The Flood (2)

[AV1611VET]

And you would think that someone rising from the dead and speaking to hundreds of people, not to mention ascending into the sky right in front of them, would produce extrabiblical records.

They did produce extrabiblical records; which were submitted to Luke for collation.


[bible]Luke 1:1-2[/bible]

 

[kidoncoathangers]

They did produce extrabiblical records; which were submitted to Luke for collation.


[bible]Luke 1:1-2[/bible]

So says Luke...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The idea that Jesus of Nazareth never existed is becoming a pet peeve of mine. Just what was Christianity based on if Jesus never existed? Did a bunch of Jews get together and decide to make up a savior so they could start their own religion? Where did the gospels come from? Were they all made up from scratch? If so, why were there so many conflicting gospels, the majority of which were discarded? Shouldn't there be only a few and shouldn't they all match up better than they do?

My personal hypothesis is that St. Paul saw the Jewish Messiah during one of his epileptic fits, and wrote about him. Subsequent authors retroactively wrote the testimonies of the other disciples at various times. This explains:

• Why there are no contemporary documentation attesting to Jesus and/or his actions,
• Why the gospels, when placed in order of writing, show an increase in Pagan-derived mythology (starting with scant references in Paul, to the full works: water to wine, raising the dead, crown of thorns, etc).
• Why the gospels are internally inconsistent (they were written to appease potential converts, to record the legends that had grown up around Jesus, etc).
• Etc.

I find it hard to believe that Jesus never existed. I no longer believe he is God, nor do I believe he ever claimed to be (even in the gospels it is never claimed that he said he was God). I think that Jesus' influence on his followers was so profound, that he was deified after his death. That is why the accepted gospels have him rising from the dead, etc.

A distinct possibility. But I reject the authenticity of the New Testament

Why the lack of contemporary written history? Jesus was likely illiterate, so wrote nothing himself (a terrible shame, that). The Romans likely saw him as nothing more than a trouble-maker who was dealt with like so many others.

Yet our record of Roman documentation is rather complete: we even have divorce papers.
The sentence to death by crucifixion of the King of the Jews, who caused all that ruckuss at the Temple, would not have gone unnoticed.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Yet our record of Roman documentation is rather complete: we even have divorce papers.
The sentence to death by crucifixion of the King of the Jews, who caused all that ruckuss at the Temple, would not have gone unnoticed.

Yes it would have Gone unnoticed. The romans mainly let the Jews handle their own affairs. It was the Jewish Temple the Romans would not give a rip. Even Pilate was afraid of starting trouble. There was an account of Jesus Trial (it was lost) but it has been quoted from by historians and apologists.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Why there are no contemporary documentation attesting to Jesus and/or his actions,
Why the gospels, when placed in order of writing, show an increase in Pagan-derived mythology (starting with scant references in Paul, to the full works: water to wine, raising the dead, crown of thorns, etc).
Why the gospels are internally inconsistent (they were written to appease potential converts, to record the legends that had grown up around Jesus, etc).
Etc.

1 There probably was

2 Source? Seriously.

3 Then obviously you must be assuming that the accounts of Papias as to the authorship of the Gospels are false, and the Gospels claims for themselves (very shaky ground with so much speculation)

4 Etc?

 

[FishFace]

did you even read my link!?...

A little background. Baggins is one of our pet professional geologists (although it is quite difficult to properly domesticate such a naturally wild creature) and if anyone knows about what a flood should look like in the rock record - it's a professional geologist.

 

[FishFace]

That is the answer to the "problem of evil".

Not really. Why did God create a world in which there were (or there were going to be if, for some unsupportable reason, you believe there were none at creation) earthquakes, plagues, droughts, floods, volcanic eruptions and so on?

 

[FishFace]

I find it hard to believe that Jesus never existed. I no longer believe he is God, nor do I believe he ever claimed to be (even in the gospels it is never claimed that he said he was God). I think that Jesus' influence on his followers was so profound, that he was deified after his death. That is why the accepted gospels have him rising from the dead, etc.

I agree completely.

