Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[Brian2]

Not for me, Christians seem to like to say they are separate accounts but the synoptic problem suggests otherwise. It's consensus in history that Matthew is a creative re-working of Mark. Most historians believe all the others are as well.

You say stuff like "it's a consensus" when it is not.
Christian history tells us that Mark did not know the order of events.

Is Mark’s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter? | Cold Case Christianity

Is Mark’s Gospel an early memoir of the Apostle Peter? The consistent record of history identifies Mark’s Gospel as a memoir of Peter’s life with Jesus.

coldcasechristianity.com

Of course the witness of the early church is that Mark got his information from Peter.
So ignoring this, you go on to other speculation as if the church history means nothing and your idea that Jesus did not exist is all that counts.
I find Baha'is do a similar thing. It is easy to show they are wrong and that Biblically Baha'u'llah is not the return of Jesus, but they ignore that and go on to something else as if that proof means nothing to them

Yes, and Mark is extremely mythic and using mystery religion (Hellenism) theology exclusively mixed with some Jewish elements.

Those mystery religion elements are creative speculation.
The Jewish elements are the OT prophecies of the Messiah.
It is all creative speculation to try to show that Jesus did not exist and that the gospel story is fiction.
Mark with his basic Greek is portrayed as a Greek and Persian literary scholar who also knew the Hebrew scriptures well.

Peter is a forgery as I pointed out.

Mark's use of Paul is covered in several journal papers, evidence is summed up here:

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

And that Peter is forgery is consensus and so fact I suppose.
Maybe Paul used Mark. Maybe the same Christian things were going around and sounded similar no matter who said/wrote them.

 

[Brian2]

No it means what he said is probably true. Other people were saying Jesus was a myth because he likely was. The church did a good job of eradicating any material that mentioned this. But this one snuck by.

And I suppose that is all factual in your mind.

What he means is most scholars would disagree that 1 Peter COULD be authentic.

Yes most scholars at least agree that Jesus was a real person with followers.

Peter didn't lie, Peter isn't considered authentic, it's a story. Stop with the "so he lied" thing. I never understand why that is an argument, yes people tell false things about religions, we already know this.
Islam, all false, Hinduism, all false, 36 other gospels not in the canon, all false, the inauthentic Epistles, all false, Dead Sea Scrolls, all false,
yes this clearly happens. Mormonism, all false, JW, false. All other religions, false
You say it like it's improbable.

You're the one who said Peter was answering people who said Jesus was a myth and now you say Peter did not say that because Peter did not write the epistle.
I have read a bit about why 2 Peter might be forgery but cannot understand it myself.
When it comes to lying I see that you consider all scriptures and religions to be lies and none true. But at least you are honest about it and don't try to turn "lies" into something that is not lying.

It's evidence of Mark copying Psalms. No evidence Mark had super powers.

The use of Psalm 22 is evidence that the prophecy in that Psalm about details of a crucifixion (unheard of when the Psalm was written) was known and the things that happened to Jesus at His crucifixion were known. But to a skeptic who says Jesus did not exist, it is just the Hebrew scriptures used creatively to make up a story about a Messiah who died by crucifixion.

If you don't believe in Muhammad then you have supernatural bias. The Quran clearly says he has revelations from angel Gabrielle. Billions believe. You have bias toward supernatural.

I believe an angel appeared to Muhammad probably and to Baha'u'llah.
Their messages are not from God however if Jesus, the one who fulfilled OT prophecy is from God.
So iow I have not a bias against the supernatural,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, duh,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is you. You are confused.
I have a bias against those things which go against the Bible as the word of God.

There is no Satan in the OT as a devil. Only as an Angel of Yahweh.
It's easy to see the Persian influence on Satan.

Yes OK, all you need do is speculate that the Pentateuch was written in the Exile and then you can say that the Hebrews copied Persian angel stuff from them. And since you think that it is a fact that the Pentateuch was written then, I am the stupid one because I don't believe your facts.
I understand it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No, not if Jesus is God with the power to conquer death and resurrect in an incorruptible body

But then he shouldn’t have nail wounds either.

