Total Posts:244|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus: God, man, or both?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:06:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

The character Jesus is a character in a story which personifies a WAY of LIFE in TRUTH.
God is that Way of Life in Truth. That way of life or the cycle of life, the principles of life are personified in all of life through all eternity.

In Mark 10:17-18 Jesus never specifically stated that he was not to be thought of as God or as good. All he did was ask WHY the man was calling him good master. He never started that he was or was not the good master. He actually answered the question and told the rich man to keep the commandments, sell up all he owned and follow him. The rich man went away grieving because he did not want to sell all he owned. His possessions and worldy life were more important to him than his spiritual life. He did not want to pay the price of giving up his worldly treasures.

What scripture are you referring to when you say Jesus claimed divinity in the book of John? Jesus never claimed divinity unless you think claiming to be a son of God is claiming divinity. In that case all humans are divine since we are all created in the image of divinity ( God). Jesus never once claimed to be God in the story. Any claims like that were made by those who judged him as being Lord.

The character Jesus in the story was thought of as a son of god as well as a son of man as well as a mad man as well as a liar and blasphemer and of the devil. It all depends on the perception of the people who judged him as good or evil in the story. The same applies to people in reality who read the story today. Different people perceive the character in many different ways depending on what aspects of the character they are concentrating on.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 2:12:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 1:06:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

The character Jesus is a character in a story which personifies a WAY of LIFE in TRUTH.
God is that Way of Life in Truth. That way of life or the cycle of life, the principles of life are personified in all of life through all eternity.

In Mark 10:17-18 Jesus never specifically stated that he was not to be thought of as God or as good. All he did was ask WHY the man was calling him good master. He never started that he was or was not the good master.

He essentially asks the guy, "why do you call me that?", and tells him, "Only god should be called that". In other words, "I am not worthy to have that adjective applied to me." I will research this more (when it is not so late), but it seems an odd phrase if he was not correcting the man.

He actually answered the question and told the rich man to keep the commandments, sell up all he owned and follow him. The rich man went away grieving because he did not want to sell all he owned. His possessions and worldy life were more important to him than his spiritual life. He did not want to pay the price of giving up his worldly treasures.

What scripture are you referring to when you say Jesus claimed divinity in the book of John? Jesus never claimed divinity unless you think claiming to be a son of God is claiming divinity.

John 5:17-18 I would agree "son of god" is not necessarily a claim of divinity. After all, wasn't Solomon called the 'son of god'? In this case, the Jews who heard the words of Jesus understood this phrase to mean an actual claim to divinity. John 5:18 makes it pretty clear they wanted to kill him because he said God was his father...

In that case all humans are divine since we are all created in the image of divinity ( God). Jesus never once claimed to be God in the story. Any claims like that were made by those who judged him as being Lord.

The character Jesus in the story was thought of as a son of god as well as a son of man as well as a mad man as well as a liar and blasphemer and of the devil. It all depends on the perception of the people who judged him as good or evil in the story. The same applies to people in reality who read the story today. Different people perceive the character in many different ways depending on what aspects of the character they are concentrating on.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 7:00:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 2:12:03 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:06:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

The character Jesus is a character in a story which personifies a WAY of LIFE in TRUTH.
God is that Way of Life in Truth. That way of life or the cycle of life, the principles of life are personified in all of life through all eternity.

In Mark 10:17-18 Jesus never specifically stated that he was not to be thought of as God or as good. All he did was ask WHY the man was calling him good master. He never started that he was or was not the good master.

He essentially asks the guy, "why do you call me that?", and tells him, "Only god should be called that". In other words, "I am not worthy to have that adjective applied to me." I will research this more (when it is not so late), but it seems an odd phrase if he was not correcting the man.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that Jesus was asking the man a rhetorical question since Jesus already knew the answer to why he was calling him good. Maybe the author did that to make readers question whether the character Jesus was God or not. Jesus did not think it was prideful or arrogant to be equal with God. Therefore I see no reason for him to put on some kind of false humility and pretend he was not worthy to be called good.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
Jesus could have been saying to the man, you can't butter up God by calling him good master. That won't make things any easier for you. This is what you need to do.... Give up all your worldly possessions and follow me.
Obviously the good master does not make it easy for anyone to follow Jesus. There is a cost involved. It costs the followers their lives.
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

He actually answered the question and told the rich man to keep the commandments, sell up all he owned and follow him. The rich man went away grieving because he did not want to sell all he owned. His possessions and worldy life were more important to him than his spiritual life. He did not want to pay the price of giving up his worldly treasures.

What scripture are you referring to when you say Jesus claimed divinity in the book of John? Jesus never claimed divinity unless you think claiming to be a son of God is claiming divinity.

John 5:17-18 I would agree "son of god" is not necessarily a claim of divinity. After all, wasn't Solomon called the 'son of god'? In this case, the Jews who heard the words of Jesus understood this phrase to mean an actual claim to divinity. John 5:18 makes it pretty clear they wanted to kill him because he said God was his father...

They were only making a stupid excuse to kill him. They were pathetic false accusers. Jews perceive God to be the Father of all mankind. See John 8:41 where the Jews claimed God was also their Father.
What is the difference between the Jews claiming God is their Father and Jesus claiming God is his Father? They are claiming exactly the same thing.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 7:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

And indeed, it is only in "John" where it is claimed that Jesus claimed himself to be God. This is one of the reasons "John" is the only non-synoptical gospel. But we should recognize that we have insufficient cause to suggest anything written in any of the gospels are the words, thoughts, ideas or expressions of Jesus. There is no evidence that any of the authors of the canonical gospels ever knew Jesus. And as you suspected, as the writings continued to emerge, the claims continued to grow. In fact, even the claim of resurrection is a latter addition to "Mark", likely placed there by scribes decades after the manuscript was written.

We're left to believe the original author knew Jesus resurrected, but didn't think it worthy of mention.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:26:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

And indeed, it is only in "John" where it is claimed that Jesus claimed himself to be God. This is one of the reasons "John" is the only non-synoptical gospel. But we should recognize that we have insufficient cause to suggest anything written in any of the gospels are the words, thoughts, ideas or expressions of Jesus. There is no evidence that any of the authors of the canonical gospels ever knew Jesus. And as you suspected, as the writings continued to emerge, the claims continued to grow. In fact, even the claim of resurrection is a latter addition to "Mark", likely placed there by scribes decades after the manuscript was written.

We're left to believe the original author knew Jesus resurrected, but didn't think it worthy of mention.

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus. While I agree the authors of the gospels are anonymous, I do not believe this is reason enough to submit Jesus never existed. I agree Luke and Matthew do borrow heavily from Mark and the collaborative verses cannot be considered corroborative. The portions of Matthew and Luke (which do not come from Mark) do corroborate the existence of Jesus, as well as the gospel of John (and a few other books/documents I can't think of off the top of my head) and the testimony of Tacitus and Josephus. Using the historical method it is not only possible Jesus actually existed, but probable.

This is not to say Jesus was actually divine. That requires a completely different level of evidence, and borders on the question I am seeking here, which is how much of the stories of Jesus are legend, and how much are factual.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 11:14:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:00:26 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 7/2/2014 2:12:03 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:06:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

The character Jesus is a character in a story which personifies a WAY of LIFE in TRUTH.
God is that Way of Life in Truth. That way of life or the cycle of life, the principles of life are personified in all of life through all eternity.

In Mark 10:17-18 Jesus never specifically stated that he was not to be thought of as God or as good. All he did was ask WHY the man was calling him good master. He never started that he was or was not the good master.

He essentially asks the guy, "why do you call me that?", and tells him, "Only god should be called that". In other words, "I am not worthy to have that adjective applied to me." I will research this more (when it is not so late), but it seems an odd phrase if he was not correcting the man.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that Jesus was asking the man a rhetorical question since Jesus already knew the answer to why he was calling him good. Maybe the author did that to make readers question whether the character Jesus was God or not. Jesus did not think it was prideful or arrogant to be equal with God. Therefore I see no reason for him to put on some kind of false humility and pretend he was not worthy to be called good.

Jesus was showing holy fear (awe and submission) to the Jewish god by pointing out he was not as good as God.

I think it is important to point out there is no immaculate conception in Mark. Mark felt Jesus was fully human until his baptism where he became the adopted son of God. That is why the gospel of Mark starts out at his Baptism. That is the important part of the story for Mark.

When we get to Luke, then Jesus has progressed from adopted son to literal son of God, and he did not exist before his miraculous conception.