Why the lack of contemporary written history? Jesus was likely illiterate, so wrote nothing himself (a terrible shame, that). The Romans likely saw him as nothing more than a trouble-maker who was dealt with like so many others. As far as the miracles not being written of, I doubt they actually happened. That does not mean Jesus did not exist, and did not preach his view of the Hebrew God.

There were, I believe, plenty of loonies around at the time, and they still pop from time to time. It's not implausible that one might get so popular he ends up being raised to the position of Godhood.

ETA: Wiccan points out an hallucination on the part of Paul. That's another plausible option, since Paul is documented as having a vision, and since he's the first person to write about this stuff.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All you need.

I'm sorry, where are the contemporary documents? The earliest one is only dated at 30-50CE because Gerd Theissen (the scholar who dated them) assumed the NT narrative to be at least approximately true. That is, if Jesus didn't exist, such a dating method wouldn't work.
After that, the texts either have to be copies of copies, or written when the disciples were in their 70s-100s

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

I'm sorry, where are the contemporary documents? The earliest one is only dated at 30-50CE because Gerd Theissen (the scholar who dated them) assumed the NT narrative to be at least approximately true. That is, if Jesus didn't exist, such a dating method wouldn't work.
After that, the texts either have to be copies of copies, or written when the disciples were in their 70s-100s

You asked for accounts of Jesus. Not contemporary documents. Check what quote I was responding to. There is far more evidence for Jesus than there is for the wealth of ancient historical figures individually. Why is Jesus so special that you have to make conspiracy theories about him? Also, the '70's and hundreds' line you gave is not at all true one can easily reason out their ages to fall well within the given dates.

I think you are trying to hard. Why not let history speak for itself? Must you try to form fit the evidence into your little schemas that lack it?

 

[Contracelsus]

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Is that about an angel or is it in reference to the king of Babylon? In the context of the quote it appears that earlier, in Isaiah 14:4 that this is directed at the king of Babylon.

"That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!"

Is there any other indication in the Bible concerning "Lucifer"? Also, where is the story of Lucifer as an angel and not in a commentary that can likely be directed at a person, outlined?

The whole story people have built up around Lucifer, satan and the devil would be interesting to better understand.

There is certainly a lot of "certainty" about who is doing what and why in discussions like this.

 

[Inan3]

So...

How many accounts of Jesus's life or even existence aside from that in the Bible are there?

I have no idea but the Biblical account is all that is necessary.

PS, saying Adam made evil come doesn't solve the problem of evil. You still have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who created a species with the capability to sin, do evil and ruin something that is supposedly 'perfect' and is continually not solving these problems he is ultimately responsible for, supposedly being without flaw or err.

I didn't say Adam made evil. The problem of evil is already dealt with.

That's right God is omnipotent, omniscent, omnibenevolent and He creates the way He wants to create. If He chose to give His creation free will to do and choose as they want then so be it. We are the created and we have nothing to say about it. I count that a good thing.

Besides all the above characteristics of God, He is also, just and loving. So whatever messes we get ourselves into, if we ask, He helps get us out of them and change so we don't get into them anymore. I count that a good thing, also.

As I said before He HAS solved the problem of evil and in His time it will be fully taken care of.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You asked for accounts of Jesus. Not contemporary documents. Check what quote I was responding to.

"As for other accounts from Jesus life outside the four Gospels, there are a number. Or at least a number dealing very heavily with his life. There is not any sort of 'lack' of evidence despite what the pseudo-intellectual pop culture will tell you."

The documents listed in your cited link do not count as evidence because they are not contemporary. I would have thought this was a given.

There is far more evidence for Jesus than there is for the wealth of ancient historical figures individually.

Yet you have given me no contemporary documents. I believe the Egyptians existed because there are bloоdy great pyramids in Egypt, not to mention contemporary documents. I believe in Homer because there are contemporary documents attesting to his existance.

Jesus, however, has no such documentation. Why?

Why is Jesus so special that you have to make conspiracy theories about him?

Because we are discussing the historicity of Jesus. Beyond this forum, I don't give an air-borne faeces whether he existed or not.

