on the SW outskirts of town reported in Israel Photos III; there was a cliff reported behind the Maronite Church in Nazareth not far from the spring now called "the well of Mary." The Roman era town must have been built near the spring where the town drew its water from. The synagogue may have been close to the center of town. The modern city of Nazareth is much larger than the village early pilgrims visited.
"Plate XXIII B. There are no less than four so-called Cliffs of Precipitation (referring to the incident of St. Luke iv. 29): one in the hands of the Latins; one in the hands of the Greeks; one some way out of Nazareth ... and the one in this plate, which is not only more probable than the rest, but in itself really probable, as it lies just at the back of ancient Nazareth."
http://dqhall59.com/israelphotosIV/naza … agogue.htm
According to OT laws, prostitutes must be stoned. Stoning tends to kill people.
Oh, so you know that is a fact?
Paul wrote to churches. I think they knew the deal already. Anyway, how can He know what Jesus said word for word?
I don't recall saying ONLY the numbers are not true. I can think of one other and that is when Jesus was said He would be raised to life like Moses rose the serpent. The resurrection of the holy people is mentioned only in one gospel. The reason why I don't believe it is true is because Jesus Himself had not risen from His grave. Why should they have risen before Him? How can bones and decomposed bodies present themselves to people and walk around? Who is going to listen to them? Would you listen to them? I mean, I think it is rather hard to talk without a tongue. Unless they were recently deceased people? Now if people want to believe it is true, then so be it. I just think the most responsible explanation is that the bodies were unearthed from their graves because of the severity of the quakes. Perhaps people could not understand this and reported it in the way they thought it happened. It's like people who believe in vampires because they've claimed to unearth graves and see blood coming out of their mouths. What they do not know is that decomposition can make fluid come of the orifices. It's because of decomposition that made someone look as if they had "drunk blood" when it fact it is just part of the decomposition process.What else do you expect the apologetics to say? They, just like you, want their prophet to be the prophet of love. How can he use such harsh words? The translators quoted from Hebrew, from the non extant book? Do all of them have a copy hidden somewhere? And why didn’t the translators understood the context? There job is not to copy verbatim, but to keep as much as possible to the original one. It is ridiculous when you claim that all translators of Luke got from Greek while translators of Mathew from Hebrew, while all got from the same greek books.
No problem except that the context doesn’t allow it [also generation does not mean age]. If I say there will be rain before the end of day and if it didn’t then I can always claim I didn’t mean the day of earth, the 24 hrs, I can say I was claiming I meant the day of humans, just like you are doing now. Jesus was speaking to an ordinary people about the end, you can obviously extrapolate to mean even an ice age. And when the end comes though no star will fall down, there won’t be any human to say that you are wrong, so safe.
And just like the hate, the Hebrew translators of Mathew didn’t see it as an age, but generation.
You are comparing to different things. You might have noticed that all the quotes you have given, the translators translated it as “age” and not “generation”.{and some say he was referring to the fall of Jerusalem and not the world…people can go to any convoluted explanation to make their beliefs true. Just recently another hubber was arguing that I said something I didn’t. And though I and two others pointed out to her that she was wrong and I didn’t say any such things she still insisted that I said something which she thought I said}
No, I don’t. You have to extrapolate too much and make sure that ll the translators are idiots to make the argument sound for the translators used generation and age separately showing they know the difference of the two words.
Yes Nostradamus made prophesies and his followers made sure it fit some events that happened after it. It is very easy considering people can go to any extent including putting new meanings to what it means to make it “fulfilled” just like what you are doing now.
That is another ay saying it is nonsense. People get the idea they want to get, just like English professors derive various meanings from Ulysses.
Except that the quote indeed was from a christain, eusebius followed by Jerome. Can you find out what really Phlegon or Thallus wrote, instead of what Christian apologetics want them to say? Then I will agree. The fact is we had no idea what Thallus wrote, but only a third hand quote arguing that the eclipse thallus was referring to was about their jesus and the fellow who argued that did after a century, credible indeed. And such an importrant event was not noticed by anybody else? And in the same sentence there was a myth about walking dead saints. A book that is said to be absolute truth, has myth, so can the book be taken at any face value?
