“The work of God”?

[Ban-jani]

as i've already said and you know its one unknown individual saying he's risen, all the meetings with jesus and eventual ascension are added later. i know its hard for you to accept but this is now universally accepted

the "Q" document is hypothetical and is not deemed worthy of debate until something concrete is ever found
so its just a convenient way of filling in the gaps
you do know all gospels are unknown in their authorship and despite you thinking i'm obsessive it is critical the timelines
mark being the earliest at around 40 years later is the only possible to have eyewitness accounts and even that is unlikely given life expectancy around this time

there are more mark issues but that will do for now

and you keep ignoring that not one contemporary writer makes reference to a jesus not one

Hard for me to accept? Don’t make me laugh.

You said the resurrection wasn’t in it, it is.


And as I’ve pointed out to you, Matthew is considered more comprehensive, containing more sources, than Mark, by scholars.

Even though that is the case, even if the original manuscript of Mark was the only Gospel ever found.

We have Jesus as the Son of God, performing miracles, dying on the cross for the sins of humanity and Risen on the 3rd day. If that was the only source available and the other Gospels and accounts in the NT didn’t exist, you’d still have Christianity as it pretty much is today.

That’s what YOU cannot accept, just like you cannot accept that the Gospels are based on earlier documents and eye witness accounts and just as you cannot accept that it’s perfectly common, in the ancient world, to have writings on historical figures, years after their deaths.

A minority of atheists, not professional historians, Internet ignorants, love to cling on to Mark has surely being the best source of information as it’s said to have been written first. People like you pretend that the whole religion hinges on this one book, rather than all the other sources in the NT. When most scholars actually look at Matthew and Luke as the most accurate and less primitive, the Q source, whether you like it or not is taken very seriously and it’s why Matthew and Luke are similar, yet one is aimed more at Jewish people and the other at everyone.

You do know that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was written in the 50’s? You do know what it says in these letters? It’s giving instructions to his church goers and it checks out with the Gospels, that you believe were made up 20 years after this. Doesn’t that say that at least the sources were before 70ad for the Gospels or perhaps that they were written earlier than first thought?

You’ve heard a couple of new atheist thinkers say one or two things about the NT and you’ve decided to go against the majority of historical scholars.

You’re not disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with what nearly all atheist scholars think.

Even Richard Dawkins thinks it’s at least probable that Jesus existed and made those claims.

There’s hundreds of presumed real historical figures that weren’t written about until after their death, as I keep repeating to you, it’s normal in the ancient world for this to have been the case, not just the ancient world but some only a few centuries ago.

 

[urban genie]

Only upshot of the gospels is it pretty much teaches anarcho-communism.


Ans before I am told communism is athiest, it actually says organised religion is a control method for the populace, never does it say there is no god

 

[urban genie]

Oh and catholics dress better than prods

 

[Ban-jani]

Only upshot of the gospels is it pretty much teaches anarcho-communism.


Ans before I am told communism is athiest, it actually says organised religion is a control method for the populace, never does it say there is no god

Not true mate, there’s nothing that talks about redistribution of wealth by the government, nor the state controlling the means of production.

It states charity though.

Jesus also says render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto my Father, what is my Father’s... meaning that there is a separation of the nations law to the law of God.

 

[Ban-jani]

Oh and catholics dress better than prods

That’s because we follow scripture closer and it tells us to not focus on earthly things as most important, such as clothes ;-)

 

[urban genie]

Not true mate, there’s nothing that talks about redistribution of wealth by the government, nor the state controlling the means of production.

It states charity though.

Jesus also says render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto my Father, what is my Father’s... meaning that there is a separation of the nations law to the law of God.

Ok you read into it what you need to, that is what faith is.

There are many interpretations of the gospels message it is an individuals spritual choice which truth it is.

 

[Ban-jani]

Ok you read into it what you need to, that is what faith is.

There are many interpretations of the gospels message it is an individuals spritual choice which truth it is.

You’re right mate and there is an argument to say that Christ would be a socialist if he was a political figure, so I’m not totally rubbishing what you’ve said.

It is just a theory though.

There is a clear message of sharing and charity but ultimately, He was clear to separate his message from world politics.

 

[urban genie]

That’s because we follow scripture closer and it tells us to not focus on earthly things as most important, such as clothes ;-)

No it's because they got better hats.

The cappela Romana is cool as fuck

 

[tonea2003]

Hard for me to accept? Don’t make me laugh.

You said the resurrection wasn’t in it, it is.


And as I’ve pointed out to you, Matthew is considered more comprehensive, containing more sources, than Mark, by scholars.

Even though that is the case, even if the original manuscript of Mark was the only Gospel ever found.

We have Jesus as the Son of God, performing miracles, dying on the cross for the sins of humanity and Risen on the 3rd day. If that was the only source available and the other Gospels and accounts in the NT didn’t exist, you’d still have Christianity as it pretty much is today.

That’s what YOU cannot accept, just like you cannot accept that the Gospels are based on earlier documents and eye witness accounts and just as you cannot accept that it’s perfectly common, in the ancient world, to have writings on historical figures, years after their deaths.

