For those that don't believe the bible is the word of God...

[Decker]

Hi Decker!

Would you say you feel equally frustrated with a Muslim who claims "there is no other god but allah" and that the Koran is the word of god or feel there is arrogance in his/her statements?

Or would you be equally frustrated at a Branch-Davidian that claimed to you that "David Koresh is the messiah" and all that he spoke was true?

If not, why not?

I am frustrated by anyone or any religion that thinks they/it have the capacity to understand Ultimate Reality, aka God and reduce Him down to biblical soundbytes.  I don't trust human capacity to ever speak for god...if he exists.

It takes a maximum arrogance to claim to speak with or for the Infinite Everlasting.  I don't believe anyone or anything that makes such a claim...the bible, the koran, Koresh.

I think these people that think they are speaking to god are really speaking to demons of the mind.

[Butterbean]

Isaiah 17:1. Damascus is predicted to cease to be a city and yet it remains one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.

Jeremiah 49:33 predicts that Hazor will become an everlasting wasteland in which humans will never again dwell. In the KJV it is said that dragons will come to inhabit the land. This has not happened.

Zechariah 10:11.The Nile is predicted to dry up. This has not happened.

There are numerous others. As a fundy you see what you want to see and not what the evidence tells you and you try to rationalise the evidence so that it fits your bible inspired picture of the world.

As far as I can tell, these are all yet to happen.  That doesn't mean that they will not happen.  I wasn't familiar w/the Jeremiah reference.  Do you know where Hazor is?  My study bible says "Hazor was a desert area, not the city in northern Palestine."  A website I found (yeshuatyisrael.com) says Hazor is part of Saudi Arabia.

How about :

2 Samuel 7,

7:13  He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

7:16  And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Where is Solomons kingdom?


Psalms

89:3  I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,   
89:4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.
89:34  My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.   
89:35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.   
89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.   
89:37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

Yes, Solomon built the temple but the seed enduring to me refers to the future also.  Forever would be the future.  89:36 says his seed shall endure for ever....the end of forever hasn't happened yet.  Do you ever find it odd (or even miraculous) that Israel still exists with all they've endured?

[Butterbean]

I am frustrated by anyone or any religion that thinks they/it have the capacity to understand Ultimate Reality, aka God and reduce Him down to biblical soundbytes.  I don't trust human capacity to ever speak for god...if he exists.

It takes a maximum arrogance to claim to speak with or for the Infinite Everlasting.  I don't believe anyone or anything that makes such a claim...the bible, the koran, Koresh.

I think these people that think they are speaking to god are really speaking to demons of the mind.

Thanks for your answer Decker!

[OzmO]

Yes, Solomon built the temple but the seed enduring to me refers to the future also.  Forever would be the future.  89:36 says his seed shall endure for ever....the end of forever hasn't happened yet.  Do you ever find it odd (or even miraculous) that Israel still exists with all they've endured?

The throne was gone 400 years later. 

Solomon's kingdom ceased to exist.

As for Israel, I find it unusual not miraculous.   They can thank Hitler for that.

[Deicide]

As far as I can tell, these are all yet to happen.  That doesn't mean that they will not happen.  I wasn't familiar w/the Jeremiah reference.  Do you know where Hazor is?  My study bible says "Hazor was a desert area, not the city in northern Palestine."  A website I found (yeshuatyisrael.com) says Hazor is part of Saudi Arabia.


Yes, Solomon built the temple but the seed enduring to me refers to the future also.  Forever would be the future.  89:36 says his seed shall endure for ever....the end of forever hasn't happened yet.  Do you ever find it odd (or even miraculous) that Israel still exists with all they've endured?

This is why is it is so frustrating discussing this with people like you. You rationalise everything so as to fit your biblical view of things when it doesn't fit and simply claim that prophecies are just that 'prophecies' in the NT when the more rational and logical step or assumption would be to realise that the NT writers plagiarised huge chunks of the OT and set it down to parchment. The Gospel writers were anomynous and wrote decades after the 'events' described in the Gospels. Yes, fundies like you believe they were apostles but every critical biblical scholar recognises that they were most certainly not. So, yes in a way it is frustrating to me with fundies because you rarely if ever look at evidence that contradicts your rigid faith and if you do, you ignore it or twist to fit your sky daddy belief. Very annoying indeed.

