Correct the mistakes

Discussions amongst Christians about life issues, walking with Christ, and general Christian topics that don't fit under any other area.
IceMobster
Senior Member
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Europe

Correct the mistakes

Postby IceMobster » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:33 am

The gospels were written by people who lived in Rome perhaps just a few decades after when Jesus would have been around and the fact that they knew about something like the census - I mean, why wouldn't they know about the census? That's saying Sweeney Todd was a real barber because boats exist. Christianity came from a very small group of apocalyptic Jews talking about a new prophet that no one else in Rome seemed to have heard of before, and in the period of time it took for the story of Jesus to be written down in records we have today, they already disagreed wildly. The gospels and their beliefs that are canonized don't agree on a damned thing.

I'll grant you that when you arrange the gospels chronologically, even breaking it down into source Q and all that, the earlier stories of Jesus are distinctly non-supernatural (that seems like it was almost the point since Jesus was a prophets whose struggle was that he was a mere man). That makes it sound like Jesus started out as a real historical account that was interesting and meaningful and then overtime got simplified largely into "well, Jesus was magic that's why he's so important." But at the same time, the philosophy of Jesus is directly lifted from contemporaneous philosophy movements and specific accounts were generally incredibly fanciful or mundane.

Even if the gospels ultimately derive from a real event which was meaningful to the Jewish cults of the time, if the accounts are off-the-wall, non-objective, contradictory, possibly third-hand, then can you really say he was a real person if nothing about him can be known and no events or actions can be definitively tied to him? At either rate, we don't know he existed. It seems to be a reasonable guess. But there's no smoking gun for him. No serious and respected historian records him, nothing corroborates his existence, and there's nothing implausible about a group of tightly-knit apocalypse cults telling stories that aren't factually accurate.


So, yeah, correct the mistakes since I have insufficient knowledge of that, I suppose. I am especially skeptical of these 2 quotes and asked the person in question to provide examples of that:
the story of Jesus to be written down in records we have today, they already disagreed wildly. The gospels and their beliefs that are canonized don't agree on a damned thing.

I'll grant you that when you arrange the gospels chronologically, even breaking it down into source Q and all that, the earlier stories of Jesus are distinctly non-supernatural (that seems like it was almost the point since Jesus was a prophets whose struggle was that he was a mere man).
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOXMf6yDCU

Fecisti nos ad te, Domine, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te!

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 7366
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby PaulSacramento » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:59 am

First off, the earliest "stories" of Jesus are the Creeds and they are 100% supernatural, ie: The resurrection.
Christian's were written about in some of the earliest accounts :
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is ... the-bible/

The Gospel's tell the same story from different historical perspectives and narratives.
Only the GOL is actually driven to be historically accurate as the main driving force and even then, it is in the genre of ANE history telling, not modern history telling.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby abelcainsbrother » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:06 pm

IceMobster wrote:
The gospels were written by people who lived in Rome perhaps just a few decades after when Jesus would have been around and the fact that they knew about something like the census - I mean, why wouldn't they know about the census? That's saying Sweeney Todd was a real barber because boats exist. Christianity came from a very small group of apocalyptic Jews talking about a new prophet that no one else in Rome seemed to have heard of before, and in the period of time it took for the story of Jesus to be written down in records we have today, they already disagreed wildly. The gospels and their beliefs that are canonized don't agree on a damned thing.

I'll grant you that when you arrange the gospels chronologically, even breaking it down into source Q and all that, the earlier stories of Jesus are distinctly non-supernatural (that seems like it was almost the point since Jesus was a prophets whose struggle was that he was a mere man). That makes it sound like Jesus started out as a real historical account that was interesting and meaningful and then overtime got simplified largely into "well, Jesus was magic that's why he's so important." But at the same time, the philosophy of Jesus is directly lifted from contemporaneous philosophy movements and specific accounts were generally incredibly fanciful or mundane.