Because that is the fact. Get a quote from Thallus that helps as know what he was referring to and when did it happened or where Phlegon says a quake in Jerusalem not a Christian apologetic saying at the time of our lord……..
Oh you forgot the chief priest murmuring that “truly he was the son of god” which was picked up the sensors put by the disciples in his room? There was no resurrection then.
It is time you need a wakeup call. Truly you think all the ancient stories describing all sort of nonsense to explain the events which they didn’t understand are true? Clue, they thought epilepsy was caused by demons.
And Mathew explain what this miracle is all about, “He didn't work many miracles there because of their lack of faith[Matthew 13:58]”, that is called charlatanism.
Most of the world? Which world? I didn’t see. I have my parents sisters friends, colleagues. I do not see them sad. In fact studies have shown that people are more upset when somebody they know dies that a million death in a far of land. After a few minutes they forget it and get on with their life. They enjoy books, movies, leisure, friends, entertainments and what not. If you are so depressed, it is time for you to see a doctor. Excessive grief and pessimism is also a disease that need a good psychological counseling at the least.
Unfortunately historians of that time didn’t do any excavations. Tacitus was writing on hear say or didn’t write that passage at all, as there was no “Christians” at the time of Nero and Nero didn’t persecute as alleged by Christians but put a new tax on the JEWS.
The proof is that no historian noted the jesus that did miracles and was followed by multitudes but people who did even less like Anans and pandira was noted by historians. The gospel also shows the evolution of jesus from anointed one to full god and the miracles and all sich nonsense is just like miracles in any other religious story.
No you didn’t. Soul is an immaterial concept, a mere thought inside the human beings mind, a few chemicals orderly arrangement which dissipates when the human die. An analogy is the computer. The memory is a particular arrangement of the electrons. When the hard disk goes everything goes, nothing remains. The same with soul, when the brain stops thinking or stops there is no more soul. So how does a thought go in for suspended animation? Only a living thing can do that.
So when he sat on a donkey and a colt doing circus a few onlookers where there and nobody noticed it. Nobody noticed when an unknown man went into the temple and destroyed everything nor did anybody ask him to be crucified.(except may be handful). Now do you see the ridiculousness of your story? An unknown preacher preached somewhere in Galilee, hardly anybody noticing. After his death his followers put all the myths like he resurrecting, dead souls resurrecting, miracles and what not. And since you got the most prominent story by the virtue of your birth in a Christian family you vociferously argue for the veracity of the story while those of us who are not mesmerized by the story nor are depressed enough to badly want a story, reject it just like we reject almost all religious stories that depict god as a “person” with all the fantastic but unreal stories.
And that is all what I said, there might have been an obscure preacher not noticed by anybody but was later elevated to god head by his followers with all the myths [like resurrected dead saints, eclipse or miracles,] added to him.
There are synagogues, but there were none at first century though the church is “digging” up so many things lately. The nearest cliff is more than 6 miles and a violent mob which is enraged enough to murder a man will not take him to a hill 6miles away but beat him to pulp and kill him then and there.
The small problem is that at the alleged time of the story it was Romans who were ruling and jews couldn’t even arrest one without the consent of Romans.
Word for word is not needed, jesus said so, so you should do.. is what anyone who claims authority from others does, not I said so, so you do… But you are correct, how could paul know about what a heavenly being said?
That is how we started, you said most of OT is corrupt while only the numbers in NT is corrupt and our first few posts attest to it.
I didn’t ask why you think it is a myth. If I buy a “historical book” and if it says 9/11 happened in Detroit, the first thing I will be doing is giving the book and get my money back, instead of claiming the whole book is true.So when Greek scholars say "hate" means "love less" they must be wrong and apologists? You cannot see reason.
"Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575)."
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=781
Actually, the Jews have a Bible funnily enough that was translated from Hebrew.
