96 posts
There are many things that are taught as part of history, that are based on ONE persons account of the story or event. These items are taught as FACT in our schools and many aren't questioned at all unless there is another written account that varies somehow. There are standards for what we believe and teach. In many cases, what was written by ONE person is the only story told and much of history is from one persons account, or compiled from several persons accounts of different events of a major event, time, etc.
Given this, how can you say that there is NO evidence of Jesus, God, or any of the events in the Bible, when many of them were written by 3,4,5 or more different people? Even Charger believes that Jesus lived, because there are too many reasonable accounts written of his life to deny that. Even Jews who didn't think he was Gods son (and killed him for saying that he was) wrote of his existence. Heck, there are even accounts where Jews who didn't believe IN him wrote of his miracles.
How do you refute all of this as fairy tails, given the amount of information there is recorded on the subject?
Discuss...
Simple.
So you are saying that God stood around for some 100,000 years and did NOTHING for man at all. Then one day about 4,000 years ago decided he wanted to intervine. Then it took him another 2,000 years to figure out how to do the Jesus trick to fix everything that God screwed up? Really?
I do not have tim to opine on this right now I have a class knocking at the door. But I will be glad to pile up the evidence contrary to your position and why the accounts that we have are virtually worthless. Stick around....you are getting ready to learn some things.
Alright, let me start by saying extrodinary claims can be dismissed without extrodinary evidence and that is your entire religion.
Many of your writings are written by many different people. This creates a huge problem in that the stories told are not hamonious. For example, Paul is the largest contributor to the NT and yet even Paul's accounts of events cause terrible issues.
Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus differes greatly that the account told in Acts by "Luke". What is seen and heard and by whom are all different. You may try to argue what is their common denominator and then you may say there is a testament to a resurrected Christ talking to Paul....but all the other facts are different. That's cherry picking. What's worse is that no one else corroborates the story at all. Whom did Paul go see and when he went to go see them....might as well be two different stories. It makes it impossible to believe. The one thing we do know is that Paul NEVER met Jesus when Jesus was alive.
More later gotta class.
I have no problem with people writing about history. But people being visited by god, being told things, having visions, etc. This still happens but now those people are prescribed medicine or kept in secure facilities. There was a time when mental illness, seeing and hearing things, split personalities, etc, was not understood at all. Now it's well understood. You know that the most prominent auditory hallucination that a schizophrenic hears is the voice of god or satan?
Here's my main rebuttal though...
Why was god so incredibly willing to appear and speak and interact with a select, tiny portion of humanity (the Jews, and then the early Christians) between the period of 2000 BCE and 30 BCE, and now he has gone completely absent?
Do you think the current news is accurate?
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 14, 2011 Even Jews who didn't think he was Gods son (and killed him for saying that he was)
Did all the jooz get to vote before "they" killed him?
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 14, 2011There are many things that are taught as part of history, that are based on ONE persons account of the story or event. These items are taught as FACT in our schools and many aren't questioned at all unless there is another written account that varies somehow. There are standards for what we believe and teach. In many cases, what was written by ONE person is the only story told and much of history is from one persons account, or compiled from several persons accounts of different events of a major event, time, etc.
Bad example here is why. We are told that Washington cut down a cherry tree.....but he didn't!
We are told that Christopher Columbus is a great guy that discovered America. he didn't discover it nor was he a great guy.
We are told the civil war is about slavery and it really isn't.
There is a litany of things that we are told are facts and they are not. They are nice ideas or fun stories passed down from generation to generation. Does that sound familiar?
Given this, how can you say that there is NO evidence of Jesus, God, or any of the events in the Bible, when many of them were written by 3,4,5 or more different people? Even Charger believes that Jesus lived, because there are too many reasonable accounts written of his life to deny that. Even Jews who didn't think he was Gods son (and killed him for saying that he was) wrote of his existence. Heck, there are even accounts where Jews who didn't believe IN him wrote of his miracles.
How do you refute all of this as fairy tails, given the amount of information there is recorded on the subject?
Discuss...
Alright....you are basically hedging your argument that the Bible was written by "eyewitness" accounts. But you are incorrect. Since you are a Christian I'll stick to the New Testament for ease of conversation. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all thought to be written by the tax collector, the secretary of Peter, the traveling companion of Paul, and the "Beloved Disciple". These are TRADITIONS that can be traced to a about a century AFTER the books were written.
Matthew and John are wildly different on all sorts of levels. They contradict each other greatly and have fundamentally different views of whom Jesus even was. In Matthew Jesus was born of a virgin yet John sees him as the incarnate word of God whom was made by God in teh beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew there is NOT a word about Jesus being God, yet in John that is precisely who he is. In Matthew Jesus teaches about the impending coming of the kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and NEVER that he is divine) yet in John Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity and in John it's practically the only reason he does miracles.
So my question to you Howie is that how could two "close" companions of Jesus be so far apart on the nature of Jesus and the understanding of whom he was?
You talk about these "eyewitness" accounts and yet in a court of law witnesses this bad would be laughable at best. One cannot really get a clear picture of whom Jesus is and this is just 2 of the witnesses we have to look at. Eyewitnesses can almost never be trusted to give historically accurate data. If they could we wouldn't need courts. Legal trials require multiple witnesses to tell the SAME story.
Furthermore, the Gospels were written ANONYMOUSLY, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. The titles you have for the Chapters currently were later additions. Just think for a second about the titles. "The Gospel according to Matthew" The persons who gave it that title are telling you their opinion of whom they think wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to".
Matthew is also written completely in thrid person, about what "they" - Jesus and the disciples - were doing, never about what "we" -Jesus and the rest of us_ were doing. Even when talking about Matthew becoming a disciple the words used are "him" not "me". Go look for yourself in Matthew 9:9.
With John it's even more clear. The Gospel ends with the author saying about the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24) Did you catch how the author differentiates between his source of informations? He/we: this author is NOT the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.
Mark is NOT a disciple but a companion of Peter and Luke is a companion of Paul whom didn't even KNOW the living Jesus. Even if they had been disciples it wouldn't have guaranteed the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. The fact is that NONE of the authors were eyewitness nor do they even claim to be!