[Decker]

Thanks for your answer Decker!

You're welcome Stella. 

[OzmO]

Here's another fun one:


Proverbs 


12:21  There shall no evil happen to the just: but the wicked shall be filled with mischief.

Or this one:

Malachi 2

2:3  Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces,


And this is God?   

[Hedgehog]

You're right when you say there are many religions that "claim" that there's is absolute truth. However, there is only one that has ever proven it! I know you don't believe, in spite of the evidence, that the Christian faith is the one absolute true faith.

It is clear to me that you do not know much about Christianity.

Christianity is based on faith in the Lord, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

If you are a Christian, you believe. You do not know.

If you claim to know, and claim you have evidence of God, you are a liar, and does not understand God.

I challenge you to present me one evidence that makes it certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that God is.

[The Freakshow]

It is clear to me that you do not know much about Christianity.

Christianity is based on faith in the Lord, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

If you are a Christian, you believe. You do not know.

If you claim to know, and claim you have evidence of God, you are a liar, and does not understand God.

I challenge you to present me one evidence that makes it certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that God is.

You are right in saying that Christianity is based on Faith. That is absolutely true. I BELIEVE in Jesus Christ the Lord God and His Holy Spirit. AMEN!

I am a Chistian that not only believe's, but KNOWS. God has proven Himself true by the FACTS in the Bible and in my life.

So if I'm confronted with evidence that is proven, such as miracles and Jesus being raised from the dead, and I accept that evidence, I am a liar???

Evidence that God "is": YOU being "CREATED" and Jesus rising from the dead!

I challenge you my friend, to provide me evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the God DOES NOT exist!

[The Freakshow]

Here's another fun one:


Proverbs 


12:21  There shall no evil happen to the just: but the wicked shall be filled with mischief.

Or this one:

Malachi 2

2:3  Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces,


And this is God?   

Gotta accept the good with the bad. Sometimes that means dung on your face

[The Freakshow]

This is why is it is so frustrating discussing this with people like you. You rationalise everything so as to fit your biblical view of things when it doesn't fit and simply claim that prophecies are just that 'prophecies' in the NT when the more rational and logical step or assumption would be to realise that the NT writers plagiarised huge chunks of the OT and set it down to parchment. The Gospel writers were anomynous and wrote decades after the 'events' described in the Gospels. Yes, fundies like you believe they were apostles but every critical biblical scholar recognises that they were most certainly not. So, yes in a way it is frustrating to me with fundies because you rarely if ever look at evidence that contradicts your rigid faith and if you do, you ignore it or twist to fit your sky daddy belief. Very annoying indeed.

NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.

First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.

The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.

If  I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.

Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.

In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist.  I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???

BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.

Yes, fundies like you believe they were apostles but every critical biblical scholar recognises that they were most certainly not.

I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction?  If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.

And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.

Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.

[Deadpool]

I believe God and Satan both exist, because of the existance of Sally McNeil. 

[loco]

NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.

First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.

The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.

If  I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.

Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.

In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist.  I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???

BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.

I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction?  If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.

And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.

Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.

Good post, Freakshow!

[Deicide]

NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.

First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.

The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.

If  I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.

Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.

In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist.  I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???

BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.

I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction?  If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.

And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.

Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.

The Jesus Seminar is not a joke and they garner much respect in academia. I have read the Gospels as have many others who have all come to the conclusion that they are bullshit. Hitler is a terrible analogy. We have photos, film, written documentation by Hitler himself and numerous other pieces of evidence.

Even if the Gospels were eyewitness accounts:

For many people, who possibly haven’t thought much about it, such a claim — that a story is based on an eyewitness account — provides a kind of guarantee of its accuracy. A moment’s reflection, though, shows that nothing could be farther from the truth. Simply consider any two eyewitness accounts of a particular event. Are they ever the same? Not exactly. Sometimes they differ in what they include and exclude, often they disagree on minor details, often they are at odds on issues of major importance (did she scream at him before he threatened her with a knife or afterward?), sometimes they flat out contradict each other; never do they tell the story in the same words.

If eyewitnesses were always completely accurate in what they say, we’d have no need for trials by jury. We could just ask someone what happened.