Genesis 29:31-35
King James Version (KJV)
31 And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
This is directly translated from Hebrew
29:31 waYar' y'hwäh Kiy-s'nûäh lëäh waYif'Tach et-rach'mäH w'rächël áqäräh
-s'nûäh is the primitive root for hate
Genesis 29:30 says:
30Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.
So it appears as if one of the gospel writers actually knew Hebrew.
You say it is not the job of the translators to write it verbatim? So then could "hate" not be verbatim?
Why do you deny all the proof I've given? Do you not know how frustrating that is? You are suffering from confirmation bias. I will tell you how age can mean generation. Matthew 24 has the heading "Signs of the End of the Age" and then the word generation is used. So is Jesus talking about different things? One that happens at end times and another within His generation?
Hebrew translators? The translators translated it as age because it meant age.
This is Matthew 24:3 in Greek.
αθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ κατ’ ἰδίαν λέγοντες• εἶπον ἧμιν, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος;
Now generation is γενεὰ
Do you see that word in the above scripture?
So we assume, according to your argument, that Jesus is speaking about the end of the age and events that will occur in His generation?
Well, prophecies about end times according to the Bible haven't happened yet so I can't be accused of making stuff up because it hasn't been fulfilled.
I think one can kind of now where Revelation is going and it isn't good news. About the details, I just don't know.
So what if that quote was written from a Christian? You'd think that if Eusebius faked this then he would have mentioned the quake in Jerusalem and not just Bithynia. What do you mean that important event was written by nobody else? Have you forgotten the others who have written about the quake and darkness? The Bible doesn't have to be correct from beginning to end. People are fallible, you know.
Oh, so know I must produce works from Thallus that know longer exist? Do you think that's what historians do? Dismiss events because it is a second hand account?
Yes, that's because the priests challenged Jesus' divinity. They knew a lot about Him and that is why He was a threat. Not everyone in Jerusalem knew Jesus that well.
I don't believe all ancient stories are dead accurate but there is also a sliver of truth.
You and Celsus are quite a pair.
Most of the world does not constitute your inner circle. I do enjoy things like the entertainment you mention but I can never be completely happy in life when others are suffering. It's sharing in other people's pain. Focusing on one's immediate surroundings makes one apathetic and selfish.
Excavations? You utterly and completely ignore most of my points. Tacitus DID NOT write on hearsay. He made that very clear in his Annals. What do you mean there were no "Christians"? Just provide the source where "Christians" didn't exist at the time of Nero. Aside from Tacitus' reference to Nero, which you dispute, we have Suetonius, a first century historian who wrote:
"He [Nero]devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments he erected porches, from the flat roofs of which fires could be fought;[44] and these he put up at his own cost. He had also planned to extend the walls as far as Ostia and to bring the sea from there to Rome by a canal.
During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale.[45] Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.[46]
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Lives … rs/Nero#16
We have Josephus. The following passage is the non Christian interpolated version:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a
doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the
truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews
and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of
the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the
tribes of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this
day."
This is the Christian interpolated version:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such
men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when
Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him.
For he appeared to them alive again the third day. As the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him. And the tribes of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Antiquities XVIII, 3:2
We have Tacitus' passage in his Annals:
"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}"
Superstition alludes to supernatural.
As for the gospels graduating from the anointed one to God, how can Jesus be just the former when He rose from the dead?
Yes, the soul is immaterial but it is also animated. I know usually refers to physical things but I think saying suspended animation in this case is also appropriate. After all, the soul is energy. A synonym is apparent death. It's like the soul doesn't exist anymore in death as it is not awakened until Judgement Day.
I did not say just a few onlookers. I am just saying that not just the whole of Jerusalem. A city is quite big. Compared to the population of a city, it could be compared as a "handful". Why should Jesus be a sensation in Jerusalem when He preached in Galilee? It's interesting that you say His followers put all the myths out. There is no Jesus source back then that denies Jesus resurrection.
