For anyone who actually read the Bible....

[Playinghardball]

"The Jesus" lMAO

[awoke_in_2003]

1. ...

[Warpy]

2. He never said anything about abortion, either

Both abortion and homosexuality were well known in his time.

He only had harsh words for people who remarry after divorcing, especially women.

Talk about disqualifying most of the spiritually smug.

[left is right]

56. I think you are wrong about his addressing women about divorce.

I think it was directed at men, because marriage was the only way a woman could survive back then. A woman could not divorce her husband. The custom of the day allowed men to divorce for a variety of reasons, some as frivolous as burning the meal. A man just had to fo to the priest, petition for the divorce and receive his permission. Jesus' harsh criticism was directed at the frivolous reasons, leaving only infidelity as an acceptable reason. A divorced woman would have to remarry, unless she had a father or grown son willing to take her back. Jesus was actually very supportive of the few women’s rights available to them.

[Warpy]

59. His admonition was against a man marrying a divorced woman.

Divorced men could hop from virgin to virgin, apparently.

[wercal]

3. Not to get into a big argument ovet semantics

But the bible does address homosexuality (the word sodomy comes from somewhere).

I understand that its a slight of words, singling out Jesus...but as a meme its a fairly tortured argument.

[quaker bill]

5. Study up

sodomy is not necessarily a same gender thing.

[wercal]

10. Not necessarily

But by no means is it a certainty that it didn't

[left is right]

57. The profit Ezekiel very clearly condemned the city of Sodom

for being uncharitable to the poor and inhospitable to the stranger in their midst. Their sin was of pride and greed.

[bigwillq]

7. I hear girls are into sodomy too

[kydo]

8. Um SC and the OP were talking Jesus

Jesus didn't mention homosexuals or abortion. No where in the New Testament of the stuff in RED is any of those things mentioned. There is a vague reference, when Jesus was asked which commandments were most important, Jesus said two: Love God. Love your neighbor.

[wercal]

11. Yes I understand the slight of words

Bringing Jesus into the argument....but the intent is to lead people to the conclusion that the bible doesn:t address the subject....which is much more open to debate.

[curlyred]

16. I guess if you are one of those "Old Testament" Christians

That prefers to ignore the actual words and message of Christ, what you are saying is at least consistent. Wrong, but consistent.

[Iggo]

58. "Old Testament Christians"...

Nice one!

[AtheistCrusader]

22. By all means, yes, let's bring the OLD testament into this debate.

This is going to be good...

[hrmjustin]

34. No the intent of the OP is to say Jesus said nothing on Homosexuality.

[RichGirl]

78. Jesus never mentioned abstinance either.

Matt 25:40

Jesus said...whatever you do to the least of these (the needy, sick, hungry) you do to me.

I learned that in Sunday school. Wonder what evil force is teaching Christians today to do the opposite of what Jesus taught????

[kydo]

80. Jesus didn't say a lot of things that fundies believe in

The word rapture isn't in the bible either. Ok there is some greek to latin or some kind of translation thing where it is mentioned but you would need the Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome in the early 400s, in order to find it. And of course be able to read latin.

[QuestForSense]

9. Original meaning of 'sodomy' may surprise some

"Sodomy" as a term for gay male sex began to be commonly used only in the 11th century and would have surprised early religious commentators. They attributed Sodom's problems with God to many different causes, including idolatry, threats toward strangers and general lack of compassion for the downtrodden. Ezekiel 16:49 suggests that Sodomites "had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Hmm. "Did not aid the poor and needy." Who knew that that's what the Bible condemns as sodomy? At a time of budget cuts that devastate the poor, isn't that precisely the kind of disgusting immorality that we should all join together in the spirit of the Bible to repudiate?

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/original-meaning-of-sodomy-may-surprise-some/article_4b5897bf-2e6e-5574-8298-71f16d8ce5a3.html

[kelliekat44]

13. Thank you!! But most "Christians" will have none of it.They want sodomy to be what they want it to

be. Paul did the most talking about homosexuality though he phrased it differently (men laying with men, inflamed with unnatural sex...etc.) Most so-called Christians actually worship Paul and/or Jesus even though Jesus told them not to worship him but rather the "Father." (God) I think Jesus said more about adulty and lusting than anyother kind of "sexual immorality." Paul had a real problem or identity issue is you read his writings carefully. He was a sexist as well, and frequently said "I, not Jesus, say this.....

