The bible

Cypress said:
It's hard to believe you studied to be an Orthodox priest without being aware that the historical books of the Old Testament give some of the best historical information we have about the Near East from the first and second temple periods.

The Pentateuch is obviously primarily mythology and allegory from a much older period of Hebrew culture.

There are no serious scholars of antiquity who doubt Jesus existed and was executed by Roman authorities; whether he was divine or how much of his actions and words were later embellished or exaggerated is open to skepticism.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of scholars who doubt Jesus ever existed. The Christ myth theory is really popular among scholars today.
 
ExpressLane said:
Why would a JEW who rejected Christ give credit to Christ. The Jews wanted to ignore Christ and his power. Much like how our news media tends to ignore news that they don't think fits their narrative today. A great example just admitted Hunter's laptop is genuine after over 750 days of ignoring it. A Jew wouldn't recognize things that threatened his personal power as a Jew. Christ's message threatened to dissolve Jewish religion.
Click to expand...

Lol. You do know that Christianity comes from Judaism, right? Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, as were his apostles.

During the first century, there were many Jewish sect leaders claiming to be the messiah. They all had disciples and some were even alleged to have performed miracles. The Jesus story was just the one that happened to catch on.

Have you ever read Philo's writings? Philo was very much interested in finding the messiah. St. Paul was influenced by Philo and much of Philo's theology can be found in Paul's writings. The fact that Philo says nothing about Jesus is telling.
 
America said:
So Philo writes about something as mundane as the shield controversy with Pontius Pilate but neglects to mentions the magical Jewish wizard who can walk on water and feeds thousands of people with infinite fish?

Lol. Ok.
Click to expand...

are you still around?......I thought you had realized you were outclassed and left town......
 
America said:
There are plenty of scholars who doubt Jesus ever existed. The Christ myth theory is really popular among scholars today.
Click to expand...

None of the Jesus myth authors I am aware of are employed at prestigious American universities.

If you can't get a faculty position at a reputable American university, then you are not a top tier scholar.

Whatever anyone thinks about Jesus' or if stories about him were embellished, the fact is Jesus is the most well attested Palestinian Jew of the first century CE. There are four gospels written about him by independent authors who used different sources, some of whom weren't aware of each other. The Gospels themselves rely on earlier written accounts (Q, L, M), probably written in Aramaic, which no longer exist.

Outside the Four Gospels and even outside the New Testament, several dozen other first century authors wrote letters and epistles attesting to Jesus. The first century Jewish historian Josephus makes reference to Jesus. Paul almost certainly knew Jesus' brother James.

It doesn't pass the laugh test that Mark made up Jesus and all the writers after him just picked up the lie and ran with it.

Christianity was a tiny sect in the first century. There was no reason for the broader Jewish diaspora to pay any attention to it. The Romans just considered Jesus to be one of many apocalyptic Jewish mystics and of no particular importance.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
None of the Jesus myth authors I am aware of are employed at prestigious American universities.

If you can't get a faculty position at a reputable American university, then you are not a top tier scholar.

Whatever anyone thinks about Jesus' or if stories about him were embellished, the fact is Jesus is the most well attested Palestinian Jew of the first century CE. There are four gospels written about him by independent authors who used different sources, some of whom weren't aware of each other. The Gospels themselves rely on earlier written accounts (Q, L, M), probably written in Aramaic, which no longer exist.

Outside the Four Gospels and even outside the New Testament, several dozen other first century authors wrote letters and epistles attesting to Jesus. The first century Jewish historian Josephus makes reference to Jesus. Paul almost certainly knew Jesus' brother James.

It doesn't pass the laugh test that Mark made up Jesus and all the writers after him just picked up the lie and ran with it.

Christianity was a tiny sect in the first century. There was no reason for the broader Jewish diaspora to pay any attention to it. The Romans just considered Jesus to be one of many apocalyptic Jewish mystics and of no particular importance.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of crap you might find on an evangelical apologetics website.