You are most entitled to reject religion. What do you mean Jesus was not noticed by anybody? The Pharisees most certainly noticed Him.
As you wish.
So Jews never murdered?
Well, according to Paul, he preached the gospels. See the couple of verses in Romans.
I do now remember that is what I initially thought about numbers but then I changed my mind when I came to the "Moses lifting up the snake" part.
But your example of 9-11 not happening in Detroit is a massive fallacy of the core story. There are discrepancies in details in the gospel MUCH smaller than the official story but the core is the same.... this however sums up "... that is what I initially thought... but then I changed my m I n d when I came to..." (( something else)) ; and that's quite " normal" for most of " common " people, being exposed to the temptation to be better than the rest, and " judging their choicest food" as nothing good, while you never had chance to see/taste since it was long time ago.
... there is possibility that some are right in their conclusions and " we " no matter how hard trying will not be able to " know their knowing" for simple reason, they are at ," higher level" ...This is the site you provided, is it not?
“http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=781”
It clearly says apologetics.
May be the ones you hired is saying that but the Greek dictionary says miseo means hate.
A μισώ v. hate, abominate, detest
n. dislike
Funnily enough it is OT which is available in Hebrew while all NT is greek. Also it was your finding that Jacob loved Leah. Jacob worked for Rachel and he felt cheated when he got Leah, that is love? And for a man to make a women pregnant , there need no love.
Again,
Matthew 5:43: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy." Does that mean love less?
Matthew 10:22: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake:" Does that?
Luke 21:17-18: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
Either is correct in the above and hate seems more correct as all translators, more than 20 over six languages and three continents think so.
Because you are making your own interpretation to suit your needs, rarely constitute proof. That much I can get from any apologetic site who wants to make their jesus a true hero. Where is the heading? Where is generation used?
Similarly they translated it as generation because it meant generation.
Mathew 24: 3: As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?
Mathew 24:34: I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
You can see that it started with age and ended with generation. If he meant age he should use age and the translation available to me is “ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως [ἂν] πάντα ταῦτα γένηται.”
Not only we everybody who hear that will assume so and the early Christians thought the world was going to end. Only when it didn’t people put new interpretations into the word.
That is the wishes and hopes of a generation under foreign rule and nothing more. That happens.
Did you read that? It started with our lord… why he didn’t make the earthquake in Jerusalem only Eusebius know. May be he was thinking it was a worldwide quake and a quake in Bythinia truly validates his claim. I cannot guess, I can only analyze the facts available to us. All we know is that Thallus described an eclipse (where??) and Phlegon and earthquake (when??) and Eusebius thought it was the same event described in gospel.
It is not a second hand but a third hand account and the one who wrote it says the original author is wrong and the one who quotes have a purpose to accomplish, is not a creditable witness.
The priest was murmuring in private, how did the disciples hear that? And there is no record that a jewish high priest of that time converted to Christianity. You are simple making things up. On one hand you want jesus to be an obscure preacher who was hardly noticed and the other hand you want him to be a famous one who is known to all authorities and men of repute. Jesus worked among the poor in Galilee and no one noticed him but he was known to all priests in Jerusalem?
The “inner circle” constitutes more than 100 people from all walks of life and of all ages. And a study conducted shows that rarely people cry when they hear about distant tragedies. People are more concerned with their own life those others. If you cry for every bad event that happened in the world, then you have some problem or you are a saint. Hundreds of children die everyday in Africa due to malnutrition and preventable causes. So do you cry everyday thinking about that? I have seen people enjoying games during the time of some distant tragedies. If something happen to distant people and they cannot help people usually shrug it off and get on with their life. If they can, they sent some help and later forget that. It is what normal people do and I have not only personal experience but also studies to support that. When the Tsunami occurred I was watching TV with some acquaintances(including nuns) and we all were sad but when we saw after a few days we were talking about the local festival.
