Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

sooda said:

What denomination do you follow?

Click to expand...

1. Immaterial. My associations, if any, do not strengthen nor invalidate my points.
2. I identify as an historical follower of Jesus. I am part of the invisible, universal, Church, by God's election (imo), but have no association with any institution.
3. I have been a student of the bible, history, and science for over 40 years.
4. Facts and arguments, not credentials, are the basis for Truth, and should be the means in any debate.
5. I bring knowledge, historical perspective, eloquence, reason, and deep humility to any debates i engage in.
6. I like old movies and romantic walks on the beach.
7. I'm flattered by the personal interest, but it's not really topical..

Spartan said:

Here you go!

18 Bible Verses about the Resurrection

Click to expand...

OK.
Thank you for that.
I need to reply fully when next on a computer, but for now I can see that most of these verses are not affirmations, only references, as the title said.

You will note that three of the affirmations are synoptic. Only one of those is is an affirmation and no other references there are any kind of corroboration.

Look, if you believe, that is enough.

But I for one do not, although I believe in the story of Jesus and the Baptist.

sooda said:

Early Christians were not stupid.. They knew that the gospels were anonymous as early as 200 AD.

Click to expand...

What, 'early Christians!?' All i have quoted (and read) have AFFIRMED the nt authorship. NONE have claimed 'anonymous!' That is a recent revision, from millennia removed critics, with no evidence.

Spartan said:

No, like your fairy tale, revisionist, anti-Christianity, feral horse manure.

Click to expand...

Well, I’d have to say that the very people who translated and gave you your picture-perfect bible to hold and read don’t believe it’s error-free. They’re on my side here.

usfan said:

1. Immaterial. My associations, if any, do not strengthen nor invalidate my points.
2. I identify as an historical follower of Jesus. I am part of the invisible, universal, Church, by God's election (imo), but have no association with any institution.
3. I have been a student of the bible, history, and science for over 40 years.
4. Facts and arguments, not credentials, are the basis for Truth, and should be the means in any debate.
5. I bring knowledge, historical perspective, eloquence, reason, and deep humility to any debates i engage in.
6. I like old movies and romantic walks on the beach.
7. I'm flattered by the personal interest, but it's not really topical..

Click to expand...

Really then why didn't you know there were no Philistines millions of years ago?

Spartan said:

Flush.

Q? Really? Do you ever research what you post? Here's why Q is a load of rubbish:

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons



You're busted.

Click to expand...

Goodacre’s a hack. I’ll give you him and raise you Kloppenborg. And Funk. And Scott.

Spartan said:

They don't differ at all about the RESURRECTION. All four Gospels confirm it. If there are any differences it's about OTHER things or events that occurred AFTER the resurrection (i.e. did one angel appear or two at the tomb, etc.). Don't miss the forest for the trees!

Furthermore, if you'd bother to do some research once in a while, you would have come across this - "The Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts":

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Glad to help you out!

Click to expand...

Great! More apologetics. Don’t you do any real exegetical work? I’m certain you don’t. Mores the pity.

Spartan said:

That's your claim to fame? Your link had the following notation:

"Luke–Acts has sometimes been presented as a single book in published Bibles or New Testaments, for example, in The Original New Testament (1985)"

SOMETIMES? In 1985?

Your link also notes Luke and Acts are two books (not one).

Scholars also date Acts LATER than Luke:
Luke - 63 AD
Acts - 64 AD

Once again, nice try.

Click to expand...

As I said, Wikipedia isn’t exactly a scholarly resource. I could provide much better, but your arguments aren’t worth the effort.

usfan said:

What, 'early Christians!?' All i have quoted (and read) have AFFIRMED the nt authorship. NONE have claimed 'anonymous!' That is a recent revision, from millennia removed critics, with no evidence.

Click to expand...

The Gospel of Luke indicates that it was written by Luke because someone named Theophilus had commissioned him to do so. Luke lived in Syria not Palestine. He didn't know his geography and never met Jesus.

sojourner said:

Great! More apologetics. Don’t you do any real exegetical work? I’m certain you don’t. Mores the pity.

Click to expand...

Great! More half-backed drivel after your half-baked claims have been demolished!

sooda said:

The authors of the four Gospels never explicitly identify themselves.

Click to expand...

There are some internal evidences of their identities. But even if they did specifically identify themselves you'd find something wrong with that.

usfan said:

You claimed nobody would give their soul for others. I showed you where Paul offered that very thing. How does bashing Paul support your claim?

Click to expand...

You seem to support Paul's words over those of Jesus....
See for yourself.......
Paul..Romans9:1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.

Jesus ...Matthew: {5:34} But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: {5:35} Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. {5:36} Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. {5:37} But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

This is how I know that Paul had no intention of such an act....... all hot air.

May you find the truth in Jesus's words, not Paul's.

Oh my! 'Dreadful, dangerous extremism!!'

Click to expand...

Yes....... in extremist Christians, definitely.
Not amongst the vast number of Christian moderates, just the dreadful extreme fundies.

sooda said:

The Gospel of Luke indicates that it was written by Luke because someone named Theophilus had commissioned him to do so. Luke lived in Syria not Palestine. He didn't know his geography and never met Jesus.

Click to expand...

Theophilus means, 'Friend of God', it is not necessarily the name of a single person. There are no other references to a person with this name in the nt.

It is not certain, but is plausible. 'Theophilus' may just be an open book to Christians. That is my opinion, but i would not die for it.

Θεόφιλε, is the greek word, and appears twice.. both by Luke, in the preface to Acts and Luke

oldbadger said:

This is how I know that Paul had no intention of such an act....... all hot air.

Click to expand...

So, you believe paul was lying, and was not sincere. Whatever. It still refutes your claim that 'nobody!' would give their soul for another.

It is an absurd argument, anyway. And how can you claim to know that the writers were 'lying!'? You have no evidence to the contrary, just prejudicial opinion.

How does the altruism of anyone, have any bearing on the validity or historicity of the nt manuscripts?

Many people HAVE DIED, or given their lives for others.. how can you claim nobody would?

Spartan said:

Here you go!
18 Bible Verses about the Resurrection

Click to expand...

I previously wrote:-
Epistles? You have found affirmation of the resurrection in some epistles?
You offered the following examples. Now watch .............

Bible Verses about the Resurrection

Click to expand...

So most of these are NOT affirmations, they are just references.
Your claim is looking biased already.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
John 11:25-26 | NIV |

Click to expand...

Not an Epistle! John was no witness.
He was not the disciple. And the disciple was not there either!

Mark 16:6 | NIV |

Click to expand...

Not an epistle! We've already covered this one. Risen is not clear evidence.

Luke 24:6-7 | NIV |

Click to expand...

Copied from Mark!

Matthew 28:5-6 | NIV |

Click to expand...

Copied from Mark!

For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
1 Thessalonians 4:14 | NIV |

Click to expand...

No. 'We believe........ ' no affirmation there!

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
1 Peter 1:3 | NIV |

Click to expand...

The writer was not there. Living hope is not certainty, and not affirmation.

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
2 Corinthians 5:14-15 | NIV |
and................
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
1 Corinthians 15:21 | NIV |

Click to expand...

Paul was convinced about Jesus's death...... fair enough. but how could Paul give evidence (affirmation) that Jesus was raised?

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 | NIV |

Click to expand...

Easy one..... ' ....all this happened, or so that's what the scriptures say.'
No affirmation!

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.
Romans 6:5-6 | NIV |

Click to expand...

At last.... this is a kind of affirmation...... but only of Faith. See how Paul starts with 'For if we have....'

I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.
Philippians 3:10 | NIV |

Click to expand...

So Paul did not know........... see how he writes: 'I want to know...'

“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”
Matthew 20:18-19 | NIV |

Click to expand...

This is not an affirmation..... it is a prophecy.
I can do that 'I am going to have dinner and then I will go to the beach and see a great black sea bird come down and land before me'. You see? No affirmation, just a prophecy...
Oh please...... spare me any more of these non-affirmations......
If you have Faith, then believe. But don't chuck this non-evidence at folks, please......

usfan said:

So, you believe paul was lying, and was not sincere. Whatever. It still refutes your claim that 'nobody!' would give their soul for another.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.
The words of Jesus utterly despise that drivvle from Paul.

You can't see it, maybe because you follow Paul, and not Jesus.

Spartan said:

Great! More half-backed drivel after your half-baked claims have been demolished!

Click to expand...

I’ve seen no evidential wrecking ball — just a lot of balloon juice.

usfan said:

Theophilus means, 'Friend of God', it is not necessarily the name of a single person. There are no other references to a person with this name in the nt.

It is not certain, but is plausible. 'Theophilus' may just be an open book to Christians. That is my opinion, but i would not die for it.

Θεόφιλε, is the greek word, and appears twice.. both by Luke, in the preface to Acts and Luke

Click to expand...

Theophilus is Greek like Luke.

oldbadger said:

I previously wrote:-
Epistles? You have found affirmation of the resurrection in some epistles?
You offered the following examples. Now watch .............

So most of these are NOT affirmations, they are just references.
Your claim is looking biased already.

Not an Epistle! John was no witness.
He was not the disciple. And the disciple was not there either!

Not an epistle! We've already covered this one. Risen is not clear evidence.

Copied from Mark!

Copied from Mark!

No. 'We believe........ ' no affirmation there!

The writer was not there. Living hope is not certainty, and not affirmation.

Paul was convinced about Jesus's death...... fair enough. but how could Paul give evidence (affirmation) that Jesus was raised?

Easy one..... ' ....all this happened, or so that's what the scriptures say.'
No affirmation!

At last.... this is a kind of affirmation...... but only of Faith. See how Paul starts with 'For if we have....'

So Paul did not know........... see how he writes: 'I want to know...'

This is not an affirmation..... it is a prophecy.
I can do that 'I am going to have dinner and then I will go to the beach and see a great black sea bird come down and land before me'. You see? No affirmation, just a prophecy...
Oh please...... spare me any more of these non-affirmations......
If you have Faith, then believe. But don't chuck this non-evidence at folks, please......

Click to expand...

How can it be prophesy? Matthew was written AFTER the crucifixion.

Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view). The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time. Its written in polished Greek.

Most scholars today think John Mark was written first ..

John Mark, the writer of the Gospel of Mark, also served as a companion to the Apostle Paul in his missionary work and later assisted the Apostle Peter in Rome. He was related to Barnabas.

usfan said:

More like, "NO scholars agree on this." Why the bandwagon fallacy? Why pretend that a few contemporary critics, with an obvious anti-christian agenda, overrides and supercedes CENTURIES of careful, historical textual criticism, facts, and historical evidence?

Click to expand...

Why pretend that the preponderance of biblical scholarship disagrees with you?
This is obviously an anti-scholarship agenda. Textual criticism has made leaps in the last 100 years with information that simply was not available to the ancients. Perhaps you’d like to go back to the days when they “cured” the flu with bloodletting?

usfan said:

This is just claiming 'revisionist history!' is better than actual history. All historians for the last 2000 years were wrong, and contemporary , cherry picked 'experts!', who just happen to support an anti-christian agenda, somehow 'know' better, but with no evidence, just plausible theories they trumpet as facts.

Click to expand...

They used to claim the world was flat, too. In fact, the Bible, itself, makes that claim. Genesis calls the heavens raqiya, which translates as “a hammered-out dome.” A domed heaven would fit over a disc-shaped circle, and it would be of some rigid material. I’ll take modern scholarship over ancient speculation, please.

usfan said:

I quote actual historians, eyewitnesses, early apologists, and actual facts, concerning the biblical texts

Click to expand...

You certainly haven’t done that here...

usfan said:

I know real scholarship when i see it,

Click to expand...

Apparently not.

usfan said:

I debate with facts and history, not ad hom, bandwagon, falsehoods, and other fallacies, like the anti-christian hordes here.

Click to expand...

Your nose is growing .

usfan said:

Or your anti-christian tirades and propaganda? What groupthink ideology drives you? Anti-christian Progressivism ?

Click to expand...

Once again, progressivism gave you a Bible to read. Don’t knock the hand that’s fed you.

usfan said:

It is a revisionist smear, to cast doubt on the authorship of the original autographs.

Click to expand...

The autographs aren’t original. Anyone with a brain stem can understand what “does not appear on the earliest manuscripts” means.

usfan said:

They have NOT been 'changed!', they were NOT written centuries later. They were NOT 'anonymous!' These are false narratives.. LIES.. from anti-christian propagandists, intent only on smearing and demeaning Christianity.

Click to expand...

Did you stomp your foot on each “NOT”? “Mad fits” isn’t “debating with facts and history” as you claim you do above.

usfan said:

I can certainly debate facts and history, and analyze the wealth of data that is there.

Click to expand...

See above.