 

[Kenny]

That is ironic coming from someone in a religion which has no evidence for any God, any of the stories being true and has endless evidence that it's just another mythology. Especially since you seem to take advice from amateurs as you have posted historical articles written by complete novices sprouting tired old apologetics that have been debunked over and over.

To not be extensively wordy on all that you posted as you instituted an appeal to authority fallacy, this are the points to your first opening volley (not discussion) which leads me to believe answering anything else is fruitless.

1) You say there is no evidence with no support. It is your personal opinion which I support your right to have. I simply say that your are viewing evidence and coming to a different conclusion. (That can be equally said to me if you so desire)
2) You say it is just another mythology. I disagree. There is no evidence that supports that is simply "mythological". Only that there are mythological stories
3) "You take advice from amateurs" - A fallacy when you attack the poster and not the points they listed.
4) "Debunked over and over" - while people more intelligent than you or I decide it isn't debunked.

You might try "in my opinion" a little more

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If they were martyred for being Christian then they were martyred for believing in the resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus was associated with John the Baptist, who railed against Herod. Jesus was involved in a riot at the Temple. Jesus encouraged political beliefs that upset Rome. If they were executed, and there really isn’t much proof of that, then they were executed for political, not religious reasons.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus was associated with John the Baptist, who railed against Herod. Jesus was involved in a riot at the Temple. Jesus encouraged political beliefs that upset Rome. If they were executed, and there really isn’t much proof of that, then they were executed for political, not religious reasons.

There is evidence that they were martyred, evidence for some more than others.
Their being Christian was associated with their martyrdom.
Whether they could have denied what they said they knew (Jesus resurrection) or not and been set free, I don't really know.
None of them did deny what they claimed to know about Jesus.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you have transcripts of their trials? How do you know what they did or did not say?

 

[Brian2]

Do you have transcripts of their trials? How do you know what they did or did not say?

I guess if we had the transcripts of any trials that may have happened we could go through them.
As it is all we can do is go by what we do have, a history that speaks of their martyrdom.
Not their dying from pneumonia or being tried and executed for murder or sabotage, but being martyred for the cause.
I doubt any martyrdom was directly related to whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, but then again, each of their martyrdoms was at least indirectly associated with what the said they knew, that Jesus was the Messiah and that this was confirmed in the raising of Jesus from the dead. And as far as we know, each of them was prepared to die for what they said they were witnesses to. The question is, would people die for something they knew to be a lie? even if it came down to "for a cause they knew to be a lie"?

 

[InChrist]

But then he shouldn’t have nail wounds either.

Unless He chose to keep the mail scars intact.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Jesus was associated with John the Baptist, who railed against Herod. Jesus was involved in a riot at the Temple. Jesus encouraged political beliefs that upset Rome. If they were executed, and there really isn’t much proof of that, then they were executed for political, not religious reasons.

If a religious leader named Yehoshua (also known as Yeshua and Jesus) even existed during biblical times, then I doubt that he was like his disciples and other followers portrayed him. He was most likely just an ordinary mortal man and a well-liked religious teacher whose devoted followers embellished and spread false stories about him to make him appear to be more than what he truly was and to make him appear godlike. I think that it is also most likely that a few stories about him were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other pagan religions, which predate the Bible and Christianity.

Not to mention that the savior myth of Jesus is not the first of its kind. His story, in my opinion, is no more believable or genuine than all the other savior stories that were written before his, such as "10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus" and "Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ." In fact, these articles provide more examples of pagan Christlike figures whose lives are similar to the stories of Jesus, such as being divinely born of a virgin, being tempted by the devil before beginning a ministry on earth, performing miracles, and miraculously healing the sick. Moreover, the stories of Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection parallel those of Attis, the Phrygian-Greek god of vegetation (1250 BCE). In the mythical stories of Attis, he was divinely born of a virgin by a deity; he was hung on a pine tree and died; he descended into the underworld after his death; he was resurrected from the dead after three days; and he was considered a savior slain for the salvation of mankind. The fact is that the stories of Jesus sound strikingly similar to the stories of Attis, which were written 1,250 years before Jesus supposedly lived on this earth. And this article, "Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days," provides even more myths about the Phrygian-Greek god Attis and Jesus Christ that have much in common.