The problem is that the later Christians editors manipulated ancient texts to show the existence of jesus. As quoted by Gibbon Christians were protected by the ignorance of romans. There was nothing to separate christains from jews. The romans have no way of identifying christains separately. There were no gospels either at that time and christainity was not a single sect but a many. The called themselves bretheren,and their critics called them ebionites, nazoreans or later as marcionites, basilidians… We have to actually question whether tacitus and Suetonius did actually wrote that passages or were mere add up by later christains. What nero did was put a capitation tax on ALL JEWS and christains also got it as they were not separated from jews there were no persecutions as alleged. And both the quotes can be traced to Sulpicius Severus and no Christian writer not even Eusebius saw that passage.
And as per you jesus was like a common criminal hardly noticed by anyone. So from where did they got their reference?
So is this your version or somebody else helped you?
Immaterial is called concept, a human thought. I can think of unicorns or flying rabbits, but that won’t make it a reality that will be immaterial, just my thought. So do you mean that my thoughts are animated?
There is no real source that mentions his resurrection but a few mythical stories called gospels and some even claimed jesus was laughing above the cross and some that he didn’t die on cross.
A city is big, so it was only a few people who put their dresses and sing halleluah and clamored for his crucification? So he was not even noticed? There was none in the temple when he made a show in the temple?
They might have a short memory then?
The common people didn’t because who ever tried that was captured and prosecuted and even killed by the romans unless it is to help romans.
I am asking why paul never quoted anything from jesus nor argued anything from jesus’s authority? Whatever paul taught he was its authority not jesus, and that is not what a disciple do.
My question is will you take a book which claims to speak the truth says 9/11 occurred in Detroit? A book that contain myth (your own acknowledgment), copies OT(song of Hannah by mary, Isaiah and Daniel) and other books(like child prodigy and three people crucified), contain fiction(like miracles) can be treated as a historical document?
Only the core is the same, the rest are embellishments that occurred when they tried to make the story an earthly one.
And you forget the gnostic gospels and the rest which were not included in the gospels. The official version has same core. It is easy considering that two are copies of the first and the end was added to the first later and all were edited over centuries.Riddle, at the risk of appearing intrusive, why is it that you want to disprove Claire's beliefs so badly? I have no desire to engage in a grand debate or even support a viewpoint regarding this issue. I am, however, intrigued simply by what exactly the motivation behind your argument may be. Again, I apologize for the uninvited inquiry.
No need to apologize. I myself, sometimes, ask this question, why I waste time arguing with Claire especially since I know that she will never change her opinion(for that matter, nobody will).
But somehow I find it interesting, in a strange way. May be I'm arguing for arguments sake, or I find this as a diversion from my otherwise hectic work. It is also an education for me, it help me look into an individual's mind who think em! differently from others, which help me understand more of the human mind.
Here's the site again:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=781
Look at the sources for heaven's sake.
Quote:
" W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575)."
Considering that Greeks translated the Old Testament into Greek it doesn't surprise me that they'd adopt the Hebrew hate to mean love less. Consider this:
The Hebrew sânê' is the opposite of love which could mean 'non-election'. This contrast is the same in Genesis 29:31 between Leah ('hated' senû’âh from sânê’) and Rachel, who in the previous verse is described as "loved more than Leah", a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate. Compare also the passages in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 above; 1 Samuel 1:5; Proverbs 30:23; 2 Samuel 19:6; and even Exodus 20:3 which speaks of preferring others gods as equivalent to hating God (cf. Matthew 6:24 on serving God and mammon, loving one and hating the other).
Another thing to keep is that there were linguistic extremes in an Eastern culture. There is no word for "like" only love. So when you say in Arabic you love someone someones it doesn't necessarily mean you love them as we understand them. It can mean you respect them or just like them.
Here is an example in a Greek poem:
Poetae Lyrici Graeci
"..men "must count his own life his enemy for the honor of Sparta"
Does this mean those men are their own enemy? No, it means there lives are secondary to the honour of Sparta.
It is the case with Luke 14:26. Jesus meant you must make your parents secondary to Him.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html
Love and hate in Biblical Hebrew means "more than" or "less than". In other words, it indicates preference. Jacob preferred Rachael over Leah. There isn't a way to express preference over than say "love" or hate".
