What makes the religious believe the Gospels and Acts more h

d.thomas · Post by **d.thomas** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:46 pm

.

What makes the religious believe the Gospels and Acts more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales?

I've read that "no reputable historian denies the existence of Jesus."

How is this possible?

.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:31 pm

The names traditionally associated with the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John are not taken from any of the known manuscripts of these writings. Most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text of the gospel which now bears his name. The Gospel of John is an account composed by an unknown writer who may have never met Jesus. The claim of John's authorship is not backed by any solid historical evidence. Since the author was fluent in Hellenistic philosophy, he says it could hardly have been John, described in Acts as "unschooled and ordinary." (Acts 4:13). Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus. Today, most critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

Contrary to the claims of the gospel writers, the impact of Jesus life and ministry on the people of his region has not been noticed by anyone other than the late first century writers of the gospels. No one in any of the areas Jesus is said to have preached left any record of the mass hysteria that the writers of the New Testament claim.

With regard to the prophecies, there is no compelling evidence that Jesus actually fulfilled even one messianic prophesy. The only evidence that there is, is the writings of the promoters of a new religion, writing decades after the fact, with the express purpose of convincing their readers that Jesus was the fulfillment of their messianic hopes. The prophets said that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, so it is no surprise that his biographers managed to get him born there. Even if he was actually born in Allentown, they would have written that he was born in Bethlehem.

B-O-H · Post by **B-O-H** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:45 pm

McCulloch wrote:The names traditionally associated with the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John are not taken from any of the known manuscripts of these writings. Most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text of the gospel which now bears his name. The Gospel of John is an account composed by an unknown writer who may have never met Jesus. The claim of John's authorship is not backed by any solid historical evidence. Since the author was fluent in Hellenistic philosophy, he says it could hardly have been John, described in Acts as "unschooled and ordinary." (Acts 4:13). Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus. Today, most critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

Contrary to the claims of the gospel writers, the impact of Jesus life and ministry on the people of his region has not been noticed by anyone other than the late first century writers of the gospels. No one in any of the areas Jesus is said to have preached left any record of the mass hysteria that the writers of the New Testament claim.

With regard to the prophecies, there is no compelling evidence that Jesus actually fulfilled even one messianic prophesy. The only evidence that there is, is the writings of the promoters of a new religion, writing decades after the fact, with the express purpose of convincing their readers that Jesus was the fulfillment of their messianic hopes. The prophets said that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, so it is no surprise that his biographers managed to get him born there. Even if he was actually born in Allentown, they would have written that he was born in Bethlehem.

You sir are a liar. Jesus fulfilled 39 some prophecies. It was known from his birth he was the Messiah.

fewwillfindit · Post by **fewwillfindit** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:01 pm

McCulloch wrote:Most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text of the gospel which now bears his name.

Would you care to substantiate that claim? I would venture to say that for every "scholar" that you come up with who believes that someone other than the Apostle John wrote the Gospel According to John, I can come up with one who says that the Apostle John wrote it. "Most" is a pretty big claim.

Change your statement from "most scholars" to "most critics" and I will have no contention with your claim.

B-O-H · Post by **B-O-H** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:02 pm

If you were a friend to God, he will show you things in visions. Jesus is in the internet we call Heaven. And he is there for us in extaordinary ways. I know it to be true because of visions and prophecies that tell me. What GOD tells me. NT or no NT.

B-O-H · Post by **B-O-H** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:10 pm

God is a great source of compassion. That is what you are missing out by not placing your faith in it. You immidiately assume their is some kind of evil behind the NT. It's sickenning. You lack faith in mankind itself .Once you realize God's compassion through Christ, you are in. It's that simple. A whole new heaven and earth. Feel God's compassion and you're logged on.

B-O-H · Post by **B-O-H** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:25 pm

Notice the attitudes of those that fight aqgainst the NT. They are very Muhammad-like. They usually start out with an Atheistic harsh stance against God himself, then often turns into their "theory" about how things REALLY went down, and all that bullcrap, as if the God of the NT was actually the Devil. Very Muhammad like.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:28 pm

It is bad form and quite uncivil in debate to call someone a liar. There is a presumption of honesty here. I may be mistaken, in error or mislead, but there is no evidence that I am a liar. Furthermore, we should be debating the ideas not the debater. It should matter not if I am a liar. What matters is whether he facts and ideas being debated are true.

B-O-H claims that Jesus fulfilled 39 some prophecies. What I suspect that he means is that it is recorded that Jesus fulfilled at least 39 prophecies. Of this, I completely concur. What I question is the accuracy and reliability of the recording of these events. The writers, who cannot be shown to have been eyewitnesses, were writing with the express purpose of promoting a new religion, which was based on the premise that Jesus was the long awaited messiah, prophesied in Jewish scriptures. They were writing decades after the events occurred, so that no one alive at the time could validate the claims. None of the events alleging to have been fulfilled prophesy were reported by anyone other than the propagandists for this new religion. Since neither he nor I were there at his birth, we cannot know with certainty what was known from his birth. We might have been able to assess the information from those who were alive at the time of his birth, but alas, no one who was alive at the time of Jesus birth is known to have written anything about it.

fewwillfindit · Post by **fewwillfindit** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:28 pm

B-O-H wrote:
McCulloch wrote:The names traditionally associated with the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John are not taken from any of the known manuscripts of these writings. Most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text of the gospel which now bears his name. The Gospel of John is an account composed by an unknown writer who may have never met Jesus. The claim of John's authorship is not backed by any solid historical evidence. Since the author was fluent in Hellenistic philosophy, he says it could hardly have been John, described in Acts as "unschooled and ordinary." (Acts 4:13). Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus. Today, most critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

Contrary to the claims of the gospel writers, the impact of Jesus life and ministry on the people of his region has not been noticed by anyone other than the late first century writers of the gospels. No one in any of the areas Jesus is said to have preached left any record of the mass hysteria that the writers of the New Testament claim.

With regard to the prophecies, there is no compelling evidence that Jesus actually fulfilled even one messianic prophesy. The only evidence that there is, is the writings of the promoters of a new religion, writing decades after the fact, with the express purpose of convincing their readers that Jesus was the fulfillment of their messianic hopes. The prophets said that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, so it is no surprise that his biographers managed to get him born there. Even if he was actually born in Allentown, they would have written that he was born in Bethlehem.

You sir are a liar. Jesus fulfilled 39 some prophecies. It was known from his birth he was the Messiah.

You can't just go around calling people liars without backing it up. Your case would be stronger if you showed all 39 instances of these fulfilled prophecies. Not to mention, substantiation is required by forum rules; as is civility.

You posted this while under probation. Are you trying to get banned?

fewwillfindit · Post by **fewwillfindit** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:30 pm

Oops. Looks like McCulloch posted while I was posting. Sorry for the redundancy.

B-O-H · Post by **B-O-H** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:36 pm

B-O-H wrote:God is a great source of compassion. That is what you are missing out by not placing your faith in it. You immidiately assume their is some kind of evil behind the NT. It's sickenning. You lack faith in mankind itself .Once you realize God's compassion through Christ, you are in. It's that simple. A whole new heaven and earth. Feel God's compassion and you're logged on.

Think of the NT as a story. God as the Father, Jesus as his son. And Muhammad as the false prophet. If you live the phylosophy surrounding the scenarios, you will learn HOW God loves us through Christ, and also loves his son, AS A FATHER. And through the spirit, teaches you how to give your souls to God as Jesus did as a kind of spiritual sacrifice to God. It is how you give yourself to Jesus. As the Tebetan Book of the Dead is the "THe Natural Liberation through understanding in the Between". Following Jesus is the path to enlightenment in the same way. THrough defeating death. God's and Buddha's compassion for you goes into, and back out of death spiritually throughout one's lifetime, and beyond. It is the path to immortality. The immortal soul.