Ref. Post #150: The great commission was for the apostles to hit the road and go to all of the lands from Spain to India to Ethiopia and beyond to locate the Jews and to preach to them. To think that Jesus meant for the apostles to convert the Gentiles is silly when he plainly told the dummies to stay away from them.

As I said before, how do you expect Gentiles to get into the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem (Clue #1 that it's just for the Jews) and there isn't a gate for them to enter? There are 12 gates for the 12 tribes of Israel. Do you think you will be able to scale the wall and sneak in?

Even though the story is imaginary try to use some of the rational thinking skills that you use in other areas of your life. You won't get in because you are not a member of the clique (if the story wasn't BS in the first place).

I reeeallly didn't want to jump into this one, but I will defend a pretty simple point.
First of all, we haven't gotten to 150 posts yet. You probably were referring to Post #104.
Second of all, you have to prove that the Great Commission (when Jesus talks to his disciples after his Resurrection) somehow was an instruction to keep away from Gentiles. Just paste a little snippet of xenophobic text and cite it. Thanks.

Regarding the historicity of Jesus and what the gospels say about it, you all are taking the position not that they are fairly accurate until proven otherwise, but they are "hopelessly inconsistent" and unreliable until proven that they are not. Why should this be the default position, OR do you think that there is proof that they are inaccurate and unreliable? If so, please share.

From the beginning of Luke: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

How is this not what you are looking for? Someone talked to eyewitnesses and wrote everything down? We rely on this standard all the time.

The reason most scholars agree that Jesus not only existed, but was indeed crucified is the gospel accounts from 4 different groups of people, some mention of him from Josephus and Tacitus, but most importantly, that the early church would not have developed as it did had not a core of these things been true. This is called corraborating evidence and is considered very good evidence when judging historical events.

You all have your head in the sand if you think Jesus did not live, teach, and die on a cross.

---

Regarding Jesus, gentiles, and the Great Commission, this is another example of you taking things out of context without understanding the whole framework (or more probably parroting some other person who seemed to know what they were talking about and didn't). From the gospel of John:

John 3:16 (the world, not the Jews)
John 10:16 (sheep not of this fold, one flock, one shepherd)

As I said before, Jesus had a specific mission that centered around the Jews. There is no conflict between the focus he had and the gentiles. The great commission said all nations--there is not a shred of context clues that this meant Jews. The apostles did not take it that way and they were there.

Some of you referred to the 12 gates. You have to be kidding. Revelations is full of imagery and symbolism. Where does it even hint that these gates are for specific people? Gates have names. I really don't know where you get this stuff.

In order to do the topic of mutual, internal and historical contradictions in The Jesus Timeline, it's going to require an extensive post but I'm going to dash out a prelude quickly before I have to get to work in "real life".

(July 30, 2014 at 8:19 am)SteveII Wrote: Regarding the historicity of Jesus and what the gospels say about it, you all are taking the position not that they are fairly accurate until proven otherwise, but they are "hopelessly inconsistent" and unreliable until proven that they are not. Why should this be the default position, OR do you think that there is proof that they are inaccurate and unreliable? If so, please share.

Will do but before we even get started on that, you need to realize how you're coming across.

Imagine a courtroom setting, as apologists are wont to use in their allusions. The prosecuting attorney get's up and says, "OK, I know it seems like all our witnesses contradicted each other but let me explain..."

Without any other information on this story, we know prosecution's case is in serious trouble.

We know this before we even hear what he has to say.

Why?

There's an old saying in debates: "When you have to explain, you're losing."

This is not to say that the prosecution might not be able to save their precarious case but the attorney needs to have a really solid, air-tight explanation to do so. Until we hear it, the natural inclination is to assume that the situation is what it looks like: the witnesses are contradicting each other.

This is the normal "default position" for an unbiased listener.

Clear?

The fact that you had to link to a website with pages of explanations to try to clear away all the "apparent contradictions" on Quirinius means you're already in trouble. This website's explanations better be good.

You should also know about a logical fallacy called the abuse of the ad hoc hypothesis.





"The parot's not dead; he's resting"
"He's stunned"
"You stunned him just as he was waking up"
"Norwegian Blue's stun easily."
"Maybe he's just pining for the fijords."
"Well, of course he was nailed there..."