In the Jewish midrash on Exodus, it says:
"By three names is this mount known: The mountain of God, Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai. . . . Why The mountain of God? (Exodus 18:5). Because it was there that God manifested His Godhead. And Sinai? Because [it was on that mount] that God showed that He hates the angels and loves mankind." (Exodus Rabbah 51.8, Soncino edition)
Of course God does not hate the angel. It means God puts mankind first before the angels.
Again,
Matthew 5:43: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy." Does that mean love less?
I suppose it has to do with context. The word hate in Greek in this word is misēseis and hate in Luke 14:26 is misei
Matthew 10:22: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake:" Does that?
Luke 21:17-18: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
And so love and hate can mean just that and in other contexts it means preference.
So the translators of Matthew 10:37 got it wrong when they wrote:
"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me"?
So what did Jesus say? Did He mean that we must hate our parents or love Him more than we love our parents? Which one is it?
Where is generation used where?
Again you ignore my argument. Generation can be used to mean generation, age or race.
Jesus didn't speak English remember. Since age and generation are used both in Matthew 24:34 which one was He referring to? You just ignore the age part but assume generation is correct when it could also mean race.
That's because the New Testament was first translated in Koine Greek which is example I gave above. Only in the 4th century did yevea occur in Byzantine.
"It is important to recognize key texts from the Greek Septuagint compilation which designate the eternal, forever, everlasting, and ongoing sense of the words, aion, and aionios. The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation compilation of the Old Testament that, according to historical record, finds its earliest roots starting around 250-300 years before Christ. Modern researchers trace development of Greek translations of specific books, in what we now refer to as the Septuagint, over and into the New Testament period. The Greek texts that we anachronistically call the one Septuagint are important because they reflect the use of the Koine Greek (meaning, common Greek) that was used from about 300 BC to 300 AD. This Greek differs in a lot of ways from Byzantine Greek of later years after the New Testament period from the fourth century on."
Here is a example where age in Greek also means generation:
27 Now there came to Him some of the Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection), ... 33 'In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her.' 34 Jesus said to them, 'The sons of this [toutou] age [aion, aiwnov (means generation in this context] marry and are given in marriage. 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that [ekeinou] age [aion, aiwnov] and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:27, 33-35
It's called wishful thinking. People wanted Jesus to return in their generation. It's no different than today. Revelation would not have been written if Jesus mean generation.
You know this for a fact?
Our Lord? I don't see that. Now you just just speculating about Eusebius. Why only mention Bythinia if he thought it was a world wide quake? Can you think of an eclipse if antiquity that Thallus could have been describing? Phlegon was referring to a quake that happened when darkness fell at the sixth hour. It matches the gospels so what else is he referring to?
Original author is wrong? Please provide sources.
Well, actually when Jesus was arrested after the last supper He was publicly interrogated by the Pharisees. Jesus was certainly not an obscure preacher to the Pharisees. In the case of obscurity, He was not important enough to be written about in contemporary sources. Jesus did not only preach in Galilee. He traveled around quite a bit.
It's true, people are more concerned about their lives than others. It's all about them and that is why the world is in such a mess. I do not cry about every tragic event. I'd be a basket case then. It does affect me though. I do not see suffering and then just forget about it immediately. We are not expected to take on the suffering of the world all of the time and not concentrate on our own lives. We need to plan our existence. However, the problem comes in when people just don't give a damn about other people's suffering.
Which ancient texts are you talking about that Christian editors manipulated? Don't mention Josephus, Tacitus or Eusebius because I've already discussed them. Well, I think that when the Romans started calling Christianity a superstition founded by Christ then they could differentiate between the Jews and Christians. The Gospels were firmly established by then, thank you. You think the gospels were only written after 64 AD; at the latest at the turn of the second century?
I will not go around in circles again. I addressed the authenticity of Tacitus' Annals and addressed Suetonius, Eusebius and Sulpicius.