Finally, I believe that all these other Christlike myths clearly demonstrate that Greek mythology and other pagan religions had a significant impact on the stories of Jesus. In spite of Christians claiming that their God inspired the Bible and that Christianity is the only true religion, I think it is quite clear that it is not unique in its beliefs. Personally, I don't believe that Christianity is the only true religion in the world. In fact, I believe that it's clearly a copycat religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When did theology turn into science? Since when are believers meant to see as evidence only what science sees as evidence?
Different disciplines have their own ways of seeing evidence.
But neither I nor you are disciplines, we are humans and see whatever we want as evidence.

That is IMHO, quiet unfortunate. They should factor science in their belief, otherwise theology is no different from Harry Potter's exploits.

Yes unless the people were lying then something probably did happen and science cannot disprove it.

What if they were lying? Science will term it as fiction and will not believe. It will stand disproved, unless evidence is provided.

 

[Brian2]

That is IMHO, quiet unfortunate. They should factor science in their belief, otherwise theology is no different from Harry Potter's exploits.

What if they were lying? Science will term it as fiction and will not believe. It will stand disproved, unless evidence is provided.

Science of course is factored into a belief in God and is part of a person's world view. That does not mean that the same evidence is used for both science and theology.
And it is not a matter all the time of believing that science has it right and that my theology has to work around that.
Science might sometimes be able to tell that something is a lie but there are many things that people might say about my beliefs and invoke science to show my beliefs are wrong but where I see the person's conclusions about science says, to be wrong. IOWs someone extrapolates science beyond where it can go.
And sometimes regular science imo goes beyond where it is capable of going and is teaching stuff that is not really science, things that have not been shown conclusively to be correct.
When it comes to a God who created the universe and invented science, there is no problem with believing that God has done things even if science wants to say that they happened naturally.
It is usually science that is not the problem however since believers are scientists. It is skeptics who want scientific evidence for the supernatural before they are willing to believe, while believing things against the supernatural even without the evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When it comes to a God who created the universe and invented science, there is no problem with believing that God has done things even if science wants to say that they happened naturally.

Science does not do things in that way. "Since we do not understand, it is God". Science will need evidence to accept God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment and deliverance. It also will need to know when exactly that will happen. In the various theories about universe, the time line is clearly mentioned up to the Planck's instant. Saying "Jesus is coming, Jesus is coming" will not satisfy science.

 

[joelr]

No... Genesis and the Psalms and many of the prophets were way before the Greek influence. Psalm 22 prophesied the Cross and others redemption way before the Greek Empire.

Personal salvation, baptism, eucharist, savior deities were not part of Judaism until after the Hellenization.
Parts of Psalm 22 was used by Mark to compose a crucifixion narrative (because he's writing fiction)

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

But the English translations of Psalm 22 is incorrect and manipulated by Christians to seem more like it speaks of Jesus. It doesn't. If you bother to find a correct translation it's clearly about David.

Some re-translating:
KJB: For dogs have compassed me, the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.


Hebrew - For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evildoers have enclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

The King James Version renders אָזְנַיִם, כָּרִיתָ לִּי in Psalm 40:7 (verse 6 in a Christian Bible) metaphorically as “mine ears hast thou opened.” The Hebrew word כָּרִיתָ contains the same root as the word כארו (without the א aleph) that Christians claim is in Psalm 22:17, and it literally means “ears you have dug for me.”

The message contained in Psalm 40:7 is clearly conveyed by its context. By digging or excavating his ear, the Psalmist is able to hear and perceive what God did and didn’t desire. If karah could be translated as “pierce,” this would mean that the Psalmist is piercing or stabbing his ears to hear God more clearly! The word כרו means to “open” or “excavate,” not rip through flesh.

A Closer Look at the “Crucifixion Psalm” - Outreach Judaism

Question: Dear Rabbi Singer, I am a Lutheran living in Switzerland and have been reading your web page with interest. I admire your commitment to your faith, yet I am perplexed as to why you so assuredly reject Jesus Christ as your messiah. He came not only for the gentiles, but for the Jews as

outreachjudaism.org

Yes... I know what people say...

What I find so interesting is how you try to flood a post with PhD (Post hole Diggers) to use the Appeal to Authority fallacy whereas my one liners above shows you are wrong.

Do you find that interesting? Well then I'm saddened to tell you your "one liner" above is completely wrong.
But it gets worse. Skipping your terrible attempt to discredit source material (yes, you were told some information a while back and what did you say?.............why you said " SOURCE PLEASE". So that's a big fail (I guess I didn't skip it after all),

next we have an incorrect use of a fallacy. The Appeal to authority fallacy is when someone says something is true because an authority said it was. I did not say anything was true because an authority said it was true. I said Genesis is Mesopotamian and gave many sources. I can continue to give EVIDENCE, and books that will explain the methods used to derive this evidence. As well as actual examples of evidence.

I'm starting out establishing a position and demonstrating it's supported by biblical scholarship.

So you put down PhD while typing a post full of mis-information given to you by apologists. Can't make this stuff up.

Yale Divinity Bible Study: Psalms, Psalms of Complaint

Professors John Collins and Joel Baden discuss Psalms

1:15 Psalm 22 “my god my god…..”

Christians say is supposed to have been spoken by Jesus on the cross and written to predict Jesus’ situation on the cross.

Baden - certainly seems more like it was quoted by Jesus on the cross. This is what the Psalms are written for - people experiencing some sort of personal despair.

 

[joelr]

Do you think that Jesus Ben Ananias got the prophecy supernaturally?

No one has ever demonstrated getting any prophecy supernaturally. The overwhelming odds are it's a story Josephus heard.

From what I read in Josephus it sounds like it.

Herecles also sounds supernatural, as does Krishna, they are legends.

Does that mean that supernatural prophecy is real?
Sounds like it.

Iron age stories existed by the thousands. They are all stories, there is no supernatural. Why is something true just by virtue of being really old?

If so, then why wouldn't the God of supernatural prophecy warn Jerusalem again and certainly remind anybody who was familiar with the prophecy of Jesus, about that prophecy and it's warning to flee from Jerusalem?

Because there is no God of any type, theism isn't real. But Mark, a brilliant writer, found a great way to represent Passover and Yom Kippur with 2 Jesuses. One is let go like a scapegoat, but then killed, like a scapegoat and the other is for sins.

 

[Kenny]

Parts of Psalm 22 was used by Mark to compose a crucifixion narrative (because he's writing fiction)

Notice your "personal opinion". How do you know it was fiction and not prophetic?

Psalm 22 and Its Fulfillment in Jesus Christ - Bible Central

biblecentral.info

No... it was very prophetic.

 

[joelr]

You say stuff like "it's a consensus" when it is not.

Yes, it is. It is the consensus among historical scholarship.

Christian history tells us that Mark did not know the order of events.

Is Mark’s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter? | Cold Case Christianity

Is Mark’s Gospel an early memoir of the Apostle Peter? The consistent record of history identifies Mark’s Gospel as a memoir of Peter’s life with Jesus.

coldcasechristianity.com

Coldcase Christianity is a bunch of not scholars, non-peer-reviewed crank. Everything said is completely debunked by scholars as not true.
Why would you want to align with mis-information? Do you not care about what is true?

Where in cold case Christianity do they debunk or answer to the arguments in a peer-reviewed work - Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction,
the arguments are presented here:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as...

bible.org

and even more recent scholarship which closes the case

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

This Synoptic Problem Web Site is the home page for Q sceptics. It expounds the Farrer Theory, which maintains Markan Priority but dispenses with Q. Its author, Mark Goodacre is Lecturer in New Testament at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

markgoodacre.org

"Christian history" does not "tell us". Wallace says that. Meanwhile he does not mention ONE SINGLE argument listed on Bible.org on the synoptic problem and touches none of the historical information in Goodacres work. Goodacre demonstrates that the Q Gospel is a fiction and that the source is Mark:

"

The standard solution to the Synoptic Problem supposes that Matthew and Luke made independent use not only of Mark but also of another source, now lost, called 'Q'. But in The Case Against Q Mark Goodacre combines a strong affirmation of Markan Priority with a careful and detailed critique of the Q hypothesis, giving fresh perspectives on the evidence drawn not only from traditional methods but also from contemporary scholarly approaches. In an invigorating and imaginative approach to one of the most important issues in New Testament scholarship, Goodacre paints a plausible picture of Synoptic interrelationships in a bid to renew discussions about Christian origins."

Those apologist sites are not historians and are not doing actual scholarship. They are selling products to gulliable Christians who don't care about actual research.​

Of course the witness of the early church is that Mark got his information from Peter.

Peter 1 and 2 are likely forgery, as I posted. The entire Gospel of Mark can be accounted for with the Epistles, OT and other fiction.

So ignoring this, you go on to other speculation as if the church history means nothing and your idea that Jesus did not exist is all that counts.
I find Baha'is do a similar thing. It is easy to show they are wrong and that Biblically Baha'u'llah is not the return of Jesus, but they ignore that and go on to something else as if that proof means nothing to them

What church history? The entire 2nd century is is mix of Gnostic and other sects. All we have are the letters of Irenaeus and a few other writings. No one (like Justin Martry) even knew the names of the Gospels and there are 36 other Gospels in circulation during this time?
No versions of current Gospels exist then that we have now and we know Irenaeus had different copies of some books by reading his letters.
This was the church 2nd century:
These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

Gnosticism was up to 50%. Elaine Pagels talks about this in her book The Lost Gospels. There was no "church" Late 2nd century Irenaeus was trying to get a power structure in place so only the bloodline could read and teach scripture.
The 1st canon was the Marcionite canon, unknown. The modern canon did not start until the 3rd century.

Jesus may have been a Rabbi. How many times do I have to say, Christianity is a syncretic blend of Hellenism, Persian and Jewish theology.
The gospel Jesus did not exist.

 

[joelr]

Those mystery religion elements are creative speculation.

No the evidence is quite conclusive. The general public just isn't made aware.
I linked to specific mystery religion points and left out anything else

:20 a subject normally people are NOT lecturing to the general public

6:06
Basic Mystery cult, common features:

- Individuals “initiated” into the mysteries, ritually and by teaching sworn secrets about the universe. Something about the cosmos one needed to be saved, secrets. Many secrets are now lost.


- purpose was to gain salvation in the afterlife


- all use baptism and communion(communal meals)


- fictive kinship “brotherhood”

9:00 - Trends in Hellenistic religion


- Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion (1996)


- Four big trends in religion in the centuries leading up to Christianity


- Christianity conforms to all four

9:16 Four Trends


- Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements. Christianity is a Jewish mystery religion.


- Henotheism: transforming / reinterpreting polytheism into monotheism. Judaism introduced monolatric concepts.


- Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults. Salvation of community changed into personal individual salvation in afterlife. All original agricultural salvation cults were retooled by the time Christianity arose.


- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it

18:30 All Mystery religions have personal savior deities


- All saviors


- all son/daughter, never the supreme God (including Mithriasm)


- all undergo a passion (struggle) patheon


- all obtain victory over death which they share with followers


- all have stories set on earth


- none actually existed


- Is Jesus the exception and based on a real Jewish teacher or is it all made up?


