Who is Jesus?

[Guest shiloh357]

I didn't say that most of the Bible was written anonymously, but that most of the New Testament was written anonymously. It seems to be pretty commonly accepted among both Christian and secular scholars that the much of the New Testament was written anonymously and that it was a little later on that everyone agreed on who the actual authors of these books were. The Case For Christ, Understanding the Bible, and the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels all state this.

I think you are misunderstanding something. There are some scholars who believe that the four Gospels, NOT most of the NT was written anonymously. Furthermore, what they state in that regard is that there was an anonymous source called "Q" which is German for "quelle" which means "source." It is believed that Mark used "Q" as the source for his Gospel and that Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source for their Gospels. Luke states in Lk. 1:1-4 that his Gospel was based on traditional sources and eyewitness accounts and purports to have conducted a careful investigation of the facts in order to provide an orderly account of the events surrounding the life of Jesus.

Not all scholars, not even a majority, hold to the anonymous source argument. Unfortunately, many who choose to disbelieve the Bible tend to act like the minority view IS the view of the whole of biblical scholarship and tend to ignore far greater number of scholars who take a different view. Most scholars believe that Peter the Apostle and former disciple of Jesus is the source behind Mark and there is a body of literary evidence that supports that view. So the anonymous argument is really not as hard and fast you think.

[Guest shiloh357]

I understand his teachings were based in the Old Testament, but, as you pointed out, he was also interpreting certain things in the Bible a bit differently then how many Jews were interpreting those passages at the time. While these interpretations may not have been actually "new", they were new to many of the Jews at the time.

What Jesus was doing was restoring the correct understanding of the Scriptures. He was not founding a new religion. And His teachings were not all that new to the people. There are several places where Jesus echoes teachings of the Talmud. He cited texts that they DID know but had purposefully mishandled in order to mold the Bible around their corrupt views. There was nothing "new" in the teachings of Jesus; He was simply reminding them of they had chosen to ignore and mishandle.

Actually, it doesn't. I know it teaches in the Bible that Jesus will fight those sins once you accept him into your heart, but again, it is still up to the follower to read the teachings of the Bible (as a way to strengthen that relationship with Jesus) and to make sure that they stay true to Jesus in their everyday lives. Obviously, this can sometimes be a struggle for many Christians.

Actually it does because your original comment depicted the disciples trying to fight against sin in their own power, which was wrong and contradicts the teachings of the NT, which teaches that Jesus has cleansed us from our sin, and has empowered us by His Spirit to live Godly lives. The struggle is not in our strength or some mythical inherent goodness that causes us to fight agaisnt our own nature. Your view espouses behavioral modification, where the NT teaches victory over sin.

My point ultimately was that the Gospels provide entirely too much self-deprecating information to be less than credible. In fact it is the Bible's transparency in this area and its willingness to portray the disciples' shortcomings that speaks to its credibility and trustworthiness.

I'm simply pointing out the possibilities. I'm not trying to offer evidence that parts of the Bible actually is fictional, but that because certain things in the Bible can't be verified, I believe we can't currently know one way or another.

The problem is that you are treating that allegation as a reason to reject the Bible in your own life. You have no reason, if you are logically consistent, to disbelieve the biblical account.

The Bible has been shown to be accurate with amazing precision in terms of cultural, geographical and historical data. These are things that can be verified and are too numerous to itemize here. Archeology is repeatedly confirming the accuracy of Scripture because much of what the Bible claims is in a setting of historical, cultural and geographic fact. The lines of evidence are in a setting of real places, events and eyewitnesses. It is counter-intuitive for authors who are so dedicated to precise accuracy where names, places, dates and events are concerned to suddenly decide to make up false and misleading stories.

Your "possibilities" are simply not in line with reality. Anyone can claim something is possible. It is "possible" that all of the historical data is wrong and King Henry VIII was just a made up character by some errant historians. The issue here with regard to the Bible is not what is possible, but what is probable, and it is simply not a rational line of thought to claim that people who strain to get details of a story correct are at the same time, given over to purposely filling the story with false, misleading and far-fetched information.

Could you please give me some more information persecution of the Notzrim?

I read about it in the Talmud. I don't have one at my disposal at this time.

I do know that Ancient Rome had many rules that all religions were meant to adhere to if they were expected to keep the live peacefully under their rule, and that certain religions had trouble with this.

Actually the Romans only required that you show your allegience to Caesar by going to an altar placing a pinch of incense on the altar and saying "Caeasar is Lord." You were then given a certificate that authenticated your obeidence. It was this rule that the Christians would not obey.

But it seems that things didn't really start to get bad between the Jews/followers of Jesus and Rome until a couple of years after Jesus's death. Also, didn't the Bar Kochba happen about 100 years after Jesus died?

The Bar Khochba revolt occurred in 135 AD.

No, that's not the sole reason as to why I reject the Bible. It doesn't help me believe it anymore, but that's not the primary reason why I personally don't believe in the Bible.

I didn't say it was the sole reason. I said your assertion was nothing but an intellectual crutch for your unbelief.

The objective fact is that the parts of the Bible can't be verified as to have actually happened.

Which is not an argument agasint the Bible. I cannot verify to you what I had for breakfast yesterday. That does not mean my claim is false and unbelievable.

So, far the only arguments I have really gotten from you guys is "I can't imagine why they would have lied about it, so therefore they didn't lie about it." It's a fallacious argument.

No, the argument you getting from me, is that the Bible's accuracy in the areas we CAN verify lend more credibility to the Bible in the areas that are less verifiable. It is the principle of general trustworthiness. If you cannot provide a reason to disbelieve the Bible, or you cannot demonstrate that the bible IS actually less than credible, then the default trustworthiness of the Bible is retained.

[Guest shiloh357]

You're confusing ideas. The reason why in court on law the defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence is because he wasn't the one who made the initial claim.

The confusion is all yours. The prosecution is the one bringing the charge of guilt, (not simply making the claim). The prosecution must prove that the status quo (presumption of innocence) is must be changed and that the defendent is in fact, guilty. If the defendent cannot be shown to be guilty, he does not prove innocence.

Whoever makes the initial claim has the burden of proof. In this case, the Bible made the initial claims, but not all of it's claims can be verified. It's pretty simple.

That is not true. If reason cannot be shown to falsify the Bible, there is no burden to provide evidence for the truthfulness of something that is not question. If anyone claims the Bible is wrong, they must show WHY that claim is justified, or withdraw the allegeation. If evidence cannot be demonstrated to show the Biblical claims are false, the Bible stands correct, by default.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is wrong or flawed, but it does not provide a sufficient amount of evidence by itself for certain events that occur in it.

It provides far more evidence than you are willing to face up to.

[LuftWaffle]

Hi 808state,

Sorry about the long post.

Can I ask you a question? Suppose you could know the truth about God right now...would you accept it, knowing that once you've accepted it, you'll have to submit to it?

Yes, I would. I have a question, is the truth supposed to be evident to me at this point in time?

Ok, that's good. I think many for many people the biggest problem isn't that the Christian faith is untenable, but that being a Christian is unthinkable. It's about submitting, and few people want to do that, which is why so many remain 'seekers', because while you're seeking, you don't have to submit to anything.

You asked whether the truth is supposed to be evident at this point in time: The Bible teaches that God is evident through creation, and I believe that atheism leads to absurdity, so yes, I think if you take your search seriously and look at the world around you, the truth will become evident to you. An persistent atheist is someone who must spent much of their day deliberately rejecting, ignoring the evidence around them.

Right. I'm not asserting that they actually did, but that they potentially did.

And this is the basis of your argument against the resurrection, that it could potentially be a lie? Seriously, on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong do you think that argument is?

Supposed you've been witnessed doing a crime and your entire defense is based on 4 eye-witnesses potentially lying about seeing you?

Your attorney will suggest a plea-bargain, no?

Wouldn't your argument depend on how Jesus was being written about? Like, say the Romans had kept record of Jesus's execution, I doubt that would be included that in the Bible. Or say if those that considered Jesus to be an enemy wrote about him, I doubt that would be included in the Bible either.