Jesus was a common criminal to the Romans. They did many crucifixions a day. They only started paying attention to Him when Christianity started gaining power and that's when He was written about.
No, scholars that Jesus wrote the latter because it doesn't insinuate any divinity in Jesus unlike the interpolated version.
Normally, thoughts would not be considered animated; just the ability by an animated being. However, I associate soul with consciousness also and if people are to believed when they have Near Death Experiences, then we must consider the soul or consciousness is separate from the body.
Why do you automatically assume the gospels are mythical? Not many people believe that including atheists. It could have been a couple of hundred people who welcomed Jesus. As you said, a city is big and does not just have a few hundred. Why do you think I mean no one noticed Jesus? Quite frankly, people who didn't believe in Jesus' resurrection must have quickly forgotten the whole crucifixion thing.
Huh?
The common people never murdered anyone? Where did you get that nonsense from? That's like saying people today only kill on behalf of the government and not of their own desires.
Paul made it clear Jesus gave Him the authority to preach. Do you expect Paul to remember every quote Jesus gave especially since He never even met Him? We only know the quotes because it is written down.
No, because that is no historically sound. However, in many respects the New Testament is considered historical. That's without the miracles and resurrection, etc. The only way someone can truly be vindicated of the validity of the gospels is to have a personal relationship with Him. He confirms the gospels not the other way round.
I would love to find out what my views on Christianity would be if I was an agnostic. I will never know, of course.
Tried to make a story an earthly one?
I've already discussed this topic.A very sophisticated dialog , so far " two of the 'truths' are defended." Interesting . Though running behind , want to make contribution to ' unsolved ' Luke 14:26 . The word " hate " , in light of Matthew 10:37 should be understood as loving one's relatives less than The Lord. The phrase , " that forsakes not " closely related to the ongoing conversation --( v. 33 of 14th ch.; Jesus wasn't speaking in verses, my orig. Greek version is written as one long verse , whole book of Luke ) -- so, forsakes not doesn't refer to the abandonment of one's belongings, but the proper prioritization of them... Back to μισεω from a prim.μισος ( hatred );- to detest ; to love less, to ' hate ' , thus if one chooses to accept proper prioritization to " believe" - it refers to believers who are worthy of the Anointed One and know how to properly arrange their lives so that Messiah (Christ,the Anointed One ) is given the preeminence ...
That is called interpretation. We interpret and give the meaning we like, though the translators of Luke disagree.
So either
All the translators of Luke are wrong
Or
You are wrong. Which is it?
Whatever be the context, in English “hate”means hate and not loveless.
So either the translators all got it wrong and you alone got it right.
Secondly, if it is according to context, hate also fit as good as loveless, if not more.[All your references are to OT, which is available in nonGreek languages].
[And koine greek also miseo is hate not loveless]
Either you say context(which is not clear) or say dictionary(then you are wrong). The scholars you quote are all christian ones and they really want it to be loveless like you, don't they?
You asked me that.
No generation means generation, age can mean generation. Like will you say the “generation” of dinosaurs or age of dinosaurs?
Again are all translators wrong?
1As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4“Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
28“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30I tell you the truth, this generatione will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Does not appear he was meaning age and not generation from the context either. He was prophesying the destruction of the temple and telling the people that their generation won't pass. Was he fooling them or humoring them?
Yes. There are no prophesies. Only charlatans say there is.
What I said is Syncellus was quoting Africanus as saying thallus was wrong.
And I’m not speculating, I only said I do not know why eusebius didn’t say quake in jerusalem.
All we know , I say once more, Thallus said about an eclipse and Phlegon a quake in bythina it was the christians that extrapolated it to Jesus. As for an eclipse we know when and where all that happened. We have no record of any eclipse and quake in jerusalem at the supposed time.
Decide now, Was jesus famous or obscure?
If he was famous, why a Pharisee Paul and others didn’t notice him?
If he was obscure, how did the priests knew him?
If jesus was a common criminal, from where did Tacitus and Suertonius got there reference from?
