Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Existence of Jesus Christ
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 121 of 378 (213775)
06-03-2005 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by randman
06-03-2005 3:32 AM


Re: Jesus was real
At the same time, to post of how you used to think along similar lines or some such sort of violates that to a degree, but it is still understandable.
well, i will discuss my beliefs, but not my relationship/experiences.
i opened up a bit to faith a while back regarding my beliefs. she was confused as to why someone who professes to be a christian works at tearing down the bible so much, instead of affirming it and talking about faith and truth.
i explained that as a matter of faith for me, it's important to know and understand what i'm given with, in all of it's imperfections. blindly asserting the bible's perfection and divine origin doesn't really do much for me. i used this as an example.
the book of deuteronomy contains the advice (command, whatever) "thou shalt not tempt the lord your god." jesus quotes this at some point, too. now, i've found out something very interesting about deuteronomy: it's a fake. a complete forgery. it's the document that's "found" during the reign of josiah of judah, and is subsequently used to justify damnation of isreal, fueling a civil war. it contains the commandment that it central to how judah is judged: that there shall only be one temple. sounds a lot like those forged un documents our government made up to justify a war in iraq, right?
and yet god still speaks through it. the forgeries of men, written in spite to be used as a weapon against an entire nation... and god speaks through it. that to me is a lot more powerful than thinking god told moses to write two books that were almost exactly the same.
finding problems also aids in understanding. for instance, it's the contradictions in genesis that tell us which source is which. and lets us pick apart the stories into their original forms. and it's understanding the structure, and what the book actually is, that's important to me.
but as for my religious experiences? those are a little more private.
Imo, one's subjective experience of God or lack thereof, or failure to recognize something was indeed God, probably has a whole lot to do with their faith, and their presuppositions, and thus affects their suppossed objective analysis in this area.
recognizing god is indeed a matter of faith. but imo, and i don't mean to be insulting, i think alot of people wouldn't know god if he hit them with a lightning bolt. and i think that what a lot of people experience is largely a product of their own brains. but yet i do think god exists, just that he mostly stays out of things for the time being.
however, i do believe in providence. well, actually, no. scratch that. i TRUST in providence.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 3:32 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by lfen, posted 06-12-2005 3:32 PM arachnophilia has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 122 of 378 (213808)
06-03-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
06-03-2005 12:00 AM


Re: Jesus was real
No. They claimed to have direct personal experience with Jesus, something most believers claim although not to have witnessed his resurrected body as they claimed.
But Paul's "direct personal experience" was not with a flesh and blood fellow human being. It was a mystical encounter with the Christ. That Christ had been killed by powerful spirits who were the rulers of the age and that death and rebirth had taken place not in Jerusalem on this planet but in the realm of Spirits. It was supposed to result in the triumph over death, resurrection, etc, but it was a spiritual story not a history of actual events here on earth.
So yes, just like the flying saucer people they were willing to die for their mystical visions. That is what the early Christians were dying for, their mystical experiences which are very powerful. Only later was this mystical Christ given earthly details such as the name of the mother and father, town of birth, place of execution etc. This is the scenario and it fits Paul better than the later story the church came up with.
It's not a perfect fit but the orthodox story is full of holes which have kept apologists busy patching up ever since though it still leaks badly.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 12:00 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 7:45 PM lfen has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 123 of 378 (214018)
06-03-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by lfen
06-03-2005 9:18 AM


Re: Jesus was real
I've been fortunate to have the Lord help me with my doubts and lack of knowledge when I did not deserve it.
As far as the gospel story of Jesus being born in the world, being crucified for our sins, and rising again, I know that this is true, and not because man taught it to me, or via academic study or anything like that.
Unfortunately, I cannot prove that to you. You have to make the journey for yourself. I was unusual to have the Lord show those things to me without the aid of men. That's not how it usually goes, but I suppose like Thomas, God had mercy on me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by lfen, posted 06-03-2005 9:18 AM lfen has not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 124 of 378 (214102)
06-04-2005 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by randman
06-03-2005 3:42 AM


Re: Jesus was real
It seems to me that your argument then winds up being, It has to be this way or else Christianity is wrong. Seems to me that you are risking quite a bit by hanging the whole of Christianity on not only martyrdom, but also martyrdom for very specific reasons.
Consider that you’re having to construct scenarios to support your logic. Reread your post. Now if there are Gnostic martyrs and Polytheistic martyrs, does your whole worldview crumble? Be careful on what you build your beliefs.
So given what you can find on this forum and the internet, do you believe it is proper to pass off the Gospels as being written by some of the first 12 Apostles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 3:42 AM randman has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3441 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 125 of 378 (214116)
06-04-2005 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by randman
05-29-2005 1:37 PM