[winter is coming]

14. Paul was a class-A jackass, and I often wonder how much he distorted early Christianity.

If you read the stuff Jesus purportedly said, it doesn't take long to realize that Jesus would have been horrified by the notion of Jesus worship. That's one of the aspects of "modern" religious music that irks me: I hate the "going steady with Jesus" songs.

[A HERETIC I AM]

19. Well, to be fair, most American Christians don't actually practice "Christianity"....

they practice Paulianity and Peterianity.

So as far as how much Paul distorted the early religion, I would say entirely.


And you're right, the writings attributed to him are those of a class-A jackass. A woman hating dickweed.

[loudsue]

68. Thank you, Winter....Paul IS TRULY as much of a distorter as fox news is today.

Almost without exception, everything Jesus taught, Paul turned around and, in a very republican twisted-logic way, took a little bit of truth and made it a lie.

Paul is what you get when republicans love the bible. Jesus is what you get when democrats read the bible.

Nowhere does the bible mention abortion. Nowhere.

[LuvNewcastle]

69. "Paul was a class-A jackass"

I've always thought the same thing. In the Baptist churches I attended when I was growing up, more than half of the sermons I heard were based on Paul's writings.

[2naSalit]

29. As with everything else

written in the bible... it's all been re-written to facilitate the purpose for which it serves in the present time - revisionist reinterpretation to fit the demands of those who hold the power to convince others of whatever they want to make their "followers" believe.

Personally, after coming to this conclusion I discovered that I believe in nothing, however, I know a number of things and understand even more things and am willing to entertain a thought process about the rest. After growing up with four or five adamantly conflicted theological philosophies crammed down my throat, I think this is a sound mind set with which to journey through life regarding belief systems.

[Heather MC]

18. Sodomy comes from the old testament b4 Christ

It has to do with the men of Sodom and Gomorrah
But so what, why should anyone be forcing others to live their life based on an ancient text.
The Bible is just as made up as anyother work of fiction

[jmowreader]

26. It's up in the Old Testament Health Manual called the Book of Leviticus

And in that place it makes sense: if you're going to have any Levites at all after twenty or thirty years, the kind of sex that doesn't produce healthy little Levites has to be stopped at all costs.

Go through Leviticus 18 and the proscription against sex with men is almost an afterthought. There are a number of different classes of women you are not allowed to have sex with under the Mosaic Law:

any close relative...and then they put in a lot of amplification lines: you are not to have sex with...
your mother
any other woman your father is married to
your sister, whether she's your father's daughter with a woman not your mother or your mother's daughter
daughters of your children
your father's sister
any of your father's brothers' wives
both a woman AND her daughter; pick one or the other, please
the sister of any of your own wives
your neighbor's wife

And after that, only then do they get to the part about having sex with men.

[Revanchist]

30. According to the Bible, Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen (Ezekiel 16:49–50).

A sodomite is your typical rich person.

[Nine]

76. +1 (nt)

[hrmjustin]

32. But Jesus never said anything on it.

[joeybee12]

84. Um, no it's not...

The references to homosexuality are in the OT...and as a good Christian, I am sure know the NT replaces the OT, or so the nuns told us.

[gopiscrap]

4. exactly

[Jamaal510]

6. Sexual orientation (and abortion) are simply

wedge issues designed to get people riled up enough to ultimately vote against their own financial well-being for more top tax cuts. Neither of these issues have jack spit to do with the basic teachings of Christ.

[Major Nikon]

17. Jesus had quite a bit to say about social justice and wealth accumulation

You don't hear wingnuts talk about that much these days.

[u4ic]

50. The Conservative Bible Project

Started by said wingnuts, who state that the Bible was interpreted by liberal scholars, and are re-interpreting it. I'm curious how they got around the issues you mentioned.

I prefer the LOL cat Bible myself.

[Major Nikon]

62. Christianity has always been interpreted by prevailing attitudes of religionists

Even by Jesus himself. The god of the old testament was a vengful god who never hesitated to deal out fire and brimstone to scornful followers, even children and the unborn. The god of the new testament is one of love and understanding, fulling willing and able to forgive believers. To those who claim to know what god wants, he is whatever you want him to be. Man created god in his own image, not the other way around.