And no, you didn’t explain anything properly. I said why I do not accept Suetonius and tacitus, there was no “chrstians” at the time of nero and there was no prosecutions of “christians”. Christians were differentiated only by the end of 1st century and beginning of second, before that they were “jews” for the romans. Even the Christians didn’t call them christains then. . Also the quote first appeared from Sulpicius Severus(who was famous(?) for manipulating ancient texts) only in 5th centuary and not even christains authors noticed it before.
Scholars wrote, not josephus. The quote you provided was written by scholars, their “opinion” of what josephus might have written if he had seen jesus.
Is soul immaterial or material? If immaterial, then it is just a thought, a concept conceived by human mind. And concepts do not exist outside the brain independently. If material where is it situated in the body?
Consciousness again is a property of the brain. So when you sleep or when you are in a coma, you are devoid of soul?
You agree a hallucination can be produced without any external stimulus? So why should you give special credence to any person who suffered from hypoxic brain injury? And is their “opinion” is your “proof”?
You missed the entire thing. I do not say jesus is a mythical creature. What I say is that we do not know the person behind the gospel. We have no records or “eyewitness” stories available. Only something, and each different, from his supposed followers. We do not know what exactly he preached. And yes most of the gospel is myths, like miracles and resurrection.And god is not “male organism” to have sons and daughters and he is not a fool to let his son die to make a decision. Once you remove the miracles and resurrection, what is left? A jew preaching in Galilee. Why should I give any thought about any such “self appointed” god men? I have seen lot many.
“Why do you think I mean no one noticed Jesus?”
Because you yourself is saying so. “jesus was a common criminal to jews and hence that is why they didn’t notice him”, is what you said. That was the same excuse for his contemporaries not noticing him.
But according to gospels he was quite a famous man, noticed by even “Roman Generals”, so was he famous or obscure?
The common people who murder are called “criminals”. Of course a mob can kill, but then they are not in a state to take the person to anybody to “test” them. They are violent people. Just see BBC(videos about the violence/riots) about the people of Syria, Greece and Egypt. With a violent mob, there is no reason, only rage.
Huh? Not even one quote he couldn’t remember? A contemporary who has not heard of jesus, nor who has studied anything from his disciples and got everything by “divine revelation” couldn’t remember anything. That is quite likely and believable.
Haven’t you read historical fictions? Have you read “gone with the wind”. Sherman and Johnston are real people but that won’t make “gone with the wind” a historical document. Well what is historical in NT anyway?
Oh yes, “what I do not believe is hearsay while what I believe is historical” though with obvious contradictions and nobody noticed.This has been written " so either all translators or Luke are wrong ...Or ..."
Assumption, " translators " did their best...
The original Greek needs to be understood ( my very friend and a brother , born, raised on the island of Crete provided some info.)-- so, the English language doesn't have all verbal inflections, Greek have.
Thus from a prim.μισος, Luke 21: 17 μισουμενοι- will be being hated...
Matt. 10:22 έσεσθε μισουμενοι - you will be being hated;
Matt. 5:20 μισή σεις- you will be hating ...
As about Matt 24:-- " Signs of the end of Age..." Needs to be consider by this remark , Matt. 24:15 " the one reading let him understand." It is kind of warning agains the " lack of a reader's understanding." This matter of the " biblical information " deals at least with two kinds of " readers ", some equipped wit wisdom and understanding , some...; -- well one can't be right denying that my 220 v.current is inoperative , if he comes with his 110 v. appliances .
Once the Holy Spirit and faith is denounced , a dialogue as parallel as it is, continues in opposite direction .Yup, you can interpret it as you please and say spirit told. Tell me when Jesus exorcised demons, was it bacteria and viruses?
Exactly; I can and will. The answers are available for everyone who is serious to get them on his/her own. " Tell me, please ..."
Your choice of words. You are making decision every time , unless you're controled and you're made to say what you just said. You might even to be referring to your Jesus , I don't know who you are?
Obviously, I'm off to the marriage party of god's sons.
