Jesus of History and Myth

[2PhiloVoid]

I find it curious that the NT seems to praise the Romans and vilify the Jews. This suggests that the NT writers were either Hellenist Jews or that they were Gentile.

...to be fair, shouldn't we recognize that the O.T. itself in various places "demeans" the Israelites on the whole? God basically tells them, "You're not really all that special, just undeservedly privileged...!"

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I find it curious that the NT seems to praise the Romans and vilify the Jews. This suggests that the NT writers were either Hellenist Jews or that they were Gentile.

I never saw any "praise" for the Romans vs Jews anywhere,
not in nor throughtout the Bible, and no where else either.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...to be fair, shouldn't we recognize that the O.T. itself in various places "demeans" the Israelites on the whole? God basically tells them, "You're not really all that special, just undeservedly privileged...!"

The Scripture plainly speaks the Truth, not political correctness and not social niceness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...to be fair, shouldn't we recognize that the O.T. itself in various places "demeans" the Israelites on the whole? God basically tells them, "You're not really all that special, just undeservedly privileged...!"

...also, @Steve Petersen, I think we need to acknowledge that the Romans are implicated with the Jews in causing the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus.

 

[inquiring mind]

...also, @Steve Petersen, I think we need to acknowledge that the Romans are implicated with the Jews in causing the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus.

Yes, I agree... even though He was sent for that purpose.

 

[inquiring mind]

I never saw any "praise" for the Romans vs Jews anywhere,
not in nor throughtout the Bible, and no where else either.

I think some people misinterpret Pilate's initial curiousity of Jesus for being 'light handed.'

 

[cvanwey]

The Scripture plainly speaks the Truth

Except for when it doesn't

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

moved

 

[Tinker Grey]

Woe to all those who reject Yahweh's Word,
for they have rejected life, and they have rejected Jesus,
and they will not receive the gift of joy, peace nor eternal life -
only a painful future, where the worm eating their flesh never dies.

Take your threats elsewhere.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

moved

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is not my word, but Yahweh's >>>

If you endorse it and you quote it at your interlocutors, then it is YOU making the threat.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you endorse it and you quote it at your interlocutors, then it is YOU making the threat.

Not according to God's Word. Sorry for you - it is not me you will have to answer to.

 

[inquiring mind]

Except for when it doesn't

Not being able to see the Scripture's truth does not mean the Scripture is not speaking the truth.

 

[cvanwey]

Not being able to see the Scripture's truth does not mean the Scripture is not speaking the truth.

Of course not, that would be silly. It's not true because we can test some of it's testable and repeatable claims, which then turn up false. In all reality, one time anecdotal events are not falsifiable. Hence, the reason many here can safely assert the rising dead as 'true' However, from a book of truth to sometimes turn up false, does cause pause for concern, if being intellectually honest with one's self...

 

[cvanwey]

Not according to God's Word. Sorry for you - it is not me you will have to answer to.

Your responses represent everything I've said prior, about Christianity. (i.e) As being compulsory, demonstrating an ultimatum, and/or being coercive in nature.

Nice work. If this is your definition of 'perfect love', I surely would not care to know what your definition of 'hate' might be.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I'm going to fast-forward about a projected 20-30 posts of back and forth....

If there is a God, I doubt God would rely upon human writings to convey truth. Why?

The Bible states all scripture is 'God inspired', in more than one spot. If such is/was the case, one might conclude the following:

1. The originals would be preserved. We have no originals. We start with small fragments of copied copies. When we finally find/have full writings, they had most certainly been recopied many many times. Meaning, if God was inspiring such works, God would have needed to assure that each and every re-copy was ALL monitored and ALL supervised to preserve the original message. This would mean that every scribe, writing Gospel literature decades/centuries later, would have had to of received God's intervention. Not just John, Mark, etc.... Hence, the earliest full manuscripts found, centuries later would have had to of had the same absolute guiding hand as John, Mark, Saul. etc... Seems like a truly vacuous proposition to perform. Especially in the light of the fact that we see deviations

The Orthodox and RCC claim that the holy spirit has guided the Church continuously for the past two thousand years

2. We don't know what was first written. Sorry. But we do have examples of later revisions, where the further one goes backwards, the more they deviate (i.e) Mark 16:8 to Mark 16:9, followed by Matthew, and John.

nitpicking

3. If all scripture is God inspired, this indicated one author, (God), and the Gospel writers are nothing more than mere 'ghost writers' for God. So why would such works deviate? I find it rather curious how apologists will then conclude. 'Well, this was John's account, or this was Mark's account.' Again, if the works were God guided, it would NOT matter who the perceived author was. In a sense, the apologist is shooting them self in the foot. Such a conclusion would indicate we are to instead rely upon fallible human interpretation, where the details differ. So which one is it?

again, with all due respect, nitpicking

the various accounts include different but self consistent sets of details

if there are actually a few errors here and there, it doesn't fell the whole forest for wont of a few individual trees

the fact that so many different and fallible human authors agree >99% is consistent with being guided by an over-arching guiding hand

4. It appears more-so concluded that the later powers-that-be (the church), that the recognized church/theocracy placed together what they wanted to place together, to create an authoritative canon and/or doctrine.

cart before the horse

the church could never have developed credibility and authority, without a consistent message from the first

 

[Erik Nelson]

...In all reality, one time anecdotal events are not falsifiable. Hence, the reason many here can safely assert the rising dead as 'true' However, from a book of truth to sometimes turn up false, does cause pause for concern, if being intellectually honest with one's self...

not automatically false either though

 

[inquiring mind]

Of course not, that would be silly. It's not true because we can test some of it's testable and repeatable claims, which then turn up false. In all reality, one time anecdotal events are not falsifiable. Hence, the reason many here can safely assert the rising dead as 'true' However, from a book of truth to sometimes turn up false, does cause pause for concern, if being intellectually honest with one's self...

Oh, so you're coming to your conclusions by applying the scientific method to God's word... I bet He gets a chuckle out of that.

 

[Erik Nelson]

No. Why? My words are not 'God inspired.' Nor do I claim them to be



We don't know who went where, and when. All we have are inconsistent writings, where the further one goes backwards, the more they deviate.

Please read post #238

the cumulative preponderance of the written evidence supports Church tradition, that Mary Magdalen first visited the empty tomb, and was the first to inform the other Christians of the fact

why are you nitpicking so much? The other apostles found out, and they all admitted that they first learned of the empty tomb from Mary Magdalen...

what is your alternative theory of what happened? If you have a better theory, let's hear it. Otherwise if it ain't broke don't fix it

you're ignoring the preponderance of evidence to nitpick one ambiguous phrase, that subsequent accounts all clarified, consistently

on top of which you are not supplying a plausible alternative theory of events

if we nitpicked classical secular authors this much, we would not be able to acknowledge any of human history as ever having occurred

 

[cvanwey]

The Orthodox and RCC claim that the holy spirit has guided the Church continuously for the past two thousand years

People claim whatever they want. Heck, I can go into any church, of any denomination or belief, and hear 'truth'; which may very well conflict with the opposing church right next door even. Heck, down the road from my house, there exists a Mormon church, which resides right next door to a Hindu temple, and further down that very same road there is a Seven Day Adventist church.

But you still have not addressed my points:

1. If God is inspiring all accounts, why inspire inconsistency from one author to the next? Seems more logical that all accounts would parallel in details. Johns's account would be the same as Mark's.
2. If the Word is God's chosen vessel for truth, why allow the originals to vanish, and all subsequent copies to deviate?
3. If the Word is God's chosen method, why allow for a multitude of interpretations, allowing infighting and war for centuries, over the right/wrong of translated text?
4. If truth is objective, and the church is 'God guided', then why does even the church's stance on certain positions deviate over time. Isn't absolute truth never changing?
5. So anyone whom works in a church is now 'God inspired'?

nitpicking

Quite the contrary! 'Hand-waving' the issue, starring you in the face, will not make it simply go away 'Rubber stamping' obvious contradictions does not mean you can pretend they do not exist.

Mark 16:8 was the original ending, where the woman/women say nothing to no one. The later church writers had to write of an 'addition'. Otherwise, there would exist too much inconsistency. I'm sure you are aware, we have thousands of manuscripts.

It would NOT be possible for God to tell some scribes to stop at 16:8, by stating that the women fled and remained quiet. While on the other hand, telling other later scribes to state she/they did. Direct contradiction....

Sorry, deal with it. Or avoid it, like you already have. Your choice.

again, with all due respect, nitpicking

No apologies necessary, my good 'apologist'

But again, quite the contrary. The Bible is either provided by God or not. So which one is it? If so, personal and differing human perspective is nonsense. If we are to instead take the accounts as face value, then I guess ALL scripture is NOT 'God breathed'. So before we determine which path to take, please let me know which camp you fall within? It's an A) or B) proposition.

A) Are you in the camp of God as the director, and all writers are mere 'ghost writers' for the same provider/entity?

B) Or, are we to ignore scripture, noting God's intervention in all scripture, even though it clearly states as such in the believed Bible?

cart before the horse

The church could never have developed credibility and authority, without a consistent message from the first

False.

- Prior to Constantine, Christianity was considered a cult; just like many other cults before and since.
- People did not write of much about Jesus mostly because they were under the impression that all would 'come to pass' during their life time.
- Furthermore, most of the believers were illiterate at the time. Oral tradition was key.
- If it wasn't for the claimed vision of Saul, the literate Roman citizen, who attempted to convert others, we would have even less early writings.
- We do not have much in the way of full manuscripts until after Constantine - (how convenient).
- Theocracy ruled the roost of the day, and Constantine legalized Christianity.
- We then start to see many manuscripts emerge over the upcoming centuries ahead.
- The church is a bunch of humans whom impose their beliefs and practices as authoritative law, especially during this time period.
- Most wanted to be like the emperor. Hence, the Christian uprising after Constantine.
- It's convenient that if one looks at a world religions map, Christianity seems to flourish in the areas which adopted the early cultures of the Roman empire (the later Americas most notably)