Indeed, my argument wasn't that anything written about Jesus would be included in the Bible, but I see no reason why a corroborating 5th gospel or 6th gospel wouldn't, in which case you'll dismiss it, because it's in the Bible.

Take the Infancy Gospel of Thomas for example. Now, that was left out because the writer was indeed lying about his knowledge of Jesus, but I have a question, why would they lie and why would so many believe them?

I'm not going to go into detail about this late 2nd century gnostic text, for the simple reason that it doesn't deal with the truth claim of the resurrection. It's credibility is questionable, because it's pseudographical, likely written much later, in a time when none of the eye witnesses remained.

Again, I apologize, I meant to say Ancient Israel not Ancient Rome (though they seemed to have a firm belief in ghosts). It wouldn't have been effective for the writers to use a spiritual resurrection because essentially all a spiritual resurrection is are dead people reappearing as ghosts, and the concept of ghosts were pretty common back in those days, so Jesus having a spiritual resurrection would not have been as special as a bodily resurrection. And while ghosts may only have brief mentions in the Old Testament, it's very likely that many Jews believed in ghosts due to influence of surrounding cultures. And even if they didn't, if the writers wanted to appeal to gentiles, they would have to put into consideration the role that ghosts played in many cultures surrounding them at the time anyway.

Ugh, enough about these ghosts. You're pushing this cart uphill, 808state. A bodily resurrection is falsifiable, a spectral image isn't. The disciples had no expectation of a physical resurrection, and making up the story would be far too easily falsified.

I don't see how it isn't possible that humans could have created the Christian God. Humans may not be perfect but they can certainly visualize perfection. All that takes is a little imagination. The idea that there was one supreme being that was the embodiment of all things good, it doesn't seem far-fetch to me that a human could think that up. Humans can recognize good and bad deeds when they see them. Humans can see the negative effects of the over-indulgence of things like sex, money, alcohol, power, etc. I mean, look at Buddhism or Hinduism, it's all about giving up "earthly" desires in-order to seek enlightenment and salvation. The idea that God is all-knowing and is capable of doing whatever he wants, again, it's not far-fetch at all that a human could imagine what the most powerful-being known to man would look like.

It's not merely God's perfection that I mentioned but the complicated concept of the trinity. God's character is also astonishingly cohesive to a point where I don't believe it's a made up character.

As far as other religions appealing to the human ego, I'm not sure if Christianity actually differs too much in that regard. This is what the Bible says on rewards:

"Anyone who comes to him [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6)

"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:12 )

And what would you say this reward is?

Now, obviously, the main point is that you have to genuinely accept Jesus as your lord and savior and let him into your heart. You still have to work to build on that relationship with Jesus so you can live in a way that's pleasing to him. But it's not like the Bible doesn't come with a set of commands that followers are expected to adhere to and it's not like many Christians don't struggle with sin every day. So, it does take some amount of work of the part of the follower and there are rewards in it. Again, I understand that followers much be pure and genuine in their intentions, but Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism teach the same thing in that regard.

No you're wrong. It is by faith that we are saved not by works. Salvation changes a person from the inside out. It's not that Christian pursues virtue in order to be saved and get to live the good life in heaven, but rather that because they've been saved, they desire virtue. That's why we speak of regeneration. It's not man being good against his will, but the regenerated man becomes a new creature, desiring goodness.

It is for this reason that the Bible teaches you can judge a tree by its fruit. The evidence for salvation is a changed heart.

Christianity is unique in this regard because it has the cause and effect reversed.

The Muslim will claim he needs to go to heaven because he met (or atleast sincerely tried to) the requirements.

The jew will claim he needs to go to heaven because he met (or atleast sincerely tried to) the requirements.

the atheist will demand heaven because God didn't give him enough evidence and because atleast, he's not as bad as hitler. That really he was just a victim of being too intelligent and rational.

