A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #81

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Danmark wrote:
"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
Jesus, Mark 13:30

"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�
_ Jesus, Matthew 16:28

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
_ Jesus, Matthew 24:34

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place."
_ Jesus, Luke 21:32

http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-sol ... _24.34.php

As I said, interpretations of this verse have been given, and I will let you argue with the author of the article as to how we can best interpret the word "generation". That aside, it would have been foolish of the authors of the Gospels to have written their Gospels so far into the future (25-30 years) after Jesus uttered the words, based on the fact that everyone that was alive during Jesus' time would have been senior citizens and possibly near death at the times that the Gospels were written...so they would have been expecting Jesus to return "any day now" if they understood it the way that you understand it.
Danmark wrote: The same people who claim the bible should be interpreted literally, turn on a dime, reverse themselves and claim THESE very clear words, should stretched, turned inside out and be interpreted to mean the opposite of what they say.
Well, I am not one of those "same people who claim the Bible should be interpreted literally". Some parts of the Bible should interpreted literally, some symbolically, some metaphorically.

If we are to interpret the entire Bible literally, then I guess Jesus is an animal because after all, he is called "the Lamb". Obviously, everything comes to context, purpose, and audience.
Danmark wrote: Paul and the other early Christians knew the end was imminent and would come in their own life times:

"For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep."
1 Thessalonians 4:14-15
First off, it isn't clear that when Paul said "we who are alive", he is necessarily talking specifically about those that were living at that time. He could have been talking about the full body of Christ, which would include future believers...so "we" could mean "those who are alive".

This is obvious because Paul himself would not be included in that "we", as he would ultimately be part of the group that died before Christ' alleged return. So if the "we" didn't necessarily include him, then it didn't necessarily include anyone else living at that time, but rather a people living at a future undetermined time frame.
Danmark wrote: "But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use this world as not misusing it.
I am not about to pretend as if I know what this passage mean, but what I can tell you is that I don't think it means what you think it means.
Danmark wrote: For the form of this world is passing away."
1 Corinthians 7

2000 years and counting.
2,000 years may be a long time to you, but to God (who is operating under unlimited time), those 2,000 is like 2 days.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #82

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 74 by For_The_Kingdom]

I asked for the percentage of Bible scholars who believe Jesus existed. You posted none. You cannot sensibly claim that a majority of Bible scholars believe he existed with no data to back it up.
...guys like Richard Dawkins and Bart Erhman, both unbelievers, admit that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
The beauty of being an atheist is that you can think for yourself. I do it all the time. I disagree with Ehrman. As for Dawkins, I get the impression that he is not yet well educated in the reasons Jesus may not have existed. Give Dawkins time.
It seems to me as if they have a "if we admit that Jesus existed, we open ourselves up to a whole bunch of stuff that we just don't want any part of, so its best to just deny his existence altogether".......approach.
Oh? You've read their minds. That's amazing. Is this mind reading a "gift of the spirit" or perhaps Vulcan mind melding? :D
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Paul
Josephus
Tacitus
I've examined this evidence and have concluded that none of it really demonstrates a Jesus existed.
Final Score..

WLC- a lot
Richard Carrier - a little
Do you base your beliefs on your judgment of the outcomes of debates?
By popular, I mean a young, popular level. He is popular, interacting with his followers personally on his blogs and such.
Well, I'm not young, and I think Carrier is a top-notch scholar. That said, it does seem that younger people are more open to new ideas.
...so whenever you can get a mixture of believers/unbelievers to agree on something (that Jesus existed), the evidence that he (Jesus) existed must be overwhelming.
Maybe that evidence is "overwhelming," but it's beginning to look like I'll never know.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #83

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Jagella wrote: I asked for the percentage of Bible scholars who believe Jesus existed. You posted none. You cannot sensibly claim that a majority of Bible scholars believe he existed with no data to back it up.
I don't have the percentage of Bible scholars who believe Jesus existed. I also don't have the percentage of historians who believe that Abe Lincoln was the 16th POTUS, which doesn't mean anything.

The fact of the matter is, I provided you the sources from which I obtained my information, plus I've heard from guys that are in the field who corroborated this (Bart Ehrman, namely).


If that aint good enough for you, then I don't know what to tell you. Just keep on disbelieving and eventually you will get what you want, ultimate separation from God.

