# A quick shout out..



## bushidobam (Jun 23, 2011)

..to Jesus. 

I'd like to say a few things about the man Jesus really quick.  And yes, I personally believe that he was a real life tangible fleshy human being, NOT a god-man.  But now I'm getting off subject..

Moving on, I'd like to say I grew up, as most of us did, with a Christian upbringing.  I was raised Roman Catholic.  To my dismay, my fiance' is still a devout RC.  Anyway, my point is that I'm familiar with the stories, parables, wisdom, etc. in the Bible; a lot of them including Jesus.

That being said, and regardless of the fact that I choose to use reason in place of the supernatural, and that I am a skeptic, I still believe that Jesus is one of the, if not the greatest person to strive to live like. (Sure, there are other good ones, like Ghandi, Buddha, etc.)

Even if there is no shred of a 'believer' in your body, one has to admire the man, or at least the stories about the man that we've been told.  I know I do.

Final thoughts:  Jesus to me is sort of a role model.  I don't know if there is a God(s), but I do know that trying to follow the wisdom and teachings of Jesus, _as it pertains to Earthly matters_, makes me feel good.  I think even the most devout Atheist would agree to some extent.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

But he claimed to be God.


So either he's a role model....or he's a liar and not somebody you would want to look up to.  He cannot be both.


Which is it?


Do you believe the stories in the Bible ABOUT Jesus?  He raised the dead.  Turned water into wine.  Don't believe what the Bible says about him?  If not, then what other historical records of his life are you basing your thoughts on?  There aren't any other detailed accounts of his life that would lead you to believe he's a good role model.

If he did those things and you don't believe in the supernatural, then how do you look up to this guy?  If you don't believe what the Bible says he did while he was here, then what other accounts are you looking at.


I'm glad you're giving him a "shout out".  But you've not begun to think through what you just posted my friend.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2011)

How do you know he claimed to be God?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

How's this?  He claimed to be the Son of God.

Actually, he did both.  But just to appease you and stay on topic, I'll amend.

Bottom line is that he is either a liar or he is a role model if you read the Bible.

Either he was God (or part of God) and raised the dead (and was raised himself) or he is the mastermind of the biggest hoax in the history of humanity and is not one to be "looked up to".


----------



## bushidobam (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> But he claimed to be God.
> 
> 
> So either he's a role model....or he's a liar and not somebody you would want to look up to.  He cannot be both.
> ...



In the very first part of my post, I mentioned that I believe Jesus to have been a human, and nothing more.  His motivation for being the kind of man he was, was internal, not external (supernatural), in my opinion.  He was just a wise, moral man.  That's the long and short of it.  He was one of a small ephemeral few that we humans are gifted with from time to time.

He certainly CAN be both.  I don't deal in black and white.  On or off.  Hot or cold.  Believer or nonbeliever.  Those are absolutes.  Computers and Christians (and Sith Lords, according to the young Obi-wan Kenobi ) deal in absolutes.  Pitting the ends against the middle (Heaven and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----) is what Western Christianity is good for.  Fear mongering.


----------



## bushidobam (Jun 23, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> In the very first part of my post, I mentioned that I believe Jesus to have been a human, and nothing more.  His motivation for being the kind of man he was, was internal, not external (supernatural), in my opinion.  He was just a wise, moral man.  That's the long and short of it.  He was one of a small ephemeral few that we humans are gifted with from time to time.
> 
> He certainly CAN be both.  I don't deal in black and white.  On or off.  Hot or cold.  Believer or nonbeliever.  Those are absolutes.  Computers and Christians (and Sith Lords, according to the young Obi-wan Kenobi ) deal in absolutes.  Pitting the ends against the middle (Heaven and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----) is what Western Christianity is good for.  Fear mongering.



My goodness.. Did the word opposite for 'Heaven' really just get deleted from my previous post?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 23, 2011)

It's more often used "in vain" than really referring to the place.


----------



## bushidobam (Jun 23, 2011)

I lie.  People know this, and still look up to me.  You (probably) lie, and I'm sure you've got people who look up to you.

Jesus probably was a liar, because he was just a man.  But I don't think a _lie_ is how I would define what is written about Jesus.  Taking the words of Jesus--which were written by someone other than Jesus, so I'm told--and the time period, I'd be willing to say there is a lot of symbolism and allegory in the text.  

We're talking about tribes and other societies (even the vainglorious Romans) still clinging to pagan ritual at these times.  Of course there is a lot of room for interpretation.  Of course there were probably a lot of ritualistic practices going about; the last supper for instance..'take this all of you, and eat it, this is my body...'

If that is the case, then I would have to say that the book of Genesis is a liar.  There is no way, in my reasonable opinion, everything was created in such a short span of time.  I look at the Christ through the same set of lenses.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> Jesus probably was a liar



OK, you picked the "liar" option out of C.S. Lewis' "trilemma":  liar, lunatic or Lord.  I've never seen anybody do that _and_ still admire the guy.


----------



## bushidobam (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, you picked the "liar" option out of C.S. Lewis' "trilemma":  liar, lunatic or Lord.  I've never seen anybody do that _and_ still admire the guy.



Nope.  I've never read a single sentence from a C.S. Lewis book, Centerpin.  If you must know, I'm more of a science fiction guy.

But back to this whole liar thing.  The Dalai Lama claims to be a living incarnation of God.  Do YOU honestly believe for a second that he is a God?  I'm willing to bet no.  However, would you say that the Lama is a man of MORAL stature, despite his lie?

David Koresh claimed to be God.  Do you believe that liar?  You see, it comes down to the moral aspect.


----------



## pnome (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, you picked the "liar" option out of C.S. Lewis' "trilemma":  liar, lunatic or Lord.  I've never seen anybody do that _and_ still admire the guy.



Lunatic, but still to be admired.

Jesus was, in my humble opinion, a moral genius.   

Pythagoras was a mathematical genius.  And  he is rightly admired by mathematicians.  Pythagoras was also a lunatic.  In fact, it's not at all uncommon for genius and insanity to be found together.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> Nope.  I've never read a single sentence from a C.S. Lewis book, Centerpin.  If you must know, I'm more of a science fiction guy.



Didn't say you read the book.  Just said you came to one of Lewis' three possible conclusions.



bushidobam said:


> But back to this whole liar thing.  The Dalai Lama claims to be a living incarnation of God.  Do YOU honestly believe for a second that he is a God?  I'm willing to bet no.  However, would you say that the Lama is a man of MORAL stature, despite his lie?



In the immortal words of George Costanza, it's not a lie if you really believe it.  




bushidobam said:


> David Koresh claimed to be God.  Do you believe that liar?



No, and I don't believe he was very moral.


----------



## bushidobam (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Didn't say you read the book.  Just said you came to one of Lewis' three possible conclusions.



No, sir.  You did not.  My apology. 

I have been told that I would enjoy Lewis though.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

I'll just say....


those responses make absolutely no sense to me.  How you can admire a lunatic, I will never understand.

How do you differentiate between what was written in the Bible about him?

You believe that the moral stuff he did was real....but not the miracles?


----------



## bushidobam (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll just say....
> 
> 
> those responses make absolutely no sense to me.  How you can admire a lunatic, I will never understand.
> ...



Huntinfool, sir.  I wish I could help make more sense of this for you.  I would imagine it's probably the same way I feel about those who can have blind faith.  It makes little sense to me, you see.

However, I think we have common ground in that we are both just men trying to lead moral lives the best we know how, and to set good examples for our children, and cherish our loved ones, despite our differing viewpoints


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> How's this?  He claimed to be the Son of God.
> 
> Actually, he did both.  But just to appease you and stay on topic, I'll amend.
> 
> ...



I think you missed it. How do you know he claimed to be the son of God?

As Bart Ehrman has pointed out the CS Lewis "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument is incomplete. It assumes he actually made the claim. Add to that list "legend". Stories of him circulated and over time came to say things of him that simply aren't historical.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll just say....
> 
> 
> those responses make absolutely no sense to me.  How you can admire a lunatic, I will never understand.
> ...



You can take moral lessons away from the story whether it is historical or not.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

I can take a moral lesson away from Winnie the Pooh as well....but I would never imply that he is someone to be looked up to.  I know very clearly he is a fairy tale.  

I would say that many of his stories give us moral lessons.  But I would never present the bear himself as someone to look up to.  He's fiction.  That is not what the OP implied.  

He believes Jesus was real and he believes he was a moral man who should be looked up to.  But he was not moral is he claimed to be God (or part of the trinity) and was not.  How do you differentialte between what is real and not real in the Bible?  Either he raised the dead or he didn't.  If he didn't, then the whole thing is a fairy tale.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I think you missed it. How do you know he claimed to be the son of God?
> 
> As Bart Ehrman has pointed out the CS Lewis "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument is incomplete. It assumes he actually made the claim.



Jesus told the Jews, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:24-38)

Jesus told the disciples, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (Jn 13:13)

Jesus forgave sins, which only God had the authority to do (Mk 2:5-11, Lk 5:20-24)

Jesus said that he is eternal: "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (Jn 8:57-58)

Jesus said that he had seen God, which no one else could do (Jn 6:46)

Jesus repeatedly referred to God as "Father"....

saying, _“Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”
(Luke 22:42 ESV)_

AND....the grandaddy of them all in case there was any question...

_Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” [62] And Jesus said, “*I am*, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

(Mark 14:61-62 ESV)_

Please tell me that your argument is not that Jesus was not asked specifically, "are you the son of GOD, Yahweh?" and instead was asked "are you the son of the Blessed (please note the capitalization there).

If that's what you're hanging your hat on, you've got Trouble, with a capital T...and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool!


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

Anyone?  Beuler?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Anyone?  Beuler?



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NP0mQeLWCCo?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NP0mQeLWCCo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Anyone?  Beuler?



Do you have any sources outside of scripture to back that up? ANY sources that witnessed these claims and wrote them down? Any sources that were there, heard it and recorded it? 

If I were writing a history book I would have to use reliable sources such as evidence, artifacts, and credible eye witness accounts or testimony that back up the events I am trying to document. All info would have to be either contemporary or verifiable or both.

If I were putting together a book that I wanted to use to make a point or accomplish a specific effect it would HAVE to include just enough minor historic info to make the rest of the tales seem factual. Without any contemporary or verifiable sources the work would be picked apart. I could not cite writings that are clearly written MANY years after the fact and by people who never witnessed these claims or conversations. I cannot in first person perspective write about what Gen. Patton said to a group of Italian Villagers because I WAS NOT THERE. 

The Authors of scripture were not there to hear these claims. They did not talk to Jesus. They did not witness him in person at all and they certainly were not Apostles. Paul, who never knew Jesus, is the founder of Christianity and his writings are written to lead others in that direction. He quotes Jesus and tells his tales without EVER seeing or hearing Jesus.

Please give us some examples of other sources if possible.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Do you have any sources outside of scripture to back that up? ANY sources that witnessed these claims and wrote them down? Any sources that were there, heard it and recorded it?
> 
> If I were writing a history book I would have to use reliable sources such as evidence, artifacts, and credible eye witness accounts or testimony that back up the events I am trying to document. All info would have to be either contemporary or verifiable or both.
> 
> ...





Really?  Really?

The authors of the gospel books were NOT there to hear Jesus say these things in person?

Really?



The question was asked, "did Jesus claim to be the son of God?"  

It was answered.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Really?  Really?
> 
> The authors of the gospel books were NOT there to hear Jesus say these things in person?
> 
> ...



Yes. Really.

If you think Matthew, Mark, Luke....etc were THE SAME ones that were supposedly Apostles you need to do some research.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

I'll take the word of the scholars who overwhelmingly state that at least two of them were most likely written by the apostles for whom they were named. 

You need to stop reading conspiracy websites.


Here is the intro to Matthew from the ESV which is considered to be very accurate and deeply researched by biblical scholars.  



> Since none of the four Gospels includes the names of their authors in the original manuscripts, they are all technically anonymous. This is not surprising, since the authors likely compiled their Gospel accounts for members of their own churches, to whom they were already well known. However, historical documents from early church history provide significant insight into the Gospels' authorship. *The earliest traditions of the church are unanimous in attributing the first Gospel to Matthew, the former tax collector who followed Jesus and became one of his 12 disciples.* The earliest and most important of these traditions comes from the second century in the writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (c. a.d. 135), and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (c. 175). *Because these early church leaders had either direct or indirect contact with the apostolic community, they would have been very familiar with the Gospels' origins.* Moreover, no competing traditions now exist (if they ever did) attributing Matthew's Gospel to any other author. If Matthew did not write the book, it is hard to see why the false ascription would bear the name of a relatively obscure apostle when more well-known and popular figures could have been chosen (e.g., Philip, Thomas, or James).


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2011)

Well Geeze, Mark was considered by church scholars to have been written first and Matthew has @ 51% of Mark's words in it.........  It relied on Mark and not the author's first hand experience with Jesus like an Apostle would have had.

Conspiracy websites, your a hoot!
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

"It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience."


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2011)

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4700


----------



## Asath (Jun 27, 2011)

Adding a bit to the truth that not a single author of a single 'Book' of the New Testament was in any way present when the man Jesus was alive, we have to add the simple truth that the man Jesus somehow failed to write a single word of his own.

This seems a bit odd.  Especially if one is charged with delivering a message to all humanity.  

Also, if such delivery of a message is the point of one's incarnation, it seems a bit odd that the apparently illiterate or at least pen-shy man would choose illiterate fishermen and commoners as 'Disciples,' and would choose to arrive in one of the most sparsely populated regions on the planet at the time.  There were far more of Dad's critters just about everywhere else on the globe.  Many have asked just why it is that miracles, like UFO sightings, seem only to happen in remote places with few witnesses.  

Historically, we don't even really have much in the way of real evidence that the man Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and genuine historians point out that at the point of history in question there was no shortage of folks claiming divinity.

If one wants to go only by the Book, Mark's Gospel, being the earliest and usually deemed the closest to reliable, presents Jesus as a completely ordinary man, with a family that included brothers and sisters.  There were no angels announcing his birth or singing over his crib in Mark's version of the story.  In fact, he grew to a full grown man, through infancy and adolescence in this Gospel with no remarkable signs at all.  The narrative, in Mark, begins with Jesus' career as an adult 'teacher'.  According to this chapter of the good Book, the man Jesus, full grown, fell under the sway of John the Baptist, a wandering ascetic and Essene who saw the entire establishment in Jerusalem at the time to be corrupt, and wandered the area delivering excoriating sermons against the established order to anyone who would listen.  He (John the Baptist) wanted the entire population to 'repent,' and submit to the Essene rite of ritual purification through baptism in the river Jordan.  The man Jesus, by this account, made the very long journey from Nazareth to Judea to be Baptised by John.

Jesus was Baptised?  One would think he'd be the one doing the baptising.

The next thing we hear is that this Jesus was next seen in Galilee announcing that the Kingdom of God had arrived.  Unfortunately, or perhaps for all of us fortunately, nearly all of the 'teachings' of the proposed Jesus, the man, took nothing more than the very same morality of everything from the mitzvot of his native Judaism to the far more ancient Mithraic teachings and put them all into one hat.  Nothing new, in other words.  

No doubt the man, if indeed he existed as something other than a legend, was just as dismayed by the state of the society he was born into as was John, and hundreds of others, and sought to return people to spiritual rather than material concerns.  But we need to remember that at this point in history there was no such thing as a 'free' man as we see the term.  Agitating against the shackles of imperious royalty was a new phenomenon, and it ended up catching on.  Of course, most if not all of the 'teachers' of this new way of thinking were brutally hunted down and killed by a threatened royalty, but by then it was too late -- the 'peasants' and 'slaves,' had already had the idea planted in their heads that they could free themselves by banding together.  This is a pretty powerful incentive, which we take for granted, but the whole idea was completely new to them.

They had always rendered unto Pharoah or to Caesar or to whomever because that was the order of things, and questioning that order had never occurred to them.  And if it had occurred to them, they knew darned well that they'd be murdered just for asking the question. 

So, what few 'moral teachings' there are in the Bible as a whole (lost in a cloud of invective, immoral 'teachings,' complete nonsense, and threats), still count as valid, but were lifted wholesale from already existing systems, some thousands and thousands of years older.  As the OP says, this fact does not render those thoughts less valid, it merely precludes any assertion that God simply appeared one day and created morality as though it had never existed before.  We already had that part figured out.

Whether or not Jesus actually existed is sort of a moot point.  He left precisely zero evidence of his existence, if it matters, which it doesn't.  If there was a contribution of anything new that was served by the man, it was simply the introduction of the idea that rebellion is hard, and will likely get you killed, but it is usually worth it in the long run.


----------



## jason4445 (Jun 28, 2011)

Jesus never once claimed to be a God - only the Son of God.  He never claimed to be responsible for any miracles he performed for he said all I do comes through me from the father.  In the whole New Testament only one verse makes any reference to Jesus being a God and that is the story of Doubting Thomas.  After Thomas saw the wounds he said that Jesus was his God.  Not they God, or a God but his God only.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Well Geeze, Mark was considered by church scholars to have been written first and Matthew has @ 51% of Mark's words in it.........  It relied on Mark and not the author's first hand experience with Jesus like an Apostle would have had.
> 
> Conspiracy websites, your a hoot!
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
> ...



You didn't read the intro that I posted....did you?

You can dismiss the scholars that translated the ESV.  But they are biblical experts, greek experts and, quite honestly, much more learned about this matter than either of us. 

You can dismiss their opinions if you like.  But you only serve to make yourself look more arrogant.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 28, 2011)

Asath said:


> Adding a bit to the truth that not a single author of a single 'Book' of the New Testament was in any way present when the man Jesus was alive, we have to add the simple truth that the man Jesus somehow failed to write a single word of his own.
> 
> This seems a bit odd.  Especially if one is charged with delivering a message to all humanity.
> 
> ...



Excellent post.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You didn't read the intro that I posted....did you?
> 
> You can dismiss the scholars that translated the ESV.  But they are biblical experts, greek experts and, quite honestly, much more learned about this matter than either of us.
> 
> You can dismiss their opinions if you like.  But you only serve to make yourself look more arrogant.



I read it and showed you a direct counter to the ESV scholars claims. In fact, I can show you more from very reliable sources that are not "conspiracy" websites, if you like. Like when quoting the bible, you seem to pick and choose the ONE thing that suits your agenda while completely avoiding the ones that clearly show the opposite. Narrow minds, narrow paths.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> excellent post.



x2!


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> ...you seem to pick and choose the ONE thing that suits your agenda while completely avoiding the ones that clearly show the opposite. Narrow minds, narrow paths.







Hello, Pot?  Yes, this is Kettle....


YOU'RE BLACK!!!



At least TRY to disguise the hypocrisy in your posts.  If you can't see that you are doing the very same thing, you are blind.  I might actually change my sig line to quote this.  It's classic!


----------



## bushidobam (Jul 1, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, you picked the "liar" option out of C.S. Lewis' "trilemma":  liar, lunatic or Lord.  I've never seen anybody do that _and_ still admire the guy.



Okay, Centerpin.  Although I used your post to quote, this really has nothing to do with you in particular,  you merely grabbed my attention with this liar, lunatic, Lord bit.  

(We friends?  Cool!)

I researched the trilemma that C.S. Lewis speaks of, and here is a passage quoted by him.  It argues against what I've stated previously on this subject, almost to the tee!  

According to this, Lewis claims that no person can admire Jesus for his teachings alone.  It is all or nothing.  Either you admire and follow, or you don't, and dismiss Him as a madman.  Sounds familiar.  

What is it with this polar thinking?  Either it's one extreme or the other with (most of) these believers.

Here is the passage:

_"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of [edited by poster]. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."_

I sure am glad Mr. Lewis has all the answers.


----------



## bushidobam (Jul 1, 2011)

In lieu of my most recent post, I find it strange how Lewis presents the reader with the concept of a trilemma--which I assume means three (3), yet one is only left with two (2) choices in the end.

Accepting the moral teachings of Christ, therefore inherently accepting Christ as God is NOT the only alternative to accepting his lunacy, as Mr. Lewis would have you believe.  This is a true and true false dichotomy.


----------



## mickbear (Jul 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Excellent post.


X2


----------



## GAGE (Jul 1, 2011)

mickbear said:


> X2



I agree,  well done!


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

> He left precisely zero evidence of his existence, if it matters, which it doesn't



Except....you know....for those billions of people who have followed him since he theoretically existed.


Greatest hoax in the history of the world, right?  Amazing that one non-existent guy could pull that off.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Jesus told the Jews, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:24-38)
> 
> Jesus told the disciples, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (Jn 13:13)
> 
> ...



Sorry for the delay HF. Didn't see this post until this morning.

As has already been pointed out, the gospels are not reliable accounts. Their authorship is unknown. Your assertion that biblical scholars "overwhelmingly" consider two of them to be written by the actual disciples simply isn't true. The authors don't name themselves, we know they were written many years after Jesus death, we don't have the originals, and we know from the manuscripts that we do have that the stories were altered, sometimes intentionally, and they are not consistent. They contradict each other on many points. I would recommend you read some of Bart Ehrman's work for a more detailed explanation why it may be that Jesus never even made such claims.

So you disagree with the "legend" possibility that he never claimed to be God. Fine. But it is a possibility. Of the four possibilities the one least likely to be true is the "lord" possibility.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Except....you know....for those billions of people who have followed him since he theoretically existed.



Billions believing something serves as evidence of its truth? Really?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

> As has already been pointed out, the gospels are not reliable accounts.





Seriously?  You're going to try to tell a Christian that the gospels are NOT reliable?  You can do better than that.



> Your assertion that biblical scholars "overwhelmingly" consider two of them to be written by the actual disciples simply isn't true.



You didn't read the intro the Mathew that I posted, did you?

Nevermind that nearly all versions found include the superscription that reads "The Gospel according to Matthew"

Nevermind that Matthew was considered a traitor to his people for being a tax collector and that attributing authorship to a tax collector would only weaken its message to Jews....unless he actually authored it. 

Tell you what.  Go ask 10 legitimate biblical scholars who authored the Gospel of Matthew.  If 2 answer something other than "probably Matthew the disciple"...I'll buy you lunch.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Billions believing something serves as evidence of its truth? Really?



Like I said....biggest hoax in the history of humanity.  You gotta be pretty good to cover your tracks for 2000+ years....especially if you never existed.

There are external accounts that a man named Jesus lived at the time he is said to have lived and that he had followers...etc etc etc.  You know the drill.  Are there any accounts from the same time period that deny his existence?  Are there any that you're aware of that "call the bluff"?  Just curious.  You would think that if a bunch of guys were going around turning the world upside down talking about a person who never even existed that SOMEBODY would have called Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Seriously?  You're going to try to tell a Christian that the gospels are NOT reliable?  You can do better than that.



I gave the reasons why they are not considered reliable. To reject the conclusion you'll need to convincingly reject those reasons. You can always resort to the faith copout but it doesn't make those reasons go away.




Huntinfool said:


> You didn't read the intro the Mathew that I posted, did you?



I did. They cite church tradition and then simply assert it as truth with no more reason given than that the early church would have been familiar with the apostolic community and thus would have known the authorship. That's one heck of an assumption.

Try this one on for size:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html




Huntinfool said:


> Nevermind that nearly all versions found include the superscription that reads "The Gospel according to Matthew"



Well I guess that settles it then! A superscript later added to a text proves authorship! ahaha




Huntinfool said:


> Nevermind that Matthew was considered a traitor to his people for being a tax collector and that attributing authorship to a tax collector would only weaken its message to Jews....unless he actually authored it.



Did it ever occur to you that the gospels were attributed to disciples in an effort to lend authority to them? We know that such forgeries took place under the name of Paul. What makes you think the same wouldn't have happened with the gospels?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Like I said....biggest hoax in the history of humanity.  You gotta be pretty good to cover your tracks for 2000+ years....especially if you never existed.



Yep biggest hoax. Guess who the duped is? Not so good at covering up the scam. It's there to see for people willing to look. Childhood indoctrination tends to take away that willingness for most people.




Huntinfool said:


> There are external accounts that a man named Jesus lived at the time he is said to have lived and that he had followers...etc etc etc.  You know the drill.  Are there any accounts from the same time period that deny his existence?



Are these accounts contemporary to his time or later accounts? Should we expect to have accounts that deny the existence of someone that didn't exist? Only if the claims of their existence were significant enough at that time to warrant such a denial. Either there was no Jesus or the Jesus movement wasn't of enough significance while he was alive to draw much attention. I'm inclined to believe the latter. I'm doubtful that he had any intention of starting a new religion called Christianity but if he did, it didn't gain steam until after he was gone.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

> I gave the reasons why they are not considered reliable. To reject the conclusion you'll need to convincingly reject those reasons. You can always resort to the faith copout but it doesn't make those reasons go away.



I don't think you gave very convincing reasons...from a logical...not a religious standpoint.  So I reject them on those grounds.  Ironically...same reason you reject mine.




> Well I guess that settles it then! A superscript later added to a text proves authorship! ahaha:bounce



Go read about superscripts....they are part of the original texts found...not the transliterations we use now.  




> Did it ever occur to you that the gospels were attributed to disciples in an effort to lend authority to them? We know that such forgeries took place under the name of Paul. What makes you think the same wouldn't have happened with the gospels?



Why would you attribute Matthew to a tax collector who was reviled by the target audience when there were many more "accepted" potential authors?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Are these accounts contemporary to his time or later accounts? Should we expect to have accounts that deny the existence of someone that didn't exist? Only if the claims of their existence were significant enough at that time to warrant such a denial. Either there was no Jesus or the Jesus movement wasn't of enough significance while he was alive to draw much attention. I'm inclined to believe the latter. I'm doubtful that he had any intention of starting a new religion called Christianity but if he did, it didn't gain steam until after he was gone.



It couldn't have gained steam till he was gone.  The full power of the message was dependent on the resurrection.....

I would suspect that if he was causing enough of a stir to have Governors worrying about him and Jewish governing bodies worried about his impact, that his movement was sigificant.  You can be "inclined" to believe otherwise.  But if you're halfway intellectually honest, you'll admit that it was significant.  You believe otherwise because it supports what you want to believe.

Yes, I would expect that somebody would have thrown up a red flag at some point over the last 2000 years that would cause the majority of us to give pause.  I would expect that SOMEBODY would have written that he didn't exist.  Just one?  Isn't there ONE???


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It couldn't have gained steam till he was gone.  The full power of the message was dependent on the resurrection.....
> 
> I would suspect that if he was causing enough of a stir to have Governors worrying about him and Jewish governing bodies worried about his impact, that his movement was sigificant.  You can be "inclined" to believe otherwise.  But if you're halfway intellectually honest, you'll admit that it was significant.  You believe otherwise because it supports what you want to believe.
> 
> Yes, I would expect that somebody would have thrown up a red flag at some point over the last 2000 years that would cause the majority of us to give pause.  I would expect that SOMEBODY would have written that he didn't exist.  Just one?  Isn't there ONE???



If you traveled to the middle-east today and stood on a street corner claiming to be God, and you were able to get a few people to actually believe that you were telling the truth, I'm betting that they would eventually kill you.  2000 years from now, someone probably wouldn't be able to uncover much evidence to support or reject your claim of divinity.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

"a few" and "tens of thousands" are fairly different numbers.


Immediately after his departure, tens of thousands were added to their numbers.  You'd think that splash would make enough ripples in the pond to cause somebody to question whether the guy existed.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> "a few" and "tens of thousands" are fairly different numbers.
> 
> 
> Immediately after his departure, tens of thousands were added to their numbers.  You'd think that splash would make enough ripples in the pond to cause somebody to question whether the guy existed.



You'd think that such a splash in the pond would also provoke the followers to actually document some of it at the time too.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't think you gave very convincing reasons...from a logical...not a religious standpoint.  So I reject them on those grounds.  Ironically...same reason you reject mine.



You'll have to do better than that. Let's recap the reasons.

1. Anonymous authorship
2. Not accounts contemporary to the time of Jesus. For example, Matthew is estimated to be written around 80-90CE. That's around 50-60 years after Jesus death.
3. Original texts are gone. All we have now are copies of copies of copies of copies of the original and these copies are not identical. In short, we don't even know for sure what the original author of the gospels wrote.
4. They contradict each other.

And you expect us to believe your rejection of these reasons is based in logic and not your bias toward your religion?




Huntinfool said:


> Go read about superscripts....they are part of the original texts found...not the transliterations we use now.



No HF that is a later addition.





Huntinfool said:


> Why would you attribute Matthew to a tax collector who was reviled by the target audience when there were many more "accepted" potential authors?



What was Paul's occupation before he converted?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> "a few" and "tens of thousands" are fairly different numbers.
> 
> 
> Immediately after his departure, tens of thousands were added to their numbers.  You'd think that splash would make enough ripples in the pond to cause somebody to question whether the guy existed.



You would. So where is all of the contemporary evidence that we should expect to see? Why doesn't it show up until years later?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

> You'll have to do better than that. Let's recap the reasons.
> 
> 1. Anonymous authorship
> 
> ...










> What was Paul's occupation before he converted



He didn't write any of the gospels...and his authorship of books isn't in question, now is it?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> *But he claimed to be God*.
> 
> 
> So either he's a role model....or he's a liar and not somebody you would want to look up to.  He cannot be both.
> ...



See my thread in this forumn "What did Jesus claim"


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

Don't need to.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It couldn't have gained steam till he was gone.  The full power of the message was dependent on the resurrection.....



Sathya Sai Baba had millions of followers in his life time. Someone going around raising the dead and walking on water certainly could have gained a significant following before their death. Are we to believe that these sorts of miracles were so common at the time as to not warrant people writing about them?




Huntinfool said:


> Yes, I would expect that somebody would have thrown up a red flag at some point over the last 2000 years that would cause the majority of us to give pause.  I would expect that SOMEBODY would have written that he didn't exist.  Just one?  Isn't there ONE???



Well we do have that now don't we? It's not exactly like the last 2000 years of history have been wide open to such criticisms. There was a time that bringing such a challenge to the faith would get you a rather nasty execution.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> He didn't write any of the gospels...and his authorship of books isn't in question, now is it?



Let's try it one more time. What was his occupation? And actually, yes the authorship is in question.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/



> Will the real Paul stand up?
> 
> Ehrman reserves most of his scrutiny for the writings of Paul, which make up the bulk of the New Testament. He says that only about half of the New Testament letters attributed to Paul – 7 of 13 - were actually written by him.
> 
> ...








Huntinfool said:


> 1. Anonymous authorship
> 
> When I write a letter to my wife, I don't sign it...she knows who it's from.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Let's try it one more time. What was his occupation? And actually, yes the authorship is in question.
> 
> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/





CNN?  Seriously?

Like I said, you guys need to stop reading conspiracy websites.  The authorship of the Pauline books is not in question.  Of course you can find somebody who says it is.  Heck, if you search long enough, you can probably find a theory that Huntinfool wrote them (give me about ten minutes and I'll put up a blog that says so).


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

> Originally Posted by Huntinfool
> 1. Anonymous authorship
> 
> When I write a letter to my wife, I don't sign it...she knows who it's from.
> ...





How 'bout them apples?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> CNN?  Seriously?
> 
> Like I said, you guys need to stop reading conspiracy websites.  The authorship of the Pauline books is not in question.  Of course you can find somebody who says it is.  Heck, if you search long enough, you can probably find a theory that Huntinfool wrote them (give me about ten minutes and I'll put up a blog that says so).



Many of them are and the reasons are given. Again you can simply reject the source but Bart Ehrman is not some fly by night biblical scholar. Cling to church tradition if you wish but the reasons remain.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Many of them are and the reasons are given. Again you can simply reject the source but Bart Ehrman is not some fly by night biblical scholar. Cling to church tradition if you wish but the reasons remain.



He is a scholar....one among hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) who are EQUALLY well educated and EQUALLY understanding of the original languages and writing styles.  

...and yet, he seems to be only one of a handful who disagree.  Don't you find that interesting?  Don't you think that, if there was reason to believe otherwise, intellectually honest academics would universally accept the truth when it was revealed?

He is a lone voice among many.  Nothing more.  He approaches his research from a similar agenda driven mandate that you accuse all the others of.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Originally Posted by Huntinfool
> 1. Anonymous authorship
> 
> When I write a letter to my wife, I don't sign it...she knows who it's from.
> ...



See above.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> He is a lone voice among many.  Nothing more.  He approaches his research from a similar agenda driven mandate that you accuse all the others of.



Yes.

He is the "skeptic du jour".  Therefore, he is a media favorite.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

> Then what does your analogy have to do with the authorship of the gospels?



familiarity I suppose.  But regardless, I'm not sure why he needed to sign it.  Would it change your opinion of authenticity if it were completed with "Love, Matthew (you know me...tha disciple?)"



> Really? Which book was preserved? Name one suriving NT manuscript that is widely considered among biblical scholars to be the original?



All of them were preserved.  Back to the original?  Didn't say that.  But then again, we're talking thousands and thousands of years and they didn't have low acid paper and non-fading ink back then...so I'm not surprised...are you?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 5, 2011)

> Witherington says people will gravitate toward Ehrman’s work because the media loves sensationalism.



Bingo!


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> He is a scholar....one among hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) who are EQUALLY well educated and EQUALLY understanding of the original languages and writing styles.
> 
> ...and yet, he seems to be only one of a handful who disagree.  Don't you find that interesting?  Don't you think that, if there was reason to believe otherwise, intellectually honest academics would universally accept the truth when it was revealed?
> 
> He is a lone voice among many.  Nothing more.  He approaches his research from a similar agenda driven mandate that you accuse all the others of.



Simply not true. The debate over the authorship of these books and the pastoral epistles goes back much farther than Bart Ehrman.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Simply not true. The debate over the authorship of these books and the pastoral epistles is goes back much farther than Bart Ehrman.



Not true that he's only one of a handful?  That's not debatable.  It's fact.  Now as to whether there is a debate?  

The small debate among a few scholars in the corner of the room away from all of the multitudes of other experts who don't consider there to be a debate...

That debate has gone on for a long time.  You're right.  But it is in no way mainstream thought by vast majority of biblical scholars.

You cannot make that argument.  It is not there to make.  Paul is the author of all of those books in the opinion of the vast majority of scholars.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> familiarity I suppose.  But regardless, I'm not sure why he needed to sign it.  Would it change your opinion of authenticity if it were completed with "Love, Matthew (you know me...tha disciple?)"



You're wife has personal familiarity with you. When she reads something written by you she can identify it by content of the way you write, by sharing common knowledge with you that she could use to differentiate between you and someone pretending to be you, and by being able to recognize your handwriting. None of this applies to the gospels because we don't have the original writings and we don't have any knowledge of who wrote them. Not only that but the writings themselves don't even claim authorship.





Huntinfool said:


> All of them were preserved.  Back to the original?  Didn't say that.  But then again, we're talking thousands and thousands of years and they didn't have low acid paper and non-fading ink back then...so I'm not surprised...are you?



If the originals weren't preserved and all we have are hand made copies of copies of copies and we see discrepencies between those copies then it wasn't preserved. Surprising given the age, lack of technology, etc? Of course not. Surprising given the claim this is a message supposedly delivered to us from an infallible omnipotent creator upon which our eternal destinies depend? Absolutely!

You still haven't answered the question concerning Paul's occupation prior to conversion.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

It doesn't need to be answered as alluded to in previous posts....his authorship is not in question (by most of the academic world) and has no bearing on the question about why you attribute an unsigned document to someone who would naturally be hated.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Not true that he's only one of a handful?  That's not debatable.  It's fact.  Now as to whether there is a debate?
> 
> The small debate among a few scholars in the corner of the room away from all of the multitudes of other experts who don't consider there to be a debate...
> 
> ...




I'd like to know your basis for making such a claim. I see no evidence that your portrayal of those questioning the authorship of say 1 Timothy as a small minority is an accurate one.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It doesn't need to be answered as alluded to in previous posts....his authorship is not in question (by most of the academic world) and has no bearing on the question about why you attribute an unsigned document to someone who would naturally be hated.



No more reason to hate a former tax collector than to hate a former persecutor of Christians. At least Matthew was claimed to have been a disciple, Paul wasn't. Is that really the best case you can make for the authorship of Matthew? We also have a gospel of Judas. Does that mean it he must really have been the author because he was hated? If you're going to have screwy logic at least be consistent in your application of it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I'd like to know your basis for making such a claim. I see no evidence that your portrayal of those questioning the authorship of say 1 Timothy as a small minority is an accurate one.



Erhman claims that seven of them are frauds....that is a radical (and very small minority) position among biblical scholars.  That fact is not even worth arguing.


----------