21:00


Pagan /Jewish element, Judea-Pagan Syncretism


Pagan - Savior son of God


Jewish - Messianic resurrection cult


Pagan - Undergoes ordeal by which he obtains victory over death


Jewish - based on blood atonement theology (substitutionary sacrifice)


Pagan - which he shares with those initiated into his cult for individual salvation


Jewish - adapting Passover and Yom Kippur


Pagan - in a universal brotherhood


Jewish - first by circumsision, then without


Pagan - through a baptismal invitation and communal meal


Jewish - through a baptismal invitation and communal meal

27:00 mysteries


Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic

28:00 Christian Pesher (combining disparate passages in scripture that reveals “hidden messages”)


29:15 examples of Pesher logic taken from Old Testament and used for Jesus


32:00 Baptism, Christian version is different from Jewish/John the Baptist version of baptism. Differences are the same in all mystery religions.


- symbolic sharing of saviors ordeal


- to be born again (Osiris cult)


- united into brotherhood


- to be saved in afterlife


- cleaned of sin (Bacchus, Osiris, Mithras)


- baptism for dead (Paul mentions this 1 Cor, 15: 29)

37:05 Eucharist in Mystery religions


- become one with savior


- to be united in brotherhood


- saved in afterlife


- Lords Supper


- Rememberence, flesh/blood/death, 1 Cor 11:24-26

Christian Lords Supper is distinct in Jewish ways

38:50 Mysteries in scripture


1C. 4:1 We are entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed


R. 11:25 (Do not) be ignorant of this mystery


R. 16:25 (the) message I proclaim about Jesus Christ is in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed


1C. 2:6, 7 (We) speak a message of wisdom among the mature….(and) declare God’s wisdom, a. Mystery that has been hidden


1C. 15:51 Listen I will tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed


1C. 3:1-2 I could not address you as people who live by the spirit but as people who are still worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. (Milk and solid food is mystery cult terminology)


H. 5:13-14 Anyone living on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for that mature. (Clearly conceiving the religion in mystery terms)

Mark 4:11-12 (Jesus) told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables, so (they won’t understand)”

Dead giveaway Mark is conceiving the teachings in mystery cult terms

42:00 Jesus becomes the Temple. Kamran sect was also anti-temple. Jews were looking for ways to replace temple cults because of corruption etc….


Jesus gives permanent atonement and so on.

42:52
Christianity is a Jewish Mystery religion, syncretic, henotheistic, individualist, universal brotherhood, savior son of God with passion and myth, baptism, Lords supper as communion for salvation, mysteries reserved for initiated.

12:34 Savior deities, dying/rising, pre-Christian, Osiris, Adonis, Romulus, Zalmoxis, Inanna (oldest 1700 B.C., female deity resurrected in 3 days)

 

[joelr]

The Jewish elements are the OT prophecies of the Messiah.

Most are not actually prophecies about a messiah. But the Persian occupation got them expecting a messianic figure because Persian already had one. The Persian theology filtered into later OT writings.

The Hellenization of Judaism gave them savior deities to be the messianic figure, all Hellenized religions had one.


Belief in a world Saviour


An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.


Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6

It is all creative speculation to try to show that Jesus did not exist and that the gospel story is fiction.

Actually it's just scholarship, history, archaeology. Creative speculation is saying out of all the other religions that were Hellenized and got dying/rising savior demigods, son or daughter of the supreme God, who got the followers into an afterlife, of all those, the last version, Christianity, a Jewish mystery religion is actually real?

That is speculation, not really creative?

The scholarship - comparative religion, what historians said, writing styles, archaeology, Mesopotamian origins, Persian/Greek theology, is quite solid.

Mark with his basic Greek is portrayed as a Greek and Persian literary scholar who also knew the Hebrew scriptures well.

Yes, he used Kings and Psalms for narratives.

And that Peter is forgery is consensus and so fact I suppose.

When something is consensus the evidence is vast. I don't know that much about the evidence. Carrier actually said 2 might be real.

Maybe Paul used Mark. Maybe the same Christian things were going around and sounded similar no matter who said/wrote them.

Paul knows of no earthly Jesus, no human body, no family, birthplace, nothing from the Gospels. No crucifixion, no disciples. Paul can be dated early. I don't understand why you don't know any historical facts and read historians about something you believe in but trust amateur apologists?
This disregard for historical fields is bizarre?

 

[joelr]

And I suppose that is all factual in your mind.

