Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
April 28, 2015 at 5:54 pm (This post was last modified: April 28, 2015 at 5:57 pm by goodwithoutgod.
Edit Reason: put my response inside his quote by accident
)
(February 27, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(February 21, 2015 at 9:43 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: The book is a fabricated lie...fact.
The synoptic gospels are the very definition of pseudepigrapha (look it up).
People die for what they believe every day, that is not the litmus test for truth, that is the litmus test for conviction. ISIS is convinced they are right, Jim Jones thought he was right, and so did all of his followers...I would suggest otherwise...
No, the gospels are not eyewitness testimony, you aren't very good at this are you?
Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.
Mark is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.
Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.
Matthew is riddled with whimsical creative writings as well. I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?
Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?
Matthew: The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.
John 20:30-31 - "but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye might have life through his name".......just about says it all right there, let me paraphrase; "we are making up these stories to help people believe...the story."
This sounds like a red flag that what we are reading should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.
Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.
James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once at the beginning of James 1 and James 2 as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.
Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.
paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.
There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.
OT?
Today we know that the Judean priests cooked up/assembled Genesis for political reasons in Babylon as a text for reference for the return, to provide a national story and a legal system for a basis for the return. They did it around 575-550 BCE, in order to promote political unity during a crisis caused by the exilic experience in Babylon, after having written the book of Job, (as an attempted "spiritual" response to the question of suffering). While the "Persian Imperative" is now discounted by scholars, it was probably on the right track in some ways, i.e. the unification of the warring priestly class with the Yahwist land owners into a unified, post exile state. In any case in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah it describes the Return from Babylon, with Ezra carrying two things, ... the letter from Artaxerxes giving him and the King the power to rule in his name, and the Torah of Moses --- the first time in human history what is now the beginnings of "The Bible" (The Scroll of Moses), are ever mentioned.
We don't know of anything "jesus" said as every word ever written about him is by someone who never met him.
and no, He is not the fulfilled prophesy.
The Bible claims that Jesus made the following comment:
Matthew 16:28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Jesus also advised against going to court over someone who steals something and also told people not to store up stocks or reserves for the future. Clearly, he thought the end was very near.
Likewise, Paul advised followers not to marry and that the end time was near. In this scripture he obviously believes that some of the people he is talking to will still be alive at the second coming.
I Thessalonians 4: 16-18
“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.”
The obvious fact is that the second coming was not forthcoming at that time, or even close to being near. The 2000-year delay is a strong piece of evidence that Christianity is a failed religion.
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. Remember that Jesus was a Jew who had no intention to deviate from the Hebrew scriptures:
“Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)”
Jesus’ immediate followers, mostly his 12 disciples, probably did not immediately identify this failure, because after Jesus’ body was likely stolen and concealed, a rumor spread that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. A sense of optimism overcame their grief about his execution and renewed some hope that he was a true messiah. If they had known then that there was to be no return in the near or long-term future, they likely would have abandoned any further activity. Despite this resurgence in their faith, they never agreed with Paul’s concept of Jesus as being divine. Anything written in the Bible to suggest that they did is probably a result of later editing by some of Paul’s followers. Such a belief would have been an exceptional departure from the Jewish faith.
Reference:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.
If you need any more education in your faith, let me know, I love helping those who proclaim faith in something without evidence and then don't even know the historicity of the Bible.
EDIT: As an added bonus, here are my top ten favorite biblical interpolations (scriptures added in after the fact).
It seems that some of the most familiar verses of the New Testament were not originally part of the text, but were added by later scribes. The scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of earlier centuries. Some of the best-known English editions of the New Testament, such as the King James Bible, were based not on early manuscripts, but later ones, these verses became part of the Bible tradition in English speaking lands.
1 John 5:7 - there are three that bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
John 8:7 – let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.
John 8:11 – neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.
Luke 22:44 – in his anguish Jesus began to pray more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.
Luke 22:20 – and in the same way after supper Jesus took the cup and said, "this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
Mark 16:17 – these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues.
Mark 16:18 – and they will take up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any poison it will not harm them, and they will lay their hands on the sick and they will become well.
John 5:4 – for an angel of the Lord went down at certain times into the pool and disturbed the waters; and whoever was the first to step in when the water was disturbed was healed of whatever disease he had.
Luke 24:12 – but Peter rose up and ran to the tomb, and stooping down to look in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves. And he went away to his own home, marveling at what had happened.
Luke 24:51 – and when Jesus blessed them he departed from them and he was taken up into heaven.
I have neither the time or energy to address your post in full, but what I find interesting is that despite all your religious education, you haven't learned that the NIV version of the Bible (I believe that's what your using) changes the context of scriptures and even omits whole passages.
I'll give a few examples.
Missing parts in bold
As you can see in the last example, a whole scripture was omitted.
The KJV is translated verbatim from the Hebrew/Greek and the context it places words in matter, which is why we're instructed not to add to or take away from the scriptures.
As I have proven, the NIV does just this.
Anyway, my point is, If you're going to attempt to argue Bible "contradictions" use a version of the Bible that isn't in error.
All "versions of bible" are in error, I use KJV and the catholic study bible primarily. If you are going to try to argue the bible with me, you may want to learn a bit more about it first.
(April 28, 2015 at 5:54 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote:
(February 27, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
I have neither the time or energy to address your post in full, but what I find interesting is that despite all your religious education, you haven't learned that the NIV version of the Bible (I believe that's what your using) changes the context of scriptures and even omits whole passages.
I'll give a few examples.
Missing parts in bold
As you can see in the last example, a whole scripture was omitted.
The KJV is translated verbatim from the Hebrew/Greek and the context it places words in matter, which is why we're instructed not to add to or take away from the scriptures.
As I have proven, the NIV does just this.
Anyway, my point is, If you're going to attempt to argue Bible "contradictions" use a version of the Bible that isn't in error.
All "versions of bible" are in error, I use KJV and the catholic study bible primarily. If you are going to try to argue the bible with me, you may want to learn a bit more about it first.
May I suggest the bible hub to assist you perhaps? you can type in any scripture and compare with all major bible versions, enjoy.