When you need to come up with an endless stream of improvised ad hoc hypotheses to defend your position, Occam's Razor needs to be invoked. The simpler explanation is that the situation is what it looks like: the parot is dead.

Quote:How is this not what you are looking for? Someone talked to eyewitnesses and wrote everything down? We rely on this standard all the time.

This is called "hearsay testimony".

That the sources aren't named makes it "anonymous hearsay testimony".

Quote:Josephus and Tacitus,

Phase II of the "of course Jesus existed" argument has begun.

(July 30, 2014 at 8:19 am)SteveII Wrote: The reason most scholars agree that Jesus not only existed, but was indeed crucified is the gospel accounts from 4 different groups of people, some mention of him from Josephus and Tacitus, but most importantly, that the early church would not have developed as it did had not a core of these things been true. This is called corraborating evidence and is considered very good evidence when judging historical events.

You all have your head in the sand if you think Jesus did not live, teach, and die on a cross.

I don't think you understand early church propaganda. If the church's core beliefs were based on truths as you say, there would've been no need destroy the works of it's critics or forge the works of early historians and other authors. The small mention of jesus in Josephus's and Tacitus's work is believed to be likely forged by Eusebius. The mention of jesus didn't show up in Josephus's work until centuries after Josephus died. Tacitus's work was much of the same. With that in mind your corroborating evidence is weak considering the only other reference for jesus is the bible/gospel accounts.

(July 30, 2014 at 12:43 pm)BrownBabyJesus Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 8:19 am)SteveII Wrote: The reason most scholars agree that Jesus not only existed, but was indeed crucified is the gospel accounts from 4 different groups of people, some mention of him from Josephus and Tacitus, but most importantly, that the early church would not have developed as it did had not a core of these things been true. This is called corraborating evidence and is considered very good evidence when judging historical events.

You all have your head in the sand if you think Jesus did not live, teach, and die on a cross.

I don't think you understand early church propaganda. If the church's core beliefs were based on truths as you say, there would've been no need destroy the works of it's critics or forge the works of early historians and other authors. The small mention of jesus in Josephus's and Tacitus's work is believed to be likely forged by Eusebius. The mention of jesus didn't show up in Josephus's work until centuries after Josephus died. Tacitus's work was much of the same. With that in mind your corroborating evidence is weak considering the only other reference for jesus is the bible/gospel accounts.

I don't understand early church propaganda--you mean creating the myth of Jesus - the perpetration of the largest hoax in the history of the world? So large and so complicated as to defy reason? AND so thoroughly successful that it has endured, no, thrived for 2000 years? It's fingerprints can be found on almost ever facet of modern society. The brilliance!!

If you think this really happened, what do you think the motives of the perpetrators were to start a religion that teaches humility, love, respect, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, and servant-leaders--BASED on lies and fabrication?

What do you mean destroy the works of it's critics and other authors?

While you bring up one reference to Jesus that Josephus made--which may or may not have been altered, you left out mention of the other one--which no one thinks has been altered.

I see no such claims with Tacitus' writings.

This is fascinating. I have really never encountered anyone who really thought Jesus was a myth. I can understand all the other objections about teachings, resurrection, etc., but this one boarders on absurd.

The "success" of christianity is due mostly to european colonization not jesus. Other religions teach love, humility, blah blah blah. That has nothing to do with Christianity's lies and fabrications, it's really nothing more than a smoke screen for its real motives.

The early church destroyed the writings of critics and others who opposed christianity. This known partly because of the refutations given by early apologists such as Origen, Clement, etc.

Josephus was a Jew who never converted to christianity so he obviously didn't believe jesus was the "Christ". During Josephus's time there were no tribes of christians. Not only that if jesus was as an important figure as claimed Josephus would've wrote about him, he never even quotes him.

Tacitus was confused about not only who was persecuted by the Romans but his writings also used terminology not used during his time, hint more forgery.

Another problem is no contemporary writers of Jesus's era make mention of him. It's hard to debate what he taught if it can't be proven that he actually lived. Maybe I should pull my head out of the sand.

(July 29, 2014 at 8:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: I would like to know how the gospels contradict each other in some meaningful way. When police question people and they have exactly the same story, it is suspicious.