John was all in: Jesus was god from an eternal past. John does not talk of the virgin birth or the baptism of Jesus because he considers them unimportant to the life of the divine Jesus turned human.

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
Jesus could have been saying to the man, you can't butter up God by calling him good master. That won't make things any easier for you. This is what you need to do.... Give up all your worldly possessions and follow me.
Obviously the good master does not make it easy for anyone to follow Jesus. There is a cost involved. It costs the followers their lives.
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

He actually answered the question and told the rich man to keep the commandments, sell up all he owned and follow him. The rich man went away grieving because he did not want to sell all he owned. His possessions and worldy life were more important to him than his spiritual life. He did not want to pay the price of giving up his worldly treasures.

What scripture are you referring to when you say Jesus claimed divinity in the book of John? Jesus never claimed divinity unless you think claiming to be a son of God is claiming divinity.

John 5:17-18 I would agree "son of god" is not necessarily a claim of divinity. After all, wasn't Solomon called the 'son of god'? In this case, the Jews who heard the words of Jesus understood this phrase to mean an actual claim to divinity. John 5:18 makes it pretty clear they wanted to kill him because he said God was his father...

They were only making a stupid excuse to kill him. They were pathetic false accusers. Jews perceive God to be the Father of all mankind. See John 8:41 where the Jews claimed God was also their Father.
What is the difference between the Jews claiming God is their Father and Jesus claiming God is his Father? They are claiming exactly the same thing.

John 8:58
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 10:30
30 "I and the Father are one."

I suppose you say the Jews were wrong in their interpretation of these quotes from Jesus as well? They wanted to stone him for blasphemy after each of these comments too... I don't believe I am out of line to suggests the words are generally interpreted as Jesus claiming to be divine. If you want to pretend otherwise, then we may have a very short discussion unless you can establish why your opinions are more valid than that of Biblical scholars.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 1:22:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:26:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus. While I agree the authors of the gospels are anonymous, I do not believe this is reason enough to submit Jesus never existed.
From where would you get the idea that the anonymity of the gospels is my reason for believing Jesus to be a myth?

I agree Luke and Matthew do borrow heavily from Mark and the collaborative verses cannot be considered corroborative. The portions of Matthew and Luke (which do not come from Mark) do corroborate the existence of Jesus
Nothing in "Luke" can be considered to corroborate the existence of Jesus as "Luke" states openly in the first four verses that it is not an eyewitness account, but information taken from others unnamed. It is commonly suggested that the parts contained in both "Matthew" and "Luke" which do not exist in "Mark" came from an additional source known as the "Q".

as well as the gospel of John (and a few other books/documents I can't think of off the top of my head) and the testimony of Tacitus and Josephus.
Tacitus and Josephus do not provide "testimony", they provide "hearsay". There is a very substantial difference. One may testify to what they have heard but not to the veracity of what they have heard unless they have a source which was confirmed as correct. Neither of them do and both of them lived after the time of Jesus. (We also know that someone - likely Bishop Eusebius - tampered with the writings of Josephus as they translated them.) The confusion seems to come from the mater-of-fact manner of the words of Tacitus. But the pure fact of the matter remains that Tacitus provides no source for his information, nor any confirmation for the information. In fact, upon research, one is left to imagine from where he would have obtained such confirmation had it been sought. While he may well have had access to the Acta Senatus, even that record of minutes would be highly unlikely to contain information regarding the execution of people like Jesus. So what we have is an unconfirmed statement, likely obtained from Christians of the day. We can find similar statements about Zeus in the writings of Plato, yet no one suggests that it makes Zeus a historical character.

In all, there are five historical mentions.
- Flavius Josephus (1-forged, one likely not forged), both hearsay
- Seutonius (1- hearsay comment, considered a likely forgery)
- Lucian (1-hearsay comment, strictly derogatory toward Jesus)
- Cornelius Tacitus (1-hearsay comment)
- Pliny the Younger (1-hearsay comment)

And that's all. That's everything written (or forged in some cases), by actual historians. So the suggestion is that Jesus was a real person, who rallied support for himself as a god, and created sufficient political and social upheaval that he was executed despite a lack of guilt, and yet not a single historian of his day (and we know of over 2-dozen who lived in that region), ever met him, saw him, met anyone who met him, or ever found any reason to write even a single word about him. To the historians of his day, he was completely invisible.

Using the historical method it is not only possible Jesus actually existed, but probable.
That is simply not true. Using the historical method requires a level of credible evidence. And the evidence for Jesus is really quite similar to the evidence for Zeus. And when we look to the writings of historians who lived in that very time and region, we find an amazing absence of mention for Jesus. Not a single historian of his time ever mentions him. One bonafide historian has applied an objective methodology to analyzing the evidence for Jesus and that historian is Richard Carrier who has applied Bayes Theorem to attempt to produce a conclusion devoid of the subjectivity common to the issue. And Bayes Theorem produces a probability too low to consider Jesus a historical character.

One of the most notable historians in regard to Jesus is Philo of Alexandria who wrote exclusively of the religious and political occurrences of his day (~20BC - 50CE). If you're not familiar with Philo, you should be before rendering any opinion on the historicity of Jesus. Philo was a prolific and very credible historian with a passionate interest in matters of religion. He was a devout believer in the Old Testament - not just as a religious guide - but as a guide to all matters of life. He learned the Pentateuch so intimately that he provided commentaries on virtually every single major character it contains. One could hardly invent a more likely candidate than Philo to present evidence of Jesus. Had Jesus existed, it would have been a utter gold mine for his manuscripts, as well as personal vindication and verification for his religious beliefs. His nephew Marcus, was appointed "King of the Jews" after the exile of Herod. As you likely know, Herod was the villain of the early Jesus saga. So had the events involving Herod actually occurred, Philo should have well known of them. His other nephew, Julius, served as the Prefect of Egypt and the Procurator of Judea. It is beyond reason to suggest that even the secular events surrounding the Jesus story could have taken place, without Philo being intently aware of each and every detail. And yet, in his more than 850,000 extant words, we find not a single mention either of Jesus, or any of the major events of the New Testament. Philo even focused upon the friction between Pontias Pilate and the Jews... but never a single word about Jesus, or anyone fitting the general story.

This is not to say Jesus was actually divine. That requires a completely different level of evidence, and borders on the question I am seeking here, which is how much of the stories of Jesus are legend, and how much are factual.
I would openly contest you in suggesting that ANY of the stories of Jesus - including his very existence - are at all factual. He's simply a reproduction of multiple fallen savior gods, and this is apparent when analyzing such gods as Dionysus and Mithra. He carries similar stories, similar miracles and similar (in many cases carbon-copy) nick names.

And then you have the problem of the multiple variations of Jesus squelched by the church after the Council of Nicaea.

- The warrior Jesus of the Essenes
- The pedophile Jesus of the Carpocratians
- The Gnostic Jesus
- The Ascetic Jesus
- and other less well defined variations

If Jesus actually existed and these stories are embellishments stemming from a factual beginning, why are there so many different versions of Jesus from the first 2-centuries after it is claimed he existed? And why does Paul tell us that Jesus was a "high priest" (Hebrews 14:4) and then tell us that IF he had existed on Earth, he would NOT have been a priest (Hebrews 8:4)?

We even have a problem in the fact that recent archaeological artifacts suggest that Nazareth was unoccupied at the time given for Jesus. it appears to have been occupied for several centuries prior, and then re-inhabited mere decades later.

Before I had researched this to the degree I have now, I agreed that he likely existed. Only after doing a dedicated search, including reading multiple books on the subject, did I realize that there is little hope of veracity for the suggestion that a historical Jesus existed. The evidence is simply too scarce, and too vague.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 1:32:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus.

I neglected to mention the fact that the Council of Nicaea (325CE - 367CE) voted on a number of contentions among Christians of the day. And one of the things they voted on was whether or not Jesus actually existed on Earth. And they didn't do so without reason, as many Christians of that time held no understanding of Jesus as having existed on Earth. And this would help to explain the writings of Paul which tell us outright that he did not exist on Earth (Hebrews 14:4 / Hebrews 8:4).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 2:33:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 1:32:53 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus.

I neglected to mention the fact that the Council of Nicaea (325CE - 367CE) voted on a number of contentions among Christians of the day. And one of the things they voted on was whether or not Jesus actually existed on Earth. And they didn't do so without reason, as many Christians of that time held no understanding of Jesus as having existed on Earth. And this would help to explain the writings of Paul which tell us outright that he did not exist on Earth (Hebrews 14:4 / Hebrews 8:4).