Even if the gospels ultimately derive from a real event which was meaningful to the Jewish cults of the time, if the accounts are off-the-wall, non-objective, contradictory, possibly third-hand, then can you really say he was a real person if nothing about him can be known and no events or actions can be definitively tied to him? At either rate, we don't know he existed. It seems to be a reasonable guess. But there's no smoking gun for him. No serious and respected historian records him, nothing corroborates his existence, and there's nothing implausible about a group of tightly-knit apocalypse cults telling stories that aren't factually accurate.


So, yeah, correct the mistakes since I have insufficient knowledge of that, I suppose. I am especially skeptical of these 2 quotes and asked the person in question to provide examples of that:
the story of Jesus to be written down in records we have today, they already disagreed wildly. The gospels and their beliefs that are canonized don't agree on a damned thing.

I'll grant you that when you arrange the gospels chronologically, even breaking it down into source Q and all that, the earlier stories of Jesus are distinctly non-supernatural (that seems like it was almost the point since Jesus was a prophets whose struggle was that he was a mere man).


I don't know where you are reading this but it really reads like whoever wrote this ignorant of Christianity. It is one thing to reject Christianity but I don't think I'd trust whoever wrote this if I knew nothing about Christianity. It is just doubt and skepticism with ignorance thrown in.It seems you may have picked up on some of the reasons it is not really believable.It's like if I wrote about Islam and why I don't believe it. I certainly wouldn't write about it being ignorant about it and just making up nonsense about it like whoever wrote this.I don't see how anybody could read the gospels and think they contradict themselves,they clearly read like four different people writing from different perspectives about Jesus. And it is not uncommon or anything. Let's say Atheist Richard Dawkins had a following of people who spent time with him and listened to him teach and explain why they should reject Christianity,the spent alot of time with him and he dies and not too long after they each write books about him,they would write from different perspectives about him and if some didn't know him they would at least investigate and find out as much as they could about him from people who knew him. Like Luke who wrote the book of Luke and Acts.

Not only do we have historical evidence for our Christian faith but physical evidence also with the shroud of Turin.

Calling Dr Luke for you a parody of Calling Dr Love by Kiss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asmFWJqJfBw
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

IceMobster
Senior Member
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Europe

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby IceMobster » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:20 pm

His message:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... ifference/
They point out that in the earliest gospel there wasn't even immaculate conception.

I also remember this example: there is a story where Jesus is asked to heal a sick person who is not physically present. A critic approaches him and says that if he were really the son of god he could heal the person anyway. The earliest versions of that story involve Jesus just sort of getting mad and then the story ends. It's a weird thing to include, but a lot of the stories that don't quite seem to fit involve doubt and uncertainty and the limits of the powers of Jesus. The fact that it doesn't fit is probably pretty good evidence that it was part of an older source, since stories tend to gain coherence over time rather than lose them. But newer stories are much less comfortable with this, so they change it to Jesus saying "well, just so long as she has faith, she shall be healed."

Also compare Jesus on the Cross. In Mark, Jesus says "My god, why have you forsaken me?" which implies that even Jesus doubted his own divinity in his last hours. In John he simply says "it is finished." Then later people began to insert into Luke "father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Then finally the Gnostics have Jesus just straight up step off the cross and laugh and probably say something like "I'm Jesus, *****!"
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOXMf6yDCU

Fecisti nos ad te, Domine, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te!

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby abelcainsbrother » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:24 pm

IceMobster wrote:His message:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... ifference/
They point out that in the earliest gospel there wasn't even immaculate conception.

I also remember this example: there is a story where Jesus is asked to heal a sick person who is not physically present. A critic approaches him and says that if he were really the son of god he could heal the person anyway. The earliest versions of that story involve Jesus just sort of getting mad and then the story ends. It's a weird thing to include, but a lot of the stories that don't quite seem to fit involve doubt and uncertainty and the limits of the powers of Jesus. The fact that it doesn't fit is probably pretty good evidence that it was part of an older source, since stories tend to gain coherence over time rather than lose them. But newer stories are much less comfortable with this, so they change it to Jesus saying "well, just so long as she has faith, she shall be healed."