[Rozlee]

12. Is there even evidence that Jesus existed as he was depicted?

In my belief, he was a construct of fantasy, confabulation and what passed at the time for urban legend. Today, even with all our modern communications, there are still crackpots out there that believe Elvis is still alive and that build cults around other deceased public figures. Imagine how that played out in a primitive superstitious culture. He was never mentioned in any historical context during his life, meaning that he didn't make any kind of real impression except as a local folk hero. The people built him up into a legend and gave him the status of a god after his death. The fact that his mythos mirrors that of so many other deities like Mithras, Horus and other gods that were born of virgins and resurrected, just proves he was given divinity after the fact. Tupac, Elvis, JFK, Jimmy Hoffa and D.B. Cooper aren't dead either. Trust me on this.

[zeemike]

20. The same could be said for Plato, Aristotle, and Alexander the Great.

When you look at it we have little evidence that they ever existed...other than some writings that could have been just made up.
But we chose to believe they were real because they did not do anything out of the ordinary like Jesus or Siddhartha.
And not that any of them were not mentioned in history of the time, but we have little of those writings that survived time...the vast majority of those historical writings were destroyed, like in the fire that destroyed the great library in Alexandria which contained writings from all over the world...
The bible survived because monks kept making copies of it and did so very acuratly...as shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[LeftyMom]

21. Actually you're disproving your own point.

There is excellent corroborating evidence for all three of the figures you mentioned. Contemporaries wrote to them, about them, quoted them. Even though a great deal of Greek writing was lost in the dark ages we know a great deal. The documentary evidence for Jesus, which would have been lovingly preserved if it existed, was all written a generation or more later, and is all sketchy (Josephus) or contradictory and not especially grounded in reality (the gospels.)

The notion that anybody was a particular pain in the ass to the Romans, who wrote EVERYTHING down in official records, gossipy letters, salacious graffiti and everything in between, yet somehow they didn't mention him in any of the copious records of the period is only persuasive if you have absolutely no familiarity with Roman history. They were obsessed with the ongoing problem of pacifying Judea, they wrote about problems there endlessly, the notion that any major figure there was unrecorded while causing enough of a stir to merit execution is preposterous.

We have more records of random army wives on the frontiers of the Empire than we do for Jesus.

[zeemike]

28. Well his contemporaries wrote about Jesus too

Called Mathew Mark Luke and John...but you dismiss it because the only copies you have of it are written later...and so your conclusion is that it was made up...an assumption with no facts to show it.

But no, you don't know a great deal about those times....in fact we know very little...but from that little you construct history and claim we know a lot.
How much of the Roman writings survived?, .01% or less? and from that you surmise you know a great deal?...and can say they wrote nothing about Jesus?...now that is a strech...it is like finding a page from War and Peace and claiming you know the story.

No you don't believe because the story told is out of your comfort zone because it talks about things you think are imposable and so you dismiss it all.

[Rozlee]

31. Actually, neither of them were Jesus' contemporaries.

Mark was written in 75. The other gospels between 10 and 25 years later. And each gospel builds on the previous one, becoming more elaborate and fleshed out, and in some cases, contradicting facts in the earlier one.

[zeemike]

43. You say things you could not possibly know.

The negative...it could not have been written before 75...
And the fact that all of them do not say the same thing is proof that it was 4 different people because no two people see and experience things the same way...I would not expect them to all be the same.
But I have had this argument before, and what you say is not new to me...but I don't believe that we know the truth of it and could not possibly know it....unless you find proof of a negative that it was not written by them.

[LeftyMom]

33. No credible scholar thinks that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at the time

For one thing it's clear that some of them (Matthew, Luke) are derived from others (Mark) and John was clearly written last because it references the other written accounts. Nobody in the field thinks Mark was written before 65 CE, and all of the derivative books are decades after that. Nobody thinks John was written until 100 CE or so. As a result you can't even make a case that most of the gospels were written by anybody who ever met a historical Jesus, because the math alone stretches credibility, the very earliest date for the earliest account would have been written by a senior citizen if it was written by the biblical figure Mark, which absolutely nobody credible believes. Writing from the perspective of prominent figures was a common practice at the time.

[zeemike]

40. No one thinks...and that makes it so without evidence.

Well to be credible you cannot think that they wrote it themselves...because the credible ones say so.
It always blows me away that people can claim they know things they could not passably know.
Mathew could have sat down and wrote it out himself...he was literate you know....and that parchment could have gotten so ragged another copied it...in fact made several copies and passed them around, but the only one that survived was one made much later...that is why they made copies, because the original would not last.