The verse is: 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Can you explain to me how Jesus would be tempted like us, if he were never on Earth?

Can you explain to me how Jesus "passed into heaven"? From where did he come from if he was passing into heaven?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 8:25:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

I encourage you to read Bart ehrman book "How jesus became God", there Bart explaining in detail...

fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John.

You can show where he claim to be a God? reading the Gospels show clearily Jesus claim only to be a prophet and not God, for example here the famous verse where Jesus supposedly say to be "God" - John 10:30, But if you read the context of this passage from 10:23 up to verse 35 even he denies to be a God. No where he claims to be a God, although in the last Gospel (John) the author trys to instill his theology into the text.
Never fart near dog
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 8:46:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 1:32:53 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus.

I neglected to mention the fact that the Council of Nicaea (325CE - 367CE) voted on a number of contentions among Christians of the day. And one of the things they voted on was whether or not Jesus actually existed on Earth. And they didn't do so without reason, as many Christians of that time held no understanding of Jesus as having existed on Earth. And this would help to explain the writings of Paul which tell us outright that he did not exist on Earth (Hebrews 14:4 / Hebrews 8:4).

Since there is a lot to respond to and I have limited time today, Ill have to respond to your other post tomorrow. As for this one, I have seen you make this claim before, but I have not seen it supported. (I apologize if you did, I was scanning through it) Do you have a good source for this?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 9:01:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 8:25:38 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

I encourage you to read Bart ehrman book "How Jesus became God", there Bart explaining in detail...

I will add it to my reading list.

fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John.

You can show where he claim to be a God? reading the Gospels show clearily Jesus claim only to be a prophet and not God, for example here the famous verse where Jesus supposedly say to be "God" - John 10:30, But if you read the context of this passage from 10:23 up to verse 35 even he denies to be a God. No where he claims to be a God, although in the last Gospel (John) the author tries to instill his theology into the text.

John 8:58
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 10:30
30 "I and the Father are one."

If you want to take this in context, then you should probably not stop at verse 35. I would go all the way to 39, where Jesus had to flee because the Jews felt he was committing blasphemy even after his explanation.

John 5:17-18
17 But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."
18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

The author of John makes it clear Jesus did claim God was his father, and not in the "god is the father of us all" kind of way. I don't believe your bias should supersede the author's contention.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 10:12:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 9:01:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/3/2014 8:25:38 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

I encourage you to read Bart ehrman book "How Jesus became God", there Bart explaining in detail...

I will add it to my reading list.

fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John.

You can show where he claim to be a God? reading the Gospels show clearily Jesus claim only to be a prophet and not God, for example here the famous verse where Jesus supposedly say to be "God" - John 10:30, But if you read the context of this passage from 10:23 up to verse 35 even he denies to be a God. No where he claims to be a God, although in the last Gospel (John) the author tries to instill his theology into the text.


The author of John makes it clear Jesus did claim God was his father, and not in the "god is the father of us all" kind of way. I don't believe your bias should supersede the author's contention.

I didnt say the author not trying to make Jesus to a God, we see it from the begining 1:1... but its easy to explain this things. anyway see my points..

If you want to take this in context, then you should probably not stop at verse 35. I would go all the way to 39, where Jesus had to flee because the Jews felt he was committing blasphemy even after his explanation.
John 5:17-18
17 But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."
18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

So what? through out the Bible the jews looking for trouble everytime the jews trying to find a trouble with Jesus. how many time Jesus condemn them for that? MANY MANY times, anything Jesus says they misunderstood. if you want examples i will give you plenty.

Jesus says:
" they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Jesus many time speaks in metaphorical way but the jews ALLWAYS taking anything literally.
(and you know this talking about undersranding not physical seeing or hearing but the problem is the jews..)
And we take what Jesus says not the jews who trying to find a fault with him in every small matter.

here the context of John 10:30

start from verse 23 - it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. 24The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father"s name, these testify of Me.

this is (1) false charge - jews say he didnt explain himself plainly he is the Christ, but Jesus did explain himself.

verse 26 - 30
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father"s hand. 30"I and the Father are one."

They are one in this no one can snatch them out of their hand, in porpuse in faith they are one. but the jews picked up stones to stone him because they though he is claiming to be God:

verses 30 - 33
The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

this is the second (2) false charge, the jews accusing Jesus claiming to be God. what Jesus says to that?? if he was a God he would say "yes im God" lets see what Jesus says:

verse - 34
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law (Torah/OT): - "I SAID, YOU ARE GODS"? (Psalm 82:6) 35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (THE JEWS) and the Scripture cannot be broken (MEANING YOU CANT CONTRADICT ME), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming," because I said, "I am the Son of God?

here Jesus says OTHERS CALL "GODS" and you finding fault with me when i only say " am the Son of God"?? which is nothing! in the bible prophets called "GOD" and others "son of god", so we see clearly Jesus dismiss their charges. i dont know why everybody keep qouting this verses without context. oh yeah to suit their convenience.

John 8:58
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

how many people existed before Abraham? The Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother's womb; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)" Yet no one says that his prehuman existence qualifies him for deity, so how jesus was? in the knowledge of God he was there, every tom dick and herry was there. its funny how christains saying that is the same what God tell in the Old testment "im what im" meaning this is his name. that ridiculous the Hebrew there - says i will be what ever i will be. (i know hebrew yeah...) even its not saying "im" its a different word.
Never fart near dog
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 10:41:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

In the Presence of God at the throne there are four prevailing faces seen at the throne and are also described by Jacob when he was at the end of his days, which are the lion, eagle ox and man. There are some who teach that the four Gospels are of the same fashion. Jesus as King (Lion) Jesus as deliverer (Eagle) Jesus as servant of burden (Ox) and Jesus as a man (Man, many time He spoke of the Son of man) these views of the Lord are acceptable in the Lord"s sight and curiously enough have been executed accordingly in fulfillment promised by the God of Israel amongst the Israelites as an Israelite and the scriptural views seeing and documenting that we may see the same.

As far as Father Son relationship, relationship is exactly what it is. There is God (the Creator and Judge) His Word and His Presence (Spirit) His relationship with His Word and the fulfillment thereof is Father Son, for the Son is of the Father that is the same as the Father because the Son is of the Father, in the Father"s Presence. No different then your words are of you in your presence. Your words don"t come from some place else. So the relationship is not blood but Spirit. In the first chapter of John some of this is stated in reference to Jesus being the Word of God.

What is miss understood by many is, God, the Word of God and the Presence of God is God and are as powerful as God is.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 12:52:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 9:01:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

i forgot one thing, look at Jesus respond -

Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law (Torah/OT): - "I SAID, YOU ARE GODS"? (Psalm 82:6) 35"If he (GOD/THE FATHER. NOT JESUS, JESUS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GOD AND HIMSILF)!! called them gods, to whom the word of God came (THE JEWS) and the Scripture cannot be broken (MEANING YOU CANT CONTRADICT ME), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming," because I said, "I am the Son of God?
Never fart near dog
12_13
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 1:49:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

I think Gospel of John is greatly misunderstood, because it says:

How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.
John 14:10-14

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

So, according to the John, Jesus is not the one and only true God, but the dwelling of God. And disciples of Jesus are also dwellings of God.

Don't you know that you are a temple of God, and that God's Spirit lives in you?
1 Cor. 3:16
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 5:28:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels.

I encourage you to explore this and come to your own opinion. As for my opinion based on my interpretation and understanding. Absolutely the gospels have taken creative liberty with his efforts after he was gone. I would even go so far as to say he was probably managed or handled by those closest to him. Much like a US President is.

In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1).

Even the witnesses had different interpretations. Again, I think there is a certain degree of embellishment by some of the authors as occasionally these authors often have Jesus contradicting himself. Jesus was first and foremost "humble".

These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

I have noticed Jesus does not elevate himself above others. However, others have elevated Jesus above that which Jesus professed.

As for your question was Jesus God, man or both? The answer is simple, but takes a long time to understand. The answer is Yes.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 6:16:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 11:14:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:00:26 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 7/2/2014 2:12:03 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:06:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:

In Mark 10:17-18 Jesus never specifically stated that he was not to be thought of as God or as good. All he did was ask WHY the man was calling him good master. He never started that he was or was not the good master.

