Written by God?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Antigone
Student
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:22 am
Location: western NY

Written by God?

Post #1

Post by Antigone »

Many times I hear Christians say the bible was "written by God." But not all Christians believe this, they believe one of two things instead: it was 'inspired' by God, or it was written by human hands and God had nothing to do with it. I often wonder how such a wide range of views about a religion's sacred text can be held. Its almost as if some people are compromizing so they can continue to be Christian.

Since there is such a wide range of views there must be a reason for it, maybe the Christian's stronge belief that God wrote the bible isn't in the bible; threrfor there is no bases for why they believe this??

This is a two part qeustion:
What is the basis of the belief that God wrote the bible (or inspired it and the very 'fact' he inspired it still means it is all true and NOT wronge in ay respect)? And what would be the 'proof' that God didn't write the bible? (For example, IF you believe the bible is inerrant because God wrote or inspired the bible, what would need to happen or what would you need to see in order to not believe that anymore?)

I look forward to the discussion and debate! 8-[
Mortui non dolent

stuart shepherd
Apprentice
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:41 pm

Post #51

Post by stuart shepherd »

Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #52

Post by Metacrock »

stuart shepherd wrote:Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?

stuart shepherd
Apprentice
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:41 pm

Post #53

Post by stuart shepherd »

Metacrock wrote:
stuart shepherd wrote:Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?
If Joseph is Mary's spouse but Mary became pregnant by another, not Joseph, doesn't that make Jesus a bastard?

Stuart Shepherd

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #54

Post by Metacrock »

stuart shepherd wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
stuart shepherd wrote:Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?
If Joseph is Mary's spouse but Mary became pregnant by another, not Joseph, doesn't that make Jesus a bastard?


what if he was? so what? but really it wouldn't because Mary did not have sex with God. that' whole notion is disgusting. God made her pergant miraculsouly that doesn't mean sex.

ever heard of artificial insemination? If the shot is given by a famle nurse that doesn't make her the father. It doesn't mean she's had sex with the mother.
Stuart Shepherd[/quote]

stuart shepherd
Apprentice
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:41 pm

Post #55

Post by stuart shepherd »

Metacrock wrote:
stuart shepherd wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
stuart shepherd wrote:Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?
If Joseph is Mary's spouse but Mary became pregnant by another, not Joseph, doesn't that make Jesus a bastard?


what if he was? so what? but really it wouldn't because Mary did not have sex with God. that' whole notion is disgusting. God made her pergant miraculsouly that doesn't mean sex.

ever heard of artificial insemination? If the shot is given by a famle nurse that doesn't make her the father. It doesn't mean she's had sex with the mother.
Stuart Shepherd
[/quote]


The point is that this virgin birth fiction is just another fabulous lie to mislead billions of people.

If Mary became pregnant through the Holy Ghost, as the New Testament tells the story, then who is the son of God the father, if the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus?

Stuart Shepherd

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #56

Post by Goat »

Metacrock wrote:
goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:the problem with this kind of arguent is it is disproven by Celsus. Celsus proves taht the :Talmud does talk about Jesus because he says 'the jews told me it does" and the info that he gave on Jesus alledged history matches what the talmud says abou tall the suppossed Jesus figures.

the thing is the Jews designed into the Talmud a plausable deniablity. that way, through self censorship, they can talka bout Jesus and not be persecuted becaue they an say "this is isn't JEsus' but they all know it is.

how do we know? because a rabbinical synod in the 1600's in Poland commanded the censor and it sai to take out all the refernce sot Jesus of Nazerath and replace them with litlte 0's. so we know what is about Jesus and what is not.
Let's see your source on this .. It is as good as your article by Neil Altman?[/quote


Maybe its' just my Texas stuborness, but I still think there is more to be gotten out of the Talmud than just an argument form silence, although the Jesus Myther's have no room to complain about that. Still, we can see the Talmud is Plainly talking about Jesus of Nazerath. First, Rabbis have never deneid it. Rabbis have using the talmudis stories of Jesus for centuries to illustraet the problems with Christianity. Secondly, they were confident enough that this was Jesus that they actually took the mentions of name out at one point to avoid attacks by anti-semetic Christians.


Sam Shamoun

"Jesus in Rabbinic Traditions"


"It is not surprising to find the Talmud referring to Jesus, his mother and his disciples. In fact, some of the material coincides with the NT depiction of Jesus and the Jewish ruling council's assessment of his person and mission. The following statements are taken from the Soncino edition of the Babylon Talmud as cited in Robert A. Morey's pamphlet Jesus in the Mishnah and Talmud. We will also be using Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson's He Walked Among Us unless noted otherwise."

"Before proceeding, we must point out that at one time the following Talmudic references were believed to have been lost. This is due to the fact that in the seventeenth century, Jewish rabbis took steps to expunge all references to Jesus. This act was motivated primarily by the Church's persecution of the Jews. Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson explain:"

"... in light of the persecutions, the Jewish communities imposed censorship on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they might no longer be a target of attack. Morris Goldstein, former Professor of Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates: Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared: ‘We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’"

At first, deleted portions of words in printed Talmuds were indicated by small circles or blank spaces but, in time, these too were forbidden by the censors.

As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to Jesus ..." (Ibid, pp. 58-59)



It seems pretty obvious that the Talmud is discussing Jesus, at least in some enstances. A summary of what the most liley passages say about theone I take to be Jesus of Nazerath makes this clear:

a Summary of what is said about the charactors who seem go by these names:



*He was born under unusual circumstances, leading some rabbis to address him as ben Pandira and " a bastard of an adulteress."
*mother Mary was Heli's daughter.
*was crucified on the eve of Passover.
* made himself alive by the name of God.
* was a son of a woman. (cf. Galatians 4:4)
* claimed to be God, the son of God, the son of man.
* ascended and claimed that he would return again.
* was near to the kingdom and near to kingship.
* had at least five disciples.
* performed miracles, i.e. practiced "sorcery".
* name has healing power.
* teaching impressed one rabbi.
The Talmud essentially affirms the New Testament teaching on the life and person of Jesus Christ, God's unique Son and Savior of the world.



Before going into that we need to understand what we are looking for. The Talmudic writters don't say "O Jesus of Nazerath is who we are talking about." The counch things in langaue form their world is very different to anything modern Christian would expect to find. they have many nicknames for Jesus, both as derogatory and as part of the self censering. soem of these can be translated as "may his name be blotted out" Others are of doubtful origin, but it is asserted strongly by Rabbis over the centuries that they are Talking about Jesus.Some of htese names include:

*Such-an-one
*Pantera
*Ben Stada
*Yeshu
*Ben Pantira








II. Celsus


Celsus demonstrates a connection to the material of the Talmud, indicating that that material about Jesus was around in a leaast the second century. Since Jewish sources would not have been reidaly avaible to Celsus it seems reasonable to assume that this information had been floating around for some time, and easier to obtain. Therefore, we can at least went back to the early second, late frist century.


Origin quoting Celsus: Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."


So we estabilsh:

(1) Mary was poor and worked with her hands

(2) husband was a carpenter

(3)Mary committed adultary with Roman soldier named Panthera. (where have we heard this before?)

(4) Jesus as bastard

(5) driven to Egypt where Jesus leanred magic.


All of these points are made in the Talmudic passages. This can be seen both above and on the next page. The use of the name Panthera is a dead give away. Clearly Celsus got this info from the Talmud. Christians never used the name Panthera. He could only hae gotten it form the Talmud and these are very charges the Talmudists made.

Here is a mishna passage, which makes most of the points. Being from the Mishna it would draw upon first century material:


MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)



In fact Origin himself almost hints at spcial knowledge of Jesus "ture" origns, what would that knowldge be? Christian knolwege would be posative and not contian many of the poitns, such as Mary being a spinner or hair dresser. No Christians ever said that. It was suspect for a woman to work. That's an insutl to her.

The following quotes are taken from Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987:

Celsus:


"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumourss about the true and insavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?" (57).


why a Jew? or Philospher? Celsus was obviously reading the jewish sources. This is one of the charges made in the Talmud.

Here he claims to have secret knowledge that Christians don't have:


"I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)." (62).


where is that from? It has to be the Talmud, or sources commonly drawn upon by the Talmud.


But how does this prove it was Jesus? Celsus sure thought it was. Apparently his Jeiwsh contracts told him this is the staright scoup on Jesus' life. We see that everyhwere in the Talmud Jesus is talked about as a living person,and connections are made to his family and geneology.

Celsus pushes the knoledge back to late second century, but due to the aviability or Rabbinical writtings it must have been around for some time before that. The Jews were very consicous of geneologies and family connections. why wouldthey not pick up on the fact that Jesus had none and no one had ever

seen him personaly, if indeed that was the case?

Thank you very much. You are showing your true scholarship bent with demosntrating the quality of your sources.

I'll accept what you say when you don't use a source that is known for distorting the truth about non-christian religions.

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #57

Post by Metacrock »

stuart shepherd wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
stuart shepherd wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
stuart shepherd wrote:Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?
If Joseph is Mary's spouse but Mary became pregnant by another, not Joseph, doesn't that make Jesus a bastard?


what if he was? so what? but really it wouldn't because Mary did not have sex with God. that' whole notion is disgusting. God made her pergant miraculsouly that doesn't mean sex.

ever heard of artificial insemination? If the shot is given by a famle nurse that doesn't make her the father. It doesn't mean she's had sex with the mother.
Stuart Shepherd
The point is that this virgin birth fiction is just another fabulous lie to mislead billions of people.

Ok, tha's your opinion. Give me some empirical data to prove it.



If Mary became pregnant through the Holy Ghost, as the New Testament tells the story, then who is the son of God the father, if the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus?

Stuart Shepherd

why are you so reticient to understand the concept of the Trinity?

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #58

Post by Metacrock »

goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:the problem with this kind of arguent is it is disproven by Celsus. Celsus proves taht the :Talmud does talk about Jesus because he says 'the jews told me it does" and the info that he gave on Jesus alledged history matches what the talmud says abou tall the suppossed Jesus figures.

the thing is the Jews designed into the Talmud a plausable deniablity. that way, through self censorship, they can talka bout Jesus and not be persecuted becaue they an say "this is isn't JEsus' but they all know it is.

how do we know? because a rabbinical synod in the 1600's in Poland commanded the censor and it sai to take out all the refernce sot Jesus of Nazerath and replace them with litlte 0's. so we know what is about Jesus and what is not.
Let's see your source on this .. It is as good as your article by Neil Altman?[/quote


Maybe its' just my Texas stuborness, but I still think there is more to be gotten out of the Talmud than just an argument form silence, although the Jesus Myther's have no room to complain about that. Still, we can see the Talmud is Plainly talking about Jesus of Nazerath. First, Rabbis have never deneid it. Rabbis have using the talmudis stories of Jesus for centuries to illustraet the problems with Christianity. Secondly, they were confident enough that this was Jesus that they actually took the mentions of name out at one point to avoid attacks by anti-semetic Christians.


Sam Shamoun

"Jesus in Rabbinic Traditions"


"It is not surprising to find the Talmud referring to Jesus, his mother and his disciples. In fact, some of the material coincides with the NT depiction of Jesus and the Jewish ruling council's assessment of his person and mission. The following statements are taken from the Soncino edition of the Babylon Talmud as cited in Robert A. Morey's pamphlet Jesus in the Mishnah and Talmud. We will also be using Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson's He Walked Among Us unless noted otherwise."

"Before proceeding, we must point out that at one time the following Talmudic references were believed to have been lost. This is due to the fact that in the seventeenth century, Jewish rabbis took steps to expunge all references to Jesus. This act was motivated primarily by the Church's persecution of the Jews. Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson explain:"

"... in light of the persecutions, the Jewish communities imposed censorship on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they might no longer be a target of attack. Morris Goldstein, former Professor of Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates: Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared: ‘We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’"

At first, deleted portions of words in printed Talmuds were indicated by small circles or blank spaces but, in time, these too were forbidden by the censors.

As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to Jesus ..." (Ibid, pp. 58-59)



It seems pretty obvious that the Talmud is discussing Jesus, at least in some enstances. A summary of what the most liley passages say about theone I take to be Jesus of Nazerath makes this clear:

a Summary of what is said about the charactors who seem go by these names:



*He was born under unusual circumstances, leading some rabbis to address him as ben Pandira and " a bastard of an adulteress."
*mother Mary was Heli's daughter.
*was crucified on the eve of Passover.
* made himself alive by the name of God.
* was a son of a woman. (cf. Galatians 4:4)
* claimed to be God, the son of God, the son of man.
* ascended and claimed that he would return again.
* was near to the kingdom and near to kingship.
* had at least five disciples.
* performed miracles, i.e. practiced "sorcery".
* name has healing power.
* teaching impressed one rabbi.
The Talmud essentially affirms the New Testament teaching on the life and person of Jesus Christ, God's unique Son and Savior of the world.



Before going into that we need to understand what we are looking for. The Talmudic writters don't say "O Jesus of Nazerath is who we are talking about." The counch things in langaue form their world is very different to anything modern Christian would expect to find. they have many nicknames for Jesus, both as derogatory and as part of the self censering. soem of these can be translated as "may his name be blotted out" Others are of doubtful origin, but it is asserted strongly by Rabbis over the centuries that they are Talking about Jesus.Some of htese names include:

*Such-an-one
*Pantera
*Ben Stada
*Yeshu
*Ben Pantira








II. Celsus


Celsus demonstrates a connection to the material of the Talmud, indicating that that material about Jesus was around in a leaast the second century. Since Jewish sources would not have been reidaly avaible to Celsus it seems reasonable to assume that this information had been floating around for some time, and easier to obtain. Therefore, we can at least went back to the early second, late frist century.


Origin quoting Celsus: Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."


So we estabilsh:

(1) Mary was poor and worked with her hands

(2) husband was a carpenter

(3)Mary committed adultary with Roman soldier named Panthera. (where have we heard this before?)

(4) Jesus as bastard

(5) driven to Egypt where Jesus leanred magic.


All of these points are made in the Talmudic passages. This can be seen both above and on the next page. The use of the name Panthera is a dead give away. Clearly Celsus got this info from the Talmud. Christians never used the name Panthera. He could only hae gotten it form the Talmud and these are very charges the Talmudists made.

Here is a mishna passage, which makes most of the points. Being from the Mishna it would draw upon first century material:


MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)



In fact Origin himself almost hints at spcial knowledge of Jesus "ture" origns, what would that knowldge be? Christian knolwege would be posative and not contian many of the poitns, such as Mary being a spinner or hair dresser. No Christians ever said that. It was suspect for a woman to work. That's an insutl to her.

The following quotes are taken from Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987:

Celsus:


"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumourss about the true and insavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?" (57).


why a Jew? or Philospher? Celsus was obviously reading the jewish sources. This is one of the charges made in the Talmud.

Here he claims to have secret knowledge that Christians don't have:


"I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)." (62).


where is that from? It has to be the Talmud, or sources commonly drawn upon by the Talmud.


But how does this prove it was Jesus? Celsus sure thought it was. Apparently his Jeiwsh contracts told him this is the staright scoup on Jesus' life. We see that everyhwere in the Talmud Jesus is talked about as a living person,and connections are made to his family and geneology.

Celsus pushes the knoledge back to late second century, but due to the aviability or Rabbinical writtings it must have been around for some time before that. The Jews were very consicous of geneologies and family connections. why wouldthey not pick up on the fact that Jesus had none and no one had ever

seen him personaly, if indeed that was the case?

Thank you very much. You are showing your true scholarship bent with demosntrating the quality of your sources.

I'll accept what you say when you don't use a source that is known for distorting the truth about non-christian religions.

that is an extremely foolish answer. Is Celsus known for a pro christian bias? ah you think Origin would be biased and just lied. Since Origin is our only source for
Celsus we are stuck with it. But how does that info help Christaintiy? If he wanted to lie why didn't he just make up that the Talmudists agreed with the Gsopels instead of giving other bits of info that undermine the story? He says enough to trasmit Celsus' argument. How illogical or unthinkable is it that Celsus used the Talmud? WEll given that he gets the same bits right as one finds in the Talmud it's pretty obvious he used it.

Now if Origin made that up, why would he do that? He would have to read the Talmud and transmitt their unflattering info accurately when he could just say "O they agree with me."

Goose

Post #59

Post by Goose »

Been away a few days.
stuart shepherd wrote:
Goose wrote:
stuart shepherd wrote:
I hope you don't mind if I interrupt.
Not all. And welcome!
The gospels are anonymous. The names were added later. Matt, Mark, etc didn't put their names on the gospels. It is hard to believe something that is anonymous.
You're assumption here is that those that did give names to the Gospels were either mistaken or lieing. For me to believe this, I'm going to need some substantial evidence. I believe they are as they are. Can you provide some evidence as to why they might be mistaken about the authors?
Paul just had heat stroke on the way to Damascus. He hallucinated that he saw Jesus. Paul has no witnesses that Jesus talked to him. He changed the religion of the Jews and created Christianity. You have to wonder why he thought that he had the authority to do away with the Sabbath, Circumcision, the Holidays,etc.
I realize again this is your opinion. Do have any evidence to support it?

Heat stroke doesn't generally cause an individual to turn from persecuting a particular group of people into wanting to join that group and become one of the persecuted. Heat stroke is temporary and doesn't usually cause long term effects.
The Gospels were written after 70CE because they tell about the destruction of Jerusalem.Big clue at Matt 28:15
Going to need a little more than that I think. Maybe you could walk us through how this relates to the destruction of Jerusalem. Here is Matthew 28:15

15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. (NIV)

Do you have any other evidence? Because I could give a case that the synoptics were written before 70AD by working back from Acts.
If a tomb is empty do you assume the former inhabitant was resurrected or someone moved the body?
You are assuming that there would be sufficient motive to pull such a feat. Do you have any evidence that someone did move the body? Do you know who? Or when they did it?
Jesus never showed himself to anyone but his followers after his resurrection.
He failed to show himself to his evil and adulterous generation or to the high priest.
Why would He? Why would this be necessary? Because you think it would be?
You seem to have everything backwards.
You have gospels which were written anonymously and you want me to prove that they aren't legitimate? You prove they are legitimate.
Why do I need to prove they are legitimate? I already accept them. I asked you to provide some evidence that those that assigned authorship were lying or mistaken. You've not done this. I see no good reason to not accept the Gospels as they are claimed to be by Christian tradition.
Paul was a felon. He committed felony murder on Stephen. Why should I believe him without some kind of proof that he really talked to Jesus? Are you in the habit of believing murderers without proof? Paul earned his living selling Jesus. He had motive to lie.
No, Paul was not a felon. Paul was a pharisee and persecuted the Christians (Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-3, Acts 23:6, Acts 26:1-11). You might even say that persecuting the Christians was expected of Paul. He was with in his right as Christians like Stephen were considered blasphemers (Acts 6:8-15, Acts 7:54-60), a sin punishable by death.

Your motive to lie by "selling Jesus" hypothesis has a two serious flaws. It does not account for Paul's conversion. Why would Paul abandon a life in which he presumably had some power and comfort to become one of the people he had been persecuting? Was "selling Jesus" that much more profitable in early Christianity? I highly doubt it. Are you sticking with the heat stroke story? Or do you now need to change that to come up with a more plausible reason for Paul's conversion.

Second, why wouldn't Paul just abandon "selling Jesus" and return to a more comfortable life of a pharisee? Why not just stop the lying and forget the whole charade? Why end up arrested and be willing to die for a lie? Heat stroke?
I can think of many senarios where someone could have moved the corpse before Sunday morning. Use your imagination.
I try not to use my imagination when evaluating the facts. I tend to leave that for those propagating theories such as the Swoon and mass Hallucianations. I prefer to evaluate the evidence and draw a conclusion based on what the evidence suggests.

Why don't you give a scenario and we can try it on for size. Let's see if it has plausibility and a strong enough motive.
Jesus promised his "evil and adulterous generation" that he would give them the sign of Jonah...Three nights and three days in the grave. But he never showed himself so they could see the sign.
Here is the scripture you are referring to. Maybe you could walk us through your conclusion that He failed to show Himself to the High Priest as you said He had promised He would do. I see no reason to conclude that He didn't show Himself to the appropriate people. If we also take into account the reported appearance to the 500, I think we've got an excellent case to say Jesus appeared to enough.

Matthew 12:39-42

39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. (NIV)

I'm also still waiting for you to explain your theory that Matthew 28:15 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #60

Post by Goat »

Metacrock wrote:
stuart shepherd wrote:Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?
That would still make him a mamzer, according to Jewish Law. This shows a contradiction in the Gospels. If Jesus was not Jospephs biological son, he woud be a mamzer, and tovah. He would not have been allowed in the temple. However, since, according to some of the gospels, he WAS in the temple , even as a child, this contradicts the idea that Jesus was an alleged virgin birth.

Post Reply