But there are people that do believe those are true acounts...but they are not credible?...because if it was, the credible people would know about it?...as if they had access to all the writings of the times?

No they base their opinion on faith in a few scraps of evidence tells all, and say that is all there is to it....out of the millions of written records that must have existed.

[LeftyMom]

41. Are you really that ignorant of the history of your own religion?

That's very sad.

[zeemike]

45. Well it is not my religion.

But I have studied all kinds of religons...and I am not ignorant.

[LeftyMom]

46. So you're a non-Christian arguing for an ahistorical literalist interpretation of the gospels?

[zeemike]

51. No I am a person interested in history and religion.

And I am arguing against the notion that we know what happened 2000 years ago based on a few scraps of information that are then taken into pure speculation.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

97. Do you realize how deliciously ironic this statement of yours is? n/t

[zeemike]

98. And do you realize how condescending your reply is?

And with no substance to it?
Well of course you do, it is a hit and run.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

99. No hit and run, lol. And the substance of my response lies in the ability of

the reader to understand why your preceding comment is so ironic.

Also, do you know the definition of "condescending" and "ironic" because you're not reacting as if you do?

To chastise anyone for relying on tiny scraps of information as being the basis for their "faith" that something happened the way they "think" it did (or perhaps that a certain someone exists/existed in a supernatural, omniscient realm) is ironic when you consider what you yourself believe while having NO scraps of evidence or information whatever. You simply rely on your faith to support your belief in Jesus, that Jesus lived at all, and that God exists and is watching over us every minute of every day, while simultaneously choosing the winner in nearly every sport and or other activity for which He is credited and thanked. Some scraps of evidence that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't know Jesus personally are a lot more evidence for their part than the evidence you possess that supports your hypothesis that Jesus did indeed exist, and by extension that God exists.

[zeemike]

100. Yes I know the meaning of irony.

: the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny

: a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected

I was not being funny and not using expressing ideas I did not believe in.

But you are being condescending by insisting that what I say comes from my ignorance that is so much below the awesome truth you posses in this subject.
And insisting I have NO evidence for it...and that makes the scraps of evidence you say you have as the winner...what the truth is that I have no evidence YOU will accept as evidence because you chose to impeach them all and reject it compleatly....but I am not allowed to impeach your scraps of evidence because that would not being bowing to your superior knowledge.

I have been here before...dozens of times when trying to discuss this subject...and it always ends the same way, condescending attacks and the claims that I am just ignorant because I don't see it your way.

[NuclearDem]

47. You have GOT to be kidding.

You clearly have not done your research, or at the very least don't understand historians' and archaeologists' methodologies.

[LeftyMom]

36. We know, on the other hand, a great deal about historical figures of the period.

We know their genealogies in most cases, the Romans being somewhat obsessed with familiar honor. Of course the genealogies of Jesus are one of the fishier things in the gospels, since they contradict each other and go through Joseph- the one person we can be absolutely sure would bear no relation if the accounts were true in order to retcon Jesus to prophecies about the Messiah coming from the line of David. We know what jobs they took when, when they traveled, who taught them, what they thought of other figures at the time, who they schemed with, who they slept around with. We have detailed records of what things cost and why that changed from time to time. Historical figures with murky histories from the period are the rare exception, not the rule, and even they are well documented when they become prominent.

[zeemike]

48. "we can be absolutely sure"

No you can't...there are only a tiny fraction of the writings of that time that survived...so you can't be absolutely sure about anything other than you don't have all the evedence...not even close.
But you chose to believe the accounts of kings and famous people who were written about as the truth...how do you know that they did not pad their stories?...as important people often do.

That is a failing with scholars, their ego causes them to speak with certainty so that they look like they know more than they really do.

[LeftyMom]

53. I'm sorry, you're apparently unfamiliar with the primary sources of the period.

As I was already explaining, we don't have doctored royal histories and nothing else to go on (for the murkiest parts of the Dark Ages that's the sort of evidence we have, the classical period is enormously better documented.) We have letters. Endless letters. We have military orders high ranking and low. We have inscriptions. We have receipts. We have poems and drama and visual art depicting the current and recent events of the period. Because so many people wrote about prominent events we know who's accurate and who's not, and what certain people's biases are, because we can check them against each other. It is a remarkably well documented period- we probably don't know as much about what was going on anywhere in Europe again, excepting Constantinople, for a thousand years.

