Quick Poll - Do you believe in God?

[KichigaiNeko]

I doubt you really believe a legend can form in five years.

It can IF some ~400 years later a bunch of cocks in frocks decide to re-write the story to their benefit.

You are soo EASILY deceived!!

[DeistPaladin]

I'd like a source for Judaism's 'sects.' To my knowledge, most of Israel was united under the same Law. The Samaritans were different, not believing the temple was required for sacrifice, and within the Jews were the Pharisees and Sadducees. But they all still followed Moses' Law, which Jesus fulfilled, and in their minds, repeatedly broke. He wasn't just a messiah. He claimed to be God-- blasphemy. He also did work on the Sabbath and told everyone that nearly all of their traditions were worthless. He said that you cannot be saved by your own actions after all, but have to believe in Him. The method of salvation was turned upside down. Nothing they did--tithing, circumcision, sacrifice--mattered any more. Social standings were destroyed. Judaism is night to Christianity's day.

You're savvy. I doubt you really believe a legend can form in five years. Thousands of people saw Jesus on Passover week (when all of Israel went to Jerusalem). If they were one of the few who didn't, they could talk to His disciples themselves or Mary. If you're to undergo a change in lifestyle (perhaps life-threatening) you're not going to make that decision on circumstantial evidence. They had the same skepticism and human psychology we have today. These people were so convinced they would die for Jesus. A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford did a study of the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world and concluded that not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth. Now compare the Bible to other historical documents. The earliest histories of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after his death. Yet they are still considered to be generally trustworthy, as are all of Plato's and Aristotle's works on similar time frames. People can be so quick to judge a book as fiction if they want it to be fiction, even though they have no evidence for their claim.

In sum: You're using folklore to prove mythology.

[Undeceived]

I doubt you really believe a legend can form in five years.

It can IF some ~400 years later a bunch of cocks in frocks decide to re-write the story to their benefit.

You are soo EASILY deceived!!

Except that we have manuscript fragments of the New Testament dating back to 100 A.D. and third-party sources quoting it as early as 50-60 A.D. Compare them to today? They're identical. Even secular scholars agree, so don't rehash past misconceptions.

[DeistPaladin]

Except that we have manuscript fragments of the New Testament dating back to 100 A.D. and third-party sources quoting it as early as 50-60 A.D.

No, we don't.

Christian apologists themselves don't believe Mark was written until 70 CE.

Compare them to today? They're identical.

No, they're not.

Prominent example is Mark 16. The ending changed.

[KichigaiNeko]

The prosecution rest "deceived"

[Undeceived]

Except that we have manuscript fragments of the New Testament dating back to 100 A.D. and third-party sources quoting it as early as 50-60 A.D.

No, we don't.

Christian apologists themselves don't believe Mark was written until 70 CE.

Compare them to today? They're identical.

No, they're not.

Prominent example is Mark 16. The ending changed.

Liberal scholars date Mark to 70CE. Conservative scholars date Mark before 60 A.D. since Acts was written before 62 A.D., and Luke before that and Mark before Luke.
And Mark didn't change. Part simply wasn't included in the scroll you speak of. Coincidentally, that was the end of the scroll. It's logical to conclude that the rest was on a second scroll. In any case, Mark writes out the death and resurrection before Mark 16:9, so the additions differ little from his intentions.

[Minimalist]

I'd like a source for Judaism's 'sects.' To my knowledge, most of Israel was united under the same Law.

Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book XVIII, Chapter 1:

2. The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essens, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees;

Of course, we now know from the Gabriel Revelation Stone that there was a group at the end of the first century BC which did expect a warrior Messiah to be killed and rise again in 3 days. They were crushed by P. Quinctillius Varus in 3/4 BC and were probably insignificant by Josephus' time at least as far as a power structure in Palestine was concerned. We can't ever know how many other splinter groups there might have been but your assertion that all Jews were Jews is disputed by the Jews themselves.

[genkaus]

That's ridiculous.