This topic requires its own thread, which I have started here.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27761.html

Quote:Why do you think that the events spanning 3 years from four different groups of people would not have some minor differences. You are holding these documents to insane standards.

This is not about "minor differences". You think I'm talking about the color of Jesus' robe?

Quote:Later on, you mention that the miracle stories need to be held to a higher standard. How many accounts would make you feel comfortable that miracles really happened and there was a God?

How about any contemporary accounts?

We'll discuss all the razzle-dazzle of apologists in that other thread.

Quote:Islam was spread by the sword.

And you think Christianity wasn't?

Seriously?

Seriously?

Quote:Your continued comparison of the apostles and the cult nut jobs illustrates your lack of understanding the bigger picture of how all this works together to form a consistent message and theological framework.

Yeah, it's called "special pleading". David Koresh was crazy. Jim Jones was crazy. But the early Christians knew the TRUTH!

Quote:How did Jesus bring Paul down earth?

As Judge Judy once said, "either your pretending to be dumb or it's not an act."

Quote:So if the apostles and early church leaders met and weeded out the heresies, we can be even more confident that what we have today is what was intended by Jesus.

So you think Jesus' hand worked through the ones killing all the heretics?

(July 29, 2014 at 8:42 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Aw, did I hurt your fee-fees?

You are unable to post on-topic and repeatedly tried to shift the argument away from the topic. Goodbye.

---

(July 30, 2014 at 8:19 am)SteveII Wrote: Regarding the historicity of Jesus and what the gospels say about it, you all are taking the position not that they are fairly accurate until proven otherwise, but they are "hopelessly inconsistent" and unreliable until proven that they are not. Why should this be the default position, OR do you think that there is proof that they are inaccurate and unreliable? If so, please share.

Okay, clearly this is not directed at me, but I must respond. My argument isn't that the inconsistencies in the gospel accounts are major - they're relatively minor - but I'm asking the question of what Jesus taught. Now as I've shown he categorizes the Pharisees as changing the Law of God which is precisely what the first century Christians do in Acts 15/AD 50/the Jerusalem Council. It is also my argument that I agree with scholars that we have 99.5% of the original wording of the NT (and ~95% of the OT) and that the gospels were most likely written between 50-63AD including John. That doesn't mean all their facts are right, and we know for certain that some are wrong. For instance, Jesus casts Legion out in two entirely different locations (Mark/Matthew) and we are certain we have the original wording of those verses so at the very least Matthew or Mark is wrong in that verse. We also have two contradictory accounts of Judas regarding who bought the field. Both can't be right, either Judas bought it or the Jewish authorities bought it, or no one bought it - but both can't be right at the same time.

Quote:From the beginning of Luke: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

How is this not what you are looking for? Someone talked to eyewitnesses and wrote everything down? We rely on this standard all the time.

Oh there's no evidence that Luke ever talked to any eye witnesses. Paul did, but we don't have any evidence whatsoever that Luke had sources other than written for the life of Jesus.

Quote:The reason most scholars agree that Jesus not only existed, but was indeed crucified is the gospel accounts from 4 different groups of people, some mention of him from Josephus and Tacitus, but most importantly, that the early church would not have developed as it did had not a core of these things been true. This is called corraborating evidence and is considered very good evidence when judging historical events.

I agree with you, Jesus was indeed crucified sometime 30-35AD and most likely on the 4th day of the week (Wednesday as we would call it). But that doesn't prove that he was resurrected. The resurrection accounts are not written until at least AD 50.

Quote:You all have your head in the sand if you think Jesus did not live, teach, and die on a cross.

Again I agree and this thread is about identifying exactly what he did teach.

(July 31, 2014 at 3:52 am)Aractus Wrote: You are unable to post on-topic and repeatedly tried to shift the argument away from the topic. Goodbye.

Your new excuse for running away is bullcrap as well. My points, which you were trying to engage unsuccessfully until you broke off and beat a hasty retreat, have been that we can't know what Jesus taught because we have no reliable information to go on. You were unable to answer my questions or refute my points so you fled, dishonestly making up excuses to cover your tracks.

But do return when you can either address the problems with the Gospel accounts that you rely on to know what Jesus taught or admit that I'm right and you're musing about matters akin to the true Jedi teachings or how the United Federation's of Planets' laws would apply in certain situations.