So the idea that Jesus was hosting thousands of peasants for the Sermon on the Mount in the most troubled Roman province while escaping official notice, while performing miracles and taking jabs at the Roman state, and that this was such a pain that he was put to death but nobody wrote a thing about it for a lifetime makes about as much sense as saying Caesar sent a mission to the Americas and nobody thought to draw a map or write a receipt for supplies. It's a well documented period, we already know that disturbances in Judea would be recorded because they happened and they were (see documentary evidence for the Bar Kochba rebellion or for the Roman response to early Christian preaching or the endless hand wringing about Rome's murky relationship with Herod.)

For that matter, the biblical depiction of Herod doesn't match up at all with the historical figure. Different personality, and the dates don't even match up to his reign (he would have died already. We have a pretty good idea of when he died, via a few different sources, and it's only debatable within a few years.) We also have great evidence of his reign (since the ancient Romans and the ancient Jews were both highly literate cultures with a great love of record keeping) and no, there's no hint of anything like the massacre of the innocents. So literally the one verifiable interaction with a well documented historical figure in the whole account is a complete fabrication.

[zeemike]

54. So then we know all about it then.

Even about a rag tag band of people like Jesus and his followers because they were so important everyone would have written about it...and surly we would have their writings....just like Herod.

But again I ask, what percentage of the writing of that time survived?...even if it were 1 percent that leaves a lot not seen...but I suspect it was far less than that...and so the chance of finding an account of it is very small.
Again, you can't read one page out of a book and claim to know the whole story....you can theorize and speculate, but it is not honest to say you know all about it.

But these kinds of discussions always are the same...insisting that we know far more than we really do, and suggesting that if you don't believe what is speculated on you are ignorant.

[intaglio]

61. The only writings of the time that survived about Jesus?

Most by the man who called himself Paul - who never even saw Jesus and by 1 unknown author (who we call Mark) whose texts were heavily edited in later times, notably by the addition of the resurrection story. Both Matthew and Luke (again, real names unknown) copy from Mark. The "Q" text, if it existed, has obviously not survived.

None of the Gospel writers had any direct contact with Jesus and all write from a 3rd person view. All the Gospels include tales and parables copied from earlier traditions of both the Judeans and other cultures in the area. There is also the likelihood that none of the Gospel writers actually spoke Aramaic, certainly the internal evidence supports that idea as they cite only the Greek versions of the Torah - the Septuagint - and use Greek grammatical tricks never Aramaic ones. John (real name inknown) is an anti-Jewish text, assigning blame for the rejection of Jesus to the Jews, hence probably later than Paul.

The bulk actions of Jesus; the loaves and fishes miracles, the entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the Temple; would certainly have attracted the attention of the Roman authorities but there is not word one about these in outside sources - even Josephus.

Of the other books of the New Testament? Acts does not refer to the Ministry, the non-Pauline letters are forgeries pseudepigraphical and are much later as are the later letters of Paul. Revelation is, I was surprised to learn, is likely very early but does not concern itself with a real Jesus at all; as a side bar on the 666 issue the early versions of Mark have only 666 verses.

[zeemike]

65. I have heard that all before.

In fact every time I hear this topic discussed...and I say the same thing back...that is your theory not fact, but they always present it as if it were indisputable fact.
You do not know that Mark did not write it, and you do not know that he edited it, and yo do not know any of those things you present as if it were fact...like this statement.
"None of the Gospel writers had any direct contact with Jesus"
You have no way to know that...

But I guess this is not a science at all, because no scientist would make such a statement based on such scant evidence and claim a negative as a certainty.
And BTW, there is other writings that you probably do not know about...Look up Saint Issa...a text found in a Tibetan monastery about Jesus who came their to learn and study in his missing 20 years of his life in the bible...but again, of course they just made it up...because once scholars have reached a conclusion like that, they must dismiss all evidence to the contrary as myth...

[NuclearDem]

70. Alright, you've officially lost all credibility.

You just tried to cite the Saint Issa hoax as serious evidence.

[zeemike]

71. And you did what all do.who want to dismiss this

Call it a hoax and claim the upper position of credibility...by dividing all evidence between credible and not credible...and you are the one that determines what is and is not.
Like I said I have seen this all before...the pattern never changes.

[NuclearDem]

72. No, it's not a conspiracy, that Saint Isa story was a damn hoax.

And given that I'm a damn history major, I've got every bit of ground to call a historical hoax for what it is. You have to be able to separate the fact from fiction, otherwise we'd know nothing about history.