He essentially asks the guy, "why do you call me that?", and tells him, "Only god should be called that". In other words, "I am not worthy to have that adjective applied to me." I will research this more (when it is not so late), but it seems an odd phrase if he was not correcting the man.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that Jesus was asking the man a rhetorical question since Jesus already knew the answer to why he was calling him good. Maybe the author did that to make readers question whether the character Jesus was God or not. Jesus did not think it was prideful or arrogant to be equal with God. Therefore I see no reason for him to put on some kind of false humility and pretend he was not worthy to be called good.

Jesus was showing holy fear (awe and submission) to the Jewish god by pointing out he was not as good as God.

That is your opinion. You have a right to it just as anyone else has a right to theirs.

I think it is important to point out there is no immaculate conception in Mark. Mark felt Jesus was fully human until his baptism where he became the adopted son of God. That is why the gospel of Mark starts out at his Baptism. That is the important part of the story for Mark.

Just because Mark does not mention the conception or birth of Jesus does not mean Mark felt Jesus was fully human. That again is your opinion and personal interpretation. You or any other reader have no real clue why Mark begins with the baptism because there is no way you can ask the author that question to find out. All any reader can do is presume. A fully human person cannot literally raise people from the dead, miraculously heal sick people and cast out any so called devils.
If you have a scriptural reason as to why you think Mark felt Jesus was fully human, please share it.

When we get to Luke, then Jesus has progressed from adopted son to literal son of God, and he did not exist before his miraculous conception.

What makes you claim Jesus did not exist before his conception in the book of Luke? Where exactly does Luke say or imply that?

John was all in: Jesus was god from an eternal past. John does not talk of the virgin birth or the baptism of Jesus because he considers them unimportant to the life of the divine Jesus turned human.

Did you ask John why he left out certain things? Did he tell you he felt they were unimportant or is that again your own presumption speaking or has someone else convinced you that John left out some things because he thought they were unimportant?

What scripture are you referring to when you say Jesus claimed divinity in the book of John? Jesus never claimed divinity unless you think claiming to be a son of God is claiming divinity.

John 5:17-18 I would agree "son of god" is not necessarily a claim of divinity. After all, wasn't Solomon called the 'son of god'? In this case, the Jews who heard the words of Jesus understood this phrase to mean an actual claim to divinity. John 5:18 makes it pretty clear they wanted to kill him because he said God was his father...

They were only making a stupid excuse to kill him. They were pathetic false accusers. Jews perceive God to be the Father of all mankind. See John 8:41 where the Jews claimed God was also their Father.
What is the difference between the Jews claiming God is their Father and Jesus claiming God is his Father? They are claiming exactly the same thing.

John 8:58
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 10:30
30 "I and the Father are one."

I suppose you say the Jews were wrong in their interpretation of these quotes from Jesus as well? They wanted to stone him for blasphemy after each of these comments too... I don't believe I am out of line to suggests the words are generally interpreted as Jesus claiming to be divine. If you want to pretend otherwise, then we may have a very short discussion unless you can establish why your opinions are more valid than that of Biblical scholars.

I think the Jews in the story misunderstood and misinterpreted what Jesus was saying. I think they had no understanding of the spiritual concept of a spirit being alive before it enters a human body. Jesus understood that concept. Jesus was not talking about his human body but about his own spirit. The spirit of life has always existed for all eternity. That includes the spirit of life in the character Jesus and also the spirit of life in you and me and in those Jews in the story who did not comprehend that Jesus was not speaking about physical things but about spiritual things.

I can also say "Before Abrahan was, I am." and be referring to the spirit of God within me not to my physical body. You can say the same if you understand the spirit of God within you is eternal and refer to your spiritual being rather than your physical being when you refer to yourself.
When you understand the spiritual concept you will understand that everything Jesus said about himself referring to his own spirit also applies to your spirit if the same spirit that dwelt in Jesus also dwells in you. That spirit can be in billions of physical forms at the same time. It is not restricted to only one body. Any spirit eternally exists before humans are born and after they die. The spirit enters the body when it takes it first breath at birth and leaves the body when it takes its last breath the day it dies.

I and the Father are one in exactly the same way Jesus and the Father are one. It is a spiritual unity.
The "Father" or the mature Spirit of Life can reproduce only the Spirit of Life. It reproduces itself after its own kind according to Gods own principles of reproduction. The Spirit of Life is "the only begotten son" of the Spirit of Life because the Spirit of Life can reproduce no other Spirit than Life. The mature ( the Father) and the immature ( the son) are one just like you or anyone else are one with your own maturity and also your own immaturity and can be both a father and a son.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 10:22:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:26:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

And indeed, it is only in "John" where it is claimed that Jesus claimed himself to be God. This is one of the reasons "John" is the only non-synoptical gospel. But we should recognize that we have insufficient cause to suggest anything written in any of the gospels are the words, thoughts, ideas or expressions of Jesus. There is no evidence that any of the authors of the canonical gospels ever knew Jesus. And as you suspected, as the writings continued to emerge, the claims continued to grow. In fact, even the claim of resurrection is a latter addition to "Mark", likely placed there by scribes decades after the manuscript was written.

That's why you never answered a single question concerning it. It was just a "later addition" because the liberal "scholars" told you so. People are wondering why Iranaeus (who was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John) ran around quoting from Mark 16: 9-20. Where'd he see it? Who'd he hear it from? After all, he was likely born about 125 AD.

One only needs to the various wild theories concerning the ending of Mark in order to document many examples of sheer guesses by scholars. What has been purposefully left out is that the 101 ripest American scholars who gave us the American Standard Translation included it as canonical "without any hesitation whatsoever". They merely questioned whether it was written by Mark himself or by some other inspired writer at a later date.

Beastt hollers "Mark didn't write it." Well, he can't prove that. Can't come close to proving it. He says, "The scholars told me." I bet every last one didn't tell him - and the overwhelming majority of those who did tell him do not believe Mark 16: 16. It kills their theology. A man whose theology is threatened tends to see the evidence he wishes to see - and Metzger is a prime example.

The majority of objection to Mark 16: 9-20 traces to "Old Reliable" Eusebius, a man who did not have access to several families of manuscripts. Eusebius did not utilize the Peshitta Syriac (2nd century), for example. Nor did he likely have access to the Curetonian. Eusebius also says that Mark was succeeded by Annianus as the bishop of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero (AD 62). Whether due to incapacitation or death, he does not say. Coptic tradition states that he was martyred in AD 68.

We have the following brainstorm from Wikipedia: "The book was probably written c.66"70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution." Of course, it doesn't take a Solomon to comprehend the reason, so get it good: "Jesus Christ COULD NOT HAVE predicted the destruction of the temple with such accuracy - so the 'scholars' MOVE THE DATE to a point ridiculously close to Mark's traditional ill-health or death." That's their reasoning. Worse yet, other infidelic Christians take the plunge and pontificate that Mark didn't write it at all! It's these folks with whom Beastt has cast his lot.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 10:39:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:26:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

And indeed, it is only in "John" where it is claimed that Jesus claimed himself to be God. This is one of the reasons "John" is the only non-synoptical gospel. But we should recognize that we have insufficient cause to suggest anything written in any of the gospels are the words, thoughts, ideas or expressions of Jesus. There is no evidence that any of the authors of the canonical gospels ever knew Jesus. And as you suspected, as the writings continued to emerge, the claims continued to grow. In fact, even the claim of resurrection is a latter addition to "Mark", likely placed there by scribes decades after the manuscript was written.

We're left to believe the original author knew Jesus resurrected, but didn't think it worthy of mention.

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus. While I agree the authors of the gospels are anonymous, I do not believe this is reason enough to submit Jesus never existed. I agree Luke and Matthew do borrow heavily from Mark and the collaborative verses cannot be considered corroborative. The portions of Matthew and Luke (which do not come from Mark) do corroborate the existence of Jesus, as well as the gospel of John (and a few other books/documents I can't think of off the top of my head) and the testimony of Tacitus and Josephus. Using the historical method it is not only possible Jesus actually existed, but probable.

This is not to say Jesus was actually divine. That requires a completely different level of evidence, and borders on the question I am seeking here, which is how much of the stories of Jesus are legend, and how much are factual.

Let me help you along. He (Beastt) will ultimately demand eyewitness evidence, then will scream (along with a camp of liberal "scholars") that the people/events chronicled in the four gospel accounts - and elsewhere in the NT - were not written by eyewitnesses.