Around that time there were many sects of Judaism, not just the four main observance levels that you see today. Christianity wasn't contradictory except for the fact that they were following a messiah that the rest of Judaism didn't follow - and there were a few of those jerk-offs running around at the time.

And legends can spread quickly, even in a time before the internet. And if you've got a martyr complex as large as the Jews did even 2000 years ago, believe me it can happen.

I'd like a source for Judaism's 'sects.' To my knowledge, most of Israel was united under the same Law. The Samaritans were different, not believing the temple was required for sacrifice, and within the Jews were the Pharisees and Sadducees. But they all still followed Moses' Law, which Jesus fulfilled, and in their minds, repeatedly broke. He wasn't just a messiah. He claimed to be God-- blasphemy. He also did work on the Sabbath and told everyone that nearly all of their traditions were worthless. He said that you cannot be saved by your own actions after all, but have to believe in Him. The method of salvation was turned upside down. Nothing they did--tithing, circumcision, sacrifice--mattered any more. Social standings were destroyed. Judaism is night to Christianity's day.

You're savvy. I doubt you really believe a legend can form in five years. Thousands of people saw Jesus on Passover week (when all of Israel went to Jerusalem). If they were one of the few who didn't, they could talk to His disciples themselves or Mary. If you're to undergo a change in lifestyle (perhaps life-threatening) you're not going to make that decision on circumstantial evidence. They had the same skepticism and human psychology we have today. These people were so convinced they would die for Jesus. A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford did a study of the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world and concluded that not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth. Now compare the Bible to other historical documents. The earliest histories of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after his death. Yet they are still considered to be generally trustworthy, as are all of Plato's and Aristotle's works on similar time frames. People can be so quick to judge a book as fiction if they want it to be fiction, even though they have no evidence for their claim.

Obviously, everything did not work according to plan.

Jesus probably said to himself - "Hey, look at all this shit people believe. And how much money is made out of it. I know, how about I come up with something too and then I'll be rich and powerful and then I can finally quit this stupid carpenter's job. But I can't just go with existing stuff. A lot of people know a lot more about that than me. It'll have to be something totally new and radical. Something they have never before. People will eat that shit up. Ofcourse, I'll need a bunch of cronies who are in on the secret. Some nice, round number like twelve or thirteen would do."

There is no way he could have known that it would take that long for the legend to catch on. None of them could have. So, when Jesus got screwed, they said among themselves - "Alright, this is a setback. But guys, the plan is still solid. And we can use this to our advantage. Let's make up some shit that we saw him alive or something."

Or maybe, the whole thing was cooked up by the guy who finally sat down to write the memoirs - "Damn, the plan is shot to hell. I guess I'll just give it one last try by writing it all down and putting in some miracles like resurrection and how everyone saw it. Yeah, that's a good idea. Mix a bunch of lies with the truth and no one would be able to tell the difference."

As to the other stuff you said - No, they did not have the same skepticism and psychology as humans today because a lot of that present today is because of scientific advantages they did not have. And no, no one takes the word of a single author on historical truths unless there are multiple, independent corroborating sources. And no, the legend did not form in five years, it took much longer.

[Minimalist]

Part simply wasn't included in the scroll you speak of.

For someone who styles himself "Undeceived" you don't know shit from shinola, do you?

http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/handou...canus.html

Codex Vaticanus is one of the full copies of the Bible commissioned by Constantine at the close of the Nicene Council in 325. It's current name derives from its location in the Vatican Library. This manuscript is an "uncial" -- meaning it is written in all upper-case letters (lower-case letters had not yet been developed for Greek). Note that there are no verse markings, punctuation, or spaces between words.

Note: The gospel clearly ends at 16:8 -- the final words in the far right column are "According to Mark." (Clicking the image will call up a larger version).

This is no "scroll." Your precious gospel was amended sometime after 325 by one of your heroic xtian liars for jesus.

Wake the fuck up.

[Cosmic Ape]

I object to the question because I don't know which god-tale is in question.

Religious books should only be used for one thing..To whipe your ass with.