The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance

God gave us His Name, it was not the invention of human beings. Period.

It seems a little strange that God gave the Israelites His name in a language that didn't even exist at the time.

Come on. Don't sound like Faith. Is Taoism a religion? Is Buddhism a religion? Is Judaism a religion? Is Islam a religion?

There are no first hand accounts from anyone as pertains to Jesus. The earliest writings are from Paul and he makes no mention of a physical Jesus. The earliest stories that talk of a physical christ are the gospels. They date from 70CE at the very earliest. There is no consistency between any of the gospels and nothing in them to show that they are an actual history. Yes there is doubt. Christianity probably started as a mystery religion. The earliest christian writings talk about the secrets and mysteries. Paul does not talk about the physical christ he talks about the spiritual Christ. Everything he has learned ahs been from revelation directly from Jesus Christ. He makes it clear he ahs not learned about Jesus from any other person but solely from revelation. Or it makes it all just a myth.
Richard Carrier discusses this here
Questioning the Historicity of Jesus : Strange Notions
His book on the subject
On the Historicity of Jesus
Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

The language certainly existed in Moses' time, and that's only four hundred years after Abraham. I have to assume you're believing the usual liberal distortions. But it doesn't matter, language is not a barrier, God can give His name in any language and expect it to be transmitted into others.

What a bunch of revisionist hooha! The gospels certainly preceded 70 AD because the temple was still standing. It continued to stand throughout Acts and possibly all the Epistles for that matter, up to Revelation anyway. There isn't the slightest resemblance between Christianity and the mystery religions, it's Jewish to the core. The gospel writers WERE eyewitnesses to Jesus. They recognized His fulfillment of the Hebrew prophecies. You have to turn everything into a lie to believe such garbage as you believe. But the whole world is going toward the Big Lie. However, the simple truth is still accessible in the Bible for anybody who has a simple honest heart.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. The gospels clearly show that the temple was not standing when they were written. Provide evidence for prior to 70 CE.Faith nothing you state here is based on evidence. As a matter of fact they are the opposite of evidence. Everything you state is based on faith and hearsay. Not evidence.I have read at least 4 versions of the bible. It is not believable. It does not stand up to scrutiny or historical facts. Maybe you should read something critical of the bible so that you can understand the arguments you are protesting about. You can not argue for something until you understand the argument against. If you do not even look at the counter argument you are being dishonest and accepting things without evidence. You beleive because you want to believe. No it is not Jewish. It uses Jewish mythology but it is not Jewish. You might actually want to understand mystery religions before you make such a blanket statement. Paul's writings of inner secrets and mysterys clearly align with greek and roman mystery religions. There is no evidence for this and plenty that they were not. We do not even know who wrote the gospels. The gospels were so poorly written that we can see where they made up the stories of christ to fit the translation of the hebrew scriptures they were using. Mistranslations and not understanding jewish scriptures made them write stories that bastardized the prophecies into something they actually were not. There is no contemporary historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no evidence independent of the bible.

You need to provide evidence for their supposed writing before 70 AD. The only mention of the temple in the gospels is Jesus' prophecy of its being destroyed while in its presence. There's your evidence that it was still standing. And the evidence for their being eyewitnesses is that they say they were, and they say it in a way that is believable to any honest reader. You accuse these simple honest men of being liars. The evidence for Jesus Christ is the testimonies of the writers of the Bible and the fact that it spread by word of mouth from Jerusalem to thousands and then millions of people and that people were willing to die horrendous deaths instead of denying it. It takes incredible arrogance to dismiss all that history.I am not going to get into this argument further. As I said, the Bible is for simple honest hearts, it's to be read and believed, not torn apart by sophists and "scholars." "Repent and believe," that's its messageABE: Not going to waste a post to answer you, jar. See my message here for an answer to your question, where it starts "Luke got his knowledge...."
So I overgeneralized, so what.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Have you ever read the Bible Faith?When did Luke meet Jesus?

Who wrote the gospels? Evidence please. What else did they write? Please show me evidence of their lives.
When does the earliest extant copy date from?
Ever hear of textual criticism and higher criticism? We know every gospel has gone through many revisions and had multiple authors. Paul dis not right everything attributed to him. A lot are forgeries.

The evidence is internal to the scriptures themselves, we are told to believe. Take it or leave it. What you say you "know3" you do not know at all, higher criticism is often nothing more than the subjective ponderings of the critics. That sort of textual criticism is revisionist and full of lies, but you choose to believe it over the simple straightforward trustworthy honest testimony of the gospels themselves. You destroy your own ability to understand and believe. They did not have multiple authors. The author may have made use of other texts but there were not multiple authors of any given writing. Paul's writings are Paul's writings, no forgeries. Who exactly are you trusting? Certainly nobody you should be trusting.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now there is a sound argument for your beliefs. Of course they are. But they aren't the Christian religion either.Edited by GDR, : Forgot the quote.

So a religion is possible without Jesus actual resurrection?

quote:

---

The only mention of the temple in the gospels is Jesus' prophecy of its being destroyed while in its presence. There's your evidence that it was still standing.

---

In other words not one of them actually claims that the Temple was still standing. You just assume that they would have mentioned the destruction if they were written later. However, it's not exactly something they would need to mention, is it ? It would be very public knowledge.

quote:

---

And the evidence for their being eyewitnesses is that they say they were, and they say it in a way that is believable to any honest reader.

---

Do they ? Perhaps you would like provide the relevant verses. I'd love to see what you have from Mark or Matthew.

quote:

---

As I said, the Bible is for simple honest hearts

---

If that were true you wouldn't have to resort to commentaries all the time. Nor would you object so strongly to "simple honest" readings that contradict your dogmas.

Of course. Edited by GDR, : forgot the quote again