1. Again, there are plenty of scholars who deny Christ ever existed. You don't have to be employed at a "prestigious American university" to be considered a scholar, or even a good scholar. (And what about universities outside of America? Lol.)

2. The gospels are so full of mythology as to be meaningless. Mark, the earliest, was written about 40 years after Jesus' alleged existence. Matthew and Luke use Mark as a primary source, and both offer plenty of contradictory details. John, written probably in the early second century, is so far removed from the time period in question and so full of its own contradiction as to be meaningless.

3. There were not "several dozen" first-century writers commenting about Jesus. Some of the writers of the New Testament wrote their texts in the later part of the first century, but none of them knew Jesus or were witnesses of his ministry. They were all writing decades after the fact. Josephus' single comment about Jesus, written almost half a century after a fact, has been toyed with over the centuries by Christian copyists. This is an agreed-upon fact among scholars. They fabricated the famous passage in question in an attempt to give an air of credence to the story of Jesus (which actually says a lot about the lack of contemporary witness to Jesus).

The fact is that there isn't one single contemporary writer who wrote about Jesus. Take Philo. He was a prolific writer who lived at the same as Jesus allegedly did and wrote extensively on life and current events in Jerusalem, yet he writes absolutely nothing about a magical Jewish wizard performing miracles for the three years before crowds of people. If the gospels are to be believed, Jesus was practically a celebrity and people would pour out of cities to see him. Yet Philo, who writes about Pilate and mundane politics in Jerusalem, is quiet on the subject. If Jesus caused such a ruckus for three years and was the equivalent of a movie star (at one point, the gospels tell us, the crowd was so large that Jesus had to get on a boat to preach), then why does nobody who was alive at the time write about him? Why are the earliest writings about him decades later from the hands of pious believers? Why is there no secular eyewitness account of the magical Jewish wizard celebrity? (The answer is painfully obvious, but religious faith has a way of blinding people.)

4. Yes. I agree that Christianity was just one of many messianic sects. Messianism was popular in first-century Palestine. The Jews wanted the Romans gone and people wanted a messiah to free Israel from outside rule. The fact that the Jesus sect got popular and none of the others did is due to random circumstances. Many of the Christian rituals, like baptism and the eucharist, actually come from the so-called "mystery religions" that existed in the empire at the time and they have no Jewish origin whatsoever.

5. I never claimed that Mark made up Jesus. But there is a clear evolution in the Jesus story. Mark, the earliest gospel, makes no mention of the virgin birth. Mark's version of Mary also depicts her as being embarrassed when Jesus begins his ministry and wondering if he is out of his mind. Mark also depicts Jesus as having brothers who attempt to get him to stop preaching so he doesn't embarrass the family.

None of that jives with the virgin birth stories of Luke and Matthew, which were written decades after Mark. I mean, how can a rational believer reconcile those two very different depictions of Mary? Why would she be embarrassed of Jesus' ministry if she she had been visited by angels thirty years prior and told that her baby was the son of God?

Clearly, the virgin birth story is bullshit. It was extremely popular in ancient times to claim that someone was born of a virgin as a means of giving that person credibility. The claim was made of Alexander the Great. It was even made of Hercules (lol). Most likely, as the Jesus story evolved, people began adding the virgin birth nonsense as a way to give him more credibility.

So, again, I don't claim that Mark simply "made up" Jesus. But there is clearly an evolution of the story.
 
America said:
The fact is that there isn't one single contemporary writer who wrote about Jesus.
Click to expand...

the fact is, all four of the gospel authors were contemporaries of Jesus......Matthew and John were of the 12 disciples......Luke was a follower of Jesus and accompanied Paul on many of his journeys......Mark was a disciple to the Apostle Peter and often carried messages between Peter and Paul.......
 
America said:
Again, there are plenty of scholars who deny Christ ever existed.
Click to expand...

of course......there are atheists everywhere.....but, the issue is whether they are scholars trained in biblical research who have evidence to support their denials......the vast majority of those who have actually studied the issue of the authenticity of the scriptures agree that the gospels were written by those they were named for.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the fact is, all four of the gospel authors were contemporaries of Jesus......Matthew and John were of the 12 disciples......Luke was a follower of Jesus and accompanied Paul on many of his journeys......Mark was a disciple to the Apostle Peter and often carried messages between Peter and Paul.......
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
of course......there are atheists everywhere.....but, the issue is whether they are scholars trained in biblical research who have evidence to support their denials......the vast majority of those who have actually studied the issue of the authenticity of the scriptures agree that the gospels were written by those they were named for.....
Click to expand...

If by "scholar" you mean evangelical preacher who has an agenda, then sure. But if you're talking about legitimate scholarship that demands peer review, then no.
 
America said:
Lol.
Click to expand...

laughter is not an argument......trot out one of your "scholars" and prove its not true......

here are the sources for my statements.....

Matthew
https://www.gotquestions.org/Matthew-in-the-Bible.html
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/how-much-do-we-know-about-matthew-the-disciple.html
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/people/who-was-matthew-in-the-new-testament.html
Mark
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-According-to-Mark
https://www.gotquestions.org/John-Mark-in-the-Bible.html
https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/mark-from-young-follower-to-church-father.html

Luke
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/people/who-was-luke-in-the-new-testament.html
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Luke
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Lukehttps://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Luke

John
https://overviewbible.com/john-the-apostle/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-John-the-Apostle
 
PostmodernProphet said:
laughter is not an argument......trot out one of your "scholars" and prove its not true......

here are the sources for my statements.....

Matthew
https://www.gotquestions.org/Matthew-in-the-Bible.html
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/how-much-do-we-know-about-matthew-the-disciple.html
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/people/who-was-matthew-in-the-new-testament.html
Mark
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-According-to-Mark
https://www.gotquestions.org/John-Mark-in-the-Bible.html
https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/mark-from-young-follower-to-church-father.html

Luke
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/people/who-was-luke-in-the-new-testament.html
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Luke
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Lukehttps://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Luke

John
https://overviewbible.com/john-the-apostle/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-John-the-Apostle
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not wasting my time reading your links. Your claim is clearly faith-based.
 
America said:
If by "scholar" you mean evangelical preacher who has an agenda, then sure. But if you're talking about legitimate scholarship that demands peer review, then no.
Click to expand...

by scholar I mean those who have actually studied the topic.......and by peer, I assume you limit the field to your fellow atheists.......sorry those that reject biblical authorship are a tiny minority.....
 
America said:
Lol. I literally reasoned out in my post why the story is bullshit. How do reconcile Mark's depiction of Mary with Matthew/Luke?
Click to expand...

your distinction of depictions is literally "reasoned"out in your mind......I see no reason to compare your fantasies with biblical scholarship.....
 
America said:
Yeah, I'm not wasting my time reading your links. Your claim is clearly faith-based.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you read my links.....but if you actually had any I would read yours, critique them and prove where they are wrong.......the difference between us will be obvious to anyone reading this thread........you claimed the ability to discredit the scriptures.....so far you have nothing beyond your imagination......
 
America said:
This is the kind of crap you might find on an evangelical apologetics website.

1. Again, there are plenty of scholars who deny Christ ever existed. You don't have to be employed at a "prestigious American university" to be considered a scholar, or even a good scholar. (And what about universities outside of America? Lol.)

2. The gospels are so full of mythology as to be meaningless. Mark, the earliest, was written about 40 years after Jesus' alleged existence. Matthew and Luke use Mark as a primary source, and both offer plenty of contradictory details. John, written probably in the early second century, is so far removed from the time period in question and so full of its own contradiction as to be meaningless.

3. There were not "several dozen" first-century writers commenting about Jesus. Some of the writers of the New Testament wrote their texts in the later part of the first century, but none of them knew Jesus or were witnesses of his ministry. They were all writing decades after the fact. Josephus' single comment about Jesus, written almost half a century after a fact, has been toyed with over the centuries by Christian copyists. This is an agreed-upon fact among scholars. They fabricated the famous passage in question in an attempt to give an air of credence to the story of Jesus (which actually says a lot about the lack of contemporary witness to Jesus).

The fact is that there isn't one single contemporary writer who wrote about Jesus. Take Philo. He was a prolific writer who lived at the same as Jesus allegedly did and wrote extensively on life and current events in Jerusalem, yet he writes absolutely nothing about a magical Jewish wizard performing miracles for the three years before crowds of people. If the gospels are to be believed, Jesus was practically a celebrity and people would pour out of cities to see him. Yet Philo, who writes about Pilate and mundane politics in Jerusalem, is quiet on the subject. If Jesus caused such a ruckus for three years and was the equivalent of a movie star (at one point, the gospels tell us, the crowd was so large that Jesus had to get on a boat to preach), then why does nobody who was alive at the time write about him? Why are the earliest writings about him decades later from the hands of pious believers? Why is there no secular eyewitness account of the magical Jewish wizard celebrity? (The answer is painfully obvious, but religious faith has a way of blinding people.)

4. Yes. I agree that Christianity was just one of many messianic sects. Messianism was popular in first-century Palestine. The Jews wanted the Romans gone and people wanted a messiah to free Israel from outside rule. The fact that the Jesus sect got popular and none of the others did is due to random circumstances. Many of the Christian rituals, like baptism and the eucharist, actually come from the so-called "mystery religions" that existed in the empire at the time and they have no Jewish origin whatsoever.

5. I never claimed that Mark made up Jesus. But there is a clear evolution in the Jesus story. Mark, the earliest gospel, makes no mention of the virgin birth. Mark's version of Mary also depicts her as being embarrassed when Jesus begins his ministry and wondering if he is out of his mind. Mark also depicts Jesus as having brothers who attempt to get him to stop preaching so he doesn't embarrass the family.

None of that jives with the virgin birth stories of Luke and Matthew, which were written decades after Mark. I mean, how can a rational believer reconcile those two very different depictions of Mary? Why would she be embarrassed of Jesus' ministry if she she had been visited by angels thirty years prior and told that her baby was the son of God?

Clearly, the virgin birth story is bullshit. It was extremely popular in ancient times to claim that someone was born of a virgin as a means of giving that person credibility. The claim was made of Alexander the Great. It was even made of Hercules (lol). Most likely, as the Jesus story evolved, people began adding the virgin birth nonsense as a way to give him more credibility.

So, again, I don't claim that Mark simply "made up" Jesus. But there is clearly an evolution of the story.
Click to expand...

I already wrote that the stories of miracles can be described as embellishments. There are embellishments about the life of Siddharth Gautama, The Buddha, but it curiously doesn't bother you.

If your advice were followed, we would have to throw out
almost everything we know about the ancient world if it's not written by eyewitness in real time as the events happened. Our knowledge of the Persian wars in Herodotus comes from sources and second hand testimony living decades after the events Herodotus describes.

Jesus is attested to independently by more sources than almost any other sage, prophet, or mystic of the ancient world. More than The Buddha, more than Confucius, more than Laozi, more than Zarathustra. James was the brother of Jesus, Mark was supposed to be a companion of Peter, and Paul met and intimately knew both James and Peter - and we have letters and Gospels from all of them. But even ignoring them there are at least two dozen other letters and epistles from the first century independently attesting to knowledge of the historicity of Jesus.

To me, it looks pretty foolish to claim that Paul or Mark made up Jesus from whole cloth, and all these other first century writers just picked up the lie and ran with it.


You would have to provide a list of these Jesus myth authors so I can confirm if they are actually prestigious scholars employed one the faculty of top tier universities.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top