Papias is considered a witness outside fo the bible. He was an early church father and a rather enigmatic figure. His work happens some 40-70 years AFTER the first Gospels were written. None of his work survives today as his view's were considered rather offensive and unsophisticated. Everything we know about this guy comes from even LATER church fathers quoting from him. AT best though the things he says are third or fourth hand things learned from companions of the disciples. We never learn from WHOM he gets this info from. He just refers to them as "the Elders". What's worse is that Papias says that Matthew is nothing more than a collection of sayings written in Hebrew. Now go read Matthew and see how Papias's version of Matthew is NOTHING like yours. The Gospel you possess was originally written in GREEK and is NOT just a bunch of sayings of JEsus
IF Papias is wrong about Matthew how does he fair with Mark? Not much better. He says that Mark is a book in which Mark's main goal is to tell EVERYTHING that he heard from Peter about Jesus. This can't be true. Mark is a QUICK read even if you include the forgeries and additions added MUCH later. Probably wouldn't take a person 2 hours to read it out loud. Peter spent years with Jesus and Mark years with Peter. Are we to believe that what is in Mark is EVERYTHING?
None of the attributions go back to the authors themselves. None of the Gospels were written by a follower of Jesus, all of whom were lower-class Aramaic speakers from Galilee, not highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation. They were written by people whom weren't even companions of companions of Jesus. They were all written decades later by people that didn't even know Jesus. They are different because the writers didn't in fact even know each other. They also used different sources of information and they modified their stories on the basis of their own understanding of who Jesus was.
BTW the fact that the Gospels were not actually written by apostles does not make them unusual at all. It makes them rather typical actually. Most of the books in the New testament go under names of people who didn't actually write them. This has been known among scholars for the greater part of the past century, and it is taught widely in mainline seminaries and divinity schools. Most pastors know it as well. It's just you people in the pews that are all too happy to receive your education from the pulpit like you received your education at school. You take your traditions and cling to them and are happy to not know the truth because you rather like the idea of the mythology you have created over time.
I can go further but I've given you enough to chew on for now.
Hey, everything you hear on CNN and Fox News is accurate, why not the Bible too? ;)
Calm down Fender, your gonna insult Howie. then he'll leave. ;D
Hookbender — Sep 15, 2011Calm down Fender, your gonna insult Howie. then he'll leave. ;D
Insult.....educate....same thing! ;D
sigh, remember the 'conflicts in the Bible" that you googled up last time? And I googled the "counter" web site too it which refuted all of it? LOL I see you are googling again. I don't even have time now to go into all of this. Still looking for one thing that isn't either just wrong, some unbelievers OPINION, or taken out of context....
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 15, 2011sigh, remember the 'conflicts in the Bible" that you googled up last time? And I googled the "counter" web site too it which refuted all of it? LOL I see you are googling again. I don't even have time now to go into all of this. Still looking for one thing that isn't either just wrong, some unbelievers OPINION, or taken out of context....
First....What is wrong?
Some unbelievers opinion? Does that mean a believers opinion is superior? Really, answer that if you would.
How can you not take the Bible out of context?
Fenderbender — Sep 15, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1316019965/0#8 date=1316054876]Calm down Fender, your gonna insult Howie. then he'll leave. ;D
Insult.....educate....same thing! ;D
;D ;D ;D
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 15, 2011sigh, remember the 'conflicts in the Bible" that you googled up last time? And I googled the "counter" web site too it which refuted all of it? LOL I see you are googling again. I don't even have time now to go into all of this. Still looking for one thing that isn't either just wrong, some unbelievers OPINION, or taken out of context....
1. Nothing googled last time. It's called books. Like the bible I actually read them.
2. All YOU did was google some Christian double talk bs that didn't really answer or challenge any of my positions.
3. Everything I have posted are things taught in Christian seminaries. So I hardly see how it's out of context when it's about the bible, in the bible, and verifiable through the reading of that bible.
Are you going to post anything of value? Are you going to attempt to justify your position and refute my posting thus far or are you content to lie there and play dead. Remember for you to refute me you have to refute Christianity.
Your venturing into the unknown Fender. Christians don't operate on facts, reading, or context for that matter. ;D I know, I was there.
Religion does a horrible job of actually teaching period. I learned most, probably 80% of what I know, here. I read more, studied more, and was more interested in finding out the "truth" during my change over than any time as a Christian. The preachers want to teach you what they want you to know. Not teach the Bible unconditionally. I think they know the problems that could bring up.
Or use spellchecker. ;)
(Spelling Nazis front and center! :D )
Matt, you actually didn't really say much that had to do with what I asked. Are you saying that if the author isn't the one the book is named after, that it wasn't written by a witness of the events? That is your basis for calling it fantasy? And, how is this related to refuting Christianity?
Hook, thanks for proudly holding the flag. I guess I underestimated your experience and knowledge on the topic. Also, I must have missed you when you attended my church. (I'm assuming you have been to every Christian church in America in order to make such claims as ...
Christians don't operate on facts, reading, or context for that matter. Grin I know, I was there.
Religion does a horrible job of actually teaching period. I learned most, probably 80% of what I know, here. I read more, studied more, and was more interested in finding out the "truth" during my change over than any time as a Christian. The preachers want to teach you what they want you to know. Not teach the Bible unconditionally. I think they know the problems that could bring up.
Back to top
I'm going to go out on a limb here... Lets see.... I'd guess that if you get in a group of all atheist bashers, and they direct you to the "reading and study material" that they use.... and you say that's where 80% of your knowledge of religion comes from.... that clearly proves you weren't grounded by being educated when you were in church. So I'll give you that one. ;) But, isn't that like going to voodoo school to learn how modern medicine is a hoax? The very thing you accuse "preachers" of is the very same thing you've allowed to happen on the other side. You read the non-believers side and believe it, then you feel educated. Did you even think about going to the "other" side and ready what would refute what you read? Or did you just say "well, this is the first thing I've read so I believe it."
I will again point back to the original question. There are books of the bible that are have known authors. There are many times 3 or more accounts of any given story, written by different authors who were there or heard a particular story first hand. This is an awefully big book to be written all as a fantasy, hoax or whatever else you guys want to call it.
Let's go back to WHStock 1. The coolest thing I've ever been a part of in my life. It's been a few years. I can still tell you some stories that happened, and many things that were said and a bunch of them I could get word for word (or note for note ;D). If I tell a story now, and Matt tells one, and Mark tells one and Bon tells one, and we all agree, remember etc what the others say, how many here would say "that is fantasy and it didn't happen?" Nobody. My question was simple. We have multiple accounts of something and in many instances far more "evidence" and "proof" that isn't listed in the Bible, that some of these events actually happened. How can you blow all of this off as fantasy or fiction, yet take other historical events as fact on the basis one one story? That was the question. Stick to the topic (which Matt kind of did) and Hook doesn't care, he's rolling out the same comments he puts in any religion thread. ;)
I nearly got suckered into this topic and then had a moment of clarity.....I really don't care as I don't believe any of it anyway and my life is very pleasant without it.