Scholarly studies of the gospels make it quite clear that they could not have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they purport to describe. Even if they were, though, they were not written down until decades after those events supposedly happen. During these decades, the witnesses would have swapped stories with others, pondered the events, heard about similar events, studies other tales, and so forth. All of these things would have contaminated the original memories immeasurably, making them completely unreliable under even the best circumstances.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257971.htm

The Gospels are so filled with contradictions that it hardly comprehensible that you would consider them 'inerrant' or 'eyewitness accounts'.

[Deicide]

NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.

First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.

The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.

If  I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.

Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.

In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist.  I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???

BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.

I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction?  If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.

And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.

Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.

There's really a lot I could list here if I really wanted to include all the minor contradictions and seemingly self-contradictory statements of Jesus himself but I'm just going to stick with some of the more glaring, contradictory , factual claims about Jesus. Contradictions which I submit cannot be reconciled.

Let's start with the genealogies for Jesus given in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew gives the following:
(Mtt. 1:1-16)
...David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,...

Now let's look at Luke.
(Lk. 3:23-38)
...the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,...

First of all let's bear in mind that these are really geneologies for Joseph, not Jesus. If you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as both Matthew and Luke assert, then it must be admitted that Jesus himself has no connection to either geneology. That makes them rather a moot point since the whole point of these things is to show Jesus' descendancy from David. It's a contradiction in itself to say that Jesus was born of a virgin and then try to prove a Davidic lineage through Joseph.

Looking at the genealogies themselves we see that Matthew starts with Abraham and counts down to Joseph, while Luke starts with Joseph and counts clear back to Adam (also note that Luke calls Adam "the son of God.")

The parts snipped out are the parts where the genealogies diverge. Matthew claims descendancy from David through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. They are completely different after that and claim different fathers for Joseph.

Typically, this disparity has been addressed by apologists by claiming that one of the genealogies goes through Mary. There is zero support for this in the texts, though, and a matrilineal connection to David would not have been sufficient to legitimize a claim to Davidic inheritance under Jewish law anyway. The genealogies clash and that's that.

There is also a huge disparity between Matthew and Luke as to the date of birth. Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. This is an irreconcilable gap, although many apologists have tried to contrive an earlier census there is no evidentiary support for such an event and some significant evidence against it.

Matthew's and Luke's Nativities are quite different and each mentions things not mentioned by the others. Not every difference is a necessary contradiction but some of the differences are and it might be useful to examine them side by side.


Synopsis of Matthew's Nativity:

Joseph and Mary are engaged but they haven't had sex yet. Mary turns up pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph (understandably) wants to break up with her but then an angel comes to him in a dream and tells him that the Holy Ghost knocked her up and she's still a virgin and Joseph should marry her anyway. Somehow Joseph buys all this and agrees to stay with Mary.

Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Matthew does not have anything about a census or an inn. He just says Jesus was born in Bethlehem with the implication that Joseph and Mary already lived there).

Some "astrologers (magoi) from the East" show up at Herod's court and ask him where the new king of Judea is because they "saw his star in the East." (note: Matthew does not call them kings and does not say how many there were. The "three kings" image is an extra Biblical popular tradition)Herod gets pissed and calls the priests to ask them where the "Annointed" is supposed to be born. The priests tell him Bethlehem and quote from Micah. Herod then tells the astrologers to go to Bethlehem and find the kid and then report back to him, ostensibly so he can "pay homage" to the kid but really so he can kill him.

The astrologers go to Bethlehem and then follow the star until it stops over a house (not a stable) with Jesus in it. The astrologers give mad props to Baby Jesus and give him gold and frankincense and myrhh. Then an angel comes to them in a dream and warns them not to go back to Herod so they secretly split back to their own countries instead.

Then an angel comes to Joseph in a dream (in Matthew's Nativity it seems like everybody is constantly getting hounded by angels in their dreams) and tells him to haul ass to Egypt and bring Jesus with him. Joseph packs up his family and blows.

When Herod gets stood up by the astrologers he loses his shit and orders all male children under two years of age in and around Bethlehem to be killed.