He will also likely remind you that no contemporary (AD 25-35) Jewish histories mention the existence of Jesus. What he leaves out is no contemporary (AD 25-35) Jewish histories fail to mention Jesus - mainly because there simply aren't any contemporary Jewish histories from that little time-frame in the first place. Thus, it is an argument from silence that means nothing for either side.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 11:34:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 1:49:03 PM, 12_13 wrote:

I think Gospel of John is greatly misunderstood, because it says:

How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.
John 14:10-14

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

So, according to the John, Jesus is not the one and only true God, but the dwelling of God. And disciples of Jesus are also dwellings of God.

Don't you know that you are a temple of God, and that God's Spirit lives in you?
1 Cor. 3:16

Exactly. All LIFE is the dwelling of God or the temple of God. God manifests itself/himself through all life forms. God is the Spirit of Life which includes all other spirits like love, joy, peace, etc and all the opposites of those as well.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:03:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 2:33:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/3/2014 1:32:53 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus.

I neglected to mention the fact that the Council of Nicaea (325CE - 367CE) voted on a number of contentions among Christians of the day. And one of the things they voted on was whether or not Jesus actually existed on Earth. And they didn't do so without reason, as many Christians of that time held no understanding of Jesus as having existed on Earth. And this would help to explain the writings of Paul which tell us outright that he did not exist on Earth (Hebrews 14:4 / Hebrews 8:4).

The verse is: 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Can you explain to me how Jesus would be tempted like us, if he were never on Earth?

Can you explain to me how Jesus "passed into heaven"? From where did he come from if he was passing into heaven?

You're so indoctrinated into the version of Christianity formed by the 4th century council that you can't remember that it is just one of many proposed configurations. Not all versions of Heaven are the same and this is apparent in looking even to the pagan gods which preceded Christianity. Osiris for example occupied the ethereal realm of Lowtsin. And temptations are a common part of many proposed ethereal realms. There are also many concepts of Heaven involving multiple levels of heavens as well as Heaven (or heavens) above other non-physical realms.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 1:22:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 10:39:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:26:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

And indeed, it is only in "John" where it is claimed that Jesus claimed himself to be God. This is one of the reasons "John" is the only non-synoptical gospel. But we should recognize that we have insufficient cause to suggest anything written in any of the gospels are the words, thoughts, ideas or expressions of Jesus. There is no evidence that any of the authors of the canonical gospels ever knew Jesus. And as you suspected, as the writings continued to emerge, the claims continued to grow. In fact, even the claim of resurrection is a latter addition to "Mark", likely placed there by scribes decades after the manuscript was written.

We're left to believe the original author knew Jesus resurrected, but didn't think it worthy of mention.

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus. While I agree the authors of the gospels are anonymous, I do not believe this is reason enough to submit Jesus never existed. I agree Luke and Matthew do borrow heavily from Mark and the collaborative verses cannot be considered corroborative. The portions of Matthew and Luke (which do not come from Mark) do corroborate the existence of Jesus, as well as the gospel of John (and a few other books/documents I can't think of off the top of my head) and the testimony of Tacitus and Josephus. Using the historical method it is not only possible Jesus actually existed, but probable.

This is not to say Jesus was actually divine. That requires a completely different level of evidence, and borders on the question I am seeking here, which is how much of the stories of Jesus are legend, and how much are factual.

Let me help you along. He (Beastt) will ultimately demand eyewitness evidence, then will scream (along with a camp of liberal "scholars") that the people/events chronicled in the four gospel accounts - and elsewhere in the NT - were not written by eyewitnesses.
How nice of you to jump in an pretend to speak for me. Were YOU afraid that if I spoke for myself that YOU might not be able to counter MY response? So YOU figured YOU'D just stuff MY mouth with YOUR words, providing YOU the opportunity to present YOUR preconceived response? That's called a "strawman", Anna. (Look under "fallacies")

He will also likely remind you that no contemporary (AD 25-35) Jewish histories mention the existence of Jesus. What he leaves out is no contemporary (AD 25-35) Jewish histories fail to mention Jesus - mainly because there simply aren't any contemporary Jewish histories from that little time-frame in the first place. Thus, it is an argument from silence that means nothing for either side.

Why are you isolating yourself to JEWISH historians? I don't care what faith or genetic lineage the historian is from. And the pure fact of the matter, ANNA, is that we know of more than 2-dozen known historians from that time. And not a single one of them ever bothered to mention Jesus. So the Christian proposal is that God actually came to Earth, spent about 33-years here, and did nothing at all noteworthy to even a single historian. But let's give you a bit more opportunity than that. Let's not limit the contemporary writings to just those from historians.

Now how many contemporary writings (from anyone), do we find? The score doesn't change at all. It remains... ZERO! There aren't ANY contemporary writings of Jesus... not ONE! So... God came to Earth just this one time, 2,000 years ago, didn't do any real traveling and dealt only with one group of people in one region of the planet. And in his 33-years there... he did nothing noteworthy to anyone who actually lived in that same time, or in that same region. And then, around 30 - 50 years later, people started writing about him. Of course, none of the people writing about him wrote the same things, even when they copied large segments of their work from each other. "Mark" contains 666 original verses and 678-verses in the current edit. "Matthew" presents parallel verses for some 600 of them, and still presents contradictions and variations. "Luke" contains parallels for about 300 of the verses in "Mark", and differs from both "Mark" and "Matthew". Yet you still propose that these writings - none of which are contemporary - should serve as credible records? And where historians cover some of the same material (such as the "Sins of Herod" compiled by Josephus), they don't include the stories held in the gospels. The gospels are largely fiction.

But somehow it sounds reasonable and plausible to you that God visited Earth, in the flesh, and no one - who met him, saw him, spoke with him, was healed by him, killed him, or in any form had any contact with him - found him at all noteworthy? Wise up. And dispense with your strawman responses. That's just pure dishonesty. I'm quite capable of answering for myself, and that's why you decided to try to answer for me.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 2:01:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 1:22:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/3/2014 10:39:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:26:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/1/2014 11:54:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have been wanting to explore the idea if Jesus was progressively embellished chronologically through the gospels. In Mark (the earliest canonical gospel), Jesus specifically states he is not to be thought of as God (10:17-18), and may have been elevated to god by adoption at his baptism, yet by the time we get to John (the latest canonical gospel), Jesus was god before his conception and existed with God eternally in time past (1:1). These seem to be contradictory to me, so which is it? Also corroborating this, is the fact that Jesus was not quoted as claiming divinity until the book of John. Was Jesus thought of as a god, a man elevated to god status, or simply a man? No trolls. Serious discussion will be appreciated.

And indeed, it is only in "John" where it is claimed that Jesus claimed himself to be God. This is one of the reasons "John" is the only non-synoptical gospel. But we should recognize that we have insufficient cause to suggest anything written in any of the gospels are the words, thoughts, ideas or expressions of Jesus. There is no evidence that any of the authors of the canonical gospels ever knew Jesus. And as you suspected, as the writings continued to emerge, the claims continued to grow. In fact, even the claim of resurrection is a latter addition to "Mark", likely placed there by scribes decades after the manuscript was written.

We're left to believe the original author knew Jesus resurrected, but didn't think it worthy of mention.

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus. While I agree the authors of the gospels are anonymous, I do not believe this is reason enough to submit Jesus never existed. I agree Luke and Matthew do borrow heavily from Mark and the collaborative verses cannot be considered corroborative. The portions of Matthew and Luke (which do not come from Mark) do corroborate the existence of Jesus, as well as the gospel of John (and a few other books/documents I can't think of off the top of my head) and the testimony of Tacitus and Josephus. Using the historical method it is not only possible Jesus actually existed, but probable.

This is not to say Jesus was actually divine. That requires a completely different level of evidence, and borders on the question I am seeking here, which is how much of the stories of Jesus are legend, and how much are factual.

Let me help you along. He (Beastt) will ultimately demand eyewitness evidence, then will scream (along with a camp of liberal "scholars") that the people/events chronicled in the four gospel accounts - and elsewhere in the NT - were not written by eyewitnesses.
How nice of you to jump in an pretend to speak for me. Were YOU afraid that if I spoke for myself that YOU might not be able to counter MY response? So YOU figured YOU'D just stuff MY mouth with YOUR words, providing YOU the opportunity to present YOUR preconceived response? That's called a "strawman", Anna. (Look under "fallacies")

He will also likely remind you that no contemporary (AD 25-35) Jewish histories mention the existence of Jesus. What he leaves out is no contemporary (AD 25-35) Jewish histories fail to mention Jesus - mainly because there simply aren't any contemporary Jewish histories from that little time-frame in the first place. Thus, it is an argument from silence that means nothing for either side.

Why are you isolating yourself to JEWISH historians?