I do often wonder though why do people want to find some higher being ? Just be happy with who you are, be respectful of others and enjoy your life.
LOL, I'm trying. Some seem to feel obligated to insult others who don't believe the way they do. Not me. I think that as long as we can discuss it like adults, I will. You'd actually be a good person to answer my question though, given that you don't believe. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how that much information gets passed down, with many times multiple accounts of an event,... does that make it believable for you? (obviously not but....) Compared to "History" that is taught... at what point do you decide what to believe and what not to believe?
In fact, for the sake of this discussion, forget what you believe of don't believe, and address that part of it. Does it have credibility/believability based on many people telling many of the stories? If not, how did so many people tell the same thing?
Here's another side of this discussing. There are many things that are written in the Bible, that are also clearly documented by other "non-believers" at that time. Even accounts by non-believers of witnessing miracles, etc. Many things have been discovered over the years, where some other source that maybe were or were not believers wrote about an event that was written about in the Bible. This type stuff plays into my whole question. Is the Bible all fiction? Is it a mixture of truth and fiction? You don't have to believe that it's Gods word. You don't have to believe IN God. But when secular accounts back up certain stories in the Bible, it's impossible to write it all off as fiction. So what is it?
but.....how do know that the various accounts were written by different people? They could have all been written by one person and then assembled into a book :-)
I remember distinctly when it was that I decided that I did not believe in any of it. I was 12 years old and it was during a Religious Education lesson and I had a moment of clarity and thought to myself "this is all a crock of shit, infantile fantasy".....and I told that to the R.E. teacher too. She was quite an old lady but she saw my disbelief and we had many long discussions on why I didn't believe and more to the point "why should I believe just because you say so?". That's the biggest thing that gets me. Schools ram it into every childs head that they must believe and that "this is the way it is"....well fuck that, I have free will and believe what I want to believe thank you very much, and if I don't believe in something that's up to me and I don't need or want to "see the light" or "be converted".
"But, isn't that like going to voodoo school to learn how modern medicine is a hoax? The very thing you accuse "preachers" of is the very same thing you've allowed to happen on the other side. You read the non-believers side and believe it, then you feel educated. Did you even think about going to the "other" side and ready what would refute what you read? Or did you just say "well, this is the first thing I've read so I believe it."
Modern medicine has been proven to exist, and work. Modern medicine makes miracle's happen everyday. Why don't you worship that? It actually does today, what some think God did years ago. Maybe there was good medicine for those who wrote the Bible too, like acid.
I don't understand the last part of your quote. You were here as I went back and forth for months trying to figure this crap out. I read the Bible, I read books on critical thinking, all kinds of stuff on the net, suggested reading from people here, religious people's explanations of certain parts of the Bible I didn't understand.....what else would you have me do? I spent countless hours reading and studying the subject and came to a conclusion I think is the logical choice. I pretty much chose science over fantasy. I feel better as a person, I'm nicer to all people, I'm just happier in general. I'm married. I have 2 wonderful daughters. I don't cheat on my wife, and I try to be the best Dad I can. I haven't become some evil piece of shit simply because I chose not to be Religious. Simple as that. I don't give a damn about hell, I don't give a damn about heaven, or anything religious that's in the middle. None of that exist. Until evidence shows otherwise, that's how I roll.
I think your a good person, from what little I know. If you want to be Religious in any way, I dig it. But this is a debate type forum. And whether you like it or not, some here require evidence of things that are posted. Your opinions will be challenged here. Mine too and everyone else's. It's not a personal attack or really one on God, it's the lack of reason for why you think what you do. Your reasons for believing and your defense of what you believe are what's debated. Not you as a person, really. The only thing that kinda annoys me is this sense of superiority when it comes to opinion on the subject. (from the religious) We here that are Atheist, I assume, base our position on factual, logical, reasonable information. Can you say the same?
So, your gonna monitor my post now. Judge them as unworthy? What comments would you like me to make? What do you mean I don't care? About what? You've been involved in many religious discussions with me and probably others here for years. You know my position and how I came to this decision. What more do you expect from me sir? I know your position as well. You'll say something, people will challenge your opinion, you'll say something else, you'll get ask for evidence or proof or anything to support your position, you'll say we are bashing atheists and you'll promptly exit. Pretty close?
If you would, give me 5 or ten reasons you believe in God. Short and sweet.
http://www.newsytype.com/11536-aids-protein-foldit/
Now, considering the amount of Christians, why can't similar mysteries be solved by the religious? You know, all these God questions we Atheist have? You can play a damn game and discover miracles. Maybe a miracle isn't that big a deal. Hell, seems a sorry group of humans can do it. Who needs a God thing? :D
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 19, 2011Matt, you actually didn't really say much that had to do with what I asked. Are you saying that if the author isn't the one the book is named after, that it wasn't written by a witness of the events? That is your basis for calling it fantasy? And, how is this related to refuting Christianity?
You claimed it was written by witnesses. I am telling you that the writers were no more a witness than you or I are. At best you could say Matthew was a story that was passed down orally and then later written down. You've played the telephone game. You KNOW what happens. The FACT is that the people that wrote the NT weren't witness to anything. The stories are told ABOUT people by not BY the people attributed to. Paul wrote a lot on the surface and we KNOW (according to CHristian scholars) that half of what we attribute to Paul wasn't by Paul.
I don't understand how you can call people that never knew a living Jesus a witness to a living Jesus. It makes no sense.
I will again point back to the original question. There are books of the bible that are have known authors. There are many times 3 or more accounts of any given story, written by different authors who were there or heard a particular story first hand. This is an awefully big book to be written all as a fantasy, hoax or whatever else you guys want to call it.
This is again a figment of your imagination. IT's a weak arguement to say this guy told the same story as this guy, but when you actually read the stories you find out they are NOT the same at all. The characters might be the same but the details of the story are so different you have to question if we are talking about the same Jesus.
I KNOW YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ MY BIG POST BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH MATTHEW AND MARK AND GAVE EXCELLENT EXAMPLES OF WHY YOU ARE WRONG.