Re: the Development of the Christ myth
Greetings,
A quick comment about randman on Paul -
I said - "1 Thess 4:9 - Paul tells Christians to "love one another" WITHOUT a mention of Jesus! Even though Jesus supposedly taught exactly that."
randman argued :
quote:
Wrong, Paul mentions Jesus specifically as commanding this in verse 4:2 and verse 4:9 is part of the instructions "of Jesus Christ."
Lets see...
"4:2 For you know what charge we gave you through the Lord Jesus. "
Does it say Christ gave these instructions?
No,
It's what PAUL ("we") taught.
Does it say instructions "of Jesus Christ"?
No,
it's that vague "through Jesus Christ" again.
4:9 specifically says they were taught by God.
Yet randman claims a statement several verses away about something else being instructed by Paul is actually proof this was taught by Jesus.
Incredible.
But randman claims he has been personally told by God he is right.
Iasion
This message has been edited by Iasion, 06-04-2005 10:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 1:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by 1.61803, posted 06-04-2005 9:36 AM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 134 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 3:28 AM Kapyong has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 126 of 378 (214128)
06-04-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Kapyong
06-04-2005 8:35 AM


Re: the Development of the Christ myth
Iasion writes:
But randman claims he has been personally told by God he is right.
So did David Koresh.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Kapyong, posted 06-04-2005 8:35 AM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 3:25 AM 1.61803 has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3441 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 127 of 378 (214143)
06-04-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by randman
06-03-2005 3:42 AM


no 1st century evidence for Jesus' life
Greetings,
quote:
Well, this gets back to why would Christ crucified be a stumbling block to the Jews and Gentiles in the way Paul presents it, and others?
Because it's a new creed, it had to compete against other beliefs.
quote:
If he were able to spin this as simply an esoteric mystery religion, it's hard to see how the pagans would have been offended.
Offended?
Who was offended by Paul's mystery religion?
quote:
Basically, all the evidence we have suggests that they really believed in the Resurrection
So what if they believed?
Pagans really believed - does that make them right?
Satanists really believe - does that make them right?
Suicide bombers really believe - does that make them right?
quote:
and were killed for that beleif.
False.
There is NO solid evidence any early Christian died for their beliefs,
merely later legends.
And even if they did - so what?
As several here have pointed out to you -
many people die for their religions beliefs - so what?
quote:
They deny Jesus' rose from the dead, and present him as an enlightened Rabbi, and they basically would have been fine, for the most part, and not faced such intense persecution
Pardon?
quote:
Moreover, it's really a strain to place the New Testament date of writing outside of the first century.
No strain at all -
Here are the dates from Peter Kirby showing many NT writings may be 2nd century -
70-100 - James
80-110 - 1 Peter
80-130 - G.Luke
80-130 - Acts
90-120 - G.John, 1,2,3 John
100-150 - 1,2 Timothy, Titus
100-160 - 2 Peter
That's 4 documents considered 2nd century, and 1/2 dozen possibly 2nd century - according to modern scholars anyway.
quote:
Basically, the scoffers want to remove all of the evidence we have, and then deduce from mere imagination what could have been, if we discount, without good reason I might add, the New Testament as historically being written by early Christians.
What evidence?
The 1st century Christian writers focus on the Risen Christ -
a spiritual being met only in visions.
None of the NT documents were written by anyone who met any Jesus - I PROVIDED evidence for this for several books - randman ignored it all of course.
Let me repeat the current consensus -
Modern NT scholars consider that NOT ONE of the NT books were written by anyone who met an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
If randman or anyone else thinks otherwise, then produce some evidence, preferably argued from from the sources (I don't mean claims about what most Christian "scholars" believe or quotes from other believers.)
Consider what is almost totally MISSING from the 1st century Christian record -
* NO Mary & Joseph & the birth stories - NO magi, Herod, Bethlehem, Nazareth
* NO miracles or healings by Jesus - NO Lazarus, Cana, Galilee
* NO Baptism or John the Baptist, NO triumphal entry
* NO sermons or teachings from Jesus
* NO passion, betrayal, Judas
* NO trial, Pilate, cock-crow
* NO empty tomb !
Note -
The Gospels may be dated to first century by many, but there is no external reference to the Gospels or their contents (e.g. as mentioned in my list above) in the 1st century.
See my table here :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
How can that be?
How come no 1st century Christian writer mention anything about the earthly life of Jesus?
But after the Gospels arise in early 2nd century we start to see Christian writers mentioning the details of the life of Jesus more and more...
By 3rd century everyone knows the story and repeats it endlessly, over and over, repeatedly, at length, ad nauseum, on and on and on and on about Jesus and every last detail about every last element and issue and event of the Gospel story of his life...
But 1st century Christians?
Those who suppsoedly MET Jesus or at least knew his circle -
Merely vague spiritual preaching about the Risen Christ.
Nothing EARTHLY,
nothing historical.
No dates.
no places,
no names,
no pack drill.
Read the letter from James, allegedly from Jesus' own BROTHER !
NO mention of Jesus' family at all - NO Mary or Joseph or siblings.
NO mention of the birth stories - NO Bethlehem, Nazareth, Magi, Herod, the flight...
NO mention of teachings Jesus - NO sermon, Lord's prayer, food regulations
NO mention of miracles - NO Lazarus, feeding the multitude, healing the sick...
NO mention of any Gospel event - NO Teaching at the Temple, Temple Cleansing, Triumphal Entry, Temptation, Baptism in Jordan etc, etc...
NO mention of the trial of Jesus - NO Pilate, Sanhedrin, Judas etc...
NO mention of the empty tomb, the crucifixion, the resurrection !!!
This letter just could NOT possibly be from someone who met any Jesus - it only even uses his name twice.
How could James not know any of this?
And its not just a few things left out - its a complete failure to mention ANYTHING about Jesus even when the context CRIES out for it -
Chapter 1 talks about resisting temptation - NO mention of the temptation of Jesus !
Chapter 2 starts like this in some versions - "do you .. really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?" (a different translation of the phrase which in the Greek goes something like this: "do not with partiality believe in Jesus Christ the glorious").
Here is James trying to convince them to believe in Jesus Christ, and he totally fails to even mention he knew Jesus, let alone was his brother - instead all he gives to try and prove Jesus is some preaching about the poor and the rich WITHOUT mentioning anything Jesus said about the poor.
James quotes "Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself" - but NOT from Jesus, just "scripture".
James preaches about adultery - NO mention of Jesus' teachings.
James argues that faith without works is useless - when he provides examples, it's from the OT - Abraham, Rahab - NO mention of Jesus.
James reminds people not to curse or speak evil - NO mention of Jesus' teachings on that.
James preaches about suffering and patience - NO mention of Jesus as example, just Job and the prophets.
James talks about the church elders bringing healing and forgiving sins - NO mention of Jesus doing that.
James even invokes Elijah who was a "human being like us" - NO mention of Jesus !
The letter of James, like the other NT epistles, shows not the slightest sign of any knowledge of an earthly Jesus.
Apologists like randman tend to project their later beliefs back into the early writings - so that mentions of a "crucifixion" are somehow proof of a physical crucifixion, even though there is nothing in the text that ties it to the physical plane at all.
Paul boasts he had travelled to the 3rd heaven,
he talks about Christ being IN him, IN us...
he goes on and on about spiritual themes,
he says Christ was crucified by the powers above
It's all spiritual talk, higher planes, astral beings and such. There is NOT the slightest sign of this being HISTORICAL - no places, names, dates...
But because randman BELIEVES in this physical crucifixion, in his mind these mentions of a spiritual crucifixion must be about a PHYSICAL crucifixion, in fact they are PROOF of a physical resurrection (even when there is nothing physical or historical in the description). Such is the faith of the true believer.
Yes,
some of the NT was written by 1st century Christians.
No,
no 1st century Christian writing mentions anything clearly about the earthly life of Jesus.
No,
no NT writer met any physical Jesus.
No,
Jesus was not a physical being.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 3:42 AM randman has not replied

CodeTrainer
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 378 (214286)
06-04-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Brad
06-02-2005 6:37 PM


Re: Jesus was real
Brad wrote: C'mon, now you're just being silly! You're trying to tell me that the apostles deaths prove their faith legitimate, but when someone else dies for what they believe in this proves it false? Do you not see the contradiction?!?
Why don't you step back, take a deep breath, and read the post again.
The apostles would know whether Jesus actually lived, died, and was resurrected. With their own eyes. They would know. They knew. They signed their affidavits in their own blood, as witnesses that Jesus had done these things, including his last few days on Earth.
The others died for things they had no way of knowing was false, or died for things they knew of. The apostles did too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Brad, posted 06-02-2005 6:37 PM Brad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by lfen, posted 06-04-2005 8:20 PM CodeTrainer has not replied
 Message 131 by Kapyong, posted 06-04-2005 9:04 PM CodeTrainer has not replied

CodeTrainer
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 378 (214290)
06-04-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Kapyong
06-02-2005 9:15 PM


Re: Jesus was real
Iaision, it is you who totally fails to grasp the point.
You say that The Heaven's gate cult killed themselves because they BELIEVED, Suicide bombers die for what they BELIEVE, Christian martyrs (allegedly) died because they BELIEVED. ___You claim this BELIEF proves its true. ___Therefore, your argument claims the Heaven's Gate cult's beliefs were TRUE.
==> You keep repeating the same mistakes in comprehension, and I'll keep repeating until you get the point you keep missing.
=> Heaven's gate cult, Suicide bombers, these had/have no way of *directly* knowing the falsity of their beliefs. My original text referred not to Christian martyrs in general, but to the apostles. The apostles, to the point of death, insisted they had seen Jesus Christ in his new body, and resurrected from the dead. This was based on eyewitness testimony. If it were not true, they would know it, and would not die to prove something they knew was untrue.
There were five hundred of them, and provided eyewitness testimony to many thousands upon thousands across the entire breadth of the Roman Empire and beyond, and those many more thousands became witnesses of the power given them from having been with Jesus. This gave the Christian movement the explosive growth it saw in the beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Kapyong, posted 06-02-2005 9:15 PM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Kapyong, posted 06-04-2005 9:27 PM CodeTrainer has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 130 of 378 (214291)
06-04-2005 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by CodeTrainer
06-04-2005 8:07 PM


Re: Jesus was real
The apostles would know whether Jesus actually lived, died, and was resurrected. With their own eyes. They would know. They knew. They signed their affidavits in their own blood, as witnesses that Jesus had done these things, including his last few days on Earth.
And the evidence for this is?
We all know the story the church put together and it's a story many have found compelling, but then many finds Star Wars compelling also.
You know where these affidavits signed in blood are? Any chance you posting reproductions of them here?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-04-2005 8:07 PM CodeTrainer has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3441 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 131 of 378 (214316)
06-04-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by CodeTrainer
06-04-2005 8:07 PM


Jesus was not historical
Greetings,
quote:
The apostles would know whether Jesus actually lived, died, and was resurrected.
They WOULD have - if Jesus existed.
Can you show any actual evidence?
quote:
With their own eyes. They would know. They knew.
So YOU say.
Yet you can't produce a single document to prove it.
NOT ONE SINGLE Christian document saying something like -
"I, John, met Jesus, I swear I saw him..."
NOT ONE.
Nor can you provide ANY external evidence that Jesus existed.
quote:
They signed their affidavits in their own blood, as witnesses that Jesus had done these things, including his last few days on Earth.
Rubbish.
Do you REALLY believe this nonsense?
Then show us these affidavits signed in blood.
quote:
The others died for things they had no way of knowing was false...
Just like the early Christians,
NONE of whom mentions ever meeting a Jesus.
After all these posts, you cannot come up with ANY EVIDENCE, just faithful statements of belief.
I don't think Code-trainer will ever understand this issue, but here it is spelled out again -
No early Christian writer shows any EVIDENCE of a historical Jesus,
just evidence of BELIEF in Jesus.
The original belief was of a spiritual Iesous Christos.
Evidence for the Gospel stories and belief in a historical Jesus of Nazareth dates only to 2nd century.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-04-2005 8:07 PM CodeTrainer has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3441 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 132 of 378 (214334)
06-04-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by CodeTrainer
06-04-2005 8:16 PM


Jesus was a myth
Greetings,
quote:
Heaven's gate cult, Suicide bombers, these had/have no way of *directly* knowing the falsity of their beliefs.
Just like the early Christians.
No matter how many times you are asked, you can't come up with any evidence for your beliefs.
SHOW US the evidence that ANY early Christian met Jesus.
Not just PREACHING - evidence please.
quote:
The apostles,
We have no writing from any apostle who met Jesus.
If you claim we do - present your evidence.
quote:
to the point of death,
False.
We have no hard evidence for ANY apostle's death.
Merely later legends.
quote:
insisted they had seen Jesus Christ in his new body,
False.
No Christian writer insists they personally "had seen Jesus Christ in his new body"
Merely later legends.
quote:
and resurrected from the dead.
False.
No Christian writer insists they personally saw the resurrection.
quote:
This was based on eyewitness testimony.
False.
No Christian document claims to be an eye-witness to Jesus.
(NO, neither G.Luke nor 1 John claims to do so - go READ the actual words.)
quote:
If it were not true, they would know it,
WHO exactly would know?
Characters in a story?
The apostles are as mythical as Jesus.
Is Harry Potter real because Harmione didn't deny it?
Is James Bond real because Q didn't deny it?
Is Lord of the Rings True because Gandalf did not deny it?
Wake up and smell the coffee mate...
You believe ancient myths and legends,
and when asked for proof,
you say these myths and legends say they are true !
Classic Monty Python -
Code-trainer : "these ancient myths and legends are the truth !"
Sceptic : "prove it"
Code-trainer : "sure - these ancient myths and legends say they are the truth !"
Sceptic : "haha"
Code-trainer :"wait - where are you going, didn't you believe my proof?"
quote:
and would not die to prove something they knew was untrue.
There is no evidence any Christian died for their beliefs.
Even if they did - so what?
Religious people die for their beliefs every day.
quote:
There were five hundred of them,
Can you name ONE of these 500?
Can you show us ONE of their testimonies?
No.
All you have is a CLAIM by one FAITHFUL Christian that 500 other Christians "saw" Jesus just like he did - in a VISION.
quote:
and provided eyewitness testimony
False.
They provided no testimony at all.
There is NO "eye-witness" testimony to Jesus at all.
Cam you provide any such testimony?
We keep asking, you keep failing to do so...
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-04-2005 8:16 PM CodeTrainer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 3:56 AM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 175 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-14-2005 7:11 PM Kapyong has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 133 of 378 (214412)
06-05-2005 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by 1.61803
06-04-2005 9:36 AM


Re: the Development of the Christ myth
1.6, no I do not claim that, except on a very narrow area, namely the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by 1.61803, posted 06-04-2005 9:36 AM 1.61803 has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 134 of 378 (214413)
06-05-2005 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Kapyong
06-04-2005 8:35 AM


Re: the Development of the Christ myth
I said - "1 Thess 4:9 - Paul tells Christians to "love one another" WITHOUT a mention of Jesus! Even though Jesus supposedly taught exactly that."
randman argued :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong, Paul mentions Jesus specifically as commanding this in verse 4:2 and verse 4:9 is part of the instructions "of Jesus Christ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see...
"4:2 For you know what charge we gave you through the Lord Jesus. "
Does it say Christ gave these instructions?
No,
It's what PAUL ("we") taught.
You said "WITHOUT a mention of Jesus", but then show a quote where he did mention "the Lord Jesus."
Case closed buddy. He did mention Jesus so you are wrong here.
This message has been edited by randman, 06-05-2005 03:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Kapyong, posted 06-04-2005 8:35 AM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Kapyong, posted 06-05-2005 4:02 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 135 of 378 (214421)
06-05-2005 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Kapyong
06-04-2005 9:27 PM


Re: Jesus was a myth
Codetrainer is 100% right. The early apostles believed they saw the Risen Jesus.
Iason, your whole case rests on discrediting the gospels and the New Testament, but you then believe sources far more likely to be spurious.
Sorry, but it does not wash. You want to keep posting page after page on it, that's your business, but there's no evidence any of the NT was written in the 2nd century, nada, and you have shown none.
You have mentioned some scholars who claim that, but the fact is if most scholars agreed with all that you are saying, they would reject the idea that Jesus ever existed, but they don't do that now, do they?
So you want to use "scholars" to back you up, and then reject the majority scholar opinion on Jesus.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
I don't rely on scholars, that is true, for my faith as it is borne from a personal relationship with God, and I was very secular prior to that. It took a lot of convincing from God to change my views and ways.
My argument on the scholar angle thus is just to point out the inconsistency in your argument on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Kapyong, posted 06-04-2005 9:27 PM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by lfen, posted 06-05-2005 12:18 PM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024