Jesus of History and Myth

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You mean like how the Truth was revealed to Joseph Smith? Or Mohammed?

Oh wait. That can't be right ... they disagree with you.

What does Yahweh Say ?
LISTEN

 

[Tinker Grey]

What does Yahweh Say ?
LISTEN

There is no YHWH.

 

[inquiring mind]

Another thing that supports the idea that the stories about Jesus are at least partly made up: How do we know what he said and did when he was supposedly alone? The Temptation in the Wilderness, the prayer in Gethsemane, the events at the Transfiguration etc.

Further evidence the authors were Divinely inspired.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no YHWH.

Everyone will Answer to Yahweh ..... even those who do not believe....
Oh, He might not let you speak - there is no defense after all... there is no excuse accepted.... Being thrown in the lake of fire is not to be desired !

He knows .....

EVERY secret will be out in the open, revealed.......

 

[Steve Petersen]

Further evidence the authors were Divinely inspired.

The Goddidit syndrome.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Everyone will Answer to Yahweh ..... even those who do not believe....
Oh, He might not let you speak - there is no defense after all... there is no excuse accepted.... Being thrown in the lake of fire is not to be desired !

He knows .....

EVERY secret will be out in the open, revealed.......

None of that will happen.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Further evidence the authors were Divinely inspired.

Further evidence it is all made up.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What leads an atheist to say something like that ? hmmmm......

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

[QUOTE="Steve Petersen]

The Goddidit syndrome.

[/QUOTE]

haha.... try saying that three times fast !

 

[Tinker Grey]

What leads an atheist to say something like that ? hmmmm......

Because we believe it to be true

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Because we believe it to be true

AH HA ! A possible step !

The first of however many steps are needed...... ?

If you did not believe it to be true, just "if" it were not true, what then ?

Would you still believe it ?

 

[inquiring mind]

The Goddidit syndrome.

It's all I got when it comes right down to it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's all I got when it comes right down to it.

Kind of like a few decades ago? phrase : "God said it, (or did it), I believe it, and THAT'S THAT ! ) "

 

[inquiring mind]

Further evidence it is all made up.

If it was, and I don't believe that for one second, but if it was... I still think I'm better-off than I would've been without believing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

AH HA ! A possible step !

The first of however many steps are needed...... ?

If you did not believe it to be true, just "if" it were not true, what then ?

Would you still believe it ?

Try English.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Try English.

So, side-stepping because your system would fall apart ?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If it was, and I don't believe that for one second, but if it was... I still think I'm better-off than I would've been without believing.

I hope that's true.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, side-stepping because your system would fall apart ?

It means, I didn't understand what you were saying.

 

[cvanwey]

There may not be other supporting documents, but there are none contradicting it either. Of all the educated people, religious hierarchies, and government officials that despised Jesus and anything to do with Him, not one credible account discrediting this or any other gospel account has survived... don’t you find that the least bit odd, even with wide-spread destruction of opposition (or supporting) documents? And the NT Gospel doesn’t limit its witnesses to a religious hierarchy of people; it included the public streets for many to see, yet not one account disputes it.

I do not even know where to begin with such a response....

1. Eyewitness testimony can only be confirmed by eyewitnesses. We have none outside the later NT writings; which by the way, often times elude to not being written from the perspective of being a first-hand account by the way... None of Saul's writings demonstrate being a first hand witness of others. The Gospels even conflict in reports, regarding what Jesus was doing, and where He was located, the last month of His life. It appears as wishful thinking to believe as valid. Let alone accepting the claims of the supernatural to boot.

2. There exists NO way to refute what someone else saw, if the one refuting or not believing the claim was not there. If the person attempting to refute the claim was not there, they can't. However, and this is a HUGE however, the fact there exists no secular accounts of seeing the walking dead, the rising dead, or a post mortem Jesus, (as it's expressed in scripture of many seeing as such), is what's ACTUALLY odd.

3. To validate a large claim, such as being a direct witness to a supernatural event, it would lend more credibility if the only reports were not only exclusively from the bias of the reports in which they originated (i.e.), soley from the Bible writers.

4. Any secular later writings were simply reports of what was believed by others. No secular writings were even alive at the time such events were claimed (i.e.) Josephus, Tacitus, etc...

 

[cvanwey]

Well, yes, basically that's what happened right.

What other eyewitness account? Do we have to these events of approximately April 30? AD. Besides the Gospel of Matthew.

The only non eye witness account we have is Josephus. And he being a non Christian Jew would also be a very biased account. Not likely to include. Any overt Vindications. Off. Jesus' Messiah status. Even if they did hypothetically happen.

For the record, what if the ghostly apparitions were only. Psychically perceived by. Christian believers. And the Roman soldiers of course. Sort of a private miracle to bolster their faith.

Nevertheless. Multiple Roman soldiers are alleged to have witnessed the miracle. Surely they informed their commander who informed Pilate. Pilate may have written something. if, we had Pilate's report. And his account made no mention of the miracle. Or outright denied and rejected the miracle. Then you would, in fact have a contradictory witness to the New Testament. But once again that's not what we have. We only have one eye, witness to this event. Namely, Matthew and he says it happened. "One in favor".

This entire response just reinforces my position. Which is...

It seems convenient that the only report of such a miraculous event is from the bias report of the Bible writer itself. We have no other reported sightings; even though the Bible mentions MANY seeing as such. Seems odd. Don't you think?

So again, what's more likely?

a) It really happened because "Matthew" says so.
b) "Matthew" wrote of such a tale decades after the claimed event, and by the time there would be people literate enough to even read of such a claim, they would have not been alive during the claimed event anyways. And being that we have absolutely no surviving documentation in the first or second century of a report, option b) appears more highly likely.