Herod dies and Joseph gets the message (yep, you guessed it) from an angel in a dream and returns to Israel. He finds out that Herod's son, Archelaus is king of Judea so he's afraid. Joseph gets visited by an angel in yet another dream and is told to go to Galilee (which, incidentally was being ruled by another of Herod's sons, Herod Antipas, so it's not clear why Galilee would have been any safer....but to be fair, Archelaus sucked much harder than Antipas. He was so bad, in fact, that he was forcibly removed in 6 CE by the Romans, Judea was made part of the province of Syria and Quirinius was put in charge). So Joseph drags the family to Galilee and settles down in Nazareth.

Synopsis of Luke's Nativity:

There is a long, boring story about the conception of John the Baptist. During the pregnancy of JBap's mother, Elizabeth, an angel come to Mary (who is already living in Nazareth) and tells her that she's going to get knocked up by the Holy Spirit. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and Elizabeth gets all excited and there's some more boring stuff and then JBap is born.

Jump to a pregnant Mary travelling to Bethlehem with Joseph to register for Quirinius' census. Jesus is born in a stable (and Luke actually intimates that it is for privacy, not because there was no room inside). Cut to a bunch of shepherds tending their flocks at night. An angel comes down and scares the crap out of them. The angel tells them to chill and informs them that the Messiah has been born and is lying in a mager in bethlehem. then a whole bunch more angels come down and start singing at the shepherds. Then all the angels disappear and the shepherds rush off to Bethlehem and find Baby Jesus and give him mad props.

Then, eight days later, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Jerusalem to the Temple to be circumcised. While they're at the Temple an old guy named Simeon comes up to them because the holy spirit told him all about Jesus. Simeon gives Baby Jesus mad props and then predicts doom and gloom for Israel. Then an old lady "prophetess" named Anna happens by and sees this and she starts telling everybody else all about it.

Then after Jesus is properly snipped, Joseph and Mary and Jesus all go back to Nazareth. There is nothing about a flight to Egypt. They go straight to Nazareth and Jesus commences to growing up "strong and wise."

It's pretty easy to see that with the exception of the place of birth and the defense of Mary's virtue these stories have virtually no relationship to each other. as I said above, not every detail in Luke is necessarily in contradiction to Matthew but whatever is not directly contradicted is pretty much incidental in contrast to the details that clash. Let's add some of them up:

Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.

Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.

Luke says nothing about Herod's slaughter of the innocents or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.

Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.

These are completely different stories and it seems that neither author has any awareness of the other.

To recap the most intractable contradictions between the Nativities, we have

1. Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2. Luke places the date of Jesus' birth ten years later than Matthew.
3. Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census.
4. Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.
5. Luke knows nothing of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke's chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.

[Deicide]

NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.

First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.

The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.

If  I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.

Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.

In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist.  I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???

BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.

I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction?  If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.

And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.

Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.

3. The Gospels contain factual errors

It's hard to know where to start with this one or how to categorize the errors so I guess I'll just take the gospels one at a time starting with Mark.

Errors in Mark

Mark probably has the greatest number of factual inaccuracies. He makes mistakes of geography, custom and law. The trial before the Sanhedrin is Mark's invention and is a catalogue of errors unto itself but let's start with geography.

Geographical errors in Mark:

The Gerasene Demoniac:

In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.

If you look at a map you can see that Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.

Matthew reconized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.

Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon:

In 7:31, Mark says the following:
"And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis."

There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Tyre and Sidon are on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre.

There also wasn't any road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point.

The other arguable error is that Mark seems to suggest that Jesus went through the Decapolis to get to the lake. The Decapolis was a cluster of ten Greek cities, most of which were located to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee.

Mark's meaning is a little awkward even in Greek. He says ...ana meson ton horion decapoleos; literally, "...up through the middle of the borders of the Decapolis."

Now the "up" part is somewhat debatable. The preposition "ana" denotes upward movement and with the accusative can indicate either "up through" or just "through." In this case we find the construction "ana meson" which can mean "up through the middle of" or "into the middle of." It would clearly be a boner for Mark to say that Jesus went from Sidon "up through" the Decapolis to get to the lake. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and just translate it as "into the middle of" it still isn't quite clear what he means. There seems to still be an inplication that Mark thinks the Decapolis is between Sidon and the lake. It's possible that he means Jesus went to the lake first and then to the middle of the shores of the Decapolis but then we have a lake in the way (to get to middle of the shores of the Decapolis) and Mark says nothing about another lake crossing here. It is also possible that Mark is truncating a description of a journey which goes all the way around the lake to the south and then goes "up through" the Decapolis to get the middle of southeastern shore of the lake. If that's what he means, he picks a very confusing way to convey it. This may or may not be an error but I mention it because it's said directly in conjunction with another error and the entire verse gives an impression that Mark did not have an accurate understanding of the geography he was describing.

Crossing the Jordan into Judea

Mark 10:1 says that Jesus travelled down from Capernaum then crossed the Jordan into Judea. But crossing to the east bank of the river would have put him outside of Judea into Perea. Furthermore, travelling from Capernaum to Judea would have entailed going through Samaria, a hostile territory which Jews habitually avoided. Customarily, travellers from Galilee to Judea crossed the river north of Samaria, went south along the river in the Transjordan and then crossed back over to Judea. Mark seems to know that crossing the Jordan was part of the journey but doesn't seem to quite grasp the mechanics of the trip.

Of course it is possible that Mark just elided the initial crossing from his description, however what is actually in the text provides a misleading picture of the route.

Bethsaida and Gennesaret

In Mark 6 we get the story of Jesus walking on water. This occurs immediately after Mark's first loaves and fishes story:

(Mk. 6:45-53)
Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.
47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid.” 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

53 When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there.

Jesus tells the disciples to get in the boat and start heading across the lake to Bethsaida which was on the northeast shore. Jesus somehow gets rid of the crowd (usually this is accomplished by getting Elvis out of the building, not leaving him behind to clear the venue himself, but whatever) and then goes up a mountain to pray. That night the disciples get to the middle of the lake. Jesus sees them (somehow from the shore in the middle of the night) straining against the wind. He walks out to them on the surface of the water, the disciples freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he gets in the boat. Then they continue across the lake until they land in Gennesaret....which is on the northwest shore, the same side of the lake they presumably started on.

[The Freakshow]

The Jesus Seminar is not a joke and they garner much respect in academia. I have read the Gospels as have many others who have all come to the conclusion that they are bullshit. Hitler is a terrible analogy. We have photos, film, written documentation by Hitler himself and numerous other pieces of evidence.

Even if the Gospels were eyewitness accounts:
 
 http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257971.htm

The Gospels are so filled with contradictions that it hardly comprehensible that you would consider them 'inerrant' or 'eyewitness accounts'.

For many people, who possibly haven’t thought much about it, such a claim — that a story is based on an eyewitness account — provides a kind of guarantee of its accuracy. A moment’s reflection, though, shows that nothing could be farther from the truth. Simply consider any two eyewitness accounts of a particular event. Are they ever the same? Not exactly. Sometimes they differ in what they include and exclude, often they disagree on minor details, often they are at odds on issues of major importance (did she scream at him before he threatened her with a knife or afterward?), sometimes they flat out contradict each other; never do they tell the story in the same words.

If eyewitnesses were always completely accurate in what they say, we’d have no need for trials by jury. We could just ask someone what happened.

First, they are not filled with contradictions. In fact, they not only compliment each other, they validate each other.

I’m sorry that cameras were not yet invented, or we would have a picture of Jesus. We would have a Youtube video of Him being murdered and rising from the dead too. But after you watched the video you would not be able to tell anyone about what you saw because, did you really SEE it??? Did John F. Kennedy really get shot??? Because I saw a video of him getting shot with my own eyes and in spite of many conspiracy theories, nothing contradicts what I saw on the video. When his wife, who was an EYEWITNESS to him dying, talked about it ten years later, does that mean the event did not happen because she said she was an eyewitness??? Why is eyewitness testimony even allowed in court if it has no merit? What if two, three, four or even five hundred eyewitness testify, does that make the testimony more or less credible???

In First Corinthians the Apostle Paul testified that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were still living at the time of his testimony. Pretty hard to discredit.

My point is this, just because someone is an eyewitness doesn’t discredit the event. That’s like saying, people saw it so it must not be true. Or a comparative analogy is speech. Just because someone says something does not mean it’s true. However, that does not mean that every time someone speaks it is false. But if many people say the same thing it is more likely to be true and less likely to be false.

