RE: Where did the Jesus myth come from?
September 3, 2012 at 9:52 pm
(This post was last modified: September 3, 2012 at 9:54 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(September 3, 2012 at 9:46 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:(September 3, 2012 at 9:11 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Excuse me sir, my study Bible tells me verses 9-20 were a later addition i.e. another bit of fabrication on the Jesus story. Care to explain?
It's not an addition to what Jesus said.
If you dont like Mark 16:15 how about...
Matthew 28:19
''Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
No?
How about Luke 24:47?
''And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.''
Not good enough?
If you're gonna call them fabrications why bother to be selective?
Just put the historicity of Jesus and all His words into the same atheist trash can of disbelief along with the entire bible - thats where ALL theism belongs right?
Why bother about the historicity of Jesus when you're simply going to dismiss Him as lunatic or liar rather than Lord?
Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and the source known as "Q." They're not independent accounts. That's why you see Jesus saying some of the same stuff in different gospels. This is a fairly uncontroversial theory about how the gospels came about that even many fundamentalist scholars now accept. I have never seen any serious counter arguments that weren't just faith based objections against the theory to maintain the old "independent eye witness" account idea.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