[zeemike]

74. And of course history majors cannot be wrong.

But I don't wish to continue this because really I have hijacked this thread by my commenting on it...and these arguments against what I said are old and tired and so am I.

[intaglio]

75. OK, so you are admitting to a closed mind

Fact - Matthew and Luke quote from Mark therefore have to be later than Mark.

Fact - The earliest versions of Mark (Codices Siniaticus and Alexandrinus) do not include the final verses regarding the Resurrection.

Fact - Only tradition assigns the name Mark to the gospel of that name, it is not mentioned in any of the other books or epistles in the New Testament. Eusebius (who probably falsified the Testamentum Flavianum) cites an older Church father who says he heard from another unconnected 3rd party that the author was called John Mark who was mentioned in Acts. The problems with this identity are many fold. Firstly and obviously Acts does not identify this Mark with the author of a Gospel; secondly John Mark was a Palestinian Jew yet the author of Mark makes simple errors regarding Palestinian geography and custom as well as not comprehending the traditions and laws of the area.

Fact - Only tradition assigns the name of Matthew to the Gospel of that name. That name is not assigned in the text of that book nor in any other part of the Bible. Papias of Hierapolis in a work that survives does assign the name to the author but provides no detail of this claim. It is not until more than a century after the completion of this book that the elders assign it to Matthew the Tax Collector. A few elements of Matthew may be from about 50 or 60 CE but the bulk was re-written at a later date using several sources including Mark.

Fact - Luke is not named in the Gospel or Acts as author of those works. He is certainly not the Lucius mentioned in the Acts as Luke was an uncircumcised Gentile and stylistically writes as a Greek; the Catholic Encyclopedia claims the name is derived from Lucanus. The dubious Eusebius claims he was from Antioch.

Fact - John is not described in the book of that name as the author. The only indication (aside from tradition) that it is the Apostle John wrote this book is that he does not specify the Apostle of that name on stories that involve that Apostle. What is pretty certain is that it was the same person or persons who wrote the Apocalypse and the Johannine letters. The one problem comes with the theology, because the Gospel and its accompanying texts are Gnostic in character - i.e. Jesus only appeared to be a man and was not really there. The other problem is that only a few elements in the book seem to be old the rest being written or edited after the other Gospels.

I could go on at great length but I will turn to St Issa

Unless you are a Theosophist you should give no credence to the fantasy of "St Issa" because it was the invention of Madam Blavatsky and her cronies. The text has never been found by honest researchers in the area. Oh, and before you go off about how it was actually discovered by a Russian officer prior to the Blavatsky's visit please recall that the said officer knew dear Helena and much evidence says he never went anywhere near the monastery where he claimed to have been.

[zeemike]

77. I am admitting to no such thing.

My mind has been open to all kinds of things for at least the last 40 years...and I have studied not only about other religions but science and atheism as well.

And like I said, I have heard all of these things before...you claim a fact and then turn it into a theory and speculate on it, and then claim the fact proves your speculation is true.
And I could go on and on too...but I will just take your first one to illustrate my point.

Fact - The earliest versions of Mark (Codices Siniaticus and Alexandrinus) do not include the final verses regarding the Resurrection.

Here your fact leeds you to the claim that the Codices Siniaticus is the original one and therefore speculate that it must be a constructed text...when the fact is you don't know if it was the first one or not...you speculate that it was...and the same thing is repeated in all the other facts you cite.
Sorry, but I have a higher standard of proof than that.

[intaglio]

79. What have I said that is not fact?

I did not say that Siniaticus was the original version just that it is the earliest copy and that, like Alexandrinus, this earliest copy does not have the last verses. I could also have added that, stylistically, the last verses are out of place, i.e. not running on from the text they follow.

What you are saying is that the earliest copyists did not copy all of the book which was meant to be Holy Writ.

Essentially what you are claiming is that what you believe is evidence for what you believe. Where, for example, is your proof that a person called Mark wrote the book? Please remember that hearsay from Eusebius claiming to quote hearsay from Papias who would have been quoting hearsay from another, unnamed, person is not proof. Tradition is not proof for if it was then Robin Hood and Johny Appleseed would have been real.

What I am doing is citing the earliest known texts of a work, latterly the stylistic reasons why the ending you know does not belong. I am citing the known fact that no-where within the sacred texts are the names of the Gospel writers given. If you have proof they are give me chapter and verse but do not claim proof because to do so abuses the word.

