Religion

[Octavian]

i'm not saying jesus the man didn't exist i never have, it is quite possible for a preacher/prophet call him whatever you will to be knocking around at that time, the name jesus was one of the most popular of its day so logic dictates a sage of some description was knocking about, what i am saying the man in the gospels and all his daring deeds is unlikely for the very reasons i have mentioned before.
you sort of agree by the fact you have said you are not making a case for a virgin birth or a resurrection, the basic tenets of Christianity
that is not an outlandish suggestion and i'm not sure why you are so put out by it

Well our argument started with the “humour me” reply to my suggestion he did exist. The evidence for the man existing is more than what is accepted for other historical figures from the ancient world.

I think the basic story of a Jewish preacher having a following, preaching what the authorities saw as blasphemy at the time, being crucified for it, is incredibly likely.

The rest of the story about miracles, virgin birth, resurrection etc. are insane claims that demand insane evidence if we’re to believe them - which we obviously do not have.

 

[paulsimpson]

‘None of the gospels mention…’

So, the absence of something proves something is factual. :-0

still no refuting or explanation of how the unmentioned continents animals were travelled to, located, herded, transported back, fed on specific diets, then re-distributed back to unmentioned continents by a small family group… just paragraphs and paragraphs on wrong Ark dimensions.

Another story, ‘gospel’, written to fit prophesy of some sort of messiah is the complete farce of Luke’s description of the background to jesus birth. Joseph and Mary went back to their place of birth because that’s what a census required…nonsense, the logistics and practicalities of this are similar to the stocking of the Ark.

Luke iirc is the only gospel to mention 3 kings following a star, whilst another is the only one to mention 3 shepherds. You would have thought a new star moving across the sky for months and then stopping above a stable, would be mentioned by every ‘gospel’ as it’s quite a majorly earthly event…

The idea that the Gospels and epistles were not written down until two or three centuries after the death of Jesus is old “scholarship.” Ignatius, who was martyred around the year AD 115, wrote of the apostles’ letters and the Gospels as the “New Testament.”(Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians 5, and Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 7:4). This was typical of all the early church leaders who acknowledged only the four Gospels for the life and teaching of Jesus. By AD 150 the Muratorian Canon listed the books accepted by the “universal church,” and it includes the four Gospels and all thirteen letters of Paul. (Brian H. Edwards, Why 27? (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2007), pp. 89–106). St John, according to the Asiatic tradition, recorded by Irenaeus (II. 22, 5; III. 3. 4.) lived ‘till the times of Trajan’ (AD 98–170) and the writing of the Gospel could also be placed at the close of his life. Irenaeus’ testimony is significant, since he was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John himself. Incidentally, Irenaeus used the historicity of Genesis 1:27 and 2:7 in his famous Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies.Peter died in AD 64 or 65; dates earlier than that for the composition of the fourth Gospel seem unlikely. Those who hold to a date before 70 point to details of Palestine presented as if Jerusalem and its temple complex were still standing; for example, the evangelist writes: “Now there is(present tense) in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool” (John 5:2). … The silence of the fourth Gospel on the destruction of the temple is considered powerful evidence for a pre-70 date by some authors. But the argument from silence can be challenged too. So, pre 70 AD or 80-85.
In 1972 liberal scripture scholar, John A. T. Robinson, published a detailed study of each of the books of the New Testament and concluded that they all must have been completed before the year AD 70. (J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1972). Conservative Christians agree that all the New Testament was completed by the close of the first century AD. In addition, Robinson denounced the “sheer scholarly laziness” of those who assume a late date for the New Testament and added, “It is sobering too to discover how little basis there is for many of the dates confidently assigned by modern experts to the New Testament documents.” p.341.So we can confidently claim that the Gospels and letters of the New Testament were written down by the traditionally accepted authors who lived in the first century.