Let's go back to WHStock 1. The coolest thing I've ever been a part of in my life. It's been a few years. I can still tell you some stories that happened, and many things that were said and a bunch of them I could get word for word (or note for note ;D). If I tell a story now, and Matt tells one, and Mark tells one and Bon tells one, and we all agree, remember etc what the others say, how many here would say "that is fantasy and it didn't happen?" Nobody. My question was simple. We have multiple accounts of something and in many instances far more "evidence" and "proof" that isn't listed in the Bible, that some of these events actually happened. How can you blow all of this off as fantasy or fiction, yet take other historical events as fact on the basis one one story? That was the question. Stick to the topic (which Matt kind of did) and Hook doesn't care, he's rolling out the same comments he puts in any religion thread. ;)
Howie.....we have video of the events. We have recorded jam sessions. We have far more than eyewitness accounts. This is apples and oranges.
It's one thing to say we tell the same story with different words. It's another to tell a story and the FACTS be completely different.
Again in Matthew Jesus will hardly do miracles because he doesn't have to prove to anybody whom he is. Yet in John the story goes that Jesus is a miracle machine that "IF written all the miracles JEsus did would fill up more than there are pages in books" (paraphrased) BIG differences.
As a christian you are content to say "This story mentions Jesus and that story mentions Jesus, good enough for me" But you really need to READ the stories and see how different they really are. So different that they are NOT harmonious accounts.
Infact if you go to any church and TRY to follow along in the bible about the birth of Jesus you will find it totally impossible to follow the story in your bible. Why? Because the accounts are NOTHING alike other than a few characters. Everytim you watch the infant birth play at a church they have to MIX two seperate stories together to make a NEW mythology of the events.
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 19, 2011
Here's another side of this discussing. There are many things that are written in the Bible, that are also clearly documented by other "non-believers" at that time. Even accounts by non-believers of witnessing miracles, etc. Many things have been discovered over the years, where some other source that maybe were or were not believers wrote about an event that was written about in the Bible. This type stuff plays into my whole question. Is the Bible all fiction? Is it a mixture of truth and fiction? You don't have to believe that it's Gods word. You don't have to believe IN God. But when secular accounts back up certain stories in the Bible, it's impossible to write it all off as fiction. So what is it?
This is simply UNTRUE!!!
What we do have is gnostic believers writing stories about Jesus doing miracles....but those books are credited by the religion of christianity as HERETICAL or not accurate, or too controversial to be included. So these guys are believers.
We do have FORGERIES of supposed ancient witnesses. Like Josephus writings. But they are KNOWN forgeries. You have to understand that at the time forgeries for Jesus and against JEsus were very common. The most any extrabiblical writer says about Jesus is a couple of lines and they mention that he was a man preaching. They say nothing about miracles, they say nothing about him being the son of God. The Josephus stuff is a known forgery because the writting makes Jesus out to be a Messiah. Josephus, a Jew, wouldn't have thought that JEsus was the Messiah.....and if he did he would have given him more than a couple sentences in his historical works.
this is a waste of time. :( You don't believe anything in the bible, and you do believe everything you've read that refutes itl Anything you read that refutes it, you then instill as "fact" in your mind. End of story. I'm not trying to make you believe something you don't want too. But your "facts" for the most part aren't FACTS at all, they are a mans opinion and you chose to believe that one over the ones who disagree. The Gospels are a perfect example. 4 different people tell the same story. Some start later in the story, some earlier. Some give more details about one thing, or tell one story that another doesn't, but they don't CONFLICT. That's why I gave the WHStock example. If you ask 4 of us to describe the whole weekend, you are going to get 4 different stories that go together and make up accounts of the same events. Just because I chose to tell about setting up the sound system and you choose to tell about playing acoustic at the campfire, doesn't mean we don't agree on what happened. We told different details of the same story. Basically, this is going to end like it always does. You believe everything you've read that refutes the Bible and nothing that supports it and it's simply a waste of time to discuss it. So, I'll stop wasting time, and you and the others will say it's because I can't support what I believe. Time wasted, nothing gained. SOS.
This is a mistake because you spew out "facts" from the info you choose to believe, then you want me to refute it with "facts" but you already know most of them you just choose not to believe it and you believe the "facts" from people who refute rather than "facts" from those who believe. As always, it goes nowhere, but you claim your info to be fact louder, and thus you feel you win the debate.
No gospel says that Jesus barely did any miracles. All say that he was very humble about it and OFTEN told people not to tell others who healed them or whatever. That's just an example of something that's clear, but your "facts" say it is contradictory. The gospels are written from different points of view, and you know this. Again, go back to WHStock. 4 guys might tell about the other guitar players, and their opinions may differ depending on how advanced they are as a player. A beginner might come in and say that we were all professional level players. A pro might come in and say something different. But both would tell the truth and the same story. In the end, it's a waste of time for me to try to look up every supposed conflict, when I already know the answer, but have to go find some "facts" to refute you, and then you aren't going to believe it anyway because you choose to believe as fact what someone else says, then loudly proclaim yours are the facts and anyone who believes is an uneducated sheep. I know the Bible well. I know people who know it far better than you or I, who could sit and fire back answers to any of your facts. I've done it before. Didn't do any good. Not going too now. ;)
Howie,
It's not that I don't want to be convinced. IF you could tell me something that would change my mind I'd listen and I'd be glad to be a Christian again.
Here is the rub. Literally every word that I have typed I learned NOT from atheists but from LEADING Semenarians that are Christians!!!
So I find it HILARIOUS that you, mere Christian, want to PRETEND that what I have said is untrue....when in fact the things I am saying come STRAIGHT from Christian scholars.
The fact that you have NO readings to support your claims is no surprise. Christians rarely support their claims. I'm still waiting.
No, I've read a lot. What I haven't read is "Christian scholars" who say things like that the gospels contradict each other so much that they are impossible to believe, or that they describe Jesus so differently that its like they aren't even about the same person. I must have missed out on what THOSE "Christian Scholars" have written.
WEll then there is some reading you need to do then.
Now let me meet you half way. I'll be the first to say that not EVERY tittle and jot that is written that contradicts somewhere else makes a big difference. Some of the errors in the bible are really insignificant. Some of the errors are made by scribes and appen because he was copying one line and then lost his place and accidently went to another line. We find these mistakes when we read older documents the show at one time the writting was different. I'll say more later I have a class right now.
I can't understand why you don't do some homework and read about contradictions and flaws in the Bible for yourself. All kinds of stuff on the net. (DTR)
If it's an insult to here it from us, read up on some stuff for yourself.
Do you believe God and Jesus are one?
Religion: Man made organizations used to brainwash and control the masses.
Spirituality: Where the REAL path lies.
