How the Gospels were written,Christianity was started

[lukethethird]

Gary Habermas shows the consensus of historians do believe Jesus existed, died, the tomb was empty and the apostles were convinced he rose

Most historians won't touch the topic with a barge pole.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Most historians won't touch the topic with a barge pole.

The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus:
Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[pearl]

The Gospels are full of embarrassing stuff for the church.

I would add acknowledging the charge of Jesus' illegitimacy.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is fascinating. How could the church lie to us? No this is not just another Pagan Christ video.

How is your thread going? Any interesting replies? My thought on this topic is that people always are looking for shortcuts, so we hold up a 'Please explain this to me' sign, making ourselves marks for cons. There is no substitute for researching everything. I go into a 'Christian bookstore' and find no criss crossing, no debate, pat answers. Very little there would ever be found in an actual seminary. Lots of the titles are written by amateurs who just leave you as clueless as when you bought.

Our biggest problem is that we tend to be chumps, so...until we solve that problem there will never be any shortage of con men taking teaching and leadership positions.

 

[Riders]

@Riders I'm sorry to hear about some of your run-ins with the "Baptist Christians". I think firstly, as with all religions, not everybody affiliated with a particular religion lives according to the morals and ethics as prescribed in their Holy Scriptures. As St Augustine famously said, "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse." We should not derive our perception on Christianity according to what we see in other Christians, but rather in the person and works of Jesus Christ.

Going back to the original topic at hand, I am not really an expert on textual criticism, but what I can say is that if you go looking for resources with a fixed mindset of disproving Christianity you will certainly find it. It is important to keep an open mind and listen to arguments from both sides to prevent bias (also look at the person's qualifications, past history, any agendas etc). From what I know, the majority of historians do agree that Jesus was a historical figure (there is as much evidence for Jesus of Nazareth as there is for Julius Caesar). There are obviously a few skeptics, but that is to be expected when we talk about issues like this.

But if you go looking wanting to find evidence that he existed same thing, you'll find evidence. I think mostly we go in with an attitude one ay or another so there will always be predjudice.

 

[leroy]

I'm not sure what your getting at. But if you watched the video, you would see that they were at war with Jews at that time,they included a lot of Jewish rebel behaviors with Jesus to satisfy the Jewish Messiah sect, because they were trying tp satisfy a Jesus that they would accept.

I don't believe Jewish Messiahs bought it obviously or Jews would be saved. But that's what they were aiming at.

But then they also wanted to include a peaceful Jesus who would bow down to Roman and Greek authority to show the world that Romans were in charge. So they also had the submissive peaceful side of Jesus who got baptized, had fear and payed his taxes to Ceaser.

So it actually makes sense, and BTW Christians bought it. It worked. Christians do not see things the way you do.

They had several ideas int eh Gospels, I also see Universal thoughts in the bible, but Christians don't accept that either.

Christians do exactly what Nero wanted them to do they try to enforce Christianity to people in the USA by having conservative Christian government, conservatives do.

Christianity seems to be something my Christians like to force down my throat, it strikes me as a Government religion that we have to enforce.

A state religion, Texas is a Christian state, Christians think they are at war with non Christians, so there's an attitude that the Christian God is a war God just like the Romans were at war with everyone.

It all makes sense to me.

The point that I was trying to make is that the gospels are full of stuff that the church doesn't like.

For example according to the church in order to remove your sins, one has to be babtized......but according to the gospels Jesus was baptized. Implying that ether thatJesus was a siner or that baptism is does not remove sins (non of these alternatives is desirable for the church)

If the gospels where myths invented by some "secret organization" intended to manipulate and control people, they would have written a different book with a different story and a different messia.

For example this secret organization would have removed the part in which Jesus was baptized.

The fact that the gospels have details that the church doesn't like, proves that the documents are authentic.....this is offten called the criteria of embarasment. If a document has embarasing details that go against their goals, it is likely to be authentic.

 

[lukethethird]

The fact that the gospels have details that the church doesn't like, proves that the documents are authentic.....this is offten called the criteria of embarasment. If a document has embarasing details that go against their goals, it is likely to be authentic.

I see, it's all true then.

 

[Riders]

The point that I was trying to make is that the gospels are full of stuff that the church doesn't like.

For example according to the church in order to remove your sins, one has to be babtized......but according to the gospels Jesus was baptized. Implying that ether thatJesus was a siner or that baptism is does not remove sins (non of these alternatives is desirable for the church)

If the gospels where myths invented by some "secret organization" intended to manipulate and control people, they would have written a different book with a different story and a different messia.

For example this secret organization would have removed the part in which Jesus was baptized.