[zeemike]

81. Well I am not making any assumptions at all.

Because I don't know and neither do you...there are all kinds of posibilities...the earliest copy could have been made by others who left out parts or the parts were lost...and I do not make assumptions that style proves anything at all about the truth or non truth of the text...you are doing that...

But here is what I am claiming, that people who have a vested interest in discrediting the very existence of Jesus are making lots of assumptions based on little or no evidence for it...and ignoring the evidence that they are wrong.
And they do so with the attitude that if you don't buy it or question it it is because you are stupid and ignorant, I guess because they think they know all about things that they could not possibly know....once again ego gets in the way of truth and honest inquires.

Sorry but my gut feeling and the evidence I have seen and the words he is said to have spoken tells me he was real and is not a fairy tail constructed to fool people...but I do not say you are ignorant if you don't feel the same way.

[intaglio]

83. You have claimed proof - demonstrate it

I have demonstrated textual and stylistic reasons why what I say is true and all you do is put your fingers in your ears shouting "la-la-la I cannot hear you"

As to having a vested interest please tell me what it is?

And again you are saying I am making assumptions. What are my assumptions? Itemise them and then demonstrate why they are assumptions. I seem to have read the Gospels far more extensively than yourself but you just whine that my facts are assumptions.

Here are facts:
1) No Gospel names its own author nor the authors of any of the other Gospels.
2) The earliest copies of Mark do not include the resurrection
3) There is no evidence within the Gospels that the authors met Jesus, indeed no evidence that the authors met the disciples.

There are the 3 foundational facts from my argument please refute them. If you refuse you will show yourself to be willfully blind.

[zeemike]

85. I have not claimed proof I have claimed evidence.

Which is different than saying it was all made up because you see alleged differences is style....as if style was some kind of fixed thing like a fingerprint that proved identity....and just because I question your evidence does not mean I don't hear you.

But you tell me...are you an athiest?...do you think there is any other thing that exists other than matter and energy?...is there life after death or just oblivion?...if you do believe this then the teachings of Jesus is a threat to your belief system and you have a vested interest in dissing it.
And I have read the whole bible through like one would read a book, not looking for inconsistencies and contradictions but for the story...and you cannot stump me on what that story is...nor what the meaning of the teachings of Jesus is...which by the way, is consistent with Buddhism as well as many other religious belief systems, including native Americans.
But I do not conclude from it that it means the bible was made up from other stories. And if I had a conclusion it would be that there is a fundamental truth to it that transcends culture.

1) No Gospel names its own author nor the authors of any of the other Gospels.
So what...does that prove someone made it up?...that is a leap to a conclusion as if all authors should name themselves?

2) The earliest copies of Mark do not include the resurrection
So want again?...if you have evidence that this is the original text then you can say that someone added it later...but you don't.

3) There is no evidence within the Gospels that the authors met Jesus, indeed no evidence that the authors met the disciples.
So what again?...they are witnesses to an event and why should they have to declare they met Jesus...their claim to know what he said and did is that declaration it seems to me.

[intaglio]

86. Fine now let's go over what you ignore

1) It shows that the titles of the texts are likely to have been fabricated. You are just assuming that the tradition is flawless.

2) The earliest copies of Mark lack the resurrection tale and, as I pointed out there is evidence that it was added later due to the stylistic mismatch and the lack of link to the foregoing text. You have ignored that and assumed that the single most important detail of the legend, the proof of the Christs' divinity was omitted from these early copies of Mark for no reason whatsoever.

3) They were not witnesses to the events.

a) How, for example, did the putative authors observe Jesus' actions at the Garden of Gethsemane? (Matthew 26:36-46, Luke 22:39-46 and Mark 14:32-42).

b) Mark was not the name of any of the Disciples and the 2 or 3 Marks in the 70 Apostles were Palestinian Jews and hence would not have made the errors of geography and custom that are apparent on the Gospel attributed to one of them.

c) Luke supposedly lived in Antioch, was a Syrian Greek who did not speak Aramaic (known because of the errors he makes in translation) and so could not have witnessed the ministry and events of Christs' life.

d) Matthew supposedly was one of the first 12 Apostles but the actual author of this Gospel includes fantastic details which did not happen, notable the raising of many other dead along with Jesus, the flight into Egypt and the temptation on the mountaintop.

e) The Gospels contradict each other on details for which there should be no argument if they were actual witnesses

Now you say you claim evidence, not proof; so what is your evidence, for you have not given any yet.

