Jesus : The Early years

[Minimalist]

I guess these people would regard G-C as a heretic.  Or an idiot.

https://factsaboutreligion.wordpress.com...n-authors/

Most biblical scholars say the gospels are anonymous documents by unknown authors

All four of the canonical gospels were originally anonymous. It was only in the second century CE, when the four gospels were published a a collection that the superscriptions were added to the gospels, attributing authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. This is also the time that traditions begin to appear about the authors, claiming that they were either original apostles of Jesus or close acquaintances of other well-known apostles. in spite of these attributions, most scholars do not think any of these men were the original gospel writers. None of the gospels is written in a style that suggests the authors was present at the events being narrated. Nor is it likely that the disciples of Jesus were able to write in Greek, the language in which the gospels were written. So we are left with the reality that the gospels were written by anonymous Christians decades after the events that they relate.” (1)

Dr. David M. Carr (Union Theological Seminary) & Dr Colleen M. Conway (Seton Hall University)

[brewer]

They paid one of the jealous siblings to do a tell all.

[Anomalocaris]

They paid one of the jealous siblings to do a tell all.

And the divine polygraph found nothing wrong with their tales.

[brewer]

They paid one of the jealous siblings to do a tell all.

And the divine polygraph found nothing wrong with their tales.

Is that the same as the pregnancy/abortion test?

[Minimalist]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...berts.html

That "jesus" was a nasty little shit.

3. And the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a willow branch, and let out the waters which Jesus bad collected. And Jesus, seeing what was done, was angry, and said to him: O wicked, impious, and foolish! what harm did the pools and the waters do to thee? Behold, even now thou shalt be dried up like a tree, and thou shalt not bring forth either leaves, or root, or fruit. And straightway that boy was quite dried up. And Jesus departed, and went to Joseph's house. But the parents of the boy that had been dried up took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and reproached him because, said they, thou hast such a child doing such things.

4. After that He was again passing through the village; and a boy ran up against Him, and struck His shoulder. And Jesus was angry, and said to him: Thou shalt not go back the way thou camest. And immediately he fell down dead. And some who saw what had taken place, said: Whence was this child begotten, that every word of his is certainly accomplished? And the parents of the dead boy went away to Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Since thou hast such a child, it is impossible for thee to live with us in the village; or else teach him to bless, and not to curse: for he is killing our children.

What a miserable little motherfucker!

[Godscreated]

To all those who asked this question, you would think one person asking would be enough but I guess your insecurity overwhelms you at times.

 Now the answer, if you had cared to read instead of copying other posts only one would have had to ask.

 Luke 1: 1-4  Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of things that have been accomplished among us, just as those from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke tells us that he learned from those who were there from the beginning and Mary was certainly there at the beginning. For people who claim to be logical you all sure have a hard time proving it, it is logical Luke asked those in the life of Jesus what happened and only Mary could have told him of the earliest years.

GC

---

 Really, how could you know that, unless you have been around for a couple thousand years. Those writings have been excluded from consideration because of the falsehoods in them.

GC

Well, we currently have you claiming that only you are correct. Fine. I have no reason to accept that.

We have others claiming that allah is the only way.

We have others claiming some rather strangeness.

What makes your claim better? To me it is simply another woo claim among many others.  what exactly makes your claim special? What evidence have you to show for it that should convince me? So far, you seem to have not a damn thing, but I am willing to board whatever you have to offer for your arbitrarily chosen deity as opposed to any of the others competing so long as you can show that your deity exist. Perhaps you will be the first to do so. Nobody ever has before.

 What I have presented has been accepted for 2000 years, none of it has ever been disproved nor will it because if it can't be for 2000 years there's no hope it will now. As for allah he was imagined 600 years after Jesus. God has not asked me nor any other Christian to prove Him, not even the Bible tries to prove God, you want proof you will need to get it like I did, from God himself.

GC

---

 Really, how could you know that, unless you have been around for a couple thousand years. Those writings have been excluded from consideration because of the falsehoods in them.

GC

We know that the books that were included also contain falsehoods. We also know that the books I mentioned were accepted as valid for centuries and that they predate the books you accept. If you reject the two books I mentioned then you must apply the same criteria to the other gospels.

 No I don't. Those books are not accepted and as far as predating anything I've never seen proof of it and even if they were that doesn't qualify them as reliable and true. All of the Bible is true and has never been disproved, if you have information it's false then you need to present it since no one else here has in all the time I've been here. Great scholars put together the Bible from all the manuscripts of 2000 years past and many scholars have proved it reliable since. The 2000 years I use is a general time line to keep from looking up precise dates.