The fact that the gospels have details that the church doesn't like, proves that the documents are authentic.....this is offten called the criteria of embarasment. If a document has embarasing details that go against their goals, it is likely to be authentic.

No the bible is not authentic, that means nothing. The bible also has Universal scriptures and the church does not want to hear that either.

It wasn't a secret organization BTW it was Roman and Greek leaders who made it into a Pagan version of Jewish Messianic beliefs. Just because it has Jesus being Baptized.

The church DOES LIKE IT They use that scripture to say Jesus was perfect to the point of carrying out all rituals of original messianic beliefs, in other words its just to say hey Jesus was one of us and he was still perfect. So what your saying does not make sense sense its not true,

The church loves that scripture, when i was at church they used it all the time, and BTW They also specifically use that scripture,

Because that is the exact exact scripture that says also that the dove came and landed on Jesus shoulder, it was really the Holy spirit saying this is the son of God.

So they actually use that scripture a lot as proof that Jesus is God, they love that scripture.

So and it sounds like your trying to say that Romans and Greeks, if the claim was real, if they were the ones writing it, they would have written stuff the church now would like.

Sweetie that was 2000 years ago, do you actually think they were writing it with today's
Christians in mind; that they would even know that their writings would have lasted 2000 years? No way no way, they were not writing to us, they had no idea we would be reading it.

If they had known 2000 years ago the whole world would be reading their gospels they would have fainted with glee.

They did not write for anyone but themselves and the community around them.
So today's church has nothing to do with how the bible was written nothing.

BTW the church has always looked at things sideways, when I point out the scripture where Jesus told the his apostles or followers not to rebuke a different religious group for healing people in his name;

Because if they are not against us they are for us; that right there says Jesus was open to different religions. But Christians will come up with an answer for it.

There's a hundred thousand different things you can come up with by reading scripture, but the church will always see it the way they want. The way it was written has nothing to do with the church.

You know the Pagans and mystics had good beliefs too, it was not hard for Nero to write to Jews or any of the groups.

They had special knowledge in all the religions and Roman and Greek myths have good stuff in it too probably ,they have good ethics and were fully capable of writing to Jews or anyone else.But they never wrote to today's church,the church of today has nothing to so with the writings of the bible as far as who it was written too.

 

[leroy]

No the bible is not authentic, that means nothing. The bible also has Universal scriptures and the church does not want to hear that either.

It wasn't a secret organization BTW it was Roman and Greek leaders who made it into a Pagan version of Jewish Messianic beliefs. Just because it has Jesus being Baptized.

The church DOES LIKE IT They use that scripture to say Jesus was perfect to the point of carrying out all rituals of original messianic beliefs, in other words its just to say hey Jesus was one of us and he was still perfect. So what your saying does not make sense sense its not true,

The church loves that scripture, when i was at church they used it all the time, and BTW They also specifically use that scripture,

Because that is the exact exact scripture that says also that the dove came and landed on Jesus shoulder, it was really the Holy spirit saying this is the son of God.

So they actually use that scripture a lot as proof that Jesus is God, they love that scripture.

So and it sounds like your trying to say that Romans and Greeks, if the claim was real, if they were the ones writing it, they would have written stuff the church now would like.

Sweetie that was 2000 years ago, do you actually think they were writing it with today's
Christians in mind; that they would even know that their writings would have lasted 2000 years? No way no way, they were not writing to us, they had no idea we would be reading it.

If they had known 2000 years ago the whole world would be reading their gospels they would have fainted with glee.

They did not write for anyone but themselves and the community around them.
So today's church has nothing to do with how the bible was written nothing.

BTW the church has always looked at things sideways, when I point out the scripture where Jesus told the his apostles or followers not to rebuke a different religious group for healing people in his name;

Because if they are not against us they are for us; that right there says Jesus was open to different religions. But Christians will come up with an answer for it.

There's a hundred thousand different things you can come up with by reading scripture, but the church will always see it the way they want. The way it was written has nothing to do with the church.

You know the Pagans and mystics had good beliefs too, it was not hard for Nero to write to Jews or any of the groups.

They had special knowledge in all the religions and Roman and Greek myths have good stuff in it too probably ,they have good ethics and were fully capable of writing to Jews or anyone else.But they never wrote to today's church,the church of today has nothing to so with the writings of the bible as far as who it was written too.

Just to clarify, your view is that the gospels where written by the Roman liders (Nero) ?



Why not simply assuming that they where written by Marc, Mathew, Luke and John ?who reported what they honestly belived happened 2000 years ago ?

*Ok ok it could be that Mathew and John where not the actual authors maybe their disciples wrote those documents.

 

[Riders]

No I don;t know who wrote it this video says Roman and Greek leaders. I am saying it was probably written in part by Pagans and the Christian religion has Pagan roots.
That scripture you mentioned has a magic dove in it .A wild dove came and sat On Jesus shoulder when heaven opened up and the voice of God came down and said this is my son in whom I am well pleased.