Also, the '70's and hundreds' line you gave is not at all true one can easily reason out their ages to fall well within the given dates.

Do elaborate.

I think you are trying to hard. Why not let history speak for itself? Must you try to form fit the evidence into your little schemas that lack it?

I'm a scientist. If the evidence suggested that pigs fly, I'd open an patent wingchops

 

[Inan3]

[/i][/font][/b]

Is that about an angel or is it in reference to the king of Babylon? In the context of the quote it appears that earlier, in Isaiah 14:4 that this is directed at the king of Babylon.

"That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!"

Is there any other indication in the Bible concerning "Lucifer"? Also, where is the story of Lucifer as an angel and not in a commentary that can likely be directed at a person, outlined?

The whole story people have built up around Lucifer, satan and the devil would be interesting to better understand.

There is certainly a lot of "certainty" about who is doing what and why in discussions like this.

Many times in scripture you will see the prophetic or revelation take place. The context is talking about the king of Babylon but when it comes to the part about Lucifer there is a change in that he is referred to "son of the morning" which is an angelic term AND it is said, "how art thou fallen from heaven" these are indications that the king of Babylon is no longer being referred to. The fact that the king of Babylon was exhibiting the same characteristics as Lucifer is probably why it was inserted here and because often times spirits are influential over people, kingdoms, and principalities. Good question, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about you pouters who whine that Jesus didn't exist because there's no "extrabiblical" confirmation tell me how you "know" Millard Fillmore was the 13th president of the United States; using the same criteria that you guys are begging for?

 

[Inan3]

Not really. Why did God create a world in which there were (or there were going to be if, for some unsupportable reason, you believe there were none at creation) earthquakes, plagues, droughts, floods, volcanic eruptions and so on?

Adam was given dominion over all the earth....

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

and when he sinned it was cursed.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

Man is ultimately responsible for what happens upon the earth. God has given us dominion. Because of this there are times when even God's hands are tied. God gets entrance into the affairs of earth by men and women and so does satan. God gets entrance into our own personal affairs when we give Him entrance, and so does satan. We have the authority on the earth now through what Jesus Christ has done. Most people either don't know it or don't believe it but those who do take that authority to the level of their faith and get results. Jesus walked fully in this authority. He calmed the storms. He walked on water. He cursed the fig tree. He raised the dead. We can also, walk in this same authority and it is only limited to the degree our faith is developed.

 

[TheBear]

double-post

 

[Inan3]

[/color]This is not what is meant by the problem of evil:

1. Evil (suffering, etc) exists.
2. An omnipotent being gets what it wants.
3. An omnibenevolent being wants only good to exist / wants no evil to exist.
4. From (2) and (3), an omnibenevolent omnipotence will not allow evil to exist.
5. Therefore, an omnibenevolent omnipotence does not exist in our universe, since if it did, evil would not exist (see (4)), but it does (see (1)).

Answers to above:

1. True

2. Omnipotence means you can do what YOU want. God wanted a creation who would WANT Him...NOT one that HAD to love Him but WANTED to love Him...NOT one that HAD to follow Him but WANTED to follow Him. God knew the risks and He took them because He knew that some would follow Him. He desires that all would follow Him and want Him as their God but He doesn't want puppets so He created us with the ability to choose...in His likeness and image. That's what the omnipotent God wanted. So be it. Be thankful for it because all the arguing in the world won't change it.

3. True

4. False - As seen by 2

5. False - Pure speculation from a mortal being who has not taken the time to learn about the omnipotent God that created him and therefore does not understand Him.

Therefore, any deity that does exist cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. Why worship a being that is not all-loving? Why worship a being that is not all-powerful?

I don't.

Why did God do nothing about it? If he is powerful, he could do it. If he is good, he would want it. What, then, is holding him back?

He has. He did. He does. Nothing.

Note that the 'free will' argument belies a good god.

True

 

[TheBear]

How about you pouters who whine...

You really try to stir up contention around here, don't you?

 

[kidoncoathangers]

You really try to stir up contention around here, don't you?

He doesn't really need to try.