But, the true Christian on the other hand will say,

"Lord, I have broken every commandment you have given. I have not loved you as you deserve to be loved, I have been selfish all my life and didn't care much for my neighbour. I neclected the wife you gave me, watching TV instead of helping her around the house, and sometimes she'd tell me about her day and I'd pretend to listen, thinking about that boat I wanted to buy and fix up. I neglected my children, working late so often, and yelling at them when they disturbed me responding to my emails. I didn't honour my parents although they often had to go without luxuries to buy me diapers, and to pay for school, in fact for most of my life I thought they knew nothing and were ignorant. I stole, I committed adultery, I used your Name as a cussword. I lied...a lot. I lied during that one insurance claim, I lied to my friend when he needed me, when I told him I was busy, but I wasn't. I lied to my boss, telling him I was sick and couldn't come to work, when really, I was hungover from a party the previous night.

So Lord, I don't deserve you, but your Son paid the price for me. It is through Him that I stand before your gate."

Edited February 19, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

....continued,

Survival is just part of the human instinct, it's naturally how we operate, it's not a conscious decision (unless you're in a dire situation where it has to become a conscious decision).

Defining survival as a natural operation isn't really denying the fact that survival alone cannot give meaning to life.

The issue with your whole argument is that it seems to be an appeal to consequence. It's a fallacious argument. You accept a premise as true because you don't desire the consequences if it's not true.

Hey, I'm impressed, but you're wrong.

Appeal to consequence is the same as affirming the consequent:

If P then Q

Q therefore P

Note though that appeals to consequence is the basis of VALID ethical arguments.

However, My original argument (see post #121) regarding meaning was, "If the material world is all there is, then life ultimately has no meaning, and if it has no ultimate meaning, then it also doesn't have any immediate meaning.", which takes the form

1. If P then Q (If materialism, then ultimate meaninglessness)

2. If Q then R (If ultimate meaninglessness, then immediate meaninglessness)

3. Not R (Our immediate actions matter)

4. Therefore not Q (Therefore life isn't ultimately meaningless)

5. Therefore not P (Materialism cannot be true)

Premise 1 is true because meaning cannot be derived from non-meaning. What is the meaning of a rock? However suppose we play rock, paper, scissors with an actual rock, now the rock has meaning because I have given it meaning.

Premise 2 is true as illustrated by the monopoly analogy. If life is ultimately meaningless, then our individual actions are meaningless.

Premise 3 is true, because I know that when you take your philosopher hat off and log off from this forum, you don't live your life as if your actions don't matter. As if your life is meaningless. If I enslaved you to build me a nice big pyramid in my garden, you'd fight against it, because you'd consider your life to be precious and devoting it to such a worthless cause would be a waste. Every fibre of you would cry against it.

Conclusion 4 - modus tollens

Conclusion 5 - modus tollens

Take a look at pain, what function does it serve? It keeps us from doing things that will harm our body. You put your hand on a hot stove and you experience pain. It's your body's way of telling you not to do something through an unpleasant sensation.

Now, when it comes to the more emotional side of human-beings, we experience things like happiness and then things like sadness. The things that make us truly happy are the things that are healthiest for us.

The things that cause us pain and sadness, well, that's nature's way of telling us not to do those things. We're social beings so keeping the emotional part of us healthy is just as important as keeping the physical part of us healthy. The two go hand in hand and are necessary for our survival. So I would say the universal meaning is to find those things in life that give our individual lives meanings and keep us happy. Exactly what those things are will differ from person to person.

Our bodies are geared for survival, I'm not disputing that, but you haven't demonstrated that any of this proves that survival by itself makes life meaningful. In fact, since nothing in the end survives, doesn't that affirm what I've been saying, that life would ultimately be meaningless if life was only about survival?

Suppose a mad-man follows your logic to its conclusion and says, "Since the meaning of life is to survive, and since nothing ultimately survives anyway, let's just get it over with and blow up the planet. Yeah!"

*Click*....BANG!

Has his actions changed ultimate meaning in any way from an atheist point of view? I'd say no. In fact, for a brief moment after the flash before the shockwave and the fire consumes him and everything else, he may even have been happy knowing that he took control of his destiny. And if he's happy, then atleast by your logic what he did was quite meaningful...for him.

So now there's just smoldering chunks of the planet formerly known as earth hurtling through endless space.

What would you find in the debris field?

