The Historical Jesus

[h311inac311]

Hello h3311inac311...

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity is possible? 

You seem to be ignoring that question? 

Do you know that the canonical gospel are anonymous, no one knows who wrote them, and the earliest of them dates to decades after the events they purport to describe. Tha names, Matthew Mark Luke and John were assigned arbitrarily over 3 centuries later, in an attempt to lend the gospel myths some gravitas. 

Not one contemporary word was written about the Jesus character, and thus there are no eyewitness accounts to anything outside of the unevidenced claims in the hearsay of the gospel myths. 

1) Yes, different but not contradictory...

The difference in the genealogies is a contradiction, they cannot both be true.

2) Please give me some scriptural references here, I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.

It's in the bible, I am not researching this for you, if you want to ignore this contradiction that's up to you, but it is a well known fact among biblical scholars. 

3) Again I'm still not seeing the contradiction here.

The two accounts have them living in different places??

4) a contradiction isn't present here.

Yes it clearly is "Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised." Those accounts axiomatically contradict each other. 

5) What is Luke's chronology?

The quote explains specifically how the chronology of events in Luke contradicts the chronological events in Mathew, it can't be made any clearer??

We all want to live the correct life in the correct way, we all want to be right, we want our beliefs to hold True. 

The most efficacious way to determine truth is the amount of objective evidence that support a claim, we have none for the any deity, or that a deity is even possible.

I wasn't planning on making this topic about "is God real" or "how do you know the Hebrew God is real" so that's why I've been ignoring that aspect of the discussion.


If I'm being honest I don't know the process by which we got the names of the Gospel writers, however, I was never really fixated on that point because I'm not sure how knowing the name of the person who wrote something affects the credibility of what they wrote.

Whoever wrote the book of Acts for instance didn't seem at all concerned that you knew their name. To me it seems that the content of the writing matters a lot more than the name of the person who wrote it.

"and the earliest of them dates to decades after the events they purport to describe." - Sheldon
     Okay so there goes all of ancient history. Sorry but someone writing a whole biography about someone's life less than a century after they died was actually pretty rare back then. Books were a lot more expensive and people who knew how to write were much more rare as well. Imagine if I wanted to write a biography about someone like Abraham Lincoln, would that be an impossible task today? Couldn't I talk to people whose great grandparents knew him personally?

One of the earliest biographies about Alexander the Great was written in 40 AD by a Roman historian named Quintus Curtius Rufus. Modern historians still consider this work to be very important in understanding Alexander's life even though it was written more than 300 years after his death.

As for early mentions of Jesus we have the James Ossuary which is dated to around 70 AD and in aramaic reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Beyond that we also have Jesus mentioned in the Talmud. 
       "On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried. "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover"
       
1) How many parents do you have?

2) Can you name one of these Biblical scholars?

3) The Matthew account mentions that baby Jesus was taken to Egypt, the Luke account omits this fact. Both stories begin and end in the same place. Both stories can be true at the same time. Jesus could be born in Bethlehem, met with the wise-men, taken to the temple for circumcision, then taken to Egypt and then traveled back to Nazareth and both accounts would be correct. 

4) No, Luke simply doesn't mention that Jesus was taken to Egypt after being circumcised. It is certainly not an axiomatic contradiction as you say. Both accounts can be true at the same time.