GC

---

To all those who asked this question, you would think one person asking would be enough but I guess your insecurity overwhelms you at times.

 Now the answer, if you had cared to read instead of copying other posts only one would have had to ask.

 Luke 1: 1-4  Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of things that have been accomplished among us, just as those from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke tells us that he learned from those who were there from the beginning and Mary was certainly there at the beginning. For people who claim to be logical you all sure have a hard time proving it, it is logical Luke asked those in the life of Jesus what happened and only Mary could have told him of the earliest years.

GC

---

So, Mary told Luke this? :

 "In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David"

She was the eyewitness?

 Who do you think Gabriel was sent to, hint, Mary and who do you think Elizabeth was, hint, Mary's aunt. Come on man surely you can do better than this, read all the gospel first.

GC

---

To all those who asked this question, you would think one person asking would be enough but I guess your insecurity overwhelms you at times.

 Now the answer, if you had cared to read instead of copying other posts only one would have had to ask.

 Luke 1: 1-4  Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of things that have been accomplished among us, just as those from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke tells us that he learned from those who were there from the beginning and Mary was certainly there at the beginning. For people who claim to be logical you all sure have a hard time proving it, it is logical Luke asked those in the life of Jesus what happened and only Mary could have told him of the earliest years.

GC

Dude, my first post in this thread quotes this passage. And no, it doesn't say what you claim it says. You're making shit up. Admit it.

 I can't help you deny the truth even when you post it. I making nothing up it is what it is and you can't change it.

GC

---

To all those who asked this question, you would think one person asking would be enough but I guess your insecurity overwhelms you at times.

 Now the answer, if you had cared to read instead of copying other posts only one would have had to ask.

 Luke 1: 1-4  Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of things that have been accomplished among us, just as those from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke tells us that he learned from those who were there from the beginning and Mary was certainly there at the beginning. For people who claim to be logical you all sure have a hard time proving it, it is logical Luke asked those in the life of Jesus what happened and only Mary could have told him of the earliest years.

No, actually it doesn't say that.  It says that because others had done so, it inspired him to write down the conclusions of his investigations.  So it neither says that he interviewed people who were there from the very beginning, nor does it follow that, even if he had, that Mary was necessarily among those he interviewed.  You're simply reading your own prejudices into Luke's account.  If this is the sort of incompetent reading that passes for "study" in your mind, then you have no reason to boast that you know this or that from reading the bible, because obviously you don't.

 You can't prove what I said is wrong or you would have, all you know to do is run your mouth so that you can disguise the lack of Biblical knowledge you have a trick I've seen here many, many times. 

GC

[Minimalist]

Yeah.  Even reputable xtian scholars understand what you are incapable of grasping, G-C.  The gospels were later-constructed and politically motivated horseshit.

When David Carr tells you that you are wrong you may as well sit down, shut your mouth and just be wrong.  Story of your life, man.

[Angrboda]

Luke 1: 1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of things that have been accomplished among us, just as those from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke tells us that he learned from those who were there from the beginning and Mary was certainly there at the beginning. For people who claim to be logical you all sure have a hard time proving it, it is logical Luke asked those in the life of Jesus what happened and only Mary could have told him of the earliest years.

No, actually it doesn't say that.  It says that because others had done so, it inspired him to write down the conclusions of his investigations.  So it neither says that he interviewed people who were there from the very beginning, nor does it follow that, even if he had, that Mary was necessarily among those he interviewed.  You're simply reading your own prejudices into Luke's account.  If this is the sort of incompetent reading that passes for "study" in your mind, then you have no reason to boast that you know this or that from reading the bible, because obviously you don't.

 You can't prove what I said is wrong or you would have, all you know to do is run your mouth so that you can disguise the lack of Biblical knowledge you have a trick I've seen here many, many times. 

GC

Douchebag, I just did prove you wrong. But by all means, piss and moan about it if it makes you feel better.

[Godscreated]

 You can't prove what I said is wrong or you would have, all you know to do is run your mouth so that you can disguise the lack of Biblical knowledge you have a trick I've seen here many, many times. 

GC

Douchebag, I just did prove you wrong.  But by all means, piss and moan about it if it makes you feel better.

You never gave one iota of evidence to the contrary of what I said, that means you did nothing, period.

GC

[GrandizerII]

Dude, my first post in this thread quotes this passage. And no, it doesn't say what you claim it says. You're making shit up. Admit it.

 I can't help you deny the truth even when you post it. I making nothing up it is what it is and you can't change it.

GC

Except you really are making stuff up. I can't help that you desperately need to be right, no matter what. This is a pride issue that you're struggling with, but unfortunately for you, you really are misinterpreting the passage.