Because the likelihood of any contemporary Roman/Greek-speaking history mentioning a lowly, homeless Jew who died a criminal's death is next-to-nothing. There were thousands of such executions in the first century.

Let's not limit the contemporary writings to just those from historians.

Yeah, let's - because by far the only contemporary writers who would have recorded His life were fellow Jews. That's all He ever preached to. All of His disciples were Jews. And the simple fact of the matter is: there are NO extant reliable Jewish histories contemporary with the AD 25-35 period. It is a fact that He is not mentioned by any contemporary Roman/Greek-speaking histories. It is a further fact that nobody expected such a mention. You seek to delude the simple-minded by claiming, "No contemporary history mentions Him." What you fail to mention is that any such reference would almost certainly be regarded as a forgery, a later addition, because nobody could fathom such a mention. Your "argument", while technically true, also technically means nothing.

Now how many contemporary writings (from anyone), do we find?

You'd have the four gospel accounts, accounts which do not even mention the destruction of the temple as an accomplished event. Why not? To the first recipients, this would have been THE significant event of the entire first century - yet we always find it yet future.

The score doesn't change at all. It remains... ZERO! There aren't ANY contemporary writings of Jesus... not ONE! So... God came to Earth just this one time, 2,000 years ago, didn't do any real traveling and dealt only with one group of people in one region of the planet.

The score depends upon who is dating the books. Your evidence for your late dates remains ... ZERO! That's where the zero lies.

And in his 33-years there... he did nothing noteworthy to anyone who actually lived in that same time, or in that same region. And then, around 30 - 50 years later, people started writing about him. Of course, none of the people writing about him wrote the same things, even when they copied large segments of their work from each other. "Mark" contains 666 original verses and 678-verses in the current edit.

Don't tell me that you have an original copy of "Mark" and that you've taken the time to count the verses. I suppose the 12-verse difference is those latter twelve verses with which you've done such a remarkable job.

"Matthew" presents parallel verses for some 600 of them, and still presents contradictions and variations. "Luke" contains parallels for about 300 of the verses in "Mark", and differs from both "Mark" and "Matthew". Yet you still propose that these writings - none of which are contemporary - should serve as credible records?

I never said that "Matthew" contradicts "Mark". YOU did - and we know how much you can be trusted. Every Bible student in the world, even the infidelic ones that you cite, knows that the gospel accounts contain parallel passages. So do Paul's epistles. People have know that for 2,000 years - and it's never been much of an argument concerning credibility. You find it amazing that Matthew says, "Jesus said so-and-so" - and then "Mark" says, "Jesus said so-and-so". Perchance it's because "Jesus said so-and-so."

And where historians cover some of the same material (such as the "Sins of Herod" compiled by Josephus), they don't include the stories held in the gospels. The gospels are largely fiction.

Thanks for your judgment. It carries a lot of weight.

But somehow it sounds reasonable and plausible to you that God visited Earth, in the flesh, and no one - who met him, saw him, spoke with him, was healed by him, killed him, or in any form had any contact with him - found him at all noteworthy? Wise up. And dispense with your strawman responses. That's just pure dishonesty. I'm quite capable of answering for myself, and that's why you decided to try to answer for me.

I gave another poster an entirely accurate response. You might not like how it sounded. It'll save him a dozen replies to discover that what I told him is 100% true.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:09:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Beastt: "So YOU figured YOU'D just stuff MY mouth with YOUR words, providing YOU the opportunity to present YOUR preconceived response? That's called a "strawman", Anna"

Anna: I stated precisely what you have already stated, which can be summed up by the following:

(1) You have decided, along with a motley potpourri of infidelic and semi-infidelic "scholars", that the writers of the four gospel accounts were not contemporaries of Jesus Christ. One stated reason that some scholars adopt this system is that they have already decided that Jesus of Nazareth could not have prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem. (Look up "circular reasoning".) That's not stuffing your mouth. That's repeating the stuff that came out of your mouth. Here's exactly where you stand:

(a) "Matthew the apostle of Jesus" did not write the book of Matthew.
(b) Mark did not write Mark
(c) Luke did not write Luke
(d) "John the apostle"did not write the book of John.
(e) Tacitus did not concern himself with facts. He merely reported common Christian gossip at the time.
(f) James was the "brother" of Jesus only in the sense that all Christians call themselves "brother".
(g) "The apostle Peter" did not write I Peter or II Peter

In each and every instance, anybody can find "scholars" who contest ... just about everything. In each and every instance, you'll arbitrarily cast your lots with the most liberal, the most infidelic, the most speculative of the group - and inform us that they are right! When questioned about specific evidence, you never answer.

(2) You have stated that no credible historian confirms the existence of Jesus Christ. Then you re-define "credible historian" for us as meaning "eyewitness". In other words, one can't possibly be a "credible historian" regarding anything that one did not personally witness. (Look up "redefining terms"). I asked you to give us, oh, four or five possible sources (or combinations of sources) for the statements by Tacitus - then kindly inform us as to why your designated source is more likely than the others. No response. Again, that's not stuffing your mouth. That's repeating what already came out of your mouth.

(3) You have repeatedly advanced certain claims concerning Mark 16: 9-20, and repeatedly failed answer a single question concerning the passage. In one instance, you made up, totally fabricated, a defense of the passage - then proceeded to tear down your own defense. That's nothing short of the truth.

(4) You handed us an absurd interpretation of Hebrews 8. The passage reads, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all." You told us that Paul intended it to mean that Jesus Christ was never on the earth! How's that for total dishonesty? Paul constantly preached the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, yet you've decided that he also taught that He never existed. Of course, all the passage means is that Jesus was not of priestly lineage and could not (and cannot) serve as a priest while upon the earth. Nobody ever said that He did.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:25:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:01:32 PM, annanicole wrote:

Why are you isolating yourself to JEWISH historians?

Because the likelihood of any contemporary Roman/Greek-speaking history mentioning a lowly, homeless Jew who died a criminal's death is next-to-nothing. There were thousands of such executions in the first century.
But you don't mind claiming that Tacitus likely researched and confirmed this death and was able to do so? Which side of the fence do you want to play? It seems you keep hopping back and forth.
And then, since you're a Christian, you have the problem of Jesus being in no way any more notable than any of the other "thousands".

Let's not limit the contemporary writings to just those from historians.

Yeah, let's - because by far the only contemporary writers who would have recorded His life were fellow Jews. That's all He ever preached to. All of His disciples were Jews. And the simple fact of the matter is: there are NO extant reliable Jewish histories contemporary with the AD 25-35 period.
And while one can engage in disputes about the exact dates for the writings of Philo of Alexandria, it is known that he
- was living in that very region from around 20 BC to about 50CE
- was a prolific historian
- focused almost exclusively on politics and religion
- was a Jew
- left some 30 manuscripts of his work
- and never mentions Jesus, or any of the major events of the New Testament.

By the way, who Jesus preached to, and what he preached, and even IF he preached or existed, is all part of the matter being discussed. You can't use the Bible to support the Bible. And the Bible is not only lacking in credibility (for many reasons), but if Jesus didn't exist (which is what we're discussing), then we already know the Bible is false. You can't support the Bible, with the Bible.

It is a fact that He is not mentioned by any contemporary Roman/Greek-speaking histories.
Anna... "it is a fact" that he is not mentioned by an contemporary histories of any kind... not one word, from anyone.

It is a further fact that nobody expected such a mention.
That is not true. In fact, with Philo being a Jew, being a devout believer in the Old Testament, being focused purely on politics and religion, it is most certainly to be expected that if Jesus existed, and if the events of the New Testament were true, Philo would be fully expected to have mentioned him. Here we have a claim that a king slaughtered an unknown number of male toddlers in his desperate attempt to destroy the "new king", that Jesus had both the Jews and the Romans in an uproar... but no one would expect any historical mention of him.

You seek to delude the simple-minded by claiming, "No contemporary history mentions Him." What you fail to mention is that any such reference would almost certainly be regarded as a forgery, a later addition, because nobody could fathom such a mention. Your "argument", while technically true, also technically means nothing.
Ah, ah, ah... now you're tossing in conjecture and prognostications you can't possibly support. The fact is, there were no such extant histories written. So what you wish to claim would have been regarded of them is totally inconsequential.

Now how many contemporary writings (from anyone), do we find?

You'd have the four gospel accounts, accounts which do not even mention the destruction of the temple as an accomplished event. Why not? To the first recipients, this would have been THE significant event of the entire first century - yet we always find it yet future.
None of the gospel accounts are contemporary, Anna. The earliest date given for the oldest gospel ("Mark"), is around 50CE. And it wasn't written by a Jew.