Take your “scholarly” Jesus Seminar friends, they make dogmatic assertions with no basis in fact or evidence all of the time. They are a perfect example.

BTW, even they agree that Jesus was in fact a real person. They just dent that He claimed to be God. (A statement which is ludicrous.)

Scholarly studies of the gospels make it quite clear that they could not have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they purport to describe. Even if they were, though, they were not written down until decades after those events supposedly happen. During these decades, the witnesses would have swapped stories with others, pondered the events, heard about similar events, studies other tales, and so forth. All of these things would have contaminated the original memories immeasurably, making them completely unreliable under even the best circumstances.

Again, “scholarly” studies make it quite clear, how about you make it quite clear that they could not have been eyewitnesses.

Those are some very BOLD statements above. Stating as fact,  they “would have” and “makes them completely unreliable”. Those are the 100% speculations and implications, not fact. Of course, they “Could” have, but not guaranteed. Just more dogmatic assertions with no basis in fact. The fact that someone would make such statements PROVES they are not scholarly. 

[The Freakshow]

Here's a picture of Jesus

[Deicide]

First, they are not filled with contradictions. In fact, they not only compliment each other, they validate each other.

I’m sorry that cameras were not yet invented, or we would have a picture of Jesus. We would have a Youtube video of Him being murdered and rising from the dead too. But after you watched the video you would not be able to tell anyone about what you saw because, did you really SEE it??? Did John F. Kennedy really get shot??? Because I saw a video of him getting shot with my own eyes and in spite of many conspiracy theories, nothing contradicts what I saw on the video. When his wife, who was an EYEWITNESS to him dying, talked about it ten years later, does that mean the event did not happen because she said she was an eyewitness??? Why is eyewitness testimony even allowed in court if it has no merit? What if two, three, four or even five hundred eyewitness testify, does that make the testimony more or less credible???

In First Corinthians the Apostle Paul testified that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were still living at the time of his testimony. Pretty hard to discredit.

My point is this, just because someone is an eyewitness doesn’t discredit the event. That’s like saying, people saw it so it must not be true. Or a comparative analogy is speech. Just because someone says something does not mean it’s true. However, that does not mean that every time someone speaks it is false. But if many people say the same thing it is more likely to be true and less likely to be false.

Take your “scholarly” Jesus Seminar friends, they make dogmatic assertions with no basis in fact or evidence all of the time. They are a perfect example.

BTW, even they agree that Jesus was in fact a real person. They just dent that He claimed to be God. (A statement which is ludicrous.)


Again, “scholarly” studies make it quite clear, how about you make it quite clear that they could not have been eyewitnesses.

Those are some very BOLD statements above. Stating as fact,  they “would have” and “makes them completely unreliable”. Those are the 100% speculations and implications, not fact. Of course, they “Could” have, but not guaranteed. Just more dogmatic assertions with no basis in fact. The fact that someone would make such statements PROVES they are not scholarly. 

I see you have conveniently falied to address the nativity contradictions as well as the geographical contradictions....

[The Freakshow]

Workin' on it.

I reply to the posts when I can. That one was pretty quick. The other one is lengthy.

[Deicide]

Workin' on it.

I reply to the posts when I can. That one was pretty quick. The other one is lengthy.

Freakshow, I could list 100 obvious contradictions and you would sidestep them, ignore them or rationalise them. You want to believe in fairy tales, that's fine but it isn't intellecually mature. Why not believe in the Apollinius of Tyana? He has all the credentials of Jesus, lived during the same time and we actually have writing by him.

[The Freakshow]

Freakshow, I could list 100 obvious contradictions and you would sidestep them, ignore them or rationalise them. You want to believe in fairy tales, that's fine but it isn't intellectually mature. Why not believe in the Apollinius of Tyana? He has all the credentials of Jesus, lived during the same time and we actually have writing by him.

I do not intend to 'sidestep' anything. I will address any so called contradictions. Fairy Tales are false stories that do not deal with reality. The Bible is not a fairy tale. I'm sorry that you feel that believing in the supernatural is intellectually immature. However, everything I believe has a very concrete basis in supported facts. Do not assume that I have not intellectually plumbed the depths of the Scriptures and it's claims. In fact, it is the exegesis of Scripture that is the foundation of my beliefs.

I find it very interesting that some of the worlds greatest minds refuse to look at the Scriptures as an option as an explanation for their existence. However, they will believe that we have evolved out of nothing. To me that is intellectually absurd. A Creater is the only logical and intelligent explanation.

As far as this Apollinius of Tyana character, I'm not familiar with him. You say he has the same credentials as Jesus? Did he perform many miracles, die and rise from the dead?

[Deicide]

I do not intend to 'sidestep' anything. I will address any so called contradictions. Fairy Tales are false stories that do not deal with reality. The Bible is not a fairy tale. I'm sorry that you feel that believing in the supernatural is intellectually immature. However, everything I believe has a very concrete basis in supported facts. Do not assume that I have not intellectually plumbed the depths of the Scriptures and it's claims. In fact, it is the exegesis of Scripture that is the foundation of my beliefs.

I find it very interesting that some of the worlds greatest minds refuse to look at the Scriptures as an option as an explanation for their existence. However, they will believe that we have evolved out of nothing. To me that is intellectually absurd. A Creater is the only logical and intelligent explanation.

As far as this Apollinius of Tyana character, I'm not familiar with him. You say he has the same credentials as Jesus? Did he perform many miracles, die and rise from the dead?

Yes he did.

As to the ultimate origins of life, I must, for the sake of intellectual honesty, plead ignorance. I don't know and neither do you. But we can talk about historical probabilities and realities. Those things lie within the ream of examination and that's what I want to address.

Briefly however: we are stuck on a tiny mudball in a minor galaxy, a speck in a tiny corner of the universe, one of countless such corners. We have a star (the sun) that will one day turn into a supernova and annihilate this planet and everything in its path. To the best of our knowledge we have no evidence of life beyond our mudball of a planet, once again a pin prick of nothing floating around in a tiny galaxy amongst billions and billions of galaxies and people such as you have the gall and arrogance to claim that alleged events supposed to have taken place on a microscopic patch of desert on this speck of a planet a few thousand years ago, for which there is virtually no archaeological evidence, found in a book, cobbled together over many centuries, are the source of the entirety of existence, including the 125+billion galaxies and the trillions of stars and that the universe is here for the sake of our species and that two thousands ago a pseudo-continuation of the last cobbled together book, the 'son' of the raging and petty desert deity of nomadic goat herders, 'died' for the sins of all mankind, including those living in South America two thousand years prior and the ones who have never heard of him, simply due to geography...all of this is supposed to be the ultimate answer to all the questions of existence? I think not. It IS intellectually dishonest, whatever way you wish to look at it but ultimately it is an issue of psychology. There are those who need to believe such things and others who don't.

[windsor88]

Yes he did.

As to the ultimate origins of life, I must, for the sake of intellectual honesty, plead ignorance. I don't know and neither do you. But we can talk about historical probabilities and realities. Those things lie within the ream of examination and that's what I want to address.

Briefly however: we are stuck on a tiny mudball in a minor galaxy, a speck in a tiny corner of the universe, one of countless such corners. We have a star (the sun) that will one day turn into a supernova and annihilate this planet and everything in its path. To the best of our knowledge we have no evidence of life beyond our mudball of a planet, once again a pin prick of nothing floating around in a tiny galaxy amongst billions and billions of galaxies and people such as you have the gall and arrogance to claim that alleged events supposed to have taken place on a microscopic patch of desert on this speck of a planet a few thousand years ago, for which there is virtually no archaeological evidence, found in a book, cobbled together over many centuries, are the source of the entirety of existence, including the 125+billion galaxies and the trillions of stars and that the universe is here for the sake of our species and that two thousands ago a pseudo-continuation of the last cobbled together book, the 'son' of the raging and petty desert deity of nomadic goat herders, 'died' for the sins of all mankind, including those living in South America two thousand years prior and the ones who have never heard of him, simply due to geography...all of this is supposed to be the ultimate answer to all the questions of existence? I think not. It IS intellectually dishonest, whatever way you wish to look at it but ultimately it is an issue of psychology. There are those who need to believe such things and others who don't.

owned   

[Spoony Luv]

Why did jesus and all christians for that matter pick a sumerian cross to represent its religion?