A minority of atheists, not professional historians, Internet ignorants, love to cling on to Mark has surely being the best source of information as it’s said to have been written first. People like you pretend that the whole religion hinges on this one book, rather than all the other sources in the NT. When most scholars actually look at Matthew and Luke as the most accurate and less primitive, the Q source, whether you like it or not is taken very seriously and it’s why Matthew and Luke are similar, yet one is aimed more at Jewish people and the other at everyone.

You do know that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was written in the 50’s? You do know what it says in these letters? It’s giving instructions to his church goers and it checks out with the Gospels, that you believe were made up 20 years after this. Doesn’t that say that at least the sources were before 70ad for the Gospels or perhaps that they were written earlier than first thought?

You’ve heard a couple of new atheist thinkers say one or two things about the NT and you’ve decided to go against the majority of historical scholars.

You’re not disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with what nearly all atheist scholars think.

Even Richard Dawkins thinks it’s at least probable that Jesus existed and made those claims.

There’s hundreds of presumed real historical figures that weren’t written about until after their death, as I keep repeating to you, it’s normal in the ancient world for this to have been the case, not just the ancient world but some only a few centuries ago.

i sense an anger in your reply mate with a few insults starting creep in, you really don't want to let your guard down now
i have never said a jesus did not exist,
i have never said mark is the most important gospel but matthew and luke use mark as source material(universally accepted)

i do know paul's letters were wrote in the 50's significantly paul never really talks about jesus being human more like a mythical figure

and as i keep saying and you keep ignoring not one contemporary writer mentions this man
the most fantastical man and events not written about but many less interesting people are

like i say i'm not saying a jesus did not exist but the discrepancies are there and need investigating

 

[Ban-jani]

i sense an anger in your reply mate with a few insults starting creep in, you really don't want to let your guard down now
i have never said a jesus did not exist,
i have never said mark is the most important gospel but matthew and luke use mark as source material(universally accepted)

i do know paul's letters were wrote in the 50's significantly paul never really talks about jesus being human more like a mythical figure

and as i keep saying and you keep ignoring not one contemporary writer mentions this man
the most fantastical man and events not written about but many less interesting people are

like i say i'm not saying a jesus did not exist but the discrepancies are there and need investigating

I have tried for several days not to become angry and have so far been successful, frustrated is how I’d describe my last post but I’ll try to cool it.

I am acknowledging that there weren’t necessarily present writers, alive when Christ was, who wrote about Him when Jesus was a man on Earth, well I admit that nothing has been found dated from 33AD or earlier, however I am merely saying that it not only happens with ancient figures but is common place.

I’ve just opened my Bible and have gone to Corinthians 1. You acknowledged this letter was written in 57AD:

15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel(A) I preached to you,(B) which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved,(C) if you hold firmly(D) to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received(E) I passed on to you(F)as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins(G) according to the Scriptures,(H)4 that he was buried,(I) that he was raised(J) on the third day(K) according to the Scriptures,(L)5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b](M) and then to the Twelve.(N) 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.(O) 7 Then he appeared to James,(P)then to all the apostles,(Q) 8 and last of all he appeared to me also,(R) as to one abnormally born.

So there we have a letter written in 57AD, discussing past “scripture” and “Gospel” being preached.

If the accuracy is true, that Mark is written around 70AD and it really is the first, then the Gospels have clearly got their information from “scripture” and accounts written many years earlier.

Paul is talking past tense too, he’s saying he has already preached scripture to these people, so let’s say a handful of months, maybe years earlier. This could have been only 20 years after the event. But he’s preaching scripture, where has that come from? Well obviously we don’t know but let’s presume he didn’t write it and he would have had to get a manuscript of such scripture, then it throws it even more into the past. He does clearly say “which I have passed on to you”, which means he received it and didn’t create it.

It wouldn’t be unreasonable to presume the scripture was written in a a very short space of time after 33AD. Maybe the 40’s or maybe even the 30’s.

As you know, the Gospels are a compilation of accounts and sources, well supposedly in your opinion, but they are relying on scripture that had been written many years earlier, to then compile it.

Paul is reminding people in 57AD that they know of the resurrection and they’ve seen the scriptures.

He’s also very much talking about the earthly Christ, who was “crucified” and “buried”.

Of course there are discrepancies to the stories but Matthew and Luke are thought to have had more sources to get information from. It’s also thought that certain sources may have placed themselves in a more significant role, such as who witnessed the Risen Christ. But what all or nearly all sources point to, is that many people saw Him and Paul, is actually calling himself the least of the Apostles. Why would he do that if he was out for personal gain in all of this?

Let’s not forget with Paul discussing the resurrection, we have a man who lived at the same time as Christ and then wrote about him, also claiming to see Him risen. Although yes, he wrote about him after his death.

Every time new evidence is found and every time you look deeper, it always leads to the result looking like the Gospels were biographical, even if you don’t believe the miracles or divinity.