It's a clue that there were people around saying Jesus was a myth, what I said it was. Justin Martyr says there are as well.

Yes most scholars at least agree that Jesus was a real person with followers.

30 or so have moved to feeling mythicism is quite possible. Many think the stories are Hellenism put onto a famous Jewish teacher.

You're the one who said Peter was answering people who said Jesus was a myth and now you say Peter did not say that because Peter did not write the epistle.
I have read a bit about why 2 Peter might be forgery but cannot understand it myself.

The point is someone wrote it and was reacting to other people saying it was a myth. Someone called it a cleverly disguised myth and this one time it survived the revision centuries when the church became huge and eradicated all other mystery religions.

When it comes to lying I see that you consider all scriptures and religions to be lies and none true. But at least you are honest about it and don't try to turn "lies" into something that is not lying.

I don't consider myths to be lies. Stories about Krishna are not lies. They are stories designed to teach things. In fact historical scholars say there was not a literal movement until centuries later. No one was trying to say it was literal or prove it was until this became a priority in some century. Every nation had a full religion, a supreme God, sons/daughters of that God and stories, scriptures, temples, worship, are they all lies?

The use of Psalm 22 is evidence that the prophecy in that Psalm about details of a crucifixion (unheard of when the Psalm was written) was known and the things that happened to Jesus at His crucifixion were known. But to a skeptic who says Jesus did not exist, it is just the Hebrew scriptures used creatively to make up a story about a Messiah who died by crucifixion.

The english translation changes words. It's originally about David. Words were changed to make it sound like a crucifixion.

A Closer Look at the “Crucifixion Psalm” - Outreach Judaism

Question: Dear Rabbi Singer, I am a Lutheran living in Switzerland and have been reading your web page with interest. I admire your commitment to your faith, yet I am perplexed as to why you so assuredly reject Jesus Christ as your messiah. He came not only for the gentiles, but for the Jews as

outreachjudaism.org

I believe an angel appeared to Muhammad probably and to Baha'u'llah.
Their messages are not from God however if Jesus, the one who fulfilled OT prophecy is from God.
So iow I have not a bias against the supernatural,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, duh,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is you. You are confused.
I have a bias against those things which go against the Bible as the word of God.

Great, provide evidence of an angel. So I guess you believe in Thor, Krishna, Zeus, Heracles and every God and demi-god ever?
How about some evidence outside of stories?

The Bible isn't the word of God. Yahweh is a typical near eastern deity, nothing unusual, myths from Mesopotamia, no reason to believe that God over Zeus and no reason to believe in any of them.

Yes OK, all you need do is speculate that the Pentateuch was written in the Exile and then you can say that the Hebrews copied Persian angel stuff from them. And since you think that it is a fact that the Pentateuch was written then, I am the stupid one because I don't believe your facts.
I understand it.

No the Pentateuch was written starting in 600 B.C. All OT scholars agree on that.
The Persian influence only appears in Isaiah and possibly David. It's in other Jewish literature and of course Christianity.
There are specific videos by John Collins at the Yale Divinity lecture on the details.

Carrier gives an overview here:

2:26 One big influence, Persians, conquer Judea 539-332 B.C.





2:50 Persian religion, Zoroastrianism had ideas Judaism did not have but picked up.


- War of good God vs Evil God/light vs dark/ God vs Satan


- Bad people burn in hell, good people wait in heaven


- A river of fire will flow over the universe burning everything up (even hell itself)


- A new better world created in it’s place


- All good people will be resurrected by God to live in that new world happily ever after

4:37 Greeks conquer Judea 332 - 110 B.C.Greek idea (Hellenism) flow into Judaism





5:05 Romans conquered Judea 63 B.C. - 636 A.D. split off from East

5:26 Mystery cults, come from Greek religions. Every culture that was conquered by Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Thracians, all took the Mystery cult theology and added it to their local religion and came up with the Mystery religions.


Mary Boyce says the doctrines used by Judaism were:

Doctrines








fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.



Zoroastrians Their Beliefs and Practices. , Boyce