Regarding the census it was assumed by some that a Roman emperor would never issue an order for a census where “all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.” Then, a papyrus decree was discovered in Egypt that was an order for a Roman census in Egypt at the time of Trajan in AD 104, which mirrors the order of Augustus recorded in Luke 2. The Prefect Gaius Vibius Maximus ordered all those in his area to return to their own homes for the purpose of a census. .(Papyrus 904 in the British Library, London)

The Star in Matthew 2:" Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship" The text implies the star of Bethlehem appeared only to the magi in the East (most likely the area of Persia, or modern-day Iran). There is no biblical record of anyone else observing the star of Bethlehem and they refer to it as being “his star,” since it was a sign to them that a king was born. The star prompted the magi to travel to Jerusalem. When there they were told that Micah's prophecy 5:2 says Messiah is born in Bethlehem. There is evidence to suggest that the star of Bethlehem was not a natural stellar phenomenon, but something unexplained by science. First, the fact that the star of Bethlehem seemed to appear only to the magi indicates that this was no ordinary star. Also, celestial bodies normally move from east to west due to the earth’s rotation, yet the star of Bethlehem led the magi from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem. Not only that, but it led them directly to the place where Joseph and Mary were staying, stopping overhead. There is no natural stellar phenomenon that can do that.The conclusion is that the Star of Bethlehem cannot be explained by science! It was a temporary and supernatural light. After all, God has often used special, heavenly lights to guide His people, such as the glory that filled the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34–38) and the temple (1 Kings 8:10) and that shone upon the apostle Paul (Acts 9:3). Such visible signs of God'’s presence are known as the Shekinah Glory, or dwelling place of God. This special light is a visible manifestation of divine majesty. The great mystery of the first Christmas is not the origin of its special star. It is the question of why the Magi were chosen to follow the light to the Messiah, and why we are given the same invitation today.

see Noah's Ark Questions and Answers - creation.com dimensions of the ark , feasibility study etc..It needs to be read. One common fallacy by evolutionists is that variation within a kind somehow proves particles-to-people evolution. Evolution requires the creation of radically new genetic information, which is not possible by natural processes, such as mutations and natural selection. The extrapolation by asserting that microbes change into every plant and animal we see today is not scientific. I am assuming this macro type unobserved process is what you adhere to and before that, matter 'evolving' from nothing.

 

[Grassland Blue]

so then your god comes from where exactly?

Who or what created god? is an unanswerable question.
Big bang theory - who lit the fuse?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
There is an argument for a creator, but is it as compelling as the one for no creator at all, and the primordial soup.
There are arguments for and against which can drive you to distraction.
As the Beatles once sang - Let it be...

 

[Octavian]

Who or what created god? is an unanswerable question.
Big bang theory - who lit the fuse?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
There is an argument for a creator, but is it as compelling as the one for no creator at all, and the primordial soup.
There are arguments for and against which can drive you to distraction.
As the Beatles once sang - Let it be...

Deism isn’t a bad concept imo, neither is the multiverse theory.

 

[paulsimpson]

What you are stating is false.

Lots of Christians (mainly academics/theologians who specialise in New Testament Studies) have long acknowledged that the authors of the gospels made things up to suit their theological agenda and intended readership. The technical term for identifying traditions about Jesus that have been subjected to this process is 'redaction criticism'. The aim is ultimately to identify a core of material that might be regarded as authentic. This whole exercise has been described as 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus'.

One example is the contrast between Jesus's teaching about divorce in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus teaches that a man can divorce his wife if she is unfaithful to him, and Mark's gospel, in which he forbids divorce entirely, teaching that ‘what God has joined together, man must not separate.’ As Mark's gospel mentions women divorcing men, it has been suggested that this gospel was aimed at a Gentile readership, as under Roman Law women did enjoy the right of divorce. Contrastingly, only men could divorce their wives according to Jewish law, which raises the possibility that whoever wrote Matthew's gospel had Jewish readers in mind, and wished to persuade them that Jesus was their promised Messiah. In both instances, whatever Jesus taught about divorce has been manipulated.