Perhaps a child's mangled tricycle can be spotted tumbling toward the empty nothing. The memory of the little child's laughter, of bruised knees, bandaids and a mother's comfort now vaporised.

Perhaps a cheap silver necklace. Given to a young sweetheart by a starry eyed young lover, wishing that his job as the gas station paid better to that he could afford a diamond.

Perhaps a briar pipe, which comforted an old widower as he enjoyed the aroma of cherry tobacco relaxing on his porch, thinking about the good old days, wishing his kids would visit him more often.

Has anything really been lost? Is there a reason to mourn? To be a little sad?

If survival is the only meaning, the only reason to be good, the only reason to love, then when nothing survives then those reasons have also been lost, right? Now that all the business of the planet is quiet, was it all for nothing?

Edited February 19, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[Matthitjah]

Suppose a mad-man follows your logic to its conclusion and says, "Since the meaning of life is to survive, and since nothing ultimately survives anyway, let's just get it over with and blow up the planet. Yeah!"

*Click*....BANG!

You just summed up Karl Marx and every other madman who ever lived. The only difference is that often they were too cowardly to include themselves in their ever maddening atheistic fantasy.

[LuftWaffle]

Suppose a mad-man follows your logic to its conclusion and says, "Since the meaning of life is to survive, and since nothing ultimately survives anyway, let's just get it over with and blow up the planet. Yeah!"

*Click*....BANG!

You just summed up Karl Marx and every other madman who ever lived. The only difference is that often they were too cowardly to include themselves in their ever maddening atheistic fantasy.

True.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't see how it isn't possible that humans could have created the Christian God.

The God of the Bible is offensive to human nature. The gods created by human beings do not resemble the God of Scripture and human nature precludes man creating the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is unique in that He relates to man redemptively, and no other god does.

Humans may not be perfect but they can certainly visualize perfection. All that takes is a little imagination.

Except the definition of "perfection" in the Bible is not attainable by humans and thus man would not have created the biblical concept of perfection or a god who meets that standard to be the judge of man. Teh human defintion of perfection begins from the assumption that man is basically good. The Bible's definition of perfection begins with the assumption that man is inherently evil and morally bankrupt and unable to arrive under his own power to the biblical standard of perfection, thus man needs a redeemer.

The Bible strikes at the core of humanistic pride and over confidence in himself. The Bible teaches that God is perfect and dwells in unapproachable holiness that no man can hope to arrive at without the benefit of the transforming power of salvation.

Besides all of the gods that man has created in the past always reflect human failings and often need human assistance. God, on the other hand, has need of nothing from man and is entirely self-sufficient. The God of Scripture reflects a nature and incommunicable attributes that would never have even entered the mind of someone seeking to create a god simply from their imagination. It is not simply being perfect. Your approach to God is far to simplistic and shallow. There is more to God than "perfection." God exists outside the human experience and possesses attributes for which there is no point of reference within the scope of human experience which precludes Him from being a product of human imagination.

The idea that there was one supreme being that was the embodiment of all things good, it doesn't seem far-fetch to me that a human could think that up.

That is because you have a shallow understanding of what "good" means relative to the God of the Bible. What God calls "good" often runs contrary to mankind's concept of good.

Humans can recognize good and bad deeds when they see them. Humans can see the negative effects of the over-indulgence of things like sex, money, alcohol, power, etc. I mean, look at Buddhism or Hinduism, it's all about giving up "earthly" desires in-order to seek enlightenment and salvation.

That does not even compare with Christianity. Both Buddhism and Hinduism are about man achieving salvation through personal effort. In Christianity, Jesus is the one does everything necessary for salvation on our behalf. Jesus does all the work.

In Hinduism, and Buddhism, salvation is a reward. In Christianity it is free gift absent any personal merit or personal effort. You cannot "do" anything to be saved. Jesus did every that needs to be done to be saved. In Christianity enlightenment is the product or outworking of salvation and that comes not through human effort, but illumination by the Holy Spirit on the heart of a Christian.

Many see Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity as different paths to same goal or different paths to God. The problem is that the Bible teaches that there is no path to God. This is because a path is something you travel under your own strength to arrive at a destination. Man cannot possibly work his way to God; that "path" just does not exist. There is a way to God, through Jesus, but there is no path.

