(July 29, 2014 at 8:37 pm)SteveII Wrote:(July 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I do see the distinction. I've read the essays by Bart Ehrman. All he offers is ad hominems and other logical fallacies. This is not evidence by any standard. So "the scholars say so" is meaningless unless you can pony up some evidence aside from "stupid mythers".
But let all that go, since I'm a Jesus Mooter. Your burden is not simply to prove that some guy named Yeshua was a doom crier and after he died his followers deified him like those who saw Elvis and urban legends about miracles and wonders began to grow. Your burden is to prove that he actually worked miracles and rose from the dead.
Four hopelessly contradictory accounts.
Because even if we're so generous as to omit discussion of the miracles and other supernatural events, the accounts are anonymously written (attributed by "tradition") that record hearsay testimony (they are written by non-witnesses, sometimes about things even with witnesses they quote couldn't have witnessed, making it hearsay on hearsay) that were subjected to all manner of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation (we know of at least one undisputed and major revision in Mark 16) and they contradict one another and what we know of actual history. In some cases, as with Matthew, they contain blatant lies and so are uncredible testimony. I can elaborate on each of these points as you like.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The existence of Socrates or Alexander the Great is within the realm of what we understand to be the natural universe. The miracle-working godman is extraordinary. I hold such claims about Jesus to a higher standard.
Let's begin at the beginning. What decade was Jesus born?
No because nobody that I know of suggests a conspiracy.
You're using folklore to prove mythology.
That's not unique. Islam did the same.
Did people look for a tomb back then?
Yeah, it does.
I never said anyone made up the religion.
Can you prove that the original "witnesses" to the resurrection of Jesus went to their deaths for their beliefs?
Ah, OK. So David Koresh and Jim Jones went to their deaths for what they sincerely believed because they were crazy but the disciples of Jesus did so because they knew The Truth.
Special pleading.
Jim Jones and David Koresh could also be charming and appear not to be crazy. They did so well enough to draw a following. Not all crazy people seem crazy.
We'll let go how the only detailed accounts of Jesus and the apostles only come to us through scripture and Christian folklore. We'll also let go how we don't have nearly enough information to psycho-analyze them as you have done.
All of that granted and taking your scripture and folklore at face value, you are committing confirmation bias. These are saintly men to you and so you see them as saintly.
Would it surprise you that I see the Paul of Galatians as a bombastic bully, thinking of himself on a mission from his god and accountable to no one? Would it surprise you that I see Jesus as an egotistical cult leader, indistinguishable from David Koresh or Jim Jones? Would it surprise you that I see the early Christians as fanatics, viewing them the same way you would these crazy cultists that you dismiss?
Clearly, not all Jews bought it. Those who don't today have good reason to think Jesus was not the Messiah, even as the story is written.
Yeah, it was. Even Christian scholars say so. I'll look up the annotations to my Bible when I get home. If you disagree, get a plane ticket to London and take it up with Oxford.
...and hence Christology was a divisive issue for a long time, leading to the many factions of Christianity. Today, you have papered over it with the doctrine of "The Trinity".
Jesus. Not Paul.
I didn't say they did.
I merely bring them up to show there was anything but consensus on who and what Jesus was and what he taught. Even when the Bible was penned, Jesus seems a mysterious character.
Sorry, missed your responses earlier.
You mention that the authors are anonymous. It seems that after Mark, each of the other gospel writers knew of the existence of Mark and then contributed sources from that particular group that followed the disciple for which the book was named. How does that affect the historicity of the account? If anything, no glaring contradictions strengthen the argument for the gospels.
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. 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.
I would love to discuss a serious matter and not who went where after what. I think you "hopelessly contradictory" is a ridiculous assertion.
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?
Jesus is thought to have been born between 6-4 BC. If you are going to mention the census thing and Herod, read this article. http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp
Islam was spread by the sword. Hardly a good analogy.
Your listing of versus in Luke does nothing to suggest that this all happened in one day. In fact, Acts 1:3 (written by the same author) clears up the timeline quite nicely.
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.
How did Jesus bring Paul down earth?
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.
(July 29, 2014 at 7:32 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: What did Jesus say?
Matthew 15:24 (CEB) = Jesus replied, “I’ve been sent only to the lost sheep, the people of Israel.”
So unless you are one of the clique there's no reason to care what he said. After all, the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem doesn't have a gate for Gentiles.
It was very clear throughout the gospels that Jesus' ministry was to the Jews. He was fulfilling their law, their prophesies, arguing with their teachers, etc. After all that was complete, he also gave the "great commission" which clearly includes gentiles. Again, you cannot take a sentence or even passage without looking at the complete framework in which these events happened and the systematic theology that results from including all the material.
(July 29, 2014 at 5:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Appealing to authority won't help you. Are you ready to accept the historical documents that establish the existence of Thor and Perseus?
3 wasted minutes. Was the initial appeal to authority not enough for you? Show me their evidence. It's that simple.
You're the skeptic and the one that decided not to accept the conclusions of history scholars. You can spend the next hundred years redoing all of their research if you like. Deal with it. Jesus lived, was crucified, his followers believed 100% that he rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be.
You don't understand, scholars accept that a historical jesus existed based on the gospels not based on any actual evidence. Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man. You are simply making an appeal to historical scholars and what their opinion is and he is asking you to provide some evidence.