Atheism, so what? I am not trying to convert anyone just pointing out the nonsensical inconsistencies that faith (of whatever sort) tries to inflict on otherwise functional minds. Do I think that the teachings of Jesus are a threat? Why should I? Most are completely irrelevant and the few nuggets of ethical conduct attributed to him with were the common currency of philosophy and ethics in the Graeco-Roman sphere of influence.

As to an afterlife ... well tell me what a soul is and then tell me how it survives death; afterward tell me how it senses anything without senses and acts on matter when it is non-material; or if there is a bodily resurrection and if so whether we keep all the same bodily functions. Perhaps you could advise me on whether we have a memory in this afterlife and, if perfect, how long before we find repeating the same actions unutterably boring, because in an eternity that is what would happen.

Now me, well I will live for all the time there is from my point of view. I have the chance to make myself and others as happy as I can and can choose to act ethically because that is pleasing to social animals like humans. When I die I will not face an eternity of boredom nor an eternity of torture. Being self aware I would like others to be happy that I have lived and perhaps a little sad as I am dying.

[zeemike]

87. And you are just assuming it has been fabricated.

And the reason is clear enough to me, because you as an atheist must defend your "faith" in that belief.
And I will not reply to all your nit picking because I do suppose the author of this OP is tired of it, and so am I, because no matter what I say you will just keep repeating your facts and using them to form assumptions about things you don't really know...
And no matter how much evidence I give it will be rejected and you will find other things to discredit it with...that is the pattern of these discussions that I have experienced going on 20 years now on the innertube...the first discussion boards I dealt with had these same discussions and they have not changed at all.
But this statement shows how little you know about the teachings of Jesus...

Most are completely irrelevant and the few nuggets of ethical conduct attributed to him with were the common currency of philosophy and ethics in the Graeco-Roman sphere of influence.

If that were true, they would not have wanted to kill him.
And I will not tell you anything about the afterlife at all, because life is a journey of learning, and you are in a stage of that learning, and must learn for yourself what many already know...and by the way, you are in a stage above the Christian fundamentalist in that learning...I know you will not understand that ether so don't ask me to explain.

But I will tell you that time is an illusion and we as humans with material brains are trapped in that illusion...and there is only death for the body not the counciousness....and at some time on your path you will understand that.

[intaglio]

88. You spend all your time lying to youtself

I made no mention of atheism, that was you; I did not defend atheism, just pointed to the illogicality of your position. Atheism is not a religious faith for it requires no religious faith; it requires no belief in some fantastical deity or non-physical animating forces that are undetectable and immune to time. There is a degree of non-religious faith that what can be detected with the senses or presented for detection with the senses actually exists but that faith is required by all self aware creatures if they are to thrive in what they believe is a real world.

Of course you will now proceed to ignore the sense of the preceding and declare yourself the winner because I have said I have the same non-religious faith as yourself. That will be a lie but, as I observed at the start, you spend your time lying to yourself.

Nit picking. It is not "nit picking" to ask that you present evidence or proof of your assertions. Your reasoning for failing to present that evidence is that I will ignore your evidence but you ignore the chance any other person reading what we put here and being convinced by your evidence. The only way that your failure to present your evidence can be justified is if you believe in predestination and it is unnecessary for you offer the chance of salvation to the casual reader.

If course you will now declare it is nit picking for me to point out the hole in your argument that would pass an iron chariot. That declaration would be a lie but that is what you do to yourself.

You declare, on no basis whatsoever, that I have no knowledge of the teachings of Jesus because I accurately declared that the ethical teachings ascribed to him were prefigured in the philosophies of the Graeco-Roman world. As I pointed out the other teachings were irrelevant yet you then continue the point by the non-sequitur that his teachings were why they wanted to kill him.

Well, that is a lie because it is utterly unrelated to the point I was making, but you persist in fantasizing about my arguments and thus lying to yourself.

And finally we come to the core of your faith and the heart of your self deception. Well, I'm sorry but I cannot honour an elitist faith where only the enlightened few can receive knowledge of the afterlife and all others are condemned to ignorance and confusion. Essentially you are declaring yourself blessed with a special understanding denied to most others and, by default, accepting the mantle of prophet.

You will, of course, say that I am doing the same - but that is a lie. I am not asking that people become religious or irreligious just that they examine the foundations of what they believe and abandