Someone stole the body!

[Godscreated]

 I answered your previous question, you asked to see where the Bible says a Christian has a higher discernment of the Bible than you, I provided the verses. Seems you can't even understand the plain and simple of scripture, thus proving my discernment of scripture is higher than yours. I would explain why but you wouldn't understand, it's more involved than the verses I posted for you. Your tactic of deflection will not work here.

GC

You really don't get how preposterous the statement you made was? that started this off and until you address that there is no going forward   I don't believe in God, so why should I prove there is a God 

 Defection is a sign of one being unable to defend his/ her posts. I never asked you to prove God as you are an unbeliever, if I ask anything it would be to disprove God and why shouldn't you, you claim He don't exist.

GC

[madog]

You really don't get how preposterous the statement you made was? that started this off and until you address that there is no going forward   I don't believe in God, so why should I prove there is a God 

 Defection is a sign of one being unable to defend his/ her posts. I never asked you to prove God as you are an unbeliever, if I ask anything it would be to disprove God and why shouldn't you, you claim He don't exist.

GC

I am getting pissed off now    Below is what you said in pink, unedited ......

  I've been doing this for years, I'm not changing now, so get use to it.

 You better get to answering, God is real.

 GC

I even gave you a chance to correct it 

[YahwehIsTheWay]

But "Luke" is not mentioned by anyone prior to Irenaeus in the late 2d century who seems to be the guy who attached the names to these otherwise anonymous stories....Ehrman says that, too.  Instead, the first gospel is the Gospel of the Lord...which turns out to be about 2/3 of "Luke" and guess who mentioned it?  Marcion.  In the same canon (which was also the first of its kind) in which he introduced paul and his so-called epistles.

By Irenaeus' time (c 185) the proto-orthodox ( to use Ehrman's word) had begun to coalesce all this stuff into what they considered a coherent doctrine.  Curiously, right around this time the Greco-Roman philosopher Celsus became the first to mention anyone named "jesus" in his work On The True Doctrine.  This is not a coincidence or a miracle.  This crap got rolling in the mid to late 2d century.

I still find it incredibly funny that "Paul" was originally the poster-boy for Marcionite Christianity, "discovered" by Marcion.


Yet, Paul's letters clearly state things about Jesus that would refute the Marcionite take on Jesus. 

So, since Marcion promoted Paul as a prophet, one can only assume that:

1. Marcion never actually read Paul's letters.
   
2. Marcion was hoping nobody else would read Paul's letters.
   
3. The original letters of Paul were heavily revised. 
   

It all smells as fishy as the Pisces sign that symbolizes Jesus.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The only "disciple" of Jesus whom scholars have information about is Paul, who never even met Jesus, even though they were practically contemporaries.  A whole host of contradictions exist within the Gospels:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

 
 You keep harping on this same thing and all you do is post from biased sites on the net. You do no research of your own and you never go to Christian sites to learn. When I went to the site you posted the first thing to come up was the genealogy of Jesus, showing how it's contradictory.
 
Let's look at he genealogy of scripture, here is the genealogy my Matthew and the one in 1 Chronicles 3:10-12, these are the very same genealogies.

 1 Chronicles 3;10-12                                                           Matthew 1:8-9
     Asa                                                                                      Asa
     Jehoshaphat                                                                        Jehoshaphat
     Joram                                                                                  Joram
     Ahaziah (Uzziah)                                                                    Uzziah
     Joash
     Amaziah
     Azariah
     Jotham                                                                                 Jotham
     Ahaz                                                                                     Ahaz
     Hezekiah                                                                               Hezekiah
     ect.                                                                                       ect.  
 As you see Matthew didn't write down all the genealogy, Matthew when saying Uzziah was the father of Jotham it can mean he was the father who lead to Jotham. Just as the Bible says that Abraham was the father of a nation or the angel said to Joseph, "Joseph son of David." This was the tradition of the ancient times to refer to a man as the father of a great great great grandson or even more distant. Matthew had a reason to eliminate the names, but what he didn't do was to write them out of order. So there is nothing wrong with Matthew's written genealogy, he for reasons unknown to us didn't include all the names. You need to remember that he had access to the genealogies at the temple and could have written them down as recorded in earlier manuscripts. So in the end there's no contradiction with the two, as I stated previously the writers didn't necessarily put down all the facts because they didn't feel it necessary for the times.

GC

Paul said that the genealogies were BS and not worth arguing about.

[Minimalist]

The original letters of Paul Marcion were heavily revised.

That's what I think happened yhwh.

[Jehanne]

The only "disciple" of Jesus whom scholars have information about is Paul, who never even met Jesus, even though they were practically contemporaries.  A whole host of contradictions exist within the Gospels:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

 
 You keep harping on this same thing and all you do is post from biased sites on the net. You do no research of your own and you never go to Christian sites to learn. When I went to the site you posted the first thing to come up was the genealogy of Jesus, showing how it's contradictory.
 
Let's look at he genealogy of scripture, here is the genealogy my Matthew and the one in 1 Chronicles 3:10-12, these are the very same genealogies.

 1 Chronicles 3;10-12                                                           Matthew 1:8-9
     Asa                                                                                      Asa
     Jehoshaphat                                                                        Jehoshaphat
     Joram                                                                                  Joram
     Ahaziah (Uzziah)                                                                    Uzziah
     Joash
     Amaziah
     Azariah
     Jotham                                                                                 Jotham
     Ahaz                                                                                     Ahaz
     Hezekiah                                                                               Hezekiah
     ect.                                                                                       ect.  
 As you see Matthew didn't write down all the genealogy, Matthew when saying Uzziah was the father of Jotham it can mean he was the father who lead to Jotham. Just as the Bible says that Abraham was the father of a nation or the angel said to Joseph, "Joseph son of David." This was the tradition of the ancient times to refer to a man as the father of a great great great grandson or even more distant. Matthew had a reason to eliminate the names, but what he didn't do was to write them out of order. So there is nothing wrong with Matthew's written genealogy, he for reasons unknown to us didn't include all the names. You need to remember that he had access to the genealogies at the temple and could have written them down as recorded in earlier manuscripts. So in the end there's no contradiction with the two, as I stated previously the writers didn't necessarily put down all the facts because they didn't feel it necessary for the times.

GC

There are some flat-out errors in the New Testament, such as the author of Luke claiming that Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

[Minimalist]

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius WAS the Imperial Legate (governor) of Syria.  But far too late to save the jesus story from the scorn it so richly deserves.

The stupidest part of that story is that Augustus never conducted any such census.

[Pat Mustard]

But "Luke" is not mentioned by anyone prior to Irenaeus in the late 2d century who seems to be the guy who attached the names to these otherwise anonymous stories....Ehrman says that, too.  Instead, the first gospel is the Gospel of the Lord...which turns out to be about 2/3 of "Luke" and guess who mentioned it?  Marcion.  In the same canon (which was also the first of its kind) in which he introduced paul and his so-called epistles.

By Irenaeus' time (c 185) the proto-orthodox ( to use Ehrman's word) had begun to coalesce all this stuff into what they considered a coherent doctrine.  Curiously, right around this time the Greco-Roman philosopher Celsus became the first to mention anyone named "jesus" in his work On The True Doctrine.  This is not a coincidence or a miracle.  This crap got rolling in the mid to late 2d century.

I still find it incredibly funny that "Paul" was originally the poster-boy for Marcionite Christianity, "discovered" by Marcion.


Yet, Paul's letters clearly state things about Jesus that would refute the Marcionite take on Jesus. 

So, since Marcion promoted Paul as a prophet, one can only assume that:

1. Marcion never actually read Paul's letters.
   
2. Marcion was hoping nobody else would read Paul's letters.
   
3. The original letters of Paul were heavily revised. 
   

It all smells as fishy as the Pisces sign that symbolizes Jesus.

Marcion was the one who believed there is a good go and a bad god. That the bad god was worshipped by the jews and created this world, so Jebus was sent to correct these errers. Am I correct?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

OK, something weird is happening with my reply posts. When I post, the system deletes what I typed and just captions the post I'm replying to. Tech support?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Dorfl,

Sort of. 

The Marcionites didn't think Yahweh was "evil" per se but rather an inferior and incompetent god. Jesus was not "sent" but rather WAS the higher and superior god who took pity on us one day and offered us a ticket out. 

Jesus, according to Marcion, was never a baby. There was no birth, virgin or otherwise. No Mary and Joseph. No nativity scene. All of that was tossed out along with the Old Testament and all things Jewish. Jesus appeared, as all gods do, on earth one day as a fully formed adult and that's where the story began. Marcionite Christianity fit in with the gnostic ideas that this was a flawed world and those who could learn certain secrets of salvation could escape to a better one. 

It was popular among early Christians and was a contender at Nicaea. Ultimately, it failed because it had no link with the past. It was a "new" religion, since it was tossing out everything from before. The Romans were suspicious of any religion that didn't have any bone fides with antiquity because of the reasoning, "If your religion is true, how come nobody's heard about it until now? Was God just watching us get it wrong all this time and suddenly now has decided to talk to one guy who will tell us what's what?" 

I'm looking at you Mohammed and Joseph Smith. 

So Christianity needed a link to the past. It needed the OT as a foundation and then build the yarn as if Christianity were the fulfillment of what the Jews had believed until that point. Hence, the Orthodox version, as clumsy as it is with it's Trinity, was triumphant at Nicaea.