Of course, there are those (including Christians themselves) who regard the aforementioned quest as futile, and beyond acknowledging that Jesus existed affirm that the Christ of faith is what really matters.

But anyway, it is pure nonsense to suggest that every word of the Bible is literally true. Again, one further example, this time taken from the Old Testament, can demonstrate this: both the future King David and Elhanan of Jair are described as the slayers of Goliath in the books of Samuel. So it can't be both.

In closing, I should add that were three different endings to Mark's gospel in circulation initially. So the gospel ends with the women fleeing the empty tomb and without any resurrection appearances. These endings were appended at this point, so an explanation is in order as to why they were needed and which (if any) is trustworthy.

Really, I have just skimmed the surface of this topic with what little I have said here.

E.P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus would be the place to start for anyone who wants to explore the issue of what can reasonably known about Jesus in more depth. As a non-Christian, I was amazed when reading this book to discover just how ruthless Christians themselves have been when it comes to the synoptic gospels and episodes within them that they regard as fictional (for example, this is the line that Sanders takes with the accounts of Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke).

As for the vexed issue of whether Jesus actually existed in the first place, Maurice Casey is the person to look at:

Review of Prof. Maurice Casey's Scholarly Critique of the Work of Jesus Mythicists - Dr. Michael Heiser

I blogged a short time ago to alert readers about this book. Maurice Casey was a New Testament scholar and Aramaic specialist. He was also nowhere close to being a …

drmsh.com

Jesus historians get an earful from Maurice Casey - Macleans.ca

An academic who is ‘not serving the interests of any faith’ derides self-serving portrayals of Christ

www.macleans.ca

Regarding the ending in Mark The long ending is gathered haphazardly together from the other Gospels and Acts; Mary Magdalene is introduced in verse 9 as if for the first time, but she was featured earlier in the chapter. The Road to Emmaus appearance is taken from Luke. The appearance to the Eleven and the Great Commission are similarly from the other Gospels. The driving out demons could come from one of the commissioning of the disciples, and immunity to poison and snake bites could be pointing to Paul’s survival of the snake bite in Acts. The command about Baptism isn't observed correctly by some. However there is no material in the long ending that we don’t have elsewhere.

 

[JASR]

Tldr;
Still missing the central gist of the Ark issue ‘how did a single extended family go out To unknown continents across oceans, locate all the variety of animals in unknown places, capture, herd, feed, transport them back on mini Arks (that would require propulsion), and then redistribute them back to said unknown continents’?

re: ‘star’ - ‘unknown to science how it did its trick’ yep it certainly is. Also why magi only in one gospel, shepherds only in another, not explained.

re: ‘census’ wow a single papyrus from a future date alludes to people in an area returning to their place of birth… and therefore x=y, it’s almost like there is no other intermediary information In the record - (of 100 years) surely that’s like your argument that there is no continuous record of intermediates in the evolution record of 100’s of millions of years….

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I’m stunned.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I’m stunned.

By how out of touch @paulsimpson is or his longevity in being able to compile countless paragraphs of bullshit?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

By how out of touch @paulsimpson is or his longevity in being able to compile countless paragraphs of bullshit?

No by my hangover.
I think I’m hallucinating with some of what I seem to be reading.

 

[tonea2003]

Well our argument started with the “humour me” reply to my suggestion he did exist. The evidence for the man existing is more than what is accepted for other historical figures from the ancient world.

I think the basic story of a Jewish preacher having a following, preaching what the authorities saw as blasphemy at the time, being crucified for it, is incredibly likely.

The rest of the story about miracles, virgin birth, resurrection etc. are insane claims that demand insane evidence if we’re to believe them - which we obviously do not have.

so you agree with me the jesus of the gospels is unlikely to have existed
jeez that took a long time