The idea that God is all-knowing and is capable of doing whatever he wants, again, it's not far-fetch at all that a human could imagine what the most powerful-being known to man would look like.

The problem is that you are not really dealing with God's attributes in a meaningful way, AND you are drawing assumptions that are the opposite of what we intuitive observe all around us. You are operating off what you fanatsize as "possible," without dealing with what really is and what is more likely to be true based on the reality of human experience.

[Guest]

Will The Unbeliever

Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry,

Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him.

Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine;

and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.

Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded:

yea, they shall all cover their lips;

for there is no answer of God. Micah 3:5-7

Answer God?

____________

Well, the Christian God poses serious problems if it's merely a made up entity. Most pagan gods are like humans only bigger. They have the same desires and lusts as we do, they war amongst each other and they can even be defeated under the right circumstances.

The idea that people would come up with a trice Holy triune God is absurd.

The Christian God is also inconvenient, because He's too powerful, too big and too pure. It's not the sort of God that people invent. The other unique and inconvenient thing about Him is that there's nothing we can do to please Him. He needed to save us for Him, whereas all other gods generally bargain with their subjects, "If you do these things, then I'll reward you with heaven or nirvana or valhalla or whatever". This is pleasing to the human ego because through the power of will and deed, you can end up in a situation where god is indebted to you. The Christian God slays the ego, by saying, "even your best deeds are like filthy rags to me, but fear not I will save you".

I don't see how it isn't possible that humans could have created the Christian God. Humans may not be perfect but they can certainly visualize perfection. All that takes is a little imagination. The idea that there was one supreme being that was the embodiment of all things good, it doesn't seem far-fetch to me that a human could think that up. Humans can recognize good and bad deeds when they see them.

The God of the Bible is offensive to human nature. The gods created by human beings do not resemble the God of Scripture and human nature precludes man creating the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is unique in that He relates to man redemptively, and no other god does.

Do Humans Recognize Good Deeds?

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isaiah 53:3-7

Really?

Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Psalms 139:23-24

Do Humans Imagine Perfection?

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:15-16

Really?

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Proverbs 3:5-6

Do Humans Think Up The Supreme Being?

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2:5-8

Really?

What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?

I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD. Psalms 116:12-13

Do Humans Create The Living God

And the LORD 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

Really?

Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. Proverbs 3:7-8

____________

Even With His Self Revelation Clearly Shown Within His Holy Book

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:9

Most Will Refuse Jesus But Will Choose To Perish

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

Within Their Sin And Shame

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Their feet are swift to shed blood:

Destruction and misery are in their ways:

And the way of peace have they not known:

There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:10-18

____________

Believe

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[808state]

I think you are misunderstanding something. There are some scholars who believe that the four Gospels, NOT most of the NT was written anonymously. Furthermore, what they state in that regard is that there was an anonymous source called "Q" which is German for "quelle" which means "source." It is believed that Mark used "Q" as the source for his Gospel and that Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source for their Gospels. Luke states in Lk. 1:1-4 that his Gospel was based on traditional sources and eyewitness accounts and purports to have conducted a careful investigation of the facts in order to provide an orderly account of the events surrounding the life of Jesus.

Not all scholars, not even a majority, hold to the anonymous source argument. Unfortunately, many who choose to disbelieve the Bible tend to act like the minority view IS the view of the whole of biblical scholarship and tend to ignore far greater number of scholars who take a different view. Most scholars believe that Peter the Apostle and former disciple of Jesus is the source behind Mark and there is a body of literary evidence that supports that view. So the anonymous argument is really not as hard and fast you think.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. The only reason why I brought it up to begin with was to show that it is possible that not all of the writers were putting their personal faults on display to the world initially. I was not trying to go after the credibility of the New Testament with that one.

What Jesus was doing was restoring the correct understanding of the Scriptures. He was not founding a new religion. And His teachings were not all that new to the people. There are several places where Jesus echoes teachings of the Talmud. He cited texts that they DID know but had purposefully mishandled in order to mold the Bible around their corrupt views. There was nothing "new" in the teachings of Jesus; He was simply reminding them of they had chosen to ignore and mishandle.

The elaboration is new. Can we agree on that? Obviously, most Jewish people had a different understanding of the Old Testament than the understanding that Jesus had. So, some of these interpretations were new to most Jews at the time. I'm not going to debate who had the right interpretation, it's irrelevant.

Actually it does because your original comment depicted the disciples trying to fight against sin in their own power, which was wrong and contradicts the teachings of the NT, which teaches that Jesus has cleansed us from our sin, and has empowered us by His Spirit to live Godly lives. The struggle is not in our strength or some mythical inherent goodness that causes us to fight agaisnt our own nature. Your view espouses behavioral modification, where the NT teaches victory over sin.

My original comment was written in the hypothetical context of if the writers of the New Testament were lying. If the the writers were lying, they would be fighting against sin with their own power regardless of what it says in the Bible. So, regardless of whether it's Jesus giving you the strength/desire to obey God's commands or it's really just you, it's still takes a certain amount of work on the part of the follower. I have yet to meet a Christian who believes that living the life they believe God wants them to live is easy.

My point ultimately was that the Gospels provide entirely too much self-deprecating information to be less than credible. In fact it is the Bible's transparency in this area and its willingness to portray the disciples' shortcomings that speaks to its credibility and trustworthiness.

Again, if Matthew and John's gospels were written anonymously, how does this give it anymore credibility? And regardless, if the Bible wanted to show how one's life can be changed through Jesus then they would want to put on display the faults of those who's lives were being changed for the reasons I already mentioned.

The Bible has been shown to be accurate with amazing precision in terms of cultural, geographical and historical data. These are things that can be verified and are too numerous to itemize here. Archeology is repeatedly confirming the accuracy of Scripture because much of what the Bible claims is in a setting of historical, cultural and geographic fact. The lines of evidence are in a setting of real places, events and eyewitnesses. It is counter-intuitive for authors who are so dedicated to precise accuracy where names, places, dates and events are concerned to suddenly decide to make up false and misleading stories.

I'm not impressed with the fact that the Bible is accurate with about what was actually going on in the world at that time. The issue here is that the information that can't be verified is always the supernatural aspects. It's a bit suspect. Now, if you could verify most of the supernatural aspects of the Bible, then you could assume that the other supernatural events mentioned could have been true as well, but that's not what's going on here.

I could write a book right now, and talk about 9/11, the war in iraq, war in afghanistan, different things that are currently going on in the world, etc. and then mix in some supernatural events. It doesn't mean those supernatural events actually occurred.

Actually the Romans only required that you show your allegience to Caesar by going to an altar placing a pinch of incense on the altar and saying "Caeasar is Lord." You were then given a certificate that authenticated your obeidence. It was this rule that the Christians would not obey.

But the Christians came after Jesus's death. So again, what I'm looking for is evidence that:

A: The Romans knew that about news of a resurrection within a reasonable timeframe since the execution.

B: That the followers of Jesus posed such a threat at the time that the Jews felt the Romans had to produce a body

The Bar Khochba revolt occurred in 135 AD.

And Jesus died in 30 AD.

Which is not an argument agasint the Bible. I cannot verify to you what I had for breakfast yesterday. That does not mean my claim is false and unbelievable.

It doesn't make your claim true either. Now, I have no reason to believe that you would lie about what you had for breakfast yesterday, but that still doesn't mean you wouldn't lie about it.

The problem with the Bible's supernatural claims is that many religions claimed the same things pervious to the Bible. And yet, those claims were false. With such a bad track record, we have to look at supernatural claimants with a more discerning eye than we would any other historical document.

No, the argument you getting from me, is that the Bible's accuracy in the areas we CAN verify lend more credibility to the Bible in the areas that are less verifiable. It is the principle of general trustworthiness. If you cannot provide a reason to disbelieve the Bible, or you cannot demonstrate that the bible IS actually less than credible, then the default trustworthiness of the Bible is retained.

This is not how historians view history. If something can't be proven, then they ignore it or take with a grain of salt. They don't accept it as fact even if the 90% of what is written in that document is accurate.