A wild dove sat on his shoulders, must have been a magic dove, its magic.Your going to tell me that's not Pagan or Greek?a magic bird its magic.

Didn't Hitchcock have a talking bird a talking crow in one of his movies or something? Love those magic birds<

 

[leroy]

No I don;t know who wrote it this video says Roman and Greek leaders. I am saying it was probably written in part by Pagans and the Christian religion has Pagan roots.
That scripture you mentioned has a magic dove in it .A wild dove came and sat On Jesus shoulder when heaven opened up and the voice of God came down and said this is my son in whom I am well pleased.

A wild dove sat on his shoulders, must have been a magic dove, its magic.Your going to tell me that's not Pagan or Greek?a magic bird its magic.

Didn't Hitchcock have a talking bird a talking crow in one of his movies or something? Love those magic birds<

Ok I already saw the video, and to be honest I was not familiar with that specific conspiracy theory.

So basically the claim is that the gospels and the character of Jesus was invented by the flabians in the year 70.

How do you deal with the apostle Paul and his writings.?

Paul was already writing about Jesus in the 50s he was already killing Christians, then he became a Cristian, meat James the brother of Jesus and other apostoles, And was arrested and decapitated by the Romans for promoting Christianity. He did all that 20-30 years before Christianity and Jesus where suppose to.be invented.

Isn't it strange that there was a guy writing about jesus, 20 years before the character of Jesus was invented by the flabians?

Isnt it strange that he was already killing Christians 20-30 years before Christians existed?

Isn't it strange that he meat James the brother of jesus 20-30 years before the character was invented? BTW James is suppose to be a mythical character too?

Isnt it strange that he became a Christian 20 years before Christianity was invented ?

How does Paul fit in your conspiracy theory?
----_------------+++++-------

Did you see "Dragon Ball" (the cartoon) when you where a child ?

 

[Riders]

Ok I already saw the video, and to be honest I was not familiar with that specific conspiracy theory.

So basically the claim is that the gospels and the character of Jesus was invented by the flabians in the year 70.

How do you deal with the apostle Paul and his writings.?

Paul was already writing about Jesus in the 50s he was already killing Christians, then he became a Cristian, meat James the brother of Jesus and other apostoles, And was arrested and decapitated by the Romans for promoting Christianity. He did all that 20-30 years before Christianity and Jesus where suppose to.be invented.

Isn't it strange that there was a guy writing about jesus, 20 years before the character of Jesus was invented by the flabians?

Isnt it strange that he was already killing Christians 20-30 years before Christians existed?

Isn't it strange that he meat James the brother of jesus 20-30 years before the character was invented? BTW James is suppose to be a mythical character too?

Isnt it strange that he became a Christian 20 years before Christianity was invented ?

How does Paul fit in your conspiracy theory?
----_------------+++++-------

Did you see "Dragon Ball" (the cartoon) when you where a child ?

Do you have proof for that? Its my understanding that many people here at religion debates have said that the new testament was written ay way way after Paul and Jesus Apostles lived.Way after that.

So what proof do you have?

 

[leroy]

Do you have proof for that? Its my understanding that many people here at religion debates have said that the new testament was written ay way way after Paul and Jesus Apostles lived.Way after that.

So what proof do you have?

There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (c. AD 53–54).[3]
F - Wikipediairst_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians

 

[Riders]

I have proof of historians who do not believe that, for as many who are not Christian, they don't believe including my male friend who is a historian I wrote last week. Yea there's a lot of people who disagree with the idea that historians all believe in Jesus.

That's the same thing I have heard from Christians anyways the only thing they can give all historians believe in jesus, that would mean all historians are Christians and we know they are not.

I have had standards set on me here saying people don't want to accept the proof I have provided in Wiki, I think wiki is a good source, but surely if you don't accept wiki as proof I'm not accepting all historians believe as proof either.
If I Iook on the internet i can find plenty off historians who say they don't agree with that.

 

[leroy]

I have proof of historians who do not believe that, for as many who are not Christian, they don't believe including my male friend who is a historian I wrote last week. Yea there's a lot of people who disagree with the idea that historians all believe in Jesus.

That's the same thing I have heard from Christians anyways the only thing they can give all historians believe in jesus, that would mean all historians are Christians and we know they are not.

I have had standards set on me here saying people don't want to accept the proof I have provided in Wiki, I think wiki is a good source, but surely if you don't accept wiki as proof I'm not accepting all historians believe as proof either.
If I Iook on the internet i can find plenty off historians who say they don't agree with that.