Also compare Jesus on the Cross. In Mark, Jesus says "My god, why have you forsaken me?" which implies that even Jesus doubted his own divinity in his last hours. In John he simply says "it is finished." Then later people began to insert into Luke "father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Then finally the Gnostics have Jesus just straight up step off the cross and laugh and probably say something like "I'm Jesus, *****!"


The way I see it is they wrote from different perspectives.You have four different people writing from different perspectives about Jesus. Some of them expounded more about Jesus than the others but I see no real contradictions. I would not expect them all to say the same things about Jesus.These men were just like we are and are at different levels of knowledge,etc about Jesus even with some of them spending time with Jesus some people pay attention more than the others and choose to highlight things they saw that were important to them about Jesus.They had to grow in their faith also.Also this is why unlike liberal bible scholars I see no problem if people used parts of the other gospels to finish parts in the text to make it more understandable because they were all written about Jesus.What would bother me is if they just made up stuff not based on the other gospels.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

IceMobster
Senior Member
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Europe

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby IceMobster » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:58 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:What would bother me is if they just made up stuff not based on the other gospels.

Sooooo, Gospel of John basically? :mrgreen:
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOXMf6yDCU

Fecisti nos ad te, Domine, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te!

JButler
Established Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby JButler » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:36 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
IceMobster wrote:
The gospels were written by people who lived in Rome perhaps just a few decades after when Jesus would have been around and the fact that they knew about something like the census - I mean, why wouldn't they know about the census? That's saying Sweeney Todd was a real barber because boats exist. Christianity came from a very small group of apocalyptic Jews talking about a new prophet that no one else in Rome seemed to have heard of before, and in the period of time it took for the story of Jesus to be written down in records we have today, they already disagreed wildly. The gospels and their beliefs that are canonized don't agree on a damned thing.

I'll grant you that when you arrange the gospels chronologically, even breaking it down into source Q and all that, the earlier stories of Jesus are distinctly non-supernatural (that seems like it was almost the point since Jesus was a prophets whose struggle was that he was a mere man). That makes it sound like Jesus started out as a real historical account that was interesting and meaningful and then overtime got simplified largely into "well, Jesus was magic that's why he's so important." But at the same time, the philosophy of Jesus is directly lifted from contemporaneous philosophy movements and specific accounts were generally incredibly fanciful or mundane.

Even if the gospels ultimately derive from a real event which was meaningful to the Jewish cults of the time, if the accounts are off-the-wall, non-objective, contradictory, possibly third-hand, then can you really say he was a real person if nothing about him can be known and no events or actions can be definitively tied to him? At either rate, we don't know he existed. It seems to be a reasonable guess. But there's no smoking gun for him. No serious and respected historian records him, nothing corroborates his existence, and there's nothing implausible about a group of tightly-knit apocalypse cults telling stories that aren't factually accurate.


So, yeah, correct the mistakes since I have insufficient knowledge of that, I suppose. I am especially skeptical of these 2 quotes and asked the person in question to provide examples of that:
the story of Jesus to be written down in records we have today, they already disagreed wildly. The gospels and their beliefs that are canonized don't agree on a damned thing.

I'll grant you that when you arrange the gospels chronologically, even breaking it down into source Q and all that, the earlier stories of Jesus are distinctly non-supernatural (that seems like it was almost the point since Jesus was a prophets whose struggle was that he was a mere man).


