The Truth about Religion

[Abstruce]

Others born of a virgin? adored by wisemen? healed the sick? suffer and die on a tree or a cross? buried in a tomb? risen again? third day? Care to share? Or must I save my pennies?

 

 

Read Raglands, "The Hero" Jesus fits 19 of the 23 paterns established by many Gods prior to Jesus.

[Abstruce]

First, Paul might not be the author of Hebrews..

 

Maby Paul did not write any books in the bible.:doh:

 

Second, false. Took me exactly three verses into the writings of Paul. You should verify your sources, Abstruce, before believing them. (Romans 1:1-4)..

 

Funny you should mention this verse. First of all it points to the crucifixion.

 

Second if you believe this quote:

 

"His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh"

 

Oooooops there goes the divinity of Jesus.:eek:

 

 

 

Third, your quote of Hebrews is odd. What version is it? All the versions I searched are stated in the present tense.

 

Hebrews 8:4 (New King James Version)

New King James Version (NKJV)

Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

 

 

4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;

 

This should be self-explanatory.

 

Fourth, there is more to that verse. The verse after it is also quite enlightening. And the whole damn chapter is relevant.

 

Um... how is this evidence? Sounds like bold-faced assertion.

 

Um... how is this evidence? Sounds like bold-faced assertion.:)

 

JQ

[cwes99_03]

His letters were to congregations of people who already believed in the Divinity of Jesus,

 

Correction, it is well understood by many historians (not just theologians) that no congregation before 200 AD believed Jesus was God, and that it didn't become widely accepted until the Council of Nicaea.

[cwes99_03]

Furthermore, boys, this is turning into a scriptural fight. It is odd when I'm the one who has to say this, but the forum rules don't allow for such a fight on this site.

 

Mark was written around 110 AD, Mathew, Luke, John where clearly derived form Mark.

Did you read the wiki page? If you don't like wiki, how about answers.com though they post the same information.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dating-the-bible

Mark according to those sites was written around 70AD.

Then you might ask about the other three gospels. Yep they were written after Mark's. However, it is generally accepted that John wrote his in a very different fashion than the other three. It contained information that the other three did not, and was written with a different tone.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_gospels

[cwes99_03]

Read Raglands, "The Hero" Jesus fits 19 of the 23 paterns established by many Gods prior to Jesus.

 

You turned that around pretty good. However, you did so in a way that was not asked. Southtown asked who else fit the Biblical pattern set for Jesus. Not whether Jesus fit patterns of other religions.

[Abstruce]

Furthermore, boys, this is turning into a scriptural fight. It is odd when I'm the one who has to say this, but the forum rules don't allow for such a fight on this site.

 

I apologize for any loss of composure, I furthermore wish no discontent or adverse emotions to anyone at anytime.

 

Helping people to question their faith, is my objective.

 

Why do I care?

 

As an Atheist (and a major minority in the United States) I feel that it is time for mankind to move out of the 1st century world view, that has brought so much destruction to my brothers and sisters of humanity, into a new understanding that life and all it's splendor is all that is necessary to validate our existence.

 

As the human race needs to understand we are one, no mythical Gods are neccessary.

 

 

Did you read the wiki page? If you don't like wiki, how about answers.com though they post the same information.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dating-the-bible

Mark according to those sites was written around 70AD.

Then you might ask about the other three gospels. Yep they were written after Mark's. However, it is generally accepted that John wrote his in a very different fashion than the other three. It contained information that the other three did not, and was written with a different tone.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_gospels

 

Mark talks about the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD, no body knows exactly when it was written, we only know it was after 70 AD, in all reality, it was likely written much later than 70 AD.

 

John may of had a different author, yet it was clearly derived from Mark.

 

JQ

[cwes99_03]

Could you quote the part of Mark that supports your point on the destruction of Jersulam (which is well known to have occured in 70 CE). Furthermore, what else do you know about Mark that could back up your ideas. Do you perhaps know about when he was born, to establish age of the writer?

 

Furthermore, I appreciate your last post. Perhaps you would like to read over the post religion vs. philosophy. Ti discuss how many people who claim to worship a god today really have turned away from the way the holy writings teach to worship, and in my viewpoint don't follow a religion but a human philosophy.

As an aetheist, you likewise follow many philosophies of life, including probably some of your own personal ones.

[cwes99_03]

John may of had a different author, yet it was clearly derived from Mark.

 

JQ

 

You can't say things like this, because there is a major portion of the world that disagrees with you. It is like me saying that space is clearly made up of a different type of material known as aether. It simply is not clear, and other studies have vehemently disagreed with you. You must provide supporting evidence when you make such a claim. It is the basis of this site.

 

One way you may try to do so, is to demonstrate how passages in Mark are clearly just copied into the Gospel of John. Of course, two different authors can write nearly identical papers without playjourizing each other. I once wrote a short poem in which I incorporated the titles of an english author. Later I found out that the original author had done the same thing, that his poem was nearly identical in length and content to mine. Does that mean he and I are the same? Does it positively mean that I just copied his work and claimed it as mine? The truth to both of those questions is no. I had another person say that my poem was already written, then looked it up and found that they were very similar and yet different.

Likewise, music is written and rewritten all the time. You'll find some lyrics to be very similar, especially when writing about the same event (say the destruction of the world trade center). Were all of those songs written by the same person?

How about history books. They often cover the same things in nearly identical fashion. News articles (okay some of them are replicas of Reuters or AP articles) contain the same information time and time again. Does this mean they all based their articles off of one person's account? No.

[Boerseun]

You can't say things like this, because there is a major portion of the world that disagrees with you.

The truth, unfortunately, isn't a democracy...:cup:

[cwes99_03]

The truth, unfortunately, isn't a democracy...;)

 

Yah, and unfortuneately I don't believe you follow me.

 

He can't say things like that because he says it is clear as day. You likewise didn't like it when I told you that recently Boer. He must provide supporting evidence, as you often demand.

 

Which side of the fence are you on?

[Pyrotex]

Others born of a virgin? adored ...And I was unaware that there was no basis for Jesus' existence.

There is a single paragraph in Josephus, whose History of the Jews spans several volumes, about "Jesus". Josephus gives pages to thieves and merchants, pages to lesser rulers, and just one (1) paragraph to "Jesus".

 

The earliest copies of Josephus do not even have that one (1) paragraph.

 

Other references to "Jesus" are actually references to "Joseph" the Hebrew equivalent to the the Greek name "Jesus"-- Joseph was a very common name.

[Southtown]

Correction, it is well understood by many historians (not just theologians) that no congregation before 200 AD believed Jesus was God, and that it didn't become widely accepted until the Council of Nicaea.

Do you refer to the trinity doctrine? And do you have references?

 

Funny you should mention this verse. First of all it points to the crucifixion.

 

Second if you believe this quote:

 

"His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh"

 

Oooooops there goes the divinity of Jesus.;)

What relevence is the crucifixion and how does an earthly lineage disagree with divinity?

 

4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;

 

This should be self-explanatory.

That is present tense, believe it or not.

 

It is a common way to phrase a hypothetical condition. If a phrase reads "if he were on earth today", it would be correct, even though it contains both "were" and "today". Conversely, "if he was on the earth today" is incorrect.

 

I say present tense because of the rest of the sentence. The tense is not determined soley by the conjunctive phrase but in the sentence as a whole. This is one of those situations that demand tense disagreements. "Ami spent time at home because she misses her parents." The misconception comes from not knowing that Paul is explaining why Jesus ascended to heaven; so he could perform the heavenly equivalent of the duties that [Levite] priests perform on earth.

"

4

For if He were [still] on earth, He would not

be

a priest, since there

are

priests who offer the gifts according to the law;

5

who

serve

the copy and shadow of the heavenly things...

" --

Hebrews 8:4-5 nkjv

I'm not saying this proves he existed. Don't misunderstand. I'm saying the verse does not support your claim that Jesus never existed (not even void of context).

 

Um... how is this evidence? Sounds like bold-faced assertion.;)

 

JQ

Is that supposed to pass as a response?

 

There is a single paragraph in Josephus, whose History of the Jews spans several volumes, about "Jesus". Josephus gives pages to thieves and merchants, pages to lesser rulers, and just one (1) paragraph to "Jesus".

 

The earliest copies of Josephus do not even have that one (1) paragraph.

 

Other references to "Jesus" are actually references to "Joseph" the Hebrew equivalent to the the Greek name "Jesus"-- Joseph was a very common name.

What about the other references? And the similarities they bear? Surely even a slight mention is justified when backed up by more than one far-removed source.

 

I thought "Jesus" (the Eng. equiv. of the Gr. Iesous) was the way Greeks prefered to pronounce "Joshua" (the Eng. equiv. of the Heb. Yehoshua) because a masculine Greek name was supposed to end with an "s".

[Abstruce]

Could you quote the part of Mark that supports your point on the destruction of Jersulam (which is well known to have occured in 70 CE). Furthermore, what else do you know about Mark that could back up your ideas. Do you perhaps know about when he was born, to establish age of the writer?.

 

Mark 15:29 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

 

 

29Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days,

 

I know, your are going to say, well his body was the temple he was talking about.

 

The fact is, the audience is convinced he is talking about the destruction of the Jewish temple.

 

Besides lets take it one step further, the Dead Sea Scrolls include what many newer scholars now believe is the basic story of the New Testament, the Scrolls of the Dead Sea. They tell a much different story, yet one that is probably the basis for the NT yet the name Jesus is never mentioned.

 

In rational terms you have an ascetic group of Jews (the Jews at Qumran) this is where the present day Christianity was invented. It was the character, the son of darkness that started the new found faith and latter became the beloved Jesus charactor in the NT. The son of light is called John the Baptist in modern day Christianity.

 

In the Scrolls the True story would unfold like this.

 

There were many individuals trying to liberate Israel from the Roman occupation, Some preferred a military action others preferred a peaceful protest. The story of the New Testament is the story of this struggle in history.

 

 

As an aetheist, you likewise follow many philosophies of life, including probably some of your own personal ones.

 

There is a moral code that incorporates emotion in most people. Life is the construction or destruction of one's character. We are free to choose our path, in life's journey.

 

JQ

[Abstruce]

You can't say things like this, because there is a major portion of the world that disagrees with you.

 

How about history books. They often cover the same things in nearly identical fashion. News articles (okay some of them are replicas of Reuters or AP articles) contain the same information time and time again. Does this mean they all based their articles off of one person's account? No.

 

The fact of the matter is evident to may statement.

 

1st, Mark, Luke, John, Mathew are all telling the same story. They are trying to fill in what Paul left out. They were not written contemporaneously.

 

2nd, They were included by Constantine's Council because they expand upon the same storyline, thus this made them expectable for the cannon.

 

3rd, These books are in the name of men, yet their true authors are unknown, the stories were probably the work of a combined effort of a specific sect of Jews in the same manor most of the writings of the time were constructed. All the books of the NT were derived from different Jewish sects, this explains why they are so repetitive. As with communication by word of mouth the same story is told in different terms and become distorted upon translation.

 

JQ

[Abstruce]

What relevence is the crucifixion.

 

This is all Paul wrote of the Jesus character. The other books of the NT were written much latter to expand on Paul's writings.

 

 

how does an earthly lineage disagree with divinity?.

 

Supposedly the story says Joseph had no role in Mary's pregnancy. That all goes out the window when you give the Jesus character a human lineage. This makes your god a normal human being.

 

That is present tense, believe it or not.

 

I'm not saying this proves he existed. Don't misunderstand. I'm saying the verse does not support your claim that Jesus never existed (not even void of context).

 

You are right!!! I knew I was wrong when I was arguing the past tense issue.

 

The point here is not the tense as much as it is the location.

 

 

Is that supposed to pass as a response?.

 

No, It was not appropriate, I was in error.

 

 

JQ

[Southtown]

This is all Paul wrote of the Jesus character.

That is expected since Paul didn't meet Jesus until he chased the Messianites to Damascus some years after the crucifixion/resurrection/ascension.

 

The other books of the NT were written much latter to expand on Paul's writings.

It is errant to assume that you know why they were written. Any support for that conjecture other that chronology?

 

Supposedly the story says Joseph had no role in Mary's pregnancy. That all goes out the window when you give the Jesus character a human lineage. This makes your god a normal human being.

Well you make a good point. But the determinant is not our concept of lineage but the Jewish law. And I think stepfathers counted. Remember the dynamics at play here. Judaic law was supposedly laid out by God through Moses. If we are to verify claims that the promised Jewish Messiah has come, we must use the Jewish legal criteria to do so. It's all relative to the source.

 

And according to Shem Tov's Hebrew [Gospel of] Matthew, the lineage in chapter one is supposed to be Mary's but was altered by changing "Joseph, father of Mary" into "Joseph, husband of Mary" in verse 16.

 

As all Greek versions read, verse 17 would be incorrect when it recounts the generations as 14+14+14. When you actually add them up, they are 14+14+13. Also, Joseph (Jesus' stepfather) has a seperate and completely different lineage in the Gospel of Luke chapter 3. So the known Greek manuscripts are doubly confounding.

 

There are other evidences for prefering the Hebrew version over the rest, of course. The main tell being "word puns", a phrase I stole from Nehemiah Gordon. Hebrew is a highly poetic language, well-known fact, but obviously poetry doesn't translate well. The only example I can pull out of the air right now is Genesis 2:7.

 

"And Jehovah God formed man [אדמ - adam] of the dust of the ground [אדמה - adamah]..."

 

Reading scripture in a language other than Hebrew will undoubtedly lose a great part of the experience. But the awkward sentence structure left behind bears a verifyable fingerprint of the original language when we translate it back into Hebrew.

 

http://www.hebrewyeshua.com/

 

The point here is not the tense as much as it is the location.

That's why I found it odd that you would bring up Paul mentioning the crucifixion in Romans 1:1-4. Doesn't that go against a totally non-physical existence?

[Southtown]

I have a habit of editing my posts until someone replies to it. I have done enough above already, so I will post again. Along the same vein of "Hebrew word puns", I have investigated Genesis 2:7 some more via Strong's Concordance. There might be more puns in that same verse. I don't know Hebrew, so I'm just guessing at this point. But from what I've been looking at, I am seriously considering learning it.

"

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

" --

Genesis 2:7 asv

Excuse my clumsy attempt at trying to convey this in English;

"

Yahweh Elohim made man from the glade of the mantle, and blew into his face the wind of quickening; and man became a quickened breeze.

"

Mind you that not all the changes represent word puns. The man/mantle represents adam/adamah, and made/glade represents yawtsar/awphar. The other words were just changed to illustrate the similarity of meaning in the Hebrew words that are not apparent in English. The meaning was most likely not ellaborated on by my example, but it goes to show how the Hebrews wrote and read the scriptures.

 

Imagine how much is missed when reading the entire Tanakh! Imagine how greatly Christians misunderstand their heritage. I wonder where Christianity even came from if they don't even understand the Tanakh! Every mention of the word "scriptures" in the Gospels and Epistles that Christians use to emphasize the importance of the New Testament refers specifically to the Tanakh and not the NT canon. (A book cannot use itself as a reference.)

 

Matthew 22:29; Matthew 26:54-56; Mark 14:49; Luke 24:27; Luke 24:44-45; John 5:39; John 10:35; John 20:9; Acts 8:32-35; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:20