The score doesn't change at all. It remains... ZERO! There aren't ANY contemporary writings of Jesus... not ONE! So... God came to Earth just this one time, 2,000 years ago, didn't do any real traveling and dealt only with one group of people in one region of the planet.

The score depends upon who is dating the books. Your evidence for your late dates remains ... ZERO! That's where the zero lies.
Haven't I lectured you before on your tendency to produce claims out of thin air, and even worse - to write blatant lies? The oldest gospel ("The Gospel of Mark"), mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple which historically dates to around 70CE. So please don't be so disingenuous as to claim there isn't any evidence to support the fact that none of the gospels are contemporary writings.

And in his 33-years there... he did nothing noteworthy to anyone who actually lived in that same time, or in that same region. And then, around 30 - 50 years later, people started writing about him. Of course, none of the people writing about him wrote the same things, even when they copied large segments of their work from each other. "Mark" contains 666 original verses and 678-verses in the current edit.

Don't tell me that you have an original copy of "Mark" and that you've taken the time to count the verses. I suppose the 12-verse difference is those latter twelve verses with which you've done such a remarkable job.
There are numerous copies of "The Gospel of Mark" which lack the last 12-verses. These include the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Miniscule 304, Syriac Sinaiticus, two of the earliest Georgian manuscripts, the Codex Bobiensis, one Sahidic manuscript of "Mark" and about 100 Armenian copies. I haven't had to count the verses myself and you certainly understand that. Is this another of your attempts to proclaim that I only echo what I've read? The point, Anna, is that I've read a great deal (nothing like your claim of FIVE THOUSAND books on the subject), and I've weighed the evidence provided. If you have reason to challenge the number of verses as I've provided, then we'll address your concerns. But it doesn't appear that you do. You're just getting snippy because you dislike having your favorite fairytale dismantled.

"Matthew" presents parallel verses for some 600 of them, and still presents contradictions and variations. "Luke" contains parallels for about 300 of the verses in "Mark", and differs from both "Mark" and "Matthew". Yet you still propose that these writings - none of which are contemporary - should serve as credible records?

I never said that "Matthew" contradicts "Mark". YOU did - and we know how much you can be trusted.
The only reason you claim I'm not trustworthy is the same reason theists arbitrarily distrust atheists. I'm not the one getting caught in lies on a continual basis, Anna. I can't say the same for you, Mhykiel and Neutral. In any online religious debate, I always find the Christians to be the one so willing to present lies.

But, since you're going to play the suspicious little frog about each and every statement;
-
Mark - Two women go to the tomb
Matthew - Three women go to the tomb

Mark - The cross inscription; "The King of the Jews"
Matthew - The cross inscription; "This is Jesus the Kind of the Jews"

Mark - Jesus is offered winy mixed with myrrh, but doesn't drink.
Matthew - Jesus is offered vinegar, but doesn't drink.

Mark - When Jesus dies there is no mention of any earthquake opening tombs or zombies (Just not important?)
Matthew - At the moment Jesus dies, there is an earthquake, tombs open, and zombies of Saints wander about the city.

That's a very brief list of contradictions, involving only the crucifixion and empty tomb scenes.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 4:58:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 1:03:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/3/2014 2:33:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/3/2014 1:32:53 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/2/2014 7:51:33 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Your opinion and mine differ in regards to the historicity of Jesus.

I neglected to mention the fact that the Council of Nicaea (325CE - 367CE) voted on a number of contentions among Christians of the day. And one of the things they voted on was whether or not Jesus actually existed on Earth. And they didn't do so without reason, as many Christians of that time held no understanding of Jesus as having existed on Earth. And this would help to explain the writings of Paul which tell us outright that he did not exist on Earth (Hebrews 14:4 / Hebrews 8:4).

The verse is: 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Can you explain to me how Jesus would be tempted like us, if he were never on Earth?

Can you explain to me how Jesus "passed into heaven"? From where did he come from if he was passing into heaven?

You're so indoctrinated into the version of Christianity formed by the 4th century council that you can't remember that it is just one of many proposed configurations. Not all versions of Heaven are the same and this is apparent in looking even to the pagan gods which preceded Christianity. Osiris for example occupied the ethereal realm of Lowtsin. And temptations are a common part of many proposed ethereal realms. There are also many concepts of Heaven involving multiple levels of heavens as well as Heaven (or heavens) above other non-physical realms.

So what are you suggesting? That he was in one kind of ethereal realm where he was tempted, and he passed to a different ethereal realm.

It says to me, and most people that read it, is a high priest was once on earth, and is now in heaven. And that high priest can understand our plight and suffering because that high priest was on earth living as we do.

The phrase is tempted (past tense). The word is passed (past tense). So the heaven this high priest now abides in, is not where they are being tempted continually. They HAVE BEEN Tempted (perfect past tense), they have been tested and the test is over. The high priest is without sin.

I'm not even using other verses to rebuttal your opinion on this verse. I am using the very next verse by the same author in the same chapter.

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

http://biblehub.com...

You are clearly taking these verse out of context.

Now can you explain to me how in the next chapter (5) of the same book (Hebrews) we find the verse:

Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth

How does that mean Jesus did not exist on earth as you interpret the other verses?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 5:01:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:09:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
Beastt: "So YOU figured YOU'D just stuff MY mouth with YOUR words, providing YOU the opportunity to present YOUR preconceived response? That's called a "strawman", Anna"

Anna: I stated precisely what you have already stated, which can be summed up by the following:
Perhaps I should speak to the administrators of the site about a credibility rating for each user based on the number of reported and confirmed lies presented.

I haven't stated most of what you claimed, Anna. And my response was highly dissimilar to yours. How would you like it if I just start answering as though I were you, and presenting arguments you wouldn't have presented, claiming they were yours? Christianity WILL DIE, Anna. You can't stop it. And to stoop to such levels trying to slow the process only demonstrates the lack of integrity common to its followers.

(1) You have decided, along with a motley potpourri of infidelic and semi-infidelic "scholars"
Tsk, tsk, tsk... they are "scholars", Anna. The fact that YOU disagree with their findings doesn't make them "infidelic" or "semi-infidelic".

... that the writers of the four gospel accounts were not contemporaries of Jesus Christ. One stated reason that some scholars adopt this system is that they have already decided that Jesus of Nazareth could not have prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem.
And yet I've never presented any such argument.

(Look up "circular reasoning".) That's not stuffing your mouth. That's repeating the stuff that came out of your mouth. Here's exactly where you stand:
That's another lie. I have never said that Jesus couldn't have prophesied anything. But we have no more reason to believe he did, than to believe that a used car salesman living in a small town in Montana, prophesied the destruction of the Challenger shuttle. And with the history between Rome and the Jews, it wouldn't take a psychic to guess where things were headed. (And it wasn't JUST the temple which was prophesied to be destroyed.)

(a) "Matthew the apostle of Jesus" did not write the book of Matthew.
(b) Mark did not write Mark
(c) Luke did not write Luke
(d) "John the apostle"did not write the book of John.
(e) Tacitus did not concern himself with facts. He merely reported common Christian gossip at the time.
(f) James was the "brother" of Jesus only in the sense that all Christians call themselves "brother".
(g) "The apostle Peter" did not write I Peter or II Peter

In each and every instance, anybody can find "scholars" who contest ... just about everything. In each and every instance, you'll arbitrarily cast your lots with the most liberal, the most infidelic, the most speculative of the group - and inform us that they are right! When questioned about specific evidence, you never answer.

If Matthew had witnessed the events and wrote the "Gospel of Matthew" why is more than 80% of his work a copy from the writings of "The Gospel of Mark"? It's not just atheists asking these questions, Anna. Here (again), is an excerpt from the preface to "Matthew" in the NIV Study Bible...

- "Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?"

Have you completely lost the ability to allow even an attempt at honesty into your responses?

(2) You have stated that no credible historian confirms the existence of Jesus Christ. Then you re-define "credible historian" for us as meaning "eyewitness". In other words, one can't possibly be a "credible historian" regarding anything that one did not personally witness. (Look up "redefining terms").
I didn't attempt to redefine any terms, Anna. You did. I used the term "credible historian" in one instance, and "eye-witness" in another. YOU are the one who attempted to blend those together, and then claimed that I was shifting goal posts. I'm making two different points. Tacitus IS a "credible historian", but he is not an "eyewitness". And while Tacitus does meaning the "Christus" and the execution under Pontias Pilate, he offers us no reason to suspect that he is offering anything more than the common Christian traditional story. I left it open to you to explain from where he could have confirmed such information, and you fell flat. Then you turn around and attempt to paint the execution of Jesus as no more notable than thousands of others - while at the same time, insisting that Tacitus is providing reliable information. Even the most credible historian can't verify every single word of their work, Anna.

I asked you to give us, oh, four or five possible sources (or combinations of sources) for the statements by Tacitus - then kindly inform us as to why your designated source is more likely than the others. No response. Again, that's not stuffing your mouth. That's repeating what already came out of your mouth.
I asked YOU to provide sources. I offered the common traditional story of Christians, and the Acta Senatus with the mention that it would be highly unlikely for it to contain any verification for those executed under the Romans. YOU offered nothing. And Tacitus offers nothing. He makes the statement, having no reason to believe it to be untrue. It's certainly believable, since, as you note, a great many people were put to death under Pontias Pilate. But he didn't have the same level of information we have today - including how popular Christianity has become. Had he known, he may have felt more compelled to research the claim before adding it to his work. He's certainly not the first historian to unwittingly include myths in his work.

(3) You have repeatedly advanced certain claims concerning Mark 16: 9-20, and repeatedly failed answer a single question concerning the passage. In one instance, you made up, totally fabricated, a defense of the passage - then proceeded to tear down your own defense. That's nothing short of the truth.
That doesn't even contain any truth, Anna. You hounded me to talk about Christian attempts to salvage the last 12-verses from what the objective evidence shows, and I presented one of the conjectural explanations I've read. The problem here seems to be what I have found to be true in dealing with people throughout my life - "People tend to expect from others, what they would expect of themselves". Since you expect yourself to lie and do so whenever it suits your arguments, you expect the same from me. And since you expect it from me, you immediately jump to that conclusion whenever it suits you. But there is one thing you should know about me, Anna... I DON'T LIE! In my career, telling a lie could result in immediate termination and I held that job for over 30-years. It is not in my nature to lie.

(4) You handed us an absurd interpretation of Hebrews 8. The passage reads, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all."
I see that you have selected an highly altered and interpreted version of Hebrews. And of course, when the Bible is interpreted for revision, it is almost always done so with a distinct bias. Read the KJV. And read THE WORDS, Anna. Read what it says, not what you've been taught.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 6:10:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 4:25:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 2:01:32 PM, annanicole wrote:

Why are you isolating yourself to JEWISH historians?

Because the likelihood of any contemporary Roman/Greek-speaking history mentioning a lowly, homeless Jew who died a criminal's death is next-to-nothing. There were thousands of such executions in the first century.
But you don't mind claiming that Tacitus likely researched and confirmed this death and was able to do so? Which side of the fence do you want to play? It seems you keep hopping back and forth.
And then, since you're a Christian, you have the problem of Jesus being in no way any more notable than any of the other "thousands".

Let's not limit the contemporary writings to just those from historians.

Yeah, let's - because by far the only contemporary writers who would have recorded His life were fellow Jews. That's all He ever preached to. All of His disciples were Jews. And the simple fact of the matter is: there are NO extant reliable Jewish histories contemporary with the AD 25-35 period.
And while one can engage in disputes about the exact dates for the writings of Philo of Alexandria, it is known that he
- was living in that very region from around 20 BC to about 50CE

Are you stating that he lived in Jerusalem/Judea? What exactly are you terming "the region"? I noticed the other day that there is but one recorded visit of Philo to Jerusalem. If this is true, the likelihood is that Philo was not even close to Jerusalem from 30-33 AD.

By the way, who Jesus preached to, and what he preached, and even IF he preached or existed, is all part of the matter being discussed. You can't use the Bible to support the Bible.

Sure I can - and I will. There is absolutely no reason for me to disregard the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

And the Bible is not only lacking in credibility (for many reasons), but if Jesus didn't exist (which is what we're discussing), then we already know the Bible is false. You can't support the Bible, with the Bible.

Already answered.

It is a fact that He is not mentioned by any contemporary Roman/Greek-speaking histories.
Anna... "it is a fact" that he is not mentioned by an contemporary histories of any kind... not one word, from anyone.

It is a further fact that nobody expected such a mention.
That is not true. In fact, with Philo being a Jew, being a devout believer in the Old Testament, being focused purely on politics and religion, it is most certainly to be expected that if Jesus existed, and if the events of the New Testament were true, Philo would be fully expected to have mentioned him. Here we have a claim that a king slaughtered an unknown number of male toddlers in his desperate attempt to destroy the "new king", that Jesus had both the Jews and the Romans in an uproar... but no one would expect any historical mention of him.

You'd be dumb enough to expect Philo, an Alexandrian Jew living in Egypt, to know about another Jew - a lowly, itinerant, homeless preacher who preached for three years - living in Jerusalem, 650 miles away. That's your expectation?

You seek to delude the simple-minded by claiming, "No contemporary history mentions Him." What you fail to mention is that any such reference would almost certainly be regarded as a forgery, a later addition, because nobody could fathom such a mention. Your "argument", while technically true, also technically means nothing.

Ah, ah, ah... now you're tossing in conjecture and prognostications you can't possibly support.

Well, I don't want to do that: that would place me in direct competition with you.

The fact is, there were no such extant histories written. So what you wish to claim would have been regarded of them is totally inconsequential.

Now how many contemporary writings (from anyone), do we find?

You'd have the four gospel accounts, accounts which do not even mention the destruction of the temple as an accomplished event. Why not? To the first recipients, this would have been THE significant event of the entire first century - yet we always find it yet future.
None of the gospel accounts are contemporary, Anna. The earliest date given for the oldest gospel ("Mark"), is around 50CE. And it wasn't written by a Jew.

I didn't ask you to "date" any of the books. I can do that myself. Certainly the Book of Mark was written by a Jew, presumably for a Roman audience whereas Matthew was an account written specifically for Jews

The score doesn't change at all. It remains... ZERO! There aren't ANY contemporary writings of Jesus... not ONE! So... God came to Earth just this one time, 2,000 years ago, didn't do any real traveling and dealt only with one group of people in one region of the planet.

The score depends upon who is dating the books. Your evidence for your late dates remains ... ZERO! That's where the zero lies.

Haven't I lectured you before on your tendency to produce claims out of thin air, and even worse - to write blatant lies? The oldest gospel ("The Gospel of Mark"), mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple which historically dates to around 70CE. So please don't be so disingenuous as to claim there isn't any evidence to support the fact that none of the gospels are contemporary writings.

The Gospel of Mark does not mention the destruction of the temple as an accomplished event, does it? This is what I said:

"You'd have the four gospel accounts, accounts which do not even mention the destruction of the temple as an accomplished event. Why not? To the first recipients, this would have been THE significant event of the entire first century - yet we always find it yet future."

You say that such a statement exists. Point it out.

And in his 33-years there... he did nothing noteworthy to anyone who actually lived in that same time, or in that same region. And then, around 30 - 50 years later, people started writing about him. Of course, none of the people writing about him wrote the same things, even when they copied large segments of their work from each other. "Mark" contains 666 original verses and 678-verses in the current edit.

Don't tell me that you have an original copy of "Mark" and that you've taken the time to count the verses. I suppose the 12-verse difference is those latter twelve verses with which you've done such a remarkable job.

There are numerous copies of "The Gospel of Mark" which lack the last 12-verses. These include the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Miniscule 304, Syriac Sinaiticus, two of the earliest Georgian manuscripts, the Codex Bobiensis, one Sahidic manuscript of "Mark" and about 100 Armenian copies. I haven't had to count the verses myself and you certainly understand that. Is this another of your attempts to proclaim that I only echo what I've read? The point, Anna, is that I've read a great deal (nothing like your claim of FIVE THOUSAND books on the subject), and I've weighed the evidence provided. If you have reason to challenge the number of verses as I've provided, then we'll address your concerns. But it doesn't appear that you do. You're just getting snippy because you dislike having your favorite fairytale dismantled.

I know very well which manuscripts do not contain Mark 16: 9-20, or a form thereof. Why don't you fill in the blanks and we'll see where you wind up:

Number of manuscripts containing Mark 16: 9-20: ______________
Number of manuscripts NOT containing Mark 16: 2-30: ______________

Just give rough estimates, give or take. I'll guarantee you that the numbers are more than 10 to 1 in favor or Mark 16: 9-20.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."