I don't know where you are reading this but it really reads like whoever wrote this ignorant of Christianity. It is one thing to reject Christianity but I don't think I'd trust whoever wrote this if I knew nothing about Christianity. It is just doubt and skepticism with ignorance thrown in.It seems you may have picked up on some of the reasons it is not really believable.It's like if I wrote about Islam and why I don't believe it. I certainly wouldn't write about it being ignorant about it and just making up nonsense about it like whoever wrote this.I don't see how anybody could read the gospels and think they contradict themselves,they clearly read like four different people writing from different perspectives about Jesus. And it is not uncommon or anything. Let's say Atheist Richard Dawkins had a following of people who spent time with him and listened to him teach and explain why they should reject Christianity,the spent alot of time with him and he dies and not too long after they each write books about him,they would write from different perspectives about him and if some didn't know him they would at least investigate and find out as much as they could about him from people who knew him. Like Luke who wrote the book of Luke and Acts.

Not only do we have historical evidence for our Christian faith but physical evidence also with the shroud of Turin.

Calling Dr Luke for you a parody of Calling Dr Love by Kiss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asmFWJqJfBw


Ah, Mr. Tabor is who you are referring to and he definitely falls into the category of non-believer or make believer. He's in the same leaky boat as Bart Ehrmann who I'm sure you're familiar with. Mr Tabor has a lot of head knowledge from which I've learned a lot interesting things about the First Century Judaish/Christian movement.

But beyond that he is one who's statements need hepa-filtering to weed out the falsehoods. I do not think he believes the Resurrection and he's anti-Paul.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby Jac3510 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:21 pm

Paul's comment needs to be taken very seriously, as it applies to a lot of the debate. But still, looking at some of the specifics . . .
The gospels were written by people who lived in Rome perhaps just a few decades after when Jesus would have been around and the fact that they knew about something like the census - I mean, why wouldn't they know about the census? That's saying Sweeney Todd was a real barber because boats exist. Christianity came from a very small group of apocalyptic Jews talking about a new prophet that no one else in Rome seemed to have heard of before, and in the period of time it took for the story of Jesus to be written down in records we have today, they already disagreed wildly. The gospels and their beliefs that are canonized don't agree on a damned thing.

This looks like a response to an argument of some sort. Was someone claiming that because the gospel writers knew about the Census of Quirinius that therefore they are historically accurate? I'm not sure why anyone would make that claim. It was a pretty widely known event, especially in Jewish circles. Josephus certainly talks about it and notes how angry it made the Jews. If that is the context, though, an interesting point we can draw from this is (once again) how it evidences Luke's accuracy as a historian. See this article by John Rhoads for an excellent discussion of how Josephus misdated the census but how Luke got it right.

I'll grant you that when you arrange the gospels chronologically, even breaking it down into source Q and all that, the earlier stories of Jesus are distinctly non-supernatural (that seems like it was almost the point since Jesus was a prophets whose struggle was that he was a mere man).

I wouldn't grant this at all. Moreover, we have to be very careful against using the "supernatural" Jesus vs the "historical" Jesus as a means to date the proposed sources behind the gospels, because you end up with a circular argument. The argument ends up being that the supernatural materials have to be dated late, and therefore, the early material shows a naturalistic Jesus! Clearly you can see the fallacy in that thinking.

That makes it sound like Jesus started out as a real historical account that was interesting and meaningful and then overtime got simplified largely into "well, Jesus was magic that's why he's so important."

This is such trite analysis that merits exactly the same effort in composing a response as a person who said to me once (and this is totally true) that the reason Jesus was able to be resurrected was because an alien race stole His body and impersonated Him for the next several weeks.

Still, just for the sake of readers, the assumption here is that the real Jesus was something of a Socratic, cynical philosopher who never said or did anything supernatural and certainly never claimed to be the Messiah or God in the flesh, and yet somehow managed to get Himself crucified, and somehow managed to predispose His disciples into believing that He rose from the dead. And that this totally natural Jesus turned into magic man after years and years and years of legendary development.

And how many years and years and years do we have to develop all those legends? Turns out, less that forty. And that's simply no where near enough time for legendary development to make that much of an impact on the basic story of Jesus. As Craig writes elsewhere

    For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed.
As an aside, when you factor in the time related to the development of legendary material, you expect to start finding such stories at the beginning to middle of the third century. And guess what you start to find right about that time? The apocryphal "gospels." There's just NO WAY that you can dismiss the supernatural events described in the gospels as legendary if you want to be taken seriously.

