The guy next to him did not go through the same thing as Jesus did. fact. look into this a little bit more before youtubing a video. you sound like you didn't do any research. this is probably your opinion from "stuff you heard" as opposed to actually researching it. "seek and ye will find".
Jesus didn't go to Hell to be tortured. He went to Hell to take the keys away from Satan. He was tortured before He was put on the cross, by the beating and the crown of thorns and being spit on and such. The thief on the cross wasn't sacrificing anything for anyone. He was being punished for his crimes. Jesus was blameless and sacrificing Himself for the world.
@SummerSunshine1988 You know, biblically it says he told the theft he'd be in heaven with him that very day. So what, he made a detour to hell first? lol
Jesus was blameless? So steeling, attacking others, breaking the law is blamess? In that case I'm perfect, why not worship me?
@SummerSunshine1988 See jesus and the legion, with 2000 pigs, and see his attacks in the temple. I can provide you the passages if your not familiar with the christian NT.
@humanistheart : Ah, you mean when Jesus turned over the tables in the temple. That's not really attacking anybody, though. That's just making a mess because the people were using the temple improperly.
@humanistheart : I don't remember Jesus ever stealing anything, but I'll go back and look that up. And if you go back and read the story in the Bible about Jesus in the temple, you'll notice that He never actually slugged anybody with said whip.
@SummerSunshine1988 It's true it doesn't say he hit anyone with the whip, but you don't leave your money and property and flee if you're not scared. I doubt just holding it would do that, would you? I wouldn't, at the very least it's the threat of violence, which is not much better. As for steeling, look up the casting out of demons, legion, into pigs. Jesus didn't own those pigs, nor did he have permission.
@humanistheart : That's the thing about Jesus. He says jump, you JUMP.
As for the pigs, the spirits that inhabited them weren't instructed to take them off of a cliff. They did that on their own. If anything, the demons stole the pigs.
@humanistheart : Stealing means that you take something for your own use or possession. Jesus didn't take anything for His own use or possession. He cast out demons, and the demons went where they wanted to go.
@humanistheart : Jesus' purposes for the benefit of the men possessed by the demons. Stealing doesn't really benefit anybody unless the person doing the stealing gains something from it, which Jesus did not.
@humanistheart : For the last time, Jesus didn't steal anything. He cast the demons out of the men, and the demons took the pigs over the cliff. The demons could have chosen to make the pigs stay put.
@SummerSunshine1988 They asked to be cast into him, and jesus indulged them with someone else'' property. No wonder Christians have such poor morals, you excuse anything you want to.
@humanistheart : You don't really have the right to judge my morals. You don't even know me. You assume to know what my morals are simply based on the fact that I am a Christian.
How do you know Jesus didn't check with the owner? The Bible doesn't say either way.
@SummerSunshine1988 I know you're defending stealing. The bible doesn't exist, if you mean the gospels however, no, they don't say so now do they? It describes the event, and the answer is not involved, thus stealing.
@humanistheart : The Bible doesn't exist?????? That's funny, because I own one. I'm going to assume that's not what you meant, though.
Jesus checking with the owner is not mentioned one way or the other. However, seeing as how Jesus was perfect and pure enough to take on our own sins, it is safe to assume that He had none of His own, and therefore it is safe to assume that He never stole anything, and as such it is safe to assume that He first checked with the owner.
@SummerSunshine1988 You own a bible, not THE bible as you put it. A big difference there.
That's all you got, they don't mention the owner at all, so you assume he did? The story unfolds without any mention of an owner, thus he stole. If jesus had no 'sin' its because he's said to be god, and god does not apply any rules to himself, thus can do whatever he likes without it being sin. Sin isn't the same as wrong, it's a meaningless concept.
Wrong, he says not to kill, them commits numerous mass genocides, says not to steel, then steels. Etc. He does not apply his own rules, and their unethical, like requiring you to kill children who hit their parents, or killing homosexuals.
@humanistheart : Either way, there was no stealing involved. And I'm done explaining this particular point to you.
The penalty of sin is death. That applies to people who have homosexual sex, and to children to do not honor their parents. However, if you take the Bible as a whole, which you are obviously just bound and determined not to do, you'll see that Christ paid that penalty for us.
@SummerSunshine1988 I own a painting. By your logic, the artist who painted it can come take it back any time, even though it's been sold as is legally mine. FAIL.
@humanistheart : That's different. Ownership of said painting was transferred. God never transferred ownership of the Earth to anybody. We are here on a loan.
@SummerSunshine1988 I never signed any loan papers, did you? Go ahead, try to make any legal or ethical argument for this 'god' of yours owning the planet, lol.
@SummerSunshine1988 Was that supposed to make sense? You were born, so you signed papers? No one was given a choice of existence, if anything that's more like slavery or indentured servitude.
@humanistheart : When Satan was kicked out of Heaven, he took two thirds of the world with him. Those spirits didn't get bodies. You have a body. Therefore, you made the choice to exist.
@SummerSunshine1988 No part of that made sense. First of all, my understanding is that he took 'angels' with him, not people. Second, if you're talking from a mormon perspective, the spirit children had a choice to come to earth, but not to exist. You can't ask something that doesn't exist if it wants to start existing.
@SummerSunshine1988 Trust or not, the fact is then you have to admit that there is no choice in existence, thus claiming this is a loan, is a false analogy.
I'm still not hearing anything that would imply ownership of the world by Yahweh.
@SummerSunshine1988 We live here, he doesn't. We tend the earth, he doesn't. We exist, there's no evidence he does. We own it not him. And as we've already been over, even if you were right, that means we're just indentured servants, which is unethical. Witch makes your god evil.
@humanistheart : We do serve God (or we believers do, anyway), but we are not indentured servants. Indentured servants are such to pay off some kind of debt. That is not our situation.
@SummerSunshine1988 Then slaves. Think about it, you are arguing that Yahweh can take whatever he wants, because it's all his, and morality, right and wrong, doesn't factor in. It's a poor defense.
You have not given anything to suggest that he has any right to anything.
@humanistheart : We're not slaves either. Slaves have no choice whether they serve their master or not. God gives us the choice to follow Him or reject Him. Morality DOES factor in (faith without works is dead), but our morality alone doesn't save us (by grace you have been saved).
@SummerSunshine1988 "Slaves have no choice whether they serve their master or not"
Which is the situation you describe. If you don't serve, you have horrible alternatives. Slaves cannot own property, they are property, which is what YOU are arguing.
"Morality DOES factor in " Nothing you've described thus far is moral.
aint hard to point out faults in religion. the most fascinating thing i find about religion is that it still exists to the scale it does in todays modern world.
God didn't kill himself AZ, man killed him. But God, knowing that the only way he could save mankind and take back the keys from Satan, was to allow man to crucify Him, because He is the only one who was holy/rightous enough to have the power to do it, to overcome death, to be raised from the dead, which then became a testimoney to the Gentiles of the Messiah. (The Jews didn't recognize Him as the Messiah, and still don't. They're still waiting.) Try asking GOD to reveal truth to you, Blessings
@ubuyused "But God, knowing that the only way he could save mankind and take back the keys from Satan,"
Why would this god have made it that way in the first place? You make it sound as if he's doing a favor, but if your version were true, he set those rules in the first place. Why would he make blood the key to paradise? You don't see anything inherently contradictory in this?
@humanistheart Salvation is not a favor, it is a gift. God made it that way b/c Adam, Gods creation was given the keys to the earth, fully knowing he had this huge responsibility. But Adam allowed Eve to convince him to go against what God strictly forbid, eating from the tree of knowledge of good & evil, and thats where the blood sacrifice came to be. Now man had to make sacrifices to cover up their sins so that they could have a relationship with God.
@humanistheart Are you kidding me ??("he fulfilled no messianic prophecies") What Bible did you read from, or have you read it? There is absolutely no question that throughout the Old Testament books of that multiple prophesies foretold His coming, also forgetting not to mention John the Baptist. All Biblical prophecy has come to pass, other than that which is to come, of which is soon to come to pass. I pray God will bless you with truth my friend. Ask & ye shall receive, seek & ye shall find.
@ubuyused The world was not brought to world piece, the world does not follow torah, in fact his followers ignore torah as they think it no longer applies, John the baptist was not Elijah so o prophecy fulfilled there, he fulfilled NO messianic prophecies. No more than me or you.
Because the guy next to JC is not GOD in the flesh. He's just a man, a thief to be exact, who had an opportunity to have his sins forgiven and accept JESUS as his savior, but chose to not accept the gift of salvation and now he resides in hell. Do I think his death trumps JC. I think absolutely not. Satan had dominion over the earth after the Eden incident. Jesus took back the keys of hades and death and overcame them. Which means everlasting life for us after physical death. Glory to the Lord
@xquse18 Sin is nothing more than what one fictional being doesn't like, and in the bibles he changes his mind constantly. Sin has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has no objective bases, or any bases, thus it's meaningless.
@humanistheart When you say or feel something is wrong it always have bad results also that means what you feel is wrong is wrong and wrong doing constantly, knowing that it is wrong, than it is a sin which can do you no good. Why are you confusing yourself with simple right or wrong or why are you defending the word sin?
@xquse18 No, wrong used in an ethical context has meaning. What I'm saying is that sin is not comparable to wrong. Wrong has a bases, sin does not. Sin is merely based on what people think a fictional being doesn't like at the moment. That's not real, it has no meaning.
that was a bad question, and it hurts my head that you would ask it. perhaps i'd be more patient if i felt you were asking out of curiosity and not as a means to try to debunk facts, but as it remains, my head hurts and i'm a little frustrated you'd ask bad questions.
In response to the Video: I am a Christian. Not a very tough question at all. The main difference between Jesus and the two others on the crosses next to Him was that Jesus was 100% innocent. Second, we do not know what it is like to have the weight of all the sin of the world being put on you in death. All the blame went to Jesus. Could you imagine, if God is real and Jesus truly is who He said He was, what that would be like? Any thoughts?
@ParadigmShifter29 "Jesus was 100% innocent. " No, in the biblical stories jesus actual broke several laws. He stole, attacked others physically, broke the law about not killing fruit bearing tree's and so on. That's not innocent.
@humanistheart - Really? Jesus stole? What did He steal? And can you give me the verse in which tells us about the "law of not killing fruit bearing trees"? Oh and finally, where exactly does history show us that Jesus physically attacked another person? Lots of question marks I know but necessary with bold claims.
@ParadigmShifter29 "Oh and finally, where exactly does history show us that Jesus physically attacked another person?" History doesn't show that. History can't even truly confirm a figure named Jesus actually existed, but given the limited evidence most historians accept that there is a man behind the myth, we just don't know anything about him. However if you'll recall, he made a whip of cords and drove money changers out of the temple. That is a physical assault.
@humanistheart - History gives more evidence for Jesus Christ than it does for any other ancient figure. What exactly is needed to confirm the existence of a historical figure? Compare Alexander the Great. Both Jesus and Alexander have a lot written about them. It is ignorant to believe either one of these historical people did not exist. What Jesus did to cleanse the temple was justified. He acted decisively and with strength in order to be heard and justified. Cont.
@ParadigmShifter29 "History gives more evidence for Jesus Christ than it does for any other ancient figure."
A blatanetly false statement. Alexander had a plethora of historians, inside his kingdom and outside write of him, in his own lifetime and after. Jesus had one, outside of Israel, decades after his lifetime. But you missed the point, while it's generally accepted that a historical figure was probably behind the Jesus myth, we know nothing of the actual man, save for he was jewish.
@humanistheart - And likewise, we have thousands of manuscripts written about Jesus, disregarding the prophetic writtings in the Old Testament. Not a false statement. Jesus had a number of writers, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. From your last statement, it appears you do not take the Bible as historical? A collection of writtings that tell us all about Jesus (New Testament) and the coming Messiah (Old Testament). And....we still know nothing?
@ParadigmShifter29 Numerous problems wiht claiming there are thousandds of manuscripts. First of all, these are not written by known historians, we have no authors. Second they're all copies of a small amount of them. They were all written after his lifetime, and from what we can tell all from people who believed in him as a god, or at least a christ. They miss every mark of being historical by every criteria.
@humanistheart Yes, they had authors. And today they are ascribed to the individuals that wrote them. Evidence led to name each author of each letter and book. Yes, not all the authors are 100% confirmed, but those of the past, and todays scholars agree on authorship of most works. The works had to have been written after the life of Jesus as that is when the full story took shape. And it makes perfect sense that those who believed were those who wrote. What does it take for it to be historic?
@ParadigmShifter29 Again, most of the manuscripts you're referencing are merely copies. As for the authors, we don't know who wrote them.
"Evidence led to name each author of each letter and book. " Oh, please provide said evidence then. I minored in Rel Studies, including a class specific to the biblical jesus and no such attributions were given, so I'll be quite curious to see your proof of this.
@humanistheart - Yes they are copies, but meticulous copies that did not change. Each author was determined by those of the past and confirmed by the stories they tell. The authors were attributed to their works by the early church who were in better position to do so. Also, intimate details were known by each author and style, purpose and time frame lead scholars to confirm authorship. I am sure all of the countless hours you had studying the Bible it was easy for you to deny its message.
@ParadigmShifter29 A) there are several small changes, and there are pieces missing in many of them B) you accept they are copies so you must admit having copies of the same authors does not, regardless of how many copies, does not go with your claim of multiple evidence for jesus.
@humanistheart - Small grammar changes which would be typical as languages do not stay the same over time. I easily admit we have copies as the material they were written on did not last very long. I would be suspicious if we had every single original. Having copies of the originals does not invalidate their accuracy as proven with the Dead Sea scrolls. Seriously, think of the event as a whole. Than think of how it has effected history. If something that momentous truly did happen.....
@ParadigmShifter29 "Small grammar changes which would be typical as languages do not stay the same over time." Small word changes as well. You claimed they were meticulous and unchanged, which had nothing to do with anything but I pointed out that was not true. Now it would seem you knew very well that was not the case when you made that claim.
"I would be suspicious if we had every single original. " We don't have a single original.
@humanistheart - We make word changes today as well. Because language is not straight forward. Especially, as an example, from Greek to English. No matter which translation you learn from, the message is the same. There may be slight variations but deeper insight can be gathered by the original/latest writtings. Yes we do not have one original....yet. They likey did not survive but I am extremely confident in their accuracy with which they have proven over time.
@ParadigmShifter29 "We make word changes today as well. Because language is not straight forward" W'ere not merely talking of lingual drift, but of actual different words.
"Yes we do not have one original.." Well that will come as quite a shock to historians. By all means list this 'original' then.
@humanistheart - For starters. Papias, a pupil of John, and one of the early church fathers, accepted the work of the Book of Matthew as being written by Matthew. Look it up. The titles of each book were not simple guesses. In the cases that the author does not mention himself, based on evidence did the book receive its name.
@ParadigmShifter29 "Papias, a pupil of John, and one of the early church fathers, accepted the work of the Book of Matthew as being written by Matthew"
Yet no historians attribute any of the gospels to their titles. They were merely named after disciples, not written or passed down by them.
@humanistheart Your claim is purly speculation with no proof of your own. Papias, who lived during these times regarded Matthew as being written by Matthew. Being a pupil of John, I think it would be foolish for him to put his faith in something he may have cast doubts upon. If they were truly named after disciples we would not even question who Mark actually is. Or any other type of authorship. If it all is a fraud everything would be straight forward. Do you not see?
@ParadigmShifter29 First of all, Papias didn't write until the second century, so what your bases for thinking he lived the time Mathew was written I don't know. But either way, I don't care what Papias thought, modern historians do not attribute any of the gospels to any disciples of jesus. There is no reason to, and a lot of reasons not to, reasons you have not been able to bring a claim against.
@humanistheart I does not matter what time in his life he wrote. Papias even wrote that he asked of what each elder said. Papias lived in the time when the disciples of Christ were passing on the knowledge that they had received. He was in a perfect position to determine authorship of certain works as he was in the midst of the beginning of the church and the persecution. Some modern historians my friend. Many, many other scholars do find accuracy in authorship. Proof enough.
@humanistheart - Because Papias was a part if history. God back to your original comment on the matter. You wanted outside proof of outside sources that knew the historical authors. Among other early church historical people. Remember what we are talking about. Papias has no need to outfule other historians as his testimony of history has no adversary.
So was hitler, so what? Bottom line, you have yet to provide anything of validity to back up your claim that the names given to the 4 main gospels were somehow written by the disciples from which they take their name.
@humanistheart - I have already given strong evidence. You claim the authorship of the gospels was not given to the gospels until decades after they were written. So, as an example, I showed you, Papias who was a pupil of John (a gospel writer), accepted Matthew as being written by Matthew. He also quotes from Luke. That type of evidence, from a man who lived during those times, is valid enough.
@ParadigmShifter29 Yes, and by all rights Papias didn't write until the 2nd century, but mathey was written in the 1st century. That is decades later, as I said.
@humanistheart Haha, you dont get it. Lets say Matthew wrote his Gospel around 60 AD. I dont know the actual date. His Gospel probebly began to circulate for about 20 years as more and more believers gathered todether the writtings of the apostles and disciples. At the same time, Papias is learning from John and in an adult age say 120 AD, Papias began his writtings. I think that date is pretty close. So, yes, the writtings would be from different decades, but written in typical lengths of time.
@ParadigmShifter29 Even if that were the case, it's still decades later, as I said. Which you objected to. And again, we don't know who the author is. 'mathew' didn't write anything.
@humanistheart - You make it seem like it was so much later, but no. It would be no different in this day and age to write and circulate works decades after we have gathered information. I objected to you thinking it was odd for Papias to write when he did. On the surface, we do not know Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew, but based on evidence, original authenticity, and history, are we fully persuaded that Matthew did indeed write Matthew. You hold your opinion with no evidence for it.
@humanistheart - "No, all that was 'collected' were the myths of jesus. No facts." So tell me, how exactly, IF what Jesus did actually happened, how do you suppose the evidence be collected? "That is a bold face lie. You have no evidence, no history to support that." On the contrary my friend. I have given you examples of the earliest followers who accepted Matthew of writing Matthew. Papias, Clement, Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, ect who all attest to the authorship. You give nothing.
@humanistheart - "But no facts. So you have one person who was dumb enough to think that" Are you still serious? We have numerous ancient figures who lived during this time and who knew the original apostles (think about that for a moment) and they attest the the authorship of at least the Book of Matthew. The Book of John already gives its identity and the Book of Luke is discernible and often quoted in the early years of the church. Not just "one person", but many as history requires.
@ParadigmShifter29 No, you do not. You have listed one person, who did not know any disciples, who somehow came to believe the popular gospels that were chosen reflected their namesakes.
@humanistheart - "No, you do not." I gave you a good list of people in one of the previous comments. Papias is one of them. Others include, Clement and Polycarp. They "came to believe" because it was readily apparent. Like you know the author of Harry Potter.
@ParadigmShifter29 "The works had to have been written after the life of Jesus as that is when the full story took shape" Perhaps the gospels, but to have not one single historian or other source write in his lifetime hardly qualifies him under genuine historical status like your example of Alexander the Great. And without writing anything in ones lifetime it assures that no 1st person, or in all likeliness even 2nd hand perspectives get written down. Just myths.
@humanistheart Not true. What we have today, mainly the Gospels, the results of ancient people writing about what they had observed. For as much information that is written about the life of Jesus, it is plausible to think the disciples who wrote the Gospels actually wrote down the things they witnessed and latter assembled them into their books and letters. We have four separate accounts of the same time period. I do not see how you disregard this information.
@ParadigmShifter29 "Not true. What we have today, mainly the Gospels, the results of ancient people writing about what they had observed"
Very wrong. We have no reason to think any of the authors were 1st, or even second hand accounts. There is no use of the word I, we, us, or anything that suggests the authors were present. And given how late they were written it would be implausible that any of the disciples, if they existed at all, were still alive for several reasons.
@humanistheart - Are you serious?? The intimate details that were recoded in these 4 gospels indicate 1st hand experience. They were written in the course of history when they were supposed to be written. You are being deliberately close minded. As if you witnessed the events for yourself. Ex. John identifies himself at the end of his book and simply because he does not say "I" or "we" does not mean the book us unauthentic. It actually shows humbleness. Keeping the authors out of the focus.
@ParadigmShifter29 "The intimate details that were recoded in these 4 gospels indicate 1st hand experience. "
No, not one single firsts hand account is given. No use of I, no we us or any other inclusive language. And there are things like the birth narratives that none of the disciples would have been there to witness anyway. As well as things like jesus' supposed conversation with Pilate. No disciples were there either.
Nor does it matter, as none of them are historical references.
@humanistheart - Do you not think that others would have contributed to the gathering of information? Mary would have told about her birth, Jesus would have told about His conversations. These people were not belligerently dumb. Notes would have been taken and factual event would have been recorded in order to spread the word. And my explanation does not even involve the concept of the Holy Spirit.
@ParadigmShifter29 "We have four separate accounts of the same time period. I do not see how you disregard this information."
Actually the synotics used similar source information, look up Q, and some argue L. That's hardly separate. Additionally, they conflict with each other. Also, these aren't historical sources as we've already covered.
@humanistheart - First, I do not agree with the letter soup interpretation. Second, the gospels do not disagree and do not conflict. They represent 4 separate accounts of the same story. They are more validated than most historical events and figures. What is it to you? Obviously you do not find the Bible worthwhile. Why do you preach against it on Youtube?
@ParadigmShifter29 "Second, the gospels do not disagree and do not conflict. " One has jesus born in a manger, another a house. One has wise men/kings, another has shepherds. Two have conflicting genealogies. What of Luke 7:3 and Matthew 8:5-7. The former has a centurion sending elders on his servants behalf, the ladder has him coming himself. They contradict themselves left and right. I can give you a long, long list of contradictions if you'd like.
@humanistheart - Do you want serious answers to your "contradictions" or will it even make a difference. The Gospels record the events as a whole but from different angles. All the events described actually happened but sometimes their viewpoint or timeline is different. If one Gospel got its info from another, the events and story would be identical. The differences encourage authenticity. I encourage you not to be so linear when reading but think as if 4 people were telling the same story.
@ParadigmShifter29 "The Gospels record the events as a whole but from different angles."
Different angels would give different perspectives, not contradictory details. YOU claimed there were no contradictions, obviously that's not the case.
@humanistheart - That is exactly what we see. Different perspectives. We can start with your greatest contradiction if you want. But I assure you, your "contradiction" reflects my last statement. There certainly are no falsifying contradictions. Please feel free to post your best. We can go through it step by step.
@humanistheart - It is you who has a problem with the gospels, so please which one of the above? How about the manger and the house. If you do some research you will find serveral very good explanations for the differences. The manger was located on the lower floor of the ancestral house of David, also where many poorer families kept their animals. So yes, both stories are accurate describing the same event but with different details.
@ParadigmShifter29 How does your head not explode from cognitive dissonance. One has them already living outside of Nazareth. One has them having to travel there because of a census we know didn't happen. One has a manger, one has a house. These are irreconcilable differences. Deal with it.
@humanistheart - I do not have to deal with what you do not understand. If you actually do research and study the history, the passage and the religious customs of Joseph and Mary you will understand their travels actually fit together perfectly. You lead your thinking with assumptions and conclude in contradiction. It is false to learn that way. The census has been debated for centuries. That alone is a long drawn out debate but I would be happy to if you would like. Please give me the passages
You already know I'm more educated on the topic than you, so by what grounds do you say that?
"The census has been debated for centuries."
We know it didn't happen. No cencus in roman history required people to go back to the town of their ancestors. That would be stupid. The point was to find out who lived where.
@humanistheart Based on ignorant comments. No offence... but what you have issues with, most others do not. No, the cencus most likely did happen as prescribed in the Bible. So you intend to tell me you know exactly the purpose of a census that would occur in those times AND everything the Roman government did was not "stupid"?? Correct, the point was to find who lived where. And people going back to the place they were from would not seem odd, especially if property was owned and ...Cont.
@humanistheart - I first and foremost use common sense. Do you really think the Luke, the author of the Book of Luke, would include a detail like a census without actually thinking the Romans would not have recorded a census? Also, common sense tells me everyone would go back to their family home, because, as a home owner, I would think the census would record property ownership. The Roman census would determine future taxes. Why would a family want to pay more tax?
@ParadigmShifter29 We know of no census that ever worked the way as described in the birth narratives. We have hundreds of years worth of them, not one ever went that way. And no, you don't use common sense. There is no sense in taking a census that way, they are designed to let people know the population status of the lands under their control. It's not much different from our own population census' of today. There is no benefit to your version.
@humanistheart "There is no benefit to your version"Exactly. Use common sense and then look up the type of information the Romans recorded during a census. Look it up. This explains why Joseph would want to return to his origin. In addition, as history is recorded, it is highly probable the Romans took a census in this area, if anything, a registration for the future census. Look up what was happening between Herod and Ceasar Augustus. You seem to be in denial of a plausible explanation.
@humanistheart -"So you admit your version, the biblical version, had no benifiet and you still maintain it true" Not quite. "I suggest you take your own advice." - I truly have. Look at what Josephus recorded regarding Quirinius and the second census. He, "was given the task of assessing property in Judea". I think assessing property is a little more than a head count. Also, the census of 48AD records the people returning to their homeland, also in 104AD. There is a lot of evidence my friend.
@ParadigmShifter29 Property had nothing to do with the fictional biblical cencus we're discussing. As for the 48AD cencus, the date should be a clue that's not in relation to the biblical account.
"Also, the census of 48AD records the people returning to their homeland" Prove it. From what I know, people were required to travel to their homes, the ones the CURRENTLY LIVED IN, not the town some ancestor used to live in. You have NOTHING.
@humanistheart - Where is your proof that property was not involved. I gave you a quote from history and you try to shrug it off. I will post a quote from the census of 48AD. You have to argue against history, not me.
@humanistheart "I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me.... In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."
@humanistheart Cont. ...and especially if that house or property was part of the family inheritance. They would want to be registered with their familes. Seriously, look deeper into the history in that time and think as if their world was just like ours. Nothing is straight forward and typically everything has a motive behind it.
@ParadigmShifter29 "What does it take for it to be historic?" There are several factors historians look for in ancient writing. How long after an event occurs before being written about, who wrote it ie were they impartial, is it a 1st 2nd 3rd hand account and so on, and there's another big one... although I can't recall it at the moment. At any rate the biblical works fail all those qualifications.
Also I notice you have yet to address the other 7 or 8 posts. Can I take this to mean you've...
@humanistheart - The Bible completes all of the requirements. The gospels were written when they were supposed to written. The authors wrote what they observed. The disciples first hand experienced the actions of Jesus. And since you cannot recall the last qualification, it seems even more ridiculous you discredit the Bible.
@ParadigmShifter29 The authors wrote outside jesus' lifetime, they were not 1st or 2nd hand accounts, they are not impartial but written by people who thought they were writing about a messiah/god. There are no historians from the so called life of jesus that wrote of him. They are in no way historical.
@humanistheart - Yes, they wrote the story of Jesus once the full story was able to be preached and told. John and Matthew were first hand accounts of the life of Jesus. Too many details are present that the ordinary follower would not be aware of. There were other historians such as Josephus, that wrote about Jesus. Although some of his comments as suspect, there are some that are accepted as authentic.
@ParadigmShifter29 "John and Matthew were first hand accounts of the life of Jesus. " According to you, but you have no historical evidence of that, you have no sources to back it up, and the gospels themselves do not claim it or give any indication of it.
@humanistheart - But they do. John tells us he was the author. Matthew leaves straight forward clues as he is the author. Each book gives evidence to the other. Think of each letter and book as historcal artifacts, found and authenticated and brought together to tell of the greatest story of mankind. I do not see how these writtings are not evidence to you. If any other writting in archeology is found, it would be regarded as a historical artifact. But the Bible does not receive the same.
@ParadigmShifter29 No, the author of john does not claim to be the disciple john. If you think otherwise, by all means provide the quote.
What don't you get about this? There is no reason historicailly or biblically to think the disciples of jesus, most of which have no historical evidence for themselves either, wrote the gospels. The gospel writers never claimed to be disciples, the actual attribution of the names didn't come for decades after they are written.
@humanistheart - Try John 21:24. But you will have to read the previous verses. I understand your approach, but, there are reasons, historically, that the authors of the gospels are authentic or we would have made the correction. The authors also were attributed from the earliest followers to each gospel and that is the main reason I find them accurate. You have not proof they were only given authorship decades after being written. But there is proof based on early church fathers.
@ParadigmShifter29 No, there is not one once of proof that the disciples, most of which have no historical evidence for even existing, wrote the gospels. I have provided you point after point after point, and all you can so is 'no, they were written by them!'
@humanistheart - Absurd. I have just given you proof. The very last comment is proof that cant be denied. You simply restated your opinion. Show me what your proof is. The very fact that you have heard about Jesus, about John, Matthew is a part of the evidence that these event actually did occur. All of the letters and books in the Bible are evidence. They have not been disproven. Many have drawn their own speculation but it is 2011 and they still provide details of the ancient.
@humanistheart If you insist: John 21:24 denotes authorship, Papias denotes authenticity, I posted a commentary on the greek translation of the season of the figs, discussed fig tree harvest and fruit ripening times, gave you geographical reference for the demon possession case, gave you Old Testament connection to Jesus cleansing the temple, gave you ethical responses using Matthew as reference, ect. Harry Potter can easily be dis-proven. And also is widely accepted as fiction.
@ParadigmShifter29 And no scholars of the bibles or history think so. Again, who is Papias that I should care when there are educated people who say otherwise? Particularly when they have evidence and Papias does not?
"ave you geographical reference for the demon possession case, " Which I addressed and you never responded to.
"gave you Old Testament connection to Jesus cleansing the temple" You did no such thing.
"gave you ethical responses" No such thing in christianity.
@humanistheart - Papias is a part of history and we have historical documents written by him. You put so much emphasis on historicity and its definition but only pick and choose what you want to be part of history. There are a lot of educated people who believe the Bible is true and who do not. Papias is evidence. You "educated people" mostly speculate and form opinions based on what they have decided in their heart. "OT" Yes I did, Jesus quotes it. Then I asked you a ? you did not respond to.
@ParadigmShifter29 "There are a lot of educated people who believe the Bible is true and who do not. "
No, statistically, the more education you have the less likely you are to hold religious/superstitious beliefs. Even those who are christians who study history accept that the gospels were not written by their namesakes. That is well established.
@humanistheart - "That is well established." - Well I have some unsettling news for you. I am well educated and I believe the gospels were written by their namesake. Can you provide me some numbers? I understand the current trend. But I can present a very plausible defense of the Bible as it exists. What it truly comes down to is faith. The decision to believe or not.
@humanistheart "You have provided ZERO evidence to support that assertion." Really? I have given you a simple background of my education....did you read it? "You certainly haven't so far. When were you planning to start?" I think I have, hence the joking comment. That usually follows denial of what is obvious. You still have not given me a strong argument against the Gospels. Please feel free.....or else this conversation is finished.
@humanistheart - "You have no education and lying about that wont change it." Haha. You think I am lying? Wow. "assertions with fact." - I have given you all the facts that are required. I have given you passages, lined with historical figures, quotes and dates. You on the other hand continue to provide unreferenced opinion.
@ParadigmShifter29 You have provided no relevant facts, claiming otherwise will not make it true. You only have your opinion, you have not given anything relevant or of substance and I grow tired of your lies.
@humanistheart - "I grow tired of your lies." It is absurd for you to think I am lying. I have given you facts, quotes, people, passages and dates to back up everything I say. You have given me nothing. I strongly encourage you to re-think your opinion of something you dont clearly understand. You have yet to argue against early Biblical authenticity, census quotes and figures and assessment of land. Do you know what the assessment of land does? Even today?
@humanistheart "What don't you get about that?" We started the conversation if you remember, discussing the existence of Jesus and the authenticity of the Bible. You claimed there was zero evidence for both Jesus and the authorship of the Gospels. I provided an example of an outside source of an individual, recorded in history, that not only lived during the life of John, but was his pupil. This is an example of evidence contrary to your viewpoint. You have given nothing to refute this claim.
@ParadigmShifter29 No if you go back to what is currently page 21 on here, you'll see this: ""Jesus was 100% innocent. " No, in the biblical stories jesus actual broke several laws. He stole, attacked others physically, broke the law about not killing fruit bearing tree's and so on. That's not innocent. ""
We started by discussing how jesus was not a particularly good man. You defending his theft, physical assaults, verbal abuse of freinds, breaking the law, and so on.
@humanistheart -"No if you go back to what is currently page 21" If you want to go back to the beginning of all of our conversations, than yes, that is what we talked about. And Yes, I completely showed you why each of your "offenses" are not offenses at all. Jesus was more than justified to do each act you listed. We can go through it step by step again if you would like. But I have a feeling you wont listen.
@ParadigmShifter29 You said the beginning of our conversation, that was the beginning.
And no, you completely failed to defend your false Christs actions. Just as you make pathetic attempts to defend your personal belief that the biblical disciples, fictional characters, actually wrote the book their in. It's like claiming Voldermort wrote the harry potter series. You just live in your own little world don't you?
@humanistheart "You said the beginning of our conversation, that was the beginning." I was refering to the conversation regarding the authorship of the gospels. I am sorry if you got confused. "You just live in your own little world don't you?" Your comment is somewhat amusing. Please, have someone peer review your argument against Jesus with your offenses. I hardly think your accusations would stand in a court of law. Honeslty, I really think you need to think over what you believe to be true.
@ParadigmShifter29 You were then given a list of qualifications for something to be considered historical. It was pointed out, among several requirements, the impartiality of a source is considered. Someone who believes their writing about a god is not impartial, in any way. Nor is anything you've given support of a historical jesus, at best merely the fictional biblical jesus.
@humanistheart Ok, so if you do not accepted personal accounts of the life of Jesus by those who lived during those times, and you do not accept the authenticity of pupils of those who knew Jesus, than you must be seeking some sort of recorded history of someone who did not like/beleive Jesus or what He taught. Here is a good example: Tacitus. One of the greatest historians of Rome. Wrote of the life of Jesus and His effect on the people. Thus Nero blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians.
@ParadigmShifter29 The one individual you listed did not live in the supposed time of jesus. If you have to lie to try to make a point, it's false. No author of any of the now biblical works ever met jesus, or anyone who knew him. Again, If you have to lie to try to make a point, it's false.
"Here is a good example: Tacitus. One of the greatest historians of Rome. Wrote of the life of Jesus "
He made a few comments toward jesus, and long after he was dead.
@humanistheart - I am not lying. I have listed Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. All supposed authors of the gospels, all lived and breathed during the life of Jesus. What John not an apostle? Was Matthew not chosen by Jesus? Where is the lie? "He made a few comments toward jesus..." So are you denying this bit of evidence toward the life of Jesus. Yes, Tacitus as a historian. Thats what historians do, they write of the past and the present as is passes.
The guy next to him did not go through the same thing as Jesus did. fact. look into this a little bit more before youtubing a video. you sound like you didn't do any research. this is probably your opinion from "stuff you heard" as opposed to actually researching it. "seek and ye will find".
MrKuklinski11 3 weeks ago
You know what sacrifice means, do you? :D You know the difference between sacrifice and punishment :D
orcusdei 1 month ago
Jesus didn't go to Hell to be tortured. He went to Hell to take the keys away from Satan. He was tortured before He was put on the cross, by the beating and the crown of thorns and being spit on and such. The thief on the cross wasn't sacrificing anything for anyone. He was being punished for his crimes. Jesus was blameless and sacrificing Himself for the world.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 You know, biblically it says he told the theft he'd be in heaven with him that very day. So what, he made a detour to hell first? lol
Jesus was blameless? So steeling, attacking others, breaking the law is blamess? In that case I'm perfect, why not worship me?
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : Show me where Jesus stole and attacked??
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 See jesus and the legion, with 2000 pigs, and see his attacks in the temple. I can provide you the passages if your not familiar with the christian NT.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : Ah, you mean when Jesus turned over the tables in the temple. That's not really attacking anybody, though. That's just making a mess because the people were using the temple improperly.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 You ignored the example of thieving, however no, he made a whip of cords, that's violence.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : I don't remember Jesus ever stealing anything, but I'll go back and look that up. And if you go back and read the story in the Bible about Jesus in the temple, you'll notice that He never actually slugged anybody with said whip.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 It's true it doesn't say he hit anyone with the whip, but you don't leave your money and property and flee if you're not scared. I doubt just holding it would do that, would you? I wouldn't, at the very least it's the threat of violence, which is not much better. As for steeling, look up the casting out of demons, legion, into pigs. Jesus didn't own those pigs, nor did he have permission.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : That's the thing about Jesus. He says jump, you JUMP.
As for the pigs, the spirits that inhabited them weren't instructed to take them off of a cliff. They did that on their own. If anything, the demons stole the pigs.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 "That's the thing about Jesus. He says jump, you JUMP."
That's not okay.
The demons entered the pigs at jesus' allowance, thus he stole them.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : Stealing means that you take something for your own use or possession. Jesus didn't take anything for His own use or possession. He cast out demons, and the demons went where they wanted to go.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 He cast the demons from a man to pigs, that's his own purposes.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : Jesus' purposes for the benefit of the men possessed by the demons. Stealing doesn't really benefit anybody unless the person doing the stealing gains something from it, which Jesus did not.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Stealing is stealing, no where in the definition does it say if you steal for others' than it's not stealing.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : For the last time, Jesus didn't steal anything. He cast the demons out of the men, and the demons took the pigs over the cliff. The demons could have chosen to make the pigs stay put.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 He cast them into the pigs, that HIM using the pigs without permission. Stop trying to excuse a thief.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : The demons wanted to go into the pigs. Even demons have free will.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 They asked to be cast into him, and jesus indulged them with someone else'' property. No wonder Christians have such poor morals, you excuse anything you want to.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : You don't really have the right to judge my morals. You don't even know me. You assume to know what my morals are simply based on the fact that I am a Christian.
How do you know Jesus didn't check with the owner? The Bible doesn't say either way.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 I know you're defending stealing. The bible doesn't exist, if you mean the gospels however, no, they don't say so now do they? It describes the event, and the answer is not involved, thus stealing.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : The Bible doesn't exist?????? That's funny, because I own one. I'm going to assume that's not what you meant, though.
Jesus checking with the owner is not mentioned one way or the other. However, seeing as how Jesus was perfect and pure enough to take on our own sins, it is safe to assume that He had none of His own, and therefore it is safe to assume that He never stole anything, and as such it is safe to assume that He first checked with the owner.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 You own a bible, not THE bible as you put it. A big difference there.
That's all you got, they don't mention the owner at all, so you assume he did? The story unfolds without any mention of an owner, thus he stole. If jesus had no 'sin' its because he's said to be god, and god does not apply any rules to himself, thus can do whatever he likes without it being sin. Sin isn't the same as wrong, it's a meaningless concept.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : If there is no owner, it's not stealing.
Sin is exactly the same thing as wrong, and you know it. God does apply rules to Himself. Whatever His word says He is, He is.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 They had an owner.
Wrong, he says not to kill, them commits numerous mass genocides, says not to steel, then steels. Etc. He does not apply his own rules, and their unethical, like requiring you to kill children who hit their parents, or killing homosexuals.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : Either way, there was no stealing involved. And I'm done explaining this particular point to you.
The penalty of sin is death. That applies to people who have homosexual sex, and to children to do not honor their parents. However, if you take the Bible as a whole, which you are obviously just bound and determined not to do, you'll see that Christ paid that penalty for us.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 No, using what is not ours without permission is steeling.
There is no christ, nor would that be ethical.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : Technically, this entire world belongs to God.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Lol, no, no it doesn't.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : His creation, His property.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 I own a painting. By your logic, the artist who painted it can come take it back any time, even though it's been sold as is legally mine. FAIL.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : That's different. Ownership of said painting was transferred. God never transferred ownership of the Earth to anybody. We are here on a loan.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 I never signed any loan papers, did you? Go ahead, try to make any legal or ethical argument for this 'god' of yours owning the planet, lol.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : You have a body, you "signed the loan papers".
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Was that supposed to make sense? You were born, so you signed papers? No one was given a choice of existence, if anything that's more like slavery or indentured servitude.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : When Satan was kicked out of Heaven, he took two thirds of the world with him. Those spirits didn't get bodies. You have a body. Therefore, you made the choice to exist.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 No part of that made sense. First of all, my understanding is that he took 'angels' with him, not people. Second, if you're talking from a mormon perspective, the spirit children had a choice to come to earth, but not to exist. You can't ask something that doesn't exist if it wants to start existing.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : You are right that you can't ask something that doesn't exist if it wants to exist. But I trust God to know what He's doing.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Trust or not, the fact is then you have to admit that there is no choice in existence, thus claiming this is a loan, is a false analogy.
I'm still not hearing anything that would imply ownership of the world by Yahweh.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : I already explained that to you. His creation, His property. Ownership was never handed to anyone else.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 We live here, he doesn't. We tend the earth, he doesn't. We exist, there's no evidence he does. We own it not him. And as we've already been over, even if you were right, that means we're just indentured servants, which is unethical. Witch makes your god evil.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : We do serve God (or we believers do, anyway), but we are not indentured servants. Indentured servants are such to pay off some kind of debt. That is not our situation.
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Then slaves. Think about it, you are arguing that Yahweh can take whatever he wants, because it's all his, and morality, right and wrong, doesn't factor in. It's a poor defense.
You have not given anything to suggest that he has any right to anything.
humanistheart 1 month ago
@humanistheart : We're not slaves either. Slaves have no choice whether they serve their master or not. God gives us the choice to follow Him or reject Him. Morality DOES factor in (faith without works is dead), but our morality alone doesn't save us (by grace you have been saved).
SummerSunshine1988 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SummerSunshine1988 "Slaves have no choice whether they serve their master or not"
Which is the situation you describe. If you don't serve, you have horrible alternatives. Slaves cannot own property, they are property, which is what YOU are arguing.
"Morality DOES factor in " Nothing you've described thus far is moral.
humanistheart 1 month ago
aint hard to point out faults in religion. the most fascinating thing i find about religion is that it still exists to the scale it does in todays modern world.
rabidninja 2 months ago
God didn't kill himself AZ, man killed him. But God, knowing that the only way he could save mankind and take back the keys from Satan, was to allow man to crucify Him, because He is the only one who was holy/rightous enough to have the power to do it, to overcome death, to be raised from the dead, which then became a testimoney to the Gentiles of the Messiah. (The Jews didn't recognize Him as the Messiah, and still don't. They're still waiting.) Try asking GOD to reveal truth to you, Blessings
ubuyused 2 months ago
@ubuyused "But God, knowing that the only way he could save mankind and take back the keys from Satan,"
Why would this god have made it that way in the first place? You make it sound as if he's doing a favor, but if your version were true, he set those rules in the first place. Why would he make blood the key to paradise? You don't see anything inherently contradictory in this?
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart Salvation is not a favor, it is a gift. God made it that way b/c Adam, Gods creation was given the keys to the earth, fully knowing he had this huge responsibility. But Adam allowed Eve to convince him to go against what God strictly forbid, eating from the tree of knowledge of good & evil, and thats where the blood sacrifice came to be. Now man had to make sacrifices to cover up their sins so that they could have a relationship with God.
ubuyused 2 months ago
@ubuyused A gift with strings attached is no gift at all.
humanistheart 2 months ago
@ubuyused "(The Jews didn't recognize Him as the Messiah, and still don't. They're still waiting.) "
And why would they when he fulfilled no messianic prophecies, much less all of them?
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart Are you kidding me ??("he fulfilled no messianic prophecies") What Bible did you read from, or have you read it? There is absolutely no question that throughout the Old Testament books of that multiple prophesies foretold His coming, also forgetting not to mention John the Baptist. All Biblical prophecy has come to pass, other than that which is to come, of which is soon to come to pass. I pray God will bless you with truth my friend. Ask & ye shall receive, seek & ye shall find.
ubuyused 2 months ago
@ubuyused The world was not brought to world piece, the world does not follow torah, in fact his followers ignore torah as they think it no longer applies, John the baptist was not Elijah so o prophecy fulfilled there, he fulfilled NO messianic prophecies. No more than me or you.
humanistheart 2 months ago
Because the guy next to JC is not GOD in the flesh. He's just a man, a thief to be exact, who had an opportunity to have his sins forgiven and accept JESUS as his savior, but chose to not accept the gift of salvation and now he resides in hell. Do I think his death trumps JC. I think absolutely not. Satan had dominion over the earth after the Eden incident. Jesus took back the keys of hades and death and overcame them. Which means everlasting life for us after physical death. Glory to the Lord
ubuyused 2 months ago
@ubuyused So, god kills himself incarnate and suddenly he gains the ability to get over people doing things he doesn't like? That hardly adds up.
humanistheart 2 months ago
Death for a good cause and death of a sinful person has two different destinations and different effects.
xquse18 3 months ago
@xquse18 Sinful person? I take it you don't realize how meaningless 'sin' is.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart i didnt understand what you mean to say by saying sin is meaningless?
xquse18 3 months ago
@xquse18 Sin is nothing more than what one fictional being doesn't like, and in the bibles he changes his mind constantly. Sin has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has no objective bases, or any bases, thus it's meaningless.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart When you say or feel something is wrong it always have bad results also that means what you feel is wrong is wrong and wrong doing constantly, knowing that it is wrong, than it is a sin which can do you no good. Why are you confusing yourself with simple right or wrong or why are you defending the word sin?
xquse18 3 months ago
@xquse18 You don't seem to have grasped it. Sin is a fictional concept with no meaning. Reread the previous post.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart O.K SO what are you really trying to say that no deed is wrong?Everything is right even if it is wrong?
xquse18 3 months ago
@xquse18 No, wrong used in an ethical context has meaning. What I'm saying is that sin is not comparable to wrong. Wrong has a bases, sin does not. Sin is merely based on what people think a fictional being doesn't like at the moment. That's not real, it has no meaning.
humanistheart 3 months ago
that was a bad question, and it hurts my head that you would ask it. perhaps i'd be more patient if i felt you were asking out of curiosity and not as a means to try to debunk facts, but as it remains, my head hurts and i'm a little frustrated you'd ask bad questions.
TerrenceTheodore 6 months ago
In response to the Video: I am a Christian. Not a very tough question at all. The main difference between Jesus and the two others on the crosses next to Him was that Jesus was 100% innocent. Second, we do not know what it is like to have the weight of all the sin of the world being put on you in death. All the blame went to Jesus. Could you imagine, if God is real and Jesus truly is who He said He was, what that would be like? Any thoughts?
ParadigmShifter29 6 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Jesus was 100% innocent. " No, in the biblical stories jesus actual broke several laws. He stole, attacked others physically, broke the law about not killing fruit bearing tree's and so on. That's not innocent.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Really? Jesus stole? What did He steal? And can you give me the verse in which tells us about the "law of not killing fruit bearing trees"? Oh and finally, where exactly does history show us that Jesus physically attacked another person? Lots of question marks I know but necessary with bold claims.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Oh and finally, where exactly does history show us that Jesus physically attacked another person?" History doesn't show that. History can't even truly confirm a figure named Jesus actually existed, but given the limited evidence most historians accept that there is a man behind the myth, we just don't know anything about him. However if you'll recall, he made a whip of cords and drove money changers out of the temple. That is a physical assault.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - History gives more evidence for Jesus Christ than it does for any other ancient figure. What exactly is needed to confirm the existence of a historical figure? Compare Alexander the Great. Both Jesus and Alexander have a lot written about them. It is ignorant to believe either one of these historical people did not exist. What Jesus did to cleanse the temple was justified. He acted decisively and with strength in order to be heard and justified. Cont.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "History gives more evidence for Jesus Christ than it does for any other ancient figure."
A blatanetly false statement. Alexander had a plethora of historians, inside his kingdom and outside write of him, in his own lifetime and after. Jesus had one, outside of Israel, decades after his lifetime. But you missed the point, while it's generally accepted that a historical figure was probably behind the Jesus myth, we know nothing of the actual man, save for he was jewish.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - And likewise, we have thousands of manuscripts written about Jesus, disregarding the prophetic writtings in the Old Testament. Not a false statement. Jesus had a number of writers, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. From your last statement, it appears you do not take the Bible as historical? A collection of writtings that tell us all about Jesus (New Testament) and the coming Messiah (Old Testament). And....we still know nothing?
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 Numerous problems wiht claiming there are thousandds of manuscripts. First of all, these are not written by known historians, we have no authors. Second they're all copies of a small amount of them. They were all written after his lifetime, and from what we can tell all from people who believed in him as a god, or at least a christ. They miss every mark of being historical by every criteria.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart Yes, they had authors. And today they are ascribed to the individuals that wrote them. Evidence led to name each author of each letter and book. Yes, not all the authors are 100% confirmed, but those of the past, and todays scholars agree on authorship of most works. The works had to have been written after the life of Jesus as that is when the full story took shape. And it makes perfect sense that those who believed were those who wrote. What does it take for it to be historic?
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 Again, most of the manuscripts you're referencing are merely copies. As for the authors, we don't know who wrote them.
"Evidence led to name each author of each letter and book. " Oh, please provide said evidence then. I minored in Rel Studies, including a class specific to the biblical jesus and no such attributions were given, so I'll be quite curious to see your proof of this.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Yes they are copies, but meticulous copies that did not change. Each author was determined by those of the past and confirmed by the stories they tell. The authors were attributed to their works by the early church who were in better position to do so. Also, intimate details were known by each author and style, purpose and time frame lead scholars to confirm authorship. I am sure all of the countless hours you had studying the Bible it was easy for you to deny its message.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 A) there are several small changes, and there are pieces missing in many of them B) you accept they are copies so you must admit having copies of the same authors does not, regardless of how many copies, does not go with your claim of multiple evidence for jesus.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Small grammar changes which would be typical as languages do not stay the same over time. I easily admit we have copies as the material they were written on did not last very long. I would be suspicious if we had every single original. Having copies of the originals does not invalidate their accuracy as proven with the Dead Sea scrolls. Seriously, think of the event as a whole. Than think of how it has effected history. If something that momentous truly did happen.....
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Small grammar changes which would be typical as languages do not stay the same over time." Small word changes as well. You claimed they were meticulous and unchanged, which had nothing to do with anything but I pointed out that was not true. Now it would seem you knew very well that was not the case when you made that claim.
"I would be suspicious if we had every single original. " We don't have a single original.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - We make word changes today as well. Because language is not straight forward. Especially, as an example, from Greek to English. No matter which translation you learn from, the message is the same. There may be slight variations but deeper insight can be gathered by the original/latest writtings. Yes we do not have one original....yet. They likey did not survive but I am extremely confident in their accuracy with which they have proven over time.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ParadigmShifter29 "We make word changes today as well. Because language is not straight forward" W'ere not merely talking of lingual drift, but of actual different words.
"Yes we do not have one original.." Well that will come as quite a shock to historians. By all means list this 'original' then.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Yes different words that mean the same thing. It is all about translation. Give me an example if you are so confident.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Yes we do not have one original....yet."
Oops, my apologies, I misread this in the prior post, please disregard.
humanistheart 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ParadigmShifter29 "The authors were attributed to their works by the early church who were in better position to do so."
Again, give me some sources that actually claim to know the historical authors identity.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - For starters. Papias, a pupil of John, and one of the early church fathers, accepted the work of the Book of Matthew as being written by Matthew. Look it up. The titles of each book were not simple guesses. In the cases that the author does not mention himself, based on evidence did the book receive its name.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ParadigmShifter29 "Papias, a pupil of John, and one of the early church fathers, accepted the work of the Book of Matthew as being written by Matthew"
Yet no historians attribute any of the gospels to their titles. They were merely named after disciples, not written or passed down by them.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart Your claim is purly speculation with no proof of your own. Papias, who lived during these times regarded Matthew as being written by Matthew. Being a pupil of John, I think it would be foolish for him to put his faith in something he may have cast doubts upon. If they were truly named after disciples we would not even question who Mark actually is. Or any other type of authorship. If it all is a fraud everything would be straight forward. Do you not see?
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 First of all, Papias didn't write until the second century, so what your bases for thinking he lived the time Mathew was written I don't know. But either way, I don't care what Papias thought, modern historians do not attribute any of the gospels to any disciples of jesus. There is no reason to, and a lot of reasons not to, reasons you have not been able to bring a claim against.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart I does not matter what time in his life he wrote. Papias even wrote that he asked of what each elder said. Papias lived in the time when the disciples of Christ were passing on the knowledge that they had received. He was in a perfect position to determine authorship of certain works as he was in the midst of the beginning of the church and the persecution. Some modern historians my friend. Many, many other scholars do find accuracy in authorship. Proof enough.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Papias lived in the time when the disciples of Christ were passing on the knowledge that they had received."
Which would at best be third hand accounts, but what evidence do you have to support assertion? How does Papias outrule historians?
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Because Papias was a part if history. God back to your original comment on the matter. You wanted outside proof of outside sources that knew the historical authors. Among other early church historical people. Remember what we are talking about. Papias has no need to outfule other historians as his testimony of history has no adversary.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Because Papias was a part if history."
So was hitler, so what? Bottom line, you have yet to provide anything of validity to back up your claim that the names given to the 4 main gospels were somehow written by the disciples from which they take their name.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - I have already given strong evidence. You claim the authorship of the gospels was not given to the gospels until decades after they were written. So, as an example, I showed you, Papias who was a pupil of John (a gospel writer), accepted Matthew as being written by Matthew. He also quotes from Luke. That type of evidence, from a man who lived during those times, is valid enough.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 Yes, and by all rights Papias didn't write until the 2nd century, but mathey was written in the 1st century. That is decades later, as I said.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart Haha, you dont get it. Lets say Matthew wrote his Gospel around 60 AD. I dont know the actual date. His Gospel probebly began to circulate for about 20 years as more and more believers gathered todether the writtings of the apostles and disciples. At the same time, Papias is learning from John and in an adult age say 120 AD, Papias began his writtings. I think that date is pretty close. So, yes, the writtings would be from different decades, but written in typical lengths of time.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 Even if that were the case, it's still decades later, as I said. Which you objected to. And again, we don't know who the author is. 'mathew' didn't write anything.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - You make it seem like it was so much later, but no. It would be no different in this day and age to write and circulate works decades after we have gathered information. I objected to you thinking it was odd for Papias to write when he did. On the surface, we do not know Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew, but based on evidence, original authenticity, and history, are we fully persuaded that Matthew did indeed write Matthew. You hold your opinion with no evidence for it.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 No, all that was 'collected' were the myths of jesus. No facts.
"but based on evidence, original authenticity, and history," That is a bold face lie. You have no evidence, no history to support that.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - "No, all that was 'collected' were the myths of jesus. No facts." So tell me, how exactly, IF what Jesus did actually happened, how do you suppose the evidence be collected? "That is a bold face lie. You have no evidence, no history to support that." On the contrary my friend. I have given you examples of the earliest followers who accepted Matthew of writing Matthew. Papias, Clement, Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, ect who all attest to the authorship. You give nothing.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "I have given you examples of the earliest followers who accepted Matthew of writing Matthew"
But no facts. So you have one person who was dumb enough to think that, you still have no evidence it would be true.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - "But no facts. So you have one person who was dumb enough to think that" Are you still serious? We have numerous ancient figures who lived during this time and who knew the original apostles (think about that for a moment) and they attest the the authorship of at least the Book of Matthew. The Book of John already gives its identity and the Book of Luke is discernible and often quoted in the early years of the church. Not just "one person", but many as history requires.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 No, you do not. You have listed one person, who did not know any disciples, who somehow came to believe the popular gospels that were chosen reflected their namesakes.
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart - "No, you do not." I gave you a good list of people in one of the previous comments. Papias is one of them. Others include, Clement and Polycarp. They "came to believe" because it was readily apparent. Like you know the author of Harry Potter.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "The works had to have been written after the life of Jesus as that is when the full story took shape" Perhaps the gospels, but to have not one single historian or other source write in his lifetime hardly qualifies him under genuine historical status like your example of Alexander the Great. And without writing anything in ones lifetime it assures that no 1st person, or in all likeliness even 2nd hand perspectives get written down. Just myths.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart Not true. What we have today, mainly the Gospels, the results of ancient people writing about what they had observed. For as much information that is written about the life of Jesus, it is plausible to think the disciples who wrote the Gospels actually wrote down the things they witnessed and latter assembled them into their books and letters. We have four separate accounts of the same time period. I do not see how you disregard this information.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Not true. What we have today, mainly the Gospels, the results of ancient people writing about what they had observed"
Very wrong. We have no reason to think any of the authors were 1st, or even second hand accounts. There is no use of the word I, we, us, or anything that suggests the authors were present. And given how late they were written it would be implausible that any of the disciples, if they existed at all, were still alive for several reasons.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Are you serious?? The intimate details that were recoded in these 4 gospels indicate 1st hand experience. They were written in the course of history when they were supposed to be written. You are being deliberately close minded. As if you witnessed the events for yourself. Ex. John identifies himself at the end of his book and simply because he does not say "I" or "we" does not mean the book us unauthentic. It actually shows humbleness. Keeping the authors out of the focus.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "The intimate details that were recoded in these 4 gospels indicate 1st hand experience. "
No, not one single firsts hand account is given. No use of I, no we us or any other inclusive language. And there are things like the birth narratives that none of the disciples would have been there to witness anyway. As well as things like jesus' supposed conversation with Pilate. No disciples were there either.
Nor does it matter, as none of them are historical references.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Do you not think that others would have contributed to the gathering of information? Mary would have told about her birth, Jesus would have told about His conversations. These people were not belligerently dumb. Notes would have been taken and factual event would have been recorded in order to spread the word. And my explanation does not even involve the concept of the Holy Spirit.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "We have four separate accounts of the same time period. I do not see how you disregard this information."
Actually the synotics used similar source information, look up Q, and some argue L. That's hardly separate. Additionally, they conflict with each other. Also, these aren't historical sources as we've already covered.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - First, I do not agree with the letter soup interpretation. Second, the gospels do not disagree and do not conflict. They represent 4 separate accounts of the same story. They are more validated than most historical events and figures. What is it to you? Obviously you do not find the Bible worthwhile. Why do you preach against it on Youtube?
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Second, the gospels do not disagree and do not conflict. " One has jesus born in a manger, another a house. One has wise men/kings, another has shepherds. Two have conflicting genealogies. What of Luke 7:3 and Matthew 8:5-7. The former has a centurion sending elders on his servants behalf, the ladder has him coming himself. They contradict themselves left and right. I can give you a long, long list of contradictions if you'd like.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Do you want serious answers to your "contradictions" or will it even make a difference. The Gospels record the events as a whole but from different angles. All the events described actually happened but sometimes their viewpoint or timeline is different. If one Gospel got its info from another, the events and story would be identical. The differences encourage authenticity. I encourage you not to be so linear when reading but think as if 4 people were telling the same story.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "The Gospels record the events as a whole but from different angles."
Different angels would give different perspectives, not contradictory details. YOU claimed there were no contradictions, obviously that's not the case.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - That is exactly what we see. Different perspectives. We can start with your greatest contradiction if you want. But I assure you, your "contradiction" reflects my last statement. There certainly are no falsifying contradictions. Please feel free to post your best. We can go through it step by step.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 I've already given you a list of contradictions, feel free to start there.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - It is you who has a problem with the gospels, so please which one of the above? How about the manger and the house. If you do some research you will find serveral very good explanations for the differences. The manger was located on the lower floor of the ancestral house of David, also where many poorer families kept their animals. So yes, both stories are accurate describing the same event but with different details.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 How does your head not explode from cognitive dissonance. One has them already living outside of Nazareth. One has them having to travel there because of a census we know didn't happen. One has a manger, one has a house. These are irreconcilable differences. Deal with it.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - I do not have to deal with what you do not understand. If you actually do research and study the history, the passage and the religious customs of Joseph and Mary you will understand their travels actually fit together perfectly. You lead your thinking with assumptions and conclude in contradiction. It is false to learn that way. The census has been debated for centuries. That alone is a long drawn out debate but I would be happy to if you would like. Please give me the passages
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "If you actually do research and study the history,"
You already know I'm more educated on the topic than you, so by what grounds do you say that?
"The census has been debated for centuries."
We know it didn't happen. No cencus in roman history required people to go back to the town of their ancestors. That would be stupid. The point was to find out who lived where.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart Based on ignorant comments. No offence... but what you have issues with, most others do not. No, the cencus most likely did happen as prescribed in the Bible. So you intend to tell me you know exactly the purpose of a census that would occur in those times AND everything the Roman government did was not "stupid"?? Correct, the point was to find who lived where. And people going back to the place they were from would not seem odd, especially if property was owned and ...Cont.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "No, the cencus most likely did happen as prescribed in the Bible. "
By all means provide any evidence from actual history that any roman census worked that way.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - I first and foremost use common sense. Do you really think the Luke, the author of the Book of Luke, would include a detail like a census without actually thinking the Romans would not have recorded a census? Also, common sense tells me everyone would go back to their family home, because, as a home owner, I would think the census would record property ownership. The Roman census would determine future taxes. Why would a family want to pay more tax?
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 We know of no census that ever worked the way as described in the birth narratives. We have hundreds of years worth of them, not one ever went that way. And no, you don't use common sense. There is no sense in taking a census that way, they are designed to let people know the population status of the lands under their control. It's not much different from our own population census' of today. There is no benefit to your version.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart "There is no benefit to your version"Exactly. Use common sense and then look up the type of information the Romans recorded during a census. Look it up. This explains why Joseph would want to return to his origin. In addition, as history is recorded, it is highly probable the Romans took a census in this area, if anything, a registration for the future census. Look up what was happening between Herod and Ceasar Augustus. You seem to be in denial of a plausible explanation.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 ""There is no benefit to your version"Exactly."
So you admit your version, the biblical version, had no benifiet and you still maintain it true?
"then look up the type of information the Romans recorded during a census. "
I suggest you take your own advice. By all means find me one roman census that ever worked the way you believe in.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart -"So you admit your version, the biblical version, had no benifiet and you still maintain it true" Not quite. "I suggest you take your own advice." - I truly have. Look at what Josephus recorded regarding Quirinius and the second census. He, "was given the task of assessing property in Judea". I think assessing property is a little more than a head count. Also, the census of 48AD records the people returning to their homeland, also in 104AD. There is a lot of evidence my friend.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ParadigmShifter29 Property had nothing to do with the fictional biblical cencus we're discussing. As for the 48AD cencus, the date should be a clue that's not in relation to the biblical account.
"Also, the census of 48AD records the people returning to their homeland" Prove it. From what I know, people were required to travel to their homes, the ones the CURRENTLY LIVED IN, not the town some ancestor used to live in. You have NOTHING.
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart - Where is your proof that property was not involved. I gave you a quote from history and you try to shrug it off. I will post a quote from the census of 48AD. You have to argue against history, not me.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@humanistheart "I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me.... In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@humanistheart Cont. ...and especially if that house or property was part of the family inheritance. They would want to be registered with their familes. Seriously, look deeper into the history in that time and think as if their world was just like ours. Nothing is straight forward and typically everything has a motive behind it.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "What does it take for it to be historic?" There are several factors historians look for in ancient writing. How long after an event occurs before being written about, who wrote it ie were they impartial, is it a 1st 2nd 3rd hand account and so on, and there's another big one... although I can't recall it at the moment. At any rate the biblical works fail all those qualifications.
Also I notice you have yet to address the other 7 or 8 posts. Can I take this to mean you've...
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - The Bible completes all of the requirements. The gospels were written when they were supposed to written. The authors wrote what they observed. The disciples first hand experienced the actions of Jesus. And since you cannot recall the last qualification, it seems even more ridiculous you discredit the Bible.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 The authors wrote outside jesus' lifetime, they were not 1st or 2nd hand accounts, they are not impartial but written by people who thought they were writing about a messiah/god. There are no historians from the so called life of jesus that wrote of him. They are in no way historical.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Yes, they wrote the story of Jesus once the full story was able to be preached and told. John and Matthew were first hand accounts of the life of Jesus. Too many details are present that the ordinary follower would not be aware of. There were other historians such as Josephus, that wrote about Jesus. Although some of his comments as suspect, there are some that are accepted as authentic.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "John and Matthew were first hand accounts of the life of Jesus. " According to you, but you have no historical evidence of that, you have no sources to back it up, and the gospels themselves do not claim it or give any indication of it.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - But they do. John tells us he was the author. Matthew leaves straight forward clues as he is the author. Each book gives evidence to the other. Think of each letter and book as historcal artifacts, found and authenticated and brought together to tell of the greatest story of mankind. I do not see how these writtings are not evidence to you. If any other writting in archeology is found, it would be regarded as a historical artifact. But the Bible does not receive the same.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 No, the author of john does not claim to be the disciple john. If you think otherwise, by all means provide the quote.
What don't you get about this? There is no reason historicailly or biblically to think the disciples of jesus, most of which have no historical evidence for themselves either, wrote the gospels. The gospel writers never claimed to be disciples, the actual attribution of the names didn't come for decades after they are written.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Try John 21:24. But you will have to read the previous verses. I understand your approach, but, there are reasons, historically, that the authors of the gospels are authentic or we would have made the correction. The authors also were attributed from the earliest followers to each gospel and that is the main reason I find them accurate. You have not proof they were only given authorship decades after being written. But there is proof based on early church fathers.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 No, there is not one once of proof that the disciples, most of which have no historical evidence for even existing, wrote the gospels. I have provided you point after point after point, and all you can so is 'no, they were written by them!'
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Absurd. I have just given you proof. The very last comment is proof that cant be denied. You simply restated your opinion. Show me what your proof is. The very fact that you have heard about Jesus, about John, Matthew is a part of the evidence that these event actually did occur. All of the letters and books in the Bible are evidence. They have not been disproven. Many have drawn their own speculation but it is 2011 and they still provide details of the ancient.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 You have given nothing of substance, just your ignoarant opinion. Name two facts you've given that supports you
"Matthew is a part of the evidence that these event actually did occur"
By your logic, because you've heard of harry potter, those events must have occurred. Very bad logic..
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart If you insist: John 21:24 denotes authorship, Papias denotes authenticity, I posted a commentary on the greek translation of the season of the figs, discussed fig tree harvest and fruit ripening times, gave you geographical reference for the demon possession case, gave you Old Testament connection to Jesus cleansing the temple, gave you ethical responses using Matthew as reference, ect. Harry Potter can easily be dis-proven. And also is widely accepted as fiction.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 And no scholars of the bibles or history think so. Again, who is Papias that I should care when there are educated people who say otherwise? Particularly when they have evidence and Papias does not?
"ave you geographical reference for the demon possession case, " Which I addressed and you never responded to.
"gave you Old Testament connection to Jesus cleansing the temple" You did no such thing.
"gave you ethical responses" No such thing in christianity.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - Papias is a part of history and we have historical documents written by him. You put so much emphasis on historicity and its definition but only pick and choose what you want to be part of history. There are a lot of educated people who believe the Bible is true and who do not. Papias is evidence. You "educated people" mostly speculate and form opinions based on what they have decided in their heart. "OT" Yes I did, Jesus quotes it. Then I asked you a ? you did not respond to.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "There are a lot of educated people who believe the Bible is true and who do not. "
No, statistically, the more education you have the less likely you are to hold religious/superstitious beliefs. Even those who are christians who study history accept that the gospels were not written by their namesakes. That is well established.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - "That is well established." - Well I have some unsettling news for you. I am well educated and I believe the gospels were written by their namesake. Can you provide me some numbers? I understand the current trend. But I can present a very plausible defense of the Bible as it exists. What it truly comes down to is faith. The decision to believe or not.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 ". I am well educated " You have provided ZERO evidence to support that assertion.
"But I can present a very plausible defense of the Bible as it exists. "
You certainly haven't so far. When were you planning to start?
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart "You have provided ZERO evidence to support that assertion." Really? I have given you a simple background of my education....did you read it? "You certainly haven't so far. When were you planning to start?" I think I have, hence the joking comment. That usually follows denial of what is obvious. You still have not given me a strong argument against the Gospels. Please feel free.....or else this conversation is finished.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "I have given you a simple background of my education."
You have no education and lying about that wont change it. It's obvious from your inability to support your assertions with fact.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - "You have no education and lying about that wont change it." Haha. You think I am lying? Wow. "assertions with fact." - I have given you all the facts that are required. I have given you passages, lined with historical figures, quotes and dates. You on the other hand continue to provide unreferenced opinion.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 You have provided no relevant facts, claiming otherwise will not make it true. You only have your opinion, you have not given anything relevant or of substance and I grow tired of your lies.
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart - "I grow tired of your lies." It is absurd for you to think I am lying. I have given you facts, quotes, people, passages and dates to back up everything I say. You have given me nothing. I strongly encourage you to re-think your opinion of something you dont clearly understand. You have yet to argue against early Biblical authenticity, census quotes and figures and assessment of land. Do you know what the assessment of land does? Even today?
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "I have given you facts, quotes, people, passages and dates to back up everything I say. "
Nothing you have said supports your assertion in any way. What don't you get about that?
"You have yet to argue against early Biblical authenticity"
See, a bold face lie right there.
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart "What don't you get about that?" We started the conversation if you remember, discussing the existence of Jesus and the authenticity of the Bible. You claimed there was zero evidence for both Jesus and the authorship of the Gospels. I provided an example of an outside source of an individual, recorded in history, that not only lived during the life of John, but was his pupil. This is an example of evidence contrary to your viewpoint. You have given nothing to refute this claim.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 No if you go back to what is currently page 21 on here, you'll see this: ""Jesus was 100% innocent. " No, in the biblical stories jesus actual broke several laws. He stole, attacked others physically, broke the law about not killing fruit bearing tree's and so on. That's not innocent. ""
We started by discussing how jesus was not a particularly good man. You defending his theft, physical assaults, verbal abuse of freinds, breaking the law, and so on.
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart -"No if you go back to what is currently page 21" If you want to go back to the beginning of all of our conversations, than yes, that is what we talked about. And Yes, I completely showed you why each of your "offenses" are not offenses at all. Jesus was more than justified to do each act you listed. We can go through it step by step again if you would like. But I have a feeling you wont listen.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 You said the beginning of our conversation, that was the beginning.
And no, you completely failed to defend your false Christs actions. Just as you make pathetic attempts to defend your personal belief that the biblical disciples, fictional characters, actually wrote the book their in. It's like claiming Voldermort wrote the harry potter series. You just live in your own little world don't you?
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart "You said the beginning of our conversation, that was the beginning." I was refering to the conversation regarding the authorship of the gospels. I am sorry if you got confused. "You just live in your own little world don't you?" Your comment is somewhat amusing. Please, have someone peer review your argument against Jesus with your offenses. I hardly think your accusations would stand in a court of law. Honeslty, I really think you need to think over what you believe to be true.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 You were then given a list of qualifications for something to be considered historical. It was pointed out, among several requirements, the impartiality of a source is considered. Someone who believes their writing about a god is not impartial, in any way. Nor is anything you've given support of a historical jesus, at best merely the fictional biblical jesus.
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart Ok, so if you do not accepted personal accounts of the life of Jesus by those who lived during those times, and you do not accept the authenticity of pupils of those who knew Jesus, than you must be seeking some sort of recorded history of someone who did not like/beleive Jesus or what He taught. Here is a good example: Tacitus. One of the greatest historians of Rome. Wrote of the life of Jesus and His effect on the people. Thus Nero blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 The one individual you listed did not live in the supposed time of jesus. If you have to lie to try to make a point, it's false. No author of any of the now biblical works ever met jesus, or anyone who knew him. Again, If you have to lie to try to make a point, it's false.
"Here is a good example: Tacitus. One of the greatest historians of Rome. Wrote of the life of Jesus "
He made a few comments toward jesus, and long after he was dead.
humanistheart 2 months ago
@humanistheart - I am not lying. I have listed Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. All supposed authors of the gospels, all lived and breathed during the life of Jesus. What John not an apostle? Was Matthew not chosen by Jesus? Where is the lie? "He made a few comments toward jesus..." So are you denying this bit of evidence toward the life of Jesus. Yes, Tacitus as a historian. Thats what historians do, they write of the past and the present as is passes.
ParadigmShifter29 2 months ago
@ParadigmShifter29 "Harry Potter can easily be dis-proven"
And the same for the bibles. They are equally easy to disprove historically.
humanistheart 3 months ago
@humanistheart - If that is true please do so, but up till now you have given nothing that cant be explained.
ParadigmShifter29 3 months ago