Could you name a historian who believes that the book of corinthians was written after the 70s?


Paul died in the 60s and he was the author of Corinthians (these are uncontroversial historical facts ) so obviouksly these letters where written before the character of Jesus was suppose to be invented by the flabians.

 

[lukethethird]

Could you name a historian who believes that the book of corinthians was written after the 70s?


Paul died in the 60s and he was the author of Corinthians (these are uncontroversial historical facts ) so obviouksly these letters where written before the character of Jesus was suppose to be invented by the flabians.

True, except the "uncontroversial historical facts" part. Everything is a good guess, or not so good as the case may be, not to mention the "flabians"?

 

[Riders]

Could you name a historian who believes that the book of corinthians was written after the 70s?


Paul died in the 60s and he was the author of Corinthians (these are uncontroversial historical facts ) so obviouksly these letters where written before the character of Jesus was suppose to be invented by the flabians.

This wikipedia article names historians as part of this qoute sense I don't know historians personally wiki is my best resource but I think Wiki is a good resource.

There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (c. AD 53–54).[3] The letter is quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and is included in every ancient canon,[4] including that of Marcion. The personal and even embarrassing texts about immorality in the church increase consensus.[5]

However, two passages may have been inserted at a later stage. The first passage is 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, dealing with praying and prophesying with head covering.[6] The second passage is 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, whose authenticity has been hotly debated. Part of the reason for doubt is that in some manuscripts, the verses come at the end of the chapter instead of at its present location. Furthermore, Paul is here appealing to the law which is uncharacteristic of him. Lastly, the verses come into conflict with 11:5 where women are described as praying and prophesying.[7] As well, 10:1–22 is sometimes regarded as another letter fragment, interpolation, or inserted midrash because, among other things, this section virtually seems to equate the consumption of idol meat with idolatry, but Paul seems more lenient regarding its consumption in 8:1–13 and 10:23–11:1.[8] Such views are rejected by other scholars who give arguments for the unity of 8:1–11:1

So even though it says Historians agree Paul wrote Cortinthians its only part of corinthians parts of it written by someone else. The fact that it was written by more then one person and some of we don't know who wrote puts the authorship of the bible in question.

I tend to agree with the video that Pagan leaders wrote it

 

[leroy]

This wikipedia article names historians as part of this qoute sense I don't know historians personally wiki is my best resource but I think Wiki is a good resource.

There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (c. AD 53–54).[3] The letter is quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and is included in every ancient canon,[4] including that of Marcion. The personal and even embarrassing texts about immorality in the church increase consensus.[5]

However, two passages may have been inserted at a later stage. The first passage is 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, dealing with praying and prophesying with head covering.[6] The second passage is 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, whose authenticity has been hotly debated. Part of the reason for doubt is that in some manuscripts, the verses come at the end of the chapter instead of at its present location. Furthermore, Paul is here appealing to the law which is uncharacteristic of him. Lastly, the verses come into conflict with 11:5 where women are described as praying and prophesying.[7] As well, 10:1–22 is sometimes regarded as another letter fragment, interpolation, or inserted midrash because, among other things, this section virtually seems to equate the consumption of idol meat with idolatry, but Paul seems more lenient regarding its consumption in 8:1–13 and 10:23–11:1.[8] Such views are rejected by other scholars who give arguments for the unity of 8:1–11:1

So even though it says Historians agree Paul wrote Cortinthians its only part of corinthians parts of it written by someone else. The fact that it was written by more then one person and some of we don't know who wrote puts the authorship of the bible in question.

I tend to agree with the video that Pagan leaders wrote it

Wether if the whole book was written by Paul or not is irrelevant. The point is that Paul wrote about Jesus , killed Christians, and later became a Christian long before the flavians where suppose to invent the character of Jesus

This proves that Christianity and Jesus where not invented by the flavians......christianity predates the flavian dynasty therefore Christianity and jesus could have not been a myth invented by the flavians

 

[Riders]

Wether if the whole book was written by Paul or not is irrelevant. The point is that Paul wrote about Jesus , killed Christians, and later became a Christian long before the flavians where suppose to invent the character of Jesus

This proves that Christianity and Jesus where not invented by the flavians......christianity predates the flavian dynasty therefore Christianity and jesus could have not been a myth invented by the flavians

Thats if Im buying that version. Even if I did theres a bunch of people who wrote the new testament, Paul writing part Corinthians does not mean the Pagan folk did not contribute either.

 

[leroy]

Thats if Im buying that version. Even if I did theres a bunch of people who wrote the new testament, Paul writing part Corinthians does not mean the Pagan folk did not contribute either.

Paul writing part of Corinthians proves that the video is wrong. ....if you want to incist that Jesus never existed, you better find an other conspiracy theory