Bold emphasis mine:
Buzzzzzz! Wrong!
Mark, assuming he wrong the Book of Mark, wasn't a witness. It's a book of hearsay on top of hearsay by a dubious author written at least 40 years after the fact. Oh, and we know of at least one significant alteration from the original. The original Mark ended at 16:8.
Matt was a proven liar, judging by all his misrepresentations of the OT. His testimony in court would land him in jail on perjury charges.
Luke wasn't a witness and said so in his opening verses.
John's "advanced" theology, very different from the Synoptics, indicates a later, non-contemporary date.
Ergo, we have no "direct sources". Next?
Bold emphasis not mine:
Seriously? What Gospels did you read?
Mark's Jesus was the weakest one who couldn't perform great miracles in his home town because the people there didn't have enough faith.
Matthew's Jesus was the most Jewish, declaring the laws were still in effect and our righteousness would have to exceed the pharisees and that those who don't keep them would be least even if they made it to the Kingdom of Heaven. This Jesus sits oddly alongside the Jesus of Paul who decisively judges only on faith.
The Synoptic Jesus (Matt, Mark and Luke) was separate from and subordinate to his father Yahweh. The Jesus of John claimed that he was one with his father.
Read the NT in the order that the books were written. Start with Revelation, then the Epistles, then Mark, then Matt and Luke and finally John. The story got better with the telling.
I don't feel any such obligation to make arguments from incredulity.
The other logical fallacy in this statement is the false dilemma. Either Jesus was Lord or somebody just made him up? Seriously?
But nobody outside of his evidently insignificant following saw fit to write anything down about him for 100 years.
Two according to the Gospel of John. Start on Passover, go through another Passover, crucified after the third Passover = 2 years.
Any proof outside of Christian mythology (Gospel accounts).
Yeah, because before then, nobody thought about places where the gods dwelt and ways one could satisfy the gods enough to earn a place in Elysium/Valhalla/Heaven.
The Trilemma is such a fascinating conglomeration of logical fallacies that to do it justice would require its own thread.
(May 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm)radorth Wrote: "Our only direct sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are the four Gospels.
Buzzzzzz! Wrong!
Mark, assuming he wrong the Book of Mark, wasn't a witness. It's a book of hearsay on top of hearsay by a dubious author written at least 40 years after the fact. Oh, and we know of at least one significant alteration from the original. The original Mark ended at 16:8.
Matt was a proven liar, judging by all his misrepresentations of the OT. His testimony in court would land him in jail on perjury charges.
Luke wasn't a witness and said so in his opening verses.
John's "advanced" theology, very different from the Synoptics, indicates a later, non-contemporary date.
Ergo, we have no "direct sources". Next?
Bold emphasis not mine:
Quote:All four agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality.
Seriously? What Gospels did you read?
Mark's Jesus was the weakest one who couldn't perform great miracles in his home town because the people there didn't have enough faith.
Matthew's Jesus was the most Jewish, declaring the laws were still in effect and our righteousness would have to exceed the pharisees and that those who don't keep them would be least even if they made it to the Kingdom of Heaven. This Jesus sits oddly alongside the Jesus of Paul who decisively judges only on faith.
The Synoptic Jesus (Matt, Mark and Luke) was separate from and subordinate to his father Yahweh. The Jesus of John claimed that he was one with his father.
Read the NT in the order that the books were written. Start with Revelation, then the Epistles, then Mark, then Matt and Luke and finally John. The story got better with the telling.
Quote:One is obliged to say, “Here was a man. This could not have been invented.” 4
I don't feel any such obligation to make arguments from incredulity.
The other logical fallacy in this statement is the false dilemma. Either Jesus was Lord or somebody just made him up? Seriously?
Quote:....He was clearly a person—to use a common phrase—of intense personal magnetism. He attracted followers and filled them with love and courage. Weak and ailing people were heartened and healed by his presence....
But nobody outside of his evidently insignificant following saw fit to write anything down about him for 100 years.
Quote:He went about the country for three years
Two according to the Gospel of John. Start on Passover, go through another Passover, crucified after the third Passover = 2 years.
Quote:spreading his doctrine and then he came to Jerusalem and was accused of trying to set up a strange kingdom in Judea; he was tried upon this charge, and crucified together with two thieves. Long before these two were dead his sufferings were over...
Any proof outside of Christian mythology (Gospel accounts).
Quote: The doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, which was the main teaching of Jesus, is certainly one of the most revolutionary doctrines that ever stirred and changed human thought. It is small wonder if the world of that time failed to grasp its full significance, and recoiled in dismay from even a half apprehension of its tremendous challenges to the established habits and institutions of mankind..."
Yeah, because before then, nobody thought about places where the gods dwelt and ways one could satisfy the gods enough to earn a place in Elysium/Valhalla/Heaven.
Quote:What you will find is that either you or he is completely full of nonsense. There is no in between.
The Trilemma is such a fascinating conglomeration of logical fallacies that to do it justice would require its own thread.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