Jagella wrote: The beauty of being an atheist is that you can think for yourself.
That is the beauty of having free will in general, isn't it?
Jagella wrote: I do it all the time.
So do I. When I reject things like evolution (which is religion of naturalism), I am thinking for myself.
Jagella wrote: I disagree with Ehrman.
And we both disagree with you.
Jagella wrote: As for Dawkins, I get the impression that he is not yet well educated in the reasons Jesus may not have existed. Give Dawkins time.
Nonsense. I'm sure Dawkins would love for nothing more than virtually all historians to conclude that the historical evidence doesn't support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth...the problem is, he can't, because that is not what the evidence shows...which is a fact that he is apparently aware of, unlike some other folks on religious forums.
Jagella wrote: Oh? You've read their minds. That's amazing. Is this mind reading a "gift of the spirit" or perhaps Vulcan mind melding? :D
I clearly said "it seems to me", which is the preface of an opinion, not a statement of truth.
Jagella wrote: I've examined this evidence and have concluded that none of it really demonstrates a Jesus existed.
Then we have different opinions on this issue.
Jagella wrote: Do you base your beliefs on your judgment of the outcomes of debates?
No, but a spanking is a spanking.
Jagella wrote: Well, I'm not young, and I think Carrier is a top-notch scholar. That said, it does seem that younger people are more open to new ideas.
I think Bart Erhman is also a top-notch scholar.
Jagella wrote: Maybe that evidence is "overwhelming," but it's beginning to look like I'll never know.
Sometimes, it is the outcome that people would like to avoid.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #84

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 82 by Jagella]
I've examined this evidence and have concluded that none of it really demonstrates a Jesus existed.
What you missed in FtK's list of sources (Mark et al) is that he describes them as 'independent'...which is blatantly false. Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark. Luke is of course linked to Paul, and mentions of Christianity in Josephus are considered suspect at best, last I heard.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #85

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

rikuoamero wrote: What you missed in FtK's list of sources (Mark et al) is that he describes them as 'independent'...which is blatantly false.
Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark.
And what you missed is the fact that Matthew and Luke has almost twice the content that Mark has. So the one that was "borrowed from" has less chapters than those that "borrowed from it". How ironic.

Second, what you also missed is the fact that most books that are in your local library or on the market are heavily cited and footnoted..which means that the authors are "borrowing from others" to make their points.

When the authors of today "borrow from others"; standard practice. But when the Gospel authors do it; court martial. Text book example of a double standard.

So yeah, lets just continue to play the "super skeptic" role only as it relates to subjects that goes against our worldview.


"Luke is of course linked to Paul" <----and?

"and mentions of Christianity in Josephus are considered suspect at best, last I heard."

Yeah and we've identified the "suspect" parts, we grant you that. But even if you omit the suspect parts, you still have the historical Jesus.

Not only wont he go away, but he is coming back.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #86

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 85 by For_The_Kingdom]
Second, what you also missed is the fact that most books that are in your local library or on the market are heavily cited and footnoted..which means that the authors are "borrowing from others" to make their points.

When the authors of today "borrow from others"; standard practice. But when the Gospel authors do it; court martial. Text book example of a double standard.
Umm...FtK...no-one is claiming that the books in my local library are 'independent'!
"Luke is of course linked to Paul" <----and?
Meaning that what the author of Gospel Luke/Acts wrote cannot be considered as independent from Paul, as if what that author wrote has no connection to Paul.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #87

Post by Danmark »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Danmark wrote:
"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
Jesus, Mark 13:30

"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�
_ Jesus, Matthew 16:28

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
_ Jesus, Matthew 24:34

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place."
_ Jesus, Luke 21:32

http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-sol ... _24.34.php

As I said, interpretations of this verse have been given, and I will let you argue with the author of the article....
I've read these 'interpretations.' They are ridiculous. They all reverse the plain English of the Gospel. And it goes far beyond the verses from the Olivet discourse. From the beginning the NT talks about the apocalypse coming very soon.
'The synoptic gospels open up with the ministry of an apocalyptic prophet, John the Baptist, who was preaching that judgment was at hand, the wrath of God was about to be unleashed, and the Kingdom age was at hand (Mark 1:15; Matt. 3:1-12; Luke 3:16-17). Jesus identified with the message of this prophet by being baptized by him. Then Jesus began preaching the same message of John (Matt. 4:17).'
http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/05 ... ve-at.html

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #88

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

rikuoamero wrote: Umm...FtK...no-one is claiming that the books in my local library are 'independent'!
Then me and you have different opinions as to what counts as "independent".
rikuoamero wrote: Meaning that what the author of Gospel Luke/Acts wrote cannot be considered as independent from Paul, as if what that author wrote has no connection to Paul.
No one is claiming that Paul was Luke's only source. The author of Luke stated that he "investigated everything" in the preface of Luke, and I'm sure Paul wasn't the only source of that investigation, as good of a source as he may have been.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #89

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]
I don't have the percentage of Bible scholars who believe Jesus existed.
Then don't claim you know that a majority of Bible scholars believe Jesus existed.
I also don't have the percentage of historians who believe that Abe Lincoln was the 16th POTUS, which doesn't mean anything.
The person in question makes no difference. If you claim that most historians believe Lincoln existed, then you shouldn't just assume that they believe he existed. You need to back up your claim with data or admit you're just assuming. In the case of Jesus, you are merely assuming that most Bible scholars believe Jesus existed.
If that aint good enough for you, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, provide data for your claim. I'd like to see the results of a scientific poll that shows the proportion of reputable Bible scholars who believe Jesus existed. If you can't provide that data, then avow that you are just speculating.

But I won't be too tough on you. I'll be generous and accept the assumption that most scholars believe Jesus existed.
Just keep on disbelieving and eventually you will get what you want, ultimate separation from God.
Hmmm--but don't you disbelieve in all gods except your own? In any case, if your god did exist, then yes I'd want to be separated from him. He's a monster. No sane person with a modicum of compassion would want the Bible god to exist.
That is the beauty of having free will in general, isn't it?
If I really had free will, then I'd will myself to be freely enjoying the women in the Playboy Mansion.
When I reject things like evolution (which is religion of naturalism), I am thinking for myself.
Absolutely! If the Theory of Evolution seems wrong to you, then by all means don't believe it. If you arrived at that conclusion via sound logic, then your conclusion has my respect.
Nonsense. I'm sure Dawkins would love for nothing more than virtually all historians to conclude that the historical evidence doesn't support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth...the problem is, he can't, because that is not what the evidence shows...which is a fact that he is apparently aware of, unlike some other folks on religious forums.
Dawkins is a prime target for Christian apologists. They'd love to discredit him seeing that he's been such a powerful voice for rationalism. Dawkins has documented how apologists have lied to do so.
I think Bart Erhman is also a top-notch scholar.
Really? Do you accept his conclusions that Jesus was misquoted and was made into a god by his followers? Or do you cherry-pick what he says to uphold your beliefs?
Sometimes, it is the outcome that people would like to avoid.
And you would never be one of those people.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #90

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Danmark wrote: I've read these 'interpretations.' They are ridiculous. They all reverse the plain English of the Gospel.
As I said, if you want to lecture the author of the article about how best we should translate "generation" from Greek to English, and its meaning, then knock yourself out. I certainly won't stop you.
Danmark wrote: And it goes far beyond the verses from the Olivet discourse. From the beginning the NT talks about the apocalypse coming very soon.
'The synoptic gospels open up with the ministry of an apocalyptic prophet, John the Baptist, who was preaching that judgment was at hand, the wrath of God was about to be unleashed
The wrath of God is about to be unleashed, the only question is when.
Danmark wrote: , and the Kingdom age was at hand (Mark 1:15; Matt. 3:1-12; Luke 3:16-17). Jesus identified with the message of this prophet by being baptized by him. Then Jesus began preaching the same message of John (Matt. 4:17).'
http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/05 ... ve-at.html


I say again: If the Gospel writers were writing 25-30 years after Jesus' death, it would be foolish to include narration of Jesus saying the "time is near" after so much time had ALREADY elapsed and the people living some 25-30 years later would have already been senior citizens (for that time).

Not to mention the fact that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, which didn't even take place until 70CE, and the message was still "there will be even more to come", even after the Temple was destroyed.

So obviously, it is to be interpreted to be a chain of events that will happen over the course of history.

Post Reply