So does "God" exist? Only he/she/it knows and they aren't making it known! :)
So why do you NEED to believe? Because playing a crappy guitar through a Line 6 Pod with headphones can't be ALL that life's about, right? ;) :D
With so many different religions in the world come many problems for all of them with regards to their god.
In times of war, for example, they all make claims such as "god is on our side", " we will vanquish our enemies", "go will ensure we will prevail", "god will help us kill the infidel", "god bless America", etc, etc, it goes on and on.
So, if there is truly one god, whom does he serve and protect? He can't be on everyone's side all at the same time, can he/she? and if he/she can, how does that work? Everyone claims they are doing it in the name of their god.....it's all bullshit.
Also is the "god" that various religions support one entity or does each religion have it's very own god and if so, who is right?
LMAO. Hook, I don't "hear" things here except your opinions. Nothing new here. Trust me home fries, you aren't "educating" me. :)
Here is something that i do read... Lets start with Matthew....
Summary of the Gospel of Matthew
This summary of the Gospel of Matthew provides information about the title, author(s), date of writing, chronology, theme, theology, outline, a brief overview, and the chapters of the Gospel of Matthew.
Author
Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies -- in particular those that stress Matthew's alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel -- have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord's life, depend so heavily on Mark's account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided.
Matthew, whose name means "gift of the Lord," was a tax collector who left his work to follow Jesus (9:9-13). In Mark and Luke he is called by his other name, Levi.
Date and Place of Writing
Some have argued on the basis of its Jewish characteristics that Matthew's Gospel was written in the early church period, possibly the early part of a.d. 50, when the church was largely Jewish and the gospel was preached to Jews only (Ac 11:19). However, those who have concluded that both Matthew and Luke drew extensively from Mark's Gospel date it later -- after the Gospel of Mark had been in circulation for a period of time. See essay and chart, p. 1943. Accordingly, some feel that Matthew would have been written in the late 50s or in the 60s. Others, who assume that Mark was written between 65 and 70, place Matthew in the 70s or even later. However, there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic about either view.
The Jewish nature of Matthew's Gospel may suggest that it was written in the Holy Land, though many think it may have originated in Syrian Antioch.
Recipients
Since his Gospel was written in Greek, Matthew's readers were obviously Greek-speaking. They also seem to have been Jews. Many elements point to Jewish readership: Matthew's concern with fulfillment of the OT (he has more quotations from and allusions to the OT than any other NT author); his tracing of Jesus' descent from Abraham (1:1-17); his lack of explanation of Jewish customs (especially in contrast to Mark); his use of Jewish terminology (e.g., "kingdom of heaven," where "heaven" reveals the Jewish reverential reluctance to use the name of God; see note on 3:2); his emphasis on Jesus' role as "Son of David" (1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9,15; 22:41-45). This does not mean, however, that Matthew restricts his Gospel to Jews. He records the coming of the Magi (non-Jews) to worship the infant Jesus (2:1-12), as well as Jesus' statement that the "field is the world" (13:38). He also gives a full statement of the Great Commission (28:18-20). These passages show that, although Matthew's Gospel is Jewish, it has a universal outlook.
Purpose
Matthew's main purpose is to prove to his Jewish readers that Jesus is their Messiah. He does this primarily by showing how Jesus in his life and ministry fulfilled the OT Scriptures. Although all the Gospel writers quote the OT, Matthew includes nine proof texts unique to his Gospel (1:22-23; 2:15; 2:17-18; 2:23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 27:9-10) to drive home his basic theme: Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT predictions of the Messiah. Matthew even finds the history of God's people in the OT recapitulated in some aspects of Jesus' life (see, e.g., his quotation of Hos 11:1 in 2:15). To accomplish his purpose Matthew also emphasizes Jesus' Davidic lineage (see Recipients, p. 1945).
.....
and Mark.....
Summary of the Gospel of Mark
This summary of the Gospel of Mark provides information about the title, author(s), date of writing, chronology, theme, theology, outline, a brief overview, and the chapters of the Gospel of Mark.
Author
Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark ("John, also called Mark," Ac 12:12,25; 15:37). The most important evidence comes from Papias (c. a.d. 140), who quotes an even earlier source as saying: (1) Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord; (2) this tradition did not come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of our Lord, but as the preaching of Peter -- preaching directed to the needs of the early Christian communities; (3) Mark accurately preserved this material. The conclusion drawn from this tradition is that the Gospel of Mark largely consists of the preaching of Peter arranged and shaped by Mark (see note on Ac 10:37).
John Mark in the NT
It is generally agreed that the Mark who is associated with Peter in the early non-Biblical tradition is also the John Mark of the NT. The first mention of him is in connection with his mother, Mary, who had a house in Jerusalem that served as a meeting place for believers (Ac 12:12). When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from Jerusalem after the famine visit, Mark accompanied them (Ac 12:25). Mark next appears as a "helper" to Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Ac 13:5), but he deserted them at Perga in Pamphylia (see map, p. 2273) to return to Jerusalem (Ac 13:13). Paul must have been deeply disappointed with Mark's actions on this occasion, because when Barnabas proposed taking Mark on the second journey, Paul flatly refused, a refusal that broke up their working relationship (Ac 15:36-39). Barnabas took Mark, who was his cousin (Col 4:10), and departed for Cyprus. No further mention is made of either of them in the book of Acts. Mark reappears in Paul's letter to the Colossians written from Rome. Paul sends a greeting from Mark and adds: "You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him" (Col 4:10; see Phm 24, written about the same time). At this point Mark was apparently beginning to win his way back into Paul's confidence. By the end of Paul's life, Mark had fully regained Paul's favor (see 2Ti 4:11 and note).
Date of Composition
Some, who hold that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a major source, have suggested that Mark may have been composed in the 50s or early 60s. Others have felt that the content of the Gospel and statements made about Mark by the early church fathers indicate that the book was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. See essay and chart, p. 1943.
Place of Origin
According to early church tradition, Mark was written "in the regions of Italy" (Anti-Marcionite Prologue) or, more specifically, in Rome (Irenaeus; Clement of Alexandria). These same authors closely associate Mark's writing of the Gospel with the apostle Peter. The above evidence is consistent with (1) the historical probability that Peter was in Rome during the last days of his life and was martyred there, and (2) the Biblical evidence that Mark also was in Rome about the same time and was closely associated with Peter (see 2Ti 4:11; 1Pe 5:13, where the word "Babylon" may be a cryptogram for Rome; see also Introduction to 1 Peter: Place of Writing).
Recipients
The evidence points to the church at Rome, or at least to Gentile readers. Mark explains Jewish customs (7:2-4; 15:42), translates Aramaic words (3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 15:22,34) and seems to have a special interest in persecution and martyrdom (8:34-38; 13:9-13) -- subjects of special concern to Roman believers (and to Peter as well; cf. 1 Peter). A Roman destination would explain the almost immediate acceptance of this Gospel and its rapid dissemination.
Occasion and Purpose
Since Mark's Gospel is traditionally associated with Rome, it may have been occasioned by the persecutions of the Roman church in the period c. a.d. 64-67. The famous fire of Rome in 64 -- probably set by Nero himself but blamed on Christians -- resulted in widespread persecution. Even martyrdom was not unknown among Roman believers. Mark may be writing to prepare his readers for such suffering by placing before them the life of our Lord. There are many references, both explicit and veiled, to suffering and discipleship throughout his Gospel (see 1:12-13; 3:22,30; 8:34-38; 10:30,33-34,45; 13:8-13).
Emphases
The cross. Both the human cause (12:12; 14:1-2; 15:10) and the divine necessity (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34) of the cross are emphasized by Mark.
Discipleship. Special attention should be paid to the passages on discipleship that arise from Jesus' predictions of his passion (8:34 -- 9:1; 9:35 -- 10:31; 10:42 -- 45).
The teachings of Jesus. Although Mark records far fewer actual teachings of Jesus than the other Gospel writers, there is a remarkable emphasis on Jesus as teacher. The words "teacher," "teach" or "teaching," and "Rabbi" are applied to Jesus in Mark 39 times.
The Messianic secret. On several occasions Jesus warns his disciples or others to keep silent about who he is or what he has done (see 1:34,44 and notes; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9).
Son of God. Although Mark empasizes the humanity of Jesus (see 3:5; 6:6,31,34; 7:34; 8:12; 10:14; 11:12), he does not neglect his deity (see 1:1,11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:1-11; 13:32; 15:39).
Special Characteristics
Mark's Gospel is a simple, succinct, unadorned, yet vivid account of Jesus' ministry, emphasizing more what Jesus did than what he said. Mark moves quickly from one episode in Jesus' life and ministry to another, often using the adverb "immediately" (see note on 1:12). The book as a whole is characterized as "The beginning of the gospel" (1:1). The life, death and resurrection of Christ comprise the "beginning," of which the apostolic preaching in Acts is the continuation.
Outline
Luke....
Summary of the Gospel of Luke
This summary of the Gospel of Luke provides information about the title, author(s), date of writing, chronology, theme, theology, outline, a brief overview, and the chapters of the Gospel of Luke.
Author
The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. This Gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and the second volume refers to the first (Ac 1:1). Certain sections in Acts use the pronoun "we" (Ac 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1 -- 28:16), indicating that the author was with Paul when the events described in these passages took place. By process of elimination, Paul's "dear friend Luke, the doctor" (Col 4:14) and "fellow worker" (Phm 24), becomes the most likely candidate. His authorship is supported by the uniform testimony of early Christian writings (e.g., the Muratorian Canon, a.d. 170, and the works of Irenaeus, c. 180).
Luke was probably a Gentile by birth, well educated in Greek culture, a physician by profession, a companion of Paul at various times from his second missionary journey to his final imprisonment in Rome, and a loyal friend who remained with the apostle after others had deserted him (2Ti 4:11).
Antioch (of Syria) and Philippi are among the places suggested as his hometown.
Recipient and Purpose
The Gospel is specifically directed to Theophilus (1:3), whose name means "one who loves God" and almost certainly refers to a particular person rather than to lovers of God in general. The use of "most excellent" with the name further indicates an individual, and supports the idea that he was a Roman official or at least of high position and wealth. He was possibly Luke's patron, responsible for seeing that the writings were copied and distributed. Such a dedication to the publisher was common at that time.
Theophilus, however, was more than a publisher. The message of this Gospel was intended for his own instruction (1:4) as well as the instruction of those among whom the book would be circulated. The fact that the Gospel was initially directed to Theophilus does not narrow or limit its purpose. It was written to strengthen the faith of all believers and to answer the attacks of unbelievers. It was presented to displace some disconnected and ill-founded reports about Jesus (see 1:1-4 and note). Luke wanted to show that the place of the Gentile Christian in God's kingdom is based on the teaching of Jesus. He wanted to commend the preaching of the gospel to the whole world.
Date and Place of Writing
The two most commonly suggested periods for dating the Gospel of Luke are: (1) a.d. 59-63, and (2) the 70s or the 80s (see essay and chart, p. 1943).
The place of writing was probably Rome, though Achaia, Ephesus and Caesarea have also been suggested. The place to which it was sent would, of course, depend on the residence of Theophilus. By its detailed designations of places in the Holy Land, the Gospel seems to be intended for readers who were unfamiliar with that land. Antioch, Achaia and Ephesus are possible destinations.
Style
Luke had outstanding command of the Greek language. His vocabulary is extensive and rich, and his style at times approaches that of classical Greek (as in the preface, 1:1-4), while at other times it is quite Semitic (1:5 -- 2:52) -- often like the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT).
Characteristics
The third Gospel presents the works and teachings of Jesus that are especially important for understanding the way of salvation. Its scope is complete from the birth of Christ to his ascension, its arrangement is orderly, and it appeals to both Jews and Gentiles. The writing is characterized by literary excellence, historical detail and warm, sensitive understanding of Jesus and those around him.
Since the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) report many of the same episodes in Jesus' life, one would expect much similarity in their accounts. The dissimilarities reveal the distinctive emphases of the separate writers. Luke's characteristic themes include: (1) universality, recognition of Gentiles as well as Jews in God's plan (see, e.g., 2:30-32 and notes on 2:31; 3:6); (2) emphasis on prayer, especially Jesus' praying before important occasions (see note on 3:21); (3) joy at the announcement of the gospel or "good news" (see note on 1:14); (4) special concern for the role of women (see, e.g., 8:1-3 and notes); (5) special interest in the poor (some of the rich were included among Jesus' followers, but he seemed closest to the poor; see note on 12:33); (6) concern for sinners (Jesus was a friend to those deep in sin); (7) stress on the family circle (Jesus' activity included men, women and children, with the setting frequently in the home); (8) repeated use of the Messianic title "Son of Man" (used 25 times; see 19:10; Da 7:13 and notes); (9) emphasis on the Holy Spirit (see note on 4:1); (10) inclusion of more parables than any other Gospel; (11) emphasis on praising God (see 1:64; 24:53 and notes).
Sources
Although Luke acknowledges that many others had written of Jesus' life (1:1), he does not indicate that he relied solely on these reports for his own writing. He used personal investigation and arrangement, based on testimony from "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (1:2) -- including the preaching and oral accounts of the apostles. His language differences from the other Synoptics and his blocks of distinctive material (e.g., 10:1 -- 18:14; 19:1 -- 28) indicate independent work, though he obviously used some of the same sources (see essay, p. 1943).
Plan
Luke's account of Jesus' ministry can be divided into three major parts: (1) the events that occurred in and around Galilee (4:14 -- 9:50), (2) those that took place in Judea and Perea (9:51 -- 19:27), and (3) those of the final week in Jerusalem (19:28 -- 24:53). Luke's uniqueness is especially seen in the amount of material devoted to Jesus' closing ministry in Judea and Perea. This material is predominantly made up of accounts of Jesus' discourses. Twenty-one of the 28 parables that occur in Luke are found in 10:30 -- 19:27. Of the 20 miracles recorded in Luke, only 5 appear in 9:51 -- 19:27. Already in the ninth chapter (see note on 9:51), Jesus is seen anticipating his final appearance in Jerusalem and his crucifixion (see note on 13:22).
The main theme of the Gospel is the nature of Jesus' Messiahship and mission, and a key verse is 19:10.
and John....
Summary of the Gospel of John
This summary of the Gospel of John provides information about the title, author(s), date of writing, chronology, theme, theology, outline, a brief overview, and the chapters of the Gospel of John.
Author
The author is the apostle John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13:23 ; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel -- which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. The author knew Jewish life well, as seen from references to popular Messianic speculations (see, e.g., 1:21 and note; 7:40-42), to the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (see 4:9 and note), and to Jewish customs, such as the duty of circumcision on the eighth day taking precedence over the prohibition of working on the Sabbath (see note on 7:22). He knew the geography of the Holy Land, locating Bethany about 15 stadia (about two miles) from Jerusalem (11:18) and mentioning Cana, a village not referred to in any earlier writing known to us (2:1 ; 21:2). The Gospel of John has many touches that appear to reflect the recollections of an eyewitness -- such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (see 12:3 and note). Early writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian say that John wrote this Gospel, and all other evidence agrees (see Introduction to 1 John: Author).
Date
In general, two views of the dating of this Gospel have been advocated:
The traditional view places it toward the end of the first century, c. a.d. 85 or later (see Introduction to 1 John: Date).
More recently, some interpreters have suggested an earlier date, perhaps as early as the 50s and no later than 70.
The first view may be supported by reference to the statement of Clement of Alexandria (died between 211 and 216) that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other Gospels (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7), and thus his Gospel is later than the first three. It has also been argued that the seemingly more developed theology of the fourth Gospel indicates that it originated later.
The second view has found favor because it has been felt more recently that John wrote independently of the other Gospels (see essay and chart, p. 1943). This does not contradict the statement of Clement referred to above. Also, those who hold this view point out that developed theology does not necessarily argue for a late origin. The theology of Romans (written c. 57) is every bit as developed as that in John. Further, the statement in 5:2 that there "is" (rather than "was") a pool "near the Sheep Gate" may suggest a time before 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. Others, however, observe that John elsewhere sometimes used the present tense when speaking of the past.
Purpose and Emphases
John's Gospel is rather different from the other three. Whether or not he knew them (or any one of them) continues to be debated. In any event, his witness to Jesus goes its own way, highlighting matters that in the other Gospels remain implicit and underdeveloped. The literary style of this witness of Jesus is also unique among the Gospels; here focus is on the "signs" of Jesus' identity and mission and on lengthy, theologically rich discourses.
John begins with the profound announcement that Jesus is the "in the beginning" creative Word of God who had become embodied (incarnated) as a human being to be the light of life for the world. After this comes the proclamation that this Jesus is the Son of God sent from the Father to finish the Father's work in the world (see 4:34 and note). God's own glory is made visible in him ("Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father," 14:9), and what he does glorifies the Father. In him the full grace and truth of God has shown itself. Strikingly, a series of "I am" claims on Jesus' lips echoes God's naming of himself in Ex 3:14, further strengthening the link between the Father and the Son (see 6:35; 8:12; 9:5; 10:7,9,14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1,5).
Jesus' words to Nicodemus nicely summarize this Gospel's central theme: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (3:16). Although a variety of motivations for the composition of John's Gospel have been posited by interpreters (such as to supplement the other Gospels, to combat some form of heresy, to oppose the continuing followers of John the Baptist), the author himself states his main purpose clearly in 20:31: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
That is a quick reprint of what many "scholars" believe. Your mileage may vary.
At a quick reading pace one thing is for certain in all of that.........from your sources the scholars DO NOT agree. They can only speculate. IF they can only speculate that means they do not know and if they do not know then how can you tell me me with "certainty" that things are true when CLEARLY they are divided on the issues as per what you have posted.
I'm shocked (not) that you posted all of that and quote NO sources. What "scholars" are we talking about?
When I have more time I will show you some errors that need to be addressed.
To me all the talk about which writers of which parts of the Bible agree and disagree is irrelevant. To me the central question is, why was God talking to all these people all the time in the period from 2000 BCE to about 100 AD, and then all the documents for your religion were compiled, and then the religion's authoritative scholarship stopped, and no new document has emerged.
The US constitution is only 250 years old but we've needed to amend it 27 times. The Bible? 0 changes in 2000 years. The Old Testament? 0 changes in 3000 years.
There is no possible way that laws and rules for life written when the earth was flat and the universe revolved around it can apply adequately to the age of supercomputers. It's just out of date and irredeemable in my book.
DTR
Educate??? I doubt I'll ever try to educate anyone with what I know about Religion. However, Fender is educating you pretty good. :D
Where did you get all the stuff on your post? Sources?Are you gonna answer any of my questions?
I'm starting to worry about you. Your defiant and seem violent. ;D
I've got a question for ya DTR. We just had a long discussion about burning a Dog. Have you ever read the Old Testament? Ever hear of animal sacrifice? Your God ordered animals be burned to death as a sacrifice to him. A Ram one time. Ring a bell?
Now, Do you have the same violent feelings toward your God as you did to those kids? Whats the difference? And, why not? Was this not done directly, or indirectly, by Gods hand? I think my method of dealing with the problem was a more loving resolution than yours. I think I may be more like "a god" compared to "God".
Things that make go.....hmmmmmmmmmm.
I don't have a lot of time but....don't you think it's interesting that Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark? That's the popular Christian slant. There are other views but that's the main one. Here is WHY Christian scholars are trying to change that.
1. Mark NEVER knew Jesus. He was a companion of Paul....whom also NEVER knew Jesus. Paul "Supposedly" met Jesus but the stories contradict each ohter BADLY.
2. If Mark NEVER knew Jesus and MAtthew and Luke borrow from him......what's that say for MAtthew and Luke? Why would they need to borrow from Mark at all? Howie you tried to say they are eye witnesses. Why would an eyewitness need to refer to someone that NEVER knew a living JEsus Christ? Why indeed!!
3. Why did any of these "eye-witnesses" wait some 50 years after the DEATH of Jesus to write anything down? IT's because they aren' eyewitnesses. What you most likely have is an oral tradition (which we know for a fact existed amongst Jews) that later got written down.
4. IF these are oral traditions written down many years after the fact how accurate can they be?
5. IF you put the stories of Jesus in chronological order the become more elaborate and detailed over time. In literary terms we call that a legend and it's the exact same arguement that christians use to disprove other religions. So why not use that on their own religion? Example in the OLDEST story of Christ (written by Paul whom never knew a living JEsus) We don't even get a resurrection story. jesus dies and that's it. In the youngest story....the gospel of John.....it's Jesus Christ superstar and Jesus does all these extrodinary things that no one else even bothers to mention. Legend = FAKE.
As usual, you are off all over the place, and using something you read to prove what you want to believe.
I have many detailed explanations for who wrote what (for example, I DO NOT agree with what I posted above about Matthew, there are several clues in the book that suggest he wrote it that are more legit that the ones they claim disprove his authorship. (unless they've unearthed more information which I haven't yet seen). For example, Matthew (also known as Levi) said at one point that Jesus and others had supper "at home" and in another one of the gospels, the same story is told and the dinner was "at Levi's house." If anyone other than Matthew/Levi wrote it, it wouldn't be "at home." (I'm doing this from memory, not sources, so forgive me if I slightly miss something. This is an accurate account if not letter perfect.
Also, the dates of the gospels are NOT factually proven. But there are indicators and many of them are believed to date to "40's or 50's A.D. Dude, 40s is only a few years after Jesus death on this earth. And there's no indication they weren't started RIGHT after that. In fact, there's no proof that they weren't even started while he was yet on earth. You OFTEN claim these things were written 50-90 years after Jesus died and that just isn't true. But it doesn't matter. You choose to believe that, so you believe anyone who writes what you believe.
Also, just like last time, you claim over and over all the conflicts and contradictions, but Bible scholars don't seem to have any problem disproving all those "claims" of contradiction. The gospels were written by different people, with different points of view and so they often focus on different aspects of Jesus life. Again, I disagree with the thing about Matthew that I posted above, even though that's a source I study from at times. I listed an example from MY OWN KNOWLEDGE of why I disagree, and as soon as I searched that I found other MAJOR sources that agree with my thought on that. (I just looked and my Thomas Norton Study Bible says it almost word for word).
In any event, you will always believe what you want to believe. You've let "man" educate you into non-belief. It's pointless to sit and go line by line and you say your sources say this and I say mine say that. Just like the time you googled the "contradictions in the bible" web site, and I found a whole site where they disprove every one of those supposed "contradictions."
The nutshell is, if you don't want to believe, you can find plenty of people who claim they have disproved all of it. IF you believe them, you won't believe. Rest assured though, their proof is no more legit than the proof of those who believe.
Would you say you've let "man" educate you into belief?
You don't know how to think DTR. Your missing the whole point. Our not believing is based on facts. Reasoning, and bravery to actually open our mind to look at the other side. If we believe what people told us, unconditionally, we'd be like you, a Christian. Surely not the other way.
I want to know why or if you had violent thoughts about God when you read the old testament, especially with animal sacrifice and the method of that sacrifice.
http://news.yahoo.com/belief-god-boils-down-gut-feeling-104403461.html
Howie,
You said you'd be interested in what Jamie thought about all of this. I just got off the phone with him and we talked about authorship of the gospels at great length. Jamie, whom is in a seminary, is totally a christian, and has no dog in this race said to me, that I am 100% right and there are no respected scholars in the world that would agree with you in your assessment of the authorship in the gospels. He cited scholars that would support literally everything I've stated thus far. We had a super long discussion about John in particular and while he agreed that there is no way to know which John wrote it, he cited several scholarly sources and their opinions on which John it might be.
At the end of the day Jamie agrees with me that we have no idea whom it was that them.
So there ya have it. A Christian student and his sources agree with my Christian sources.
One of my personal favorite to use us Raymond brown. Go google that guy and see how biased you think my sources are. I haven't been reading anything from the atheist perspective for sometime. I don't need to. I let you Christians make my arguments for me and destroy other Christian arguments for me.
Knowledge is power.
I think DTR has left the building.
DTR
Again, what are the top 5 or 10 reasons you believe in God.
Here's one more "insult" to throw into the ring... There are ONLY opinions on both sides. :)
Thats absolutely incorrect. Lets say God was actually a person. Why would anyone believe he died and came back to life and lives in the sky and when actual people die they go up in the sky and live with him? I'm talking a person who isn't superstitious. Cause that same person may as well believe in Vampires.
Well, since DTR has left the building, what are the top 5 or 10 reasons people believe in God and all that stuff?
I am 100% right and there are no respected scholars in the world that would agree with you in your assessment of the authorship in the gospels.
Ironic, since I simply supported one comment about Matthew which is THERE and is hard to interpret any other way. If I write something anonymously, and write that a particular story happened "at home" and someone else tells the same story and says it happened at Howie's house, I believe most people would believe that was an indicator that I WAS THE ONE who wrote the initial story. I gave you an example FROM THE BIBLE of why it made sense to believe that. But I'm not going to argue it, because it doesn't matter. If your whole premise is, the gospels aren't true because they weren't even written by who you think they were" then who wrote John?
Also, I haven't seen what they are teaching Jamie in school but I'd be glad to look at it. It won't change my initial remarks anyway. You go straight to this (as I knew you would). Want to dispute the authorship of all 66 books? :)
Hook, you keep believing in them vampires. Your remarks above about me learning or hearing things here are funny. I'd be careful about a complete change in religious beliefs that was accomplished by a couple of guys in an internet forum. You admitted you'd learned more here and changed your beliefs.... that's scary. Two or three guys in an internet forum can change you? Dude, I agree that you were never taught anything in church. ;) Don't assume everyone's experience parallels yours though.