But at the same time, the philosophy of Jesus is directly lifted from contemporaneous philosophy movements and specific accounts were generally incredibly fanciful or mundane.

Not even close. Someone needs to go read The Resurrection of the Son of God. It's long and tedious but very important. The "philosophy of Jesus" is simply unparalleled in either Jewish or Greek thought. To take but two examples, the Greeks not only rejected but tended to openly mock the idea of a physical resurrection from the dead at the end of time. For reasons of their own philosophies, the body was something to be freed from, not raised again into. So to take but one literary example, Aeschylus, a fifth century Greek playwright, had the god Apollo state explicitly: “But when of murder’d man the dust hath once the blood suck’d up, he riseth never more.” (cf A. Swanwick, tr. The Agamemnon, Choephori, and Eumenides of Aeschylus (London: Bell and Daldy, 1865), 166, click here to see online.) You also can't look to Jewish philosophy for the origin of Jesus' ideas around the resurrection, because while they looked for a physical resurrection, it was to be at the end of time, not in the middle of history. This actually creates a very serious historical problem for the non-Christian. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, historically speaking, that Christians were proclaiming that Jesus had physically resurrected from the dead and that He was the firstfruit of a more general resurrection of those who placed their faith in Him, and that they were teaching this in the early second century AD at the very latest, with a strong historical claim to be made that this teaching was the very essence of the faith in the mid first century! But so the problem: where did this "mutation" of Jewish theology come from? What historical event can explain such a MASSIVE shift in theology? You may not appreciate how big of a shift that is, but to use a contemporary example, it would be like waking up tomorrow and discovering that millions of Muslims were claiming that Mohammed had returned to earth and was now converting Muslims to old Judaism in preparation for the earthly reign of Allah. Where the heck would that idea come from? It would certainly need some kind of explanation, and so here too.

Another example would be the idea that salvation is by grace through faith. Ignore the inter-Christian debates over what constitutes faith and what constitutes works. There is no doubt that the earliest Christians were claiming that it is faith in Jesus, and not fidelity to the Mosaic Law (or even Abrahamic lineage) that brought salvation and the hope of eternal life. Where does that come from? It certainly has to have its roots in something Jesus said, but there is absolutely on such parallel of any kind anywhere in Jewish or Greek philosophy. It certainly would, though, be the philosophy of a man who believed Himself to be God in the flesh. So write Him off as a crazy man who claimed to be God (in a unique way, mind you--not some demi-god common to Greeks, but the Creator of Heaven and Earth, YHWH Himself in the flesh). But such an approach, while taking the evidence somewhat seriously, requires we reject as foolish and naive the stupid claim that Jesus' philosophy was just lifted from surrounding cultures.

Even if the gospels ultimately derive from a real event which was meaningful to the Jewish cults of the time, if the accounts are off-the-wall, non-objective, contradictory, possibly third-hand, then can you really say he was a real person if nothing about him can be known and no events or actions can be definitively tied to him?

Depends? When did the writer stop beating his wife?

My God, can people not see the rhetoric being employed here. This doesn't even pretend to be a serious analysis and consideration of the evidence. As a point of fact, no serious NT scholar denies that the gospel account derives from real events. This sounds like the ranting of some "jezis neber xistd!!!" fool. Beyond that, the accounts are decidely NOT "off-the-wall, non-objective, contradictory, possibly third-hand." Against that, they are so uniform that the argument is that the stories depend too much on each other.

At either rate, we don't know he existed.

True story: I had not read this line when I wrote the above. I hope you didn't write this, Ice. Because if you did, I'm going to ask you to stop reading the idiocy you're looking at (and if you didn't write it, stop reading this idiocy--it's a waste of your time). I mean, in all seriousness, before you take seriously the claim that Jesus never existed, I would invite you to consider that exactly the same methodology demonstrates that [Napolean never existed.

It seems to be a reasonable guess.

No, it isn't a reasonable guess. It is as established a historical fact as any historical fact can possibly be established. That's like saying, "Well, it's a reasonable guess that there really was a Roman Empire." Fool.

But there's no smoking gun for him.

This is becoming mind-numbing . . .

No serious and respected historian records him, nothing corroborates his existence, and there's nothing implausible about a group of tightly-knit apocalypse cults telling stories that aren't factually accurate.

And these are just talking points. My God, this guy is an idiot.

Seriously, IceMobster . . . if you have honest questions about the real historical questions and historical methodology around Jesus, go look at some real scholarship on the matter. You can even get popular stuff. Let me quote John Dominic Crossan--you can Google him to realize that he is a heavy hitter in this field and to note that he is not a Christian. He says,

    Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.
See his book, John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995), 5. Or even more interesting, go read Pinchas Lapide's The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. He was, again, non-Christian and an actual historian. I really and truly suggest you read that book, as he concludes (and again, I have to insist you remember, he was NOT a Christian) that it is historically conclusive that Jesus was actually crucified and was resurrected three days later. Pure history, Ice.

So, yeah, correct the mistakes since I have insufficient knowledge of that, I suppose. I am especially skeptical of these 2 quotes and asked the person in question to provide examples of that:
the story of Jesus to be written down in records we have today, they already disagreed wildly. The gospels and their beliefs that are canonized don't agree on a damned thing.

I'll grant you that when you arrange the gospels chronologically, even breaking it down into source Q and all that, the earlier stories of Jesus are distinctly non-supernatural (that seems like it was almost the point since Jesus was a prophets whose struggle was that he was a mere man).

You are right to be skeptical of those. I take it as obvious, then, that you did not write the post in question. Don't know who did, but you're clearly dealing with a fundamentally unserious person.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby abelcainsbrother » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:59 pm

IceMobster wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:What would bother me is if they just made up stuff not based on the other gospels.

Sooooo, Gospel of John basically? :mrgreen:


Not only John but any other books of the bible. I have to believe that the men who would do this were scholars who understood God's word from years of studying it.We use all of God's word to better understand it and I bet they did also.I mean say it did just cut off in Mark like they say,the first thing you would think is it wasn't finished for whatever reason,but you don't want to leave it as is.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8703
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:43 pm

IceMobster wrote:Also compare Jesus on the Cross. In Mark, Jesus says "My god, why have you forsaken me?" which implies that even Jesus doubted his own divinity in his last hours. In John he simply says "it is finished." Then later people began to insert into Luke "father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Then finally the Gnostics have Jesus just straight up step off the cross and laugh and probably say something like "I'm Jesus, *****!"

Take a read of Pslam 22. Jesus as a well-versed Rabbi would have known very well what He was saying, and He is in part throwing everyone to Scripture as verification in support of who He is.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Correct the mistakes

Postby Jac3510 » Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:59 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
IceMobster wrote:Also compare Jesus on the Cross. In Mark, Jesus says "My god, why have you forsaken me?" which implies that even Jesus doubted his own divinity in his last hours. In John he simply says "it is finished." Then later people began to insert into Luke "father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Then finally the Gnostics have Jesus just straight up step off the cross and laugh and probably say something like "I'm Jesus, *****!"

Take a read of Pslam 22. Jesus as a well-versed Rabbi would have known very well what He was saying, and He is in part throwing everyone to Scripture as verification in support of who He is.

Yup. And since I'm always linking to one of my papers, let me use this as an opportunity to link to my Hermeneutics and Messianic Psalms paper again. I think the Ps 22 explanation helps nail down K's point. The Jews standing around the cross would have understood immediately what He was saying and doing there. Far from questioning His own deity, He is simultaneously claiming proof that He is the Messiah, the Davidic king, and condemning the Pharisees who wanted Him crucified. That would have really set them on edge, especially given the resurrection stories three days later.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.


Return to “Christian Chit-chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest