Michael Hill wrote:Metacrock. Have you got evidence of 18 years? I tried an internet search and nothing came up.
There is a lot of dishonesty in the early years of christianity with not just adding to and rewriting the new testament stories and at times making them match up with the old testament, but christian forgeries like in Josephus, etc. They also borrowed freely from other older religions to write the gospels, etc.
(1) document your allegation please.
(2) evidence = Helmutt Koester, major liberal scholar, who show that another major liberal (Crosson) agrees with him that pre Mark passion narrative dates to mid first century.
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blog ... art-2.html
There is the supposed Q document which no one has any evidence for, to stop Matthew and Luke just being copies of Mark, though the later John did not use it for some reason.
sorry you need to read up on the synoptic problem.
Thye didn't just make it up so Mat and Luke wouldn't be copies, he theory is based the readings. Mat copied Mark and also used Q and Luke copied Mat and used L. John does use Mark to some extent. But doesn't change anything I said, it's not dishonesty. That is just an unfounded propaganda assumption.
The books do not read like eye witness accounts. There isn't lots of: I saw this, we did that, Jesus told us, as well as lots of witness names that could be checked (around the time). Where is any physical description of Jesus? What we see now of Jesus is a western man and not a Jew of the time.
How do eye witness accounts read? they were distillations of material from whole communities, they are based upon eye witnesses but not written with a modern understanding of court room evidence All witnesses conflict. All they have to be right about is he died on the cross and the tomb was empty.
The whole community? Would that be the same community who after hearing his sermons and seeing his miracles let a murderer go free so Jesus could be crucified?
No that was Jerusalem, I am talking about his followers, the one's who met in the supper rom then moved in together and had all thi9ngs in common.
Jesus could never have been the messiah since that comes through the male line and Jesus did not have one. As we can see he did not fulfil the release of the Jews from their Roman bondage, as a real messiah would have. Everyone knew Jesus was a fake, especially the Jews who know gods do not have sons.
() No requ9rement says Messiah will be male
(2)Israel had a Queen Z(even though she sucked they did not depose her for being a woman.
(3)Jesus descended from males going back to David, that is requirement for Messiah. Mary had a fa. There is also an argument about adoption. Read up on my answer to this
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blog ... hrone.html
There is no reason for keeping his resurrection a secret as that was the big deal about christianity. Any human being can die but how many can rise again? (actually, loads can if you believe the other myths of the time).
you still have not proven that he said to seep it secret. He did not
I can only quote Ehrman who gives many references which can be checked on, that christianity took a long time to start off, starting with women, children and slaves, the followers the other religions did not want. There were many other religions in Jerusalem and the Roman Empire at the time and he says it began slowly, as religions do. I looked at the wikipedia and it is just christian dogma. I don't think you will find any Jew who believes what you say about the christian population then as there were few christians anywhere then.
\
No impact to that argument. What's a long time? so what if it did? I documented that population thing, three scholars Packer Tenny and White Bible Almanac. you have no evidence. No impact anyway, why can[t true religion start the way religions do more importantly we need to get over the idea that God is only working through one faith.
I am not really interested in what those three apologists claim because I have found that apologists always lie. It is one of the basic rules of christianity.
that is a fallacy known as guilt by association. what if I said Bart Ehrman is an idiot because I've met a lot of atheists who are idols. I can show you their posts, Horribly stupid. that doesn't make all atheists idols does it? Ehrman is a fine scholar. You are making the same fallacy, without even reading them. your are judging them because you don't like what they say.
Christianity has had it's day, made many people regret that it ever existed, and is now dying. What is god going to do, assuming he still exists as he has not been around for 2,000 years, like his missing son?
Bull shit. you are spouting hate speech rhetoric. You started on my blog telling me that you were so much smarter than Christians surely you can figure out that not documenting things, using your likes and dislikes as proof and stereo typing all people in a group by the actions of a few is wrong.
Ignoring KNOWN christian forgeries, where are any TRUE accounts from the first century to back up the Jesus story, to say he did all these miracles, died and the sun darkened, there was an earthquake and the dead walked, and he rose again? Is this not worth mentioning?
again you no basis for that claim. your atheist buddies like to say that stu8ff that doesn't make it true. I was researching the Bible when I was an atheist I can tell you that sort of thing can't be probed. You are I bet basing that upon things that have nothing to do with the Gospels. You thought Q source was dishonest, most fundamentalists think it's a plot to destroy faith. you are making unfounded assumptions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acter.html
Where is the gospel of Jesus, who came to Earth with a message? Where are all the stories by ordinary people who saw these amazing things in the gospels and elsewhere? If people could not write, a scribe would write for them for a pittance.
what makes you think the Gospels writers weren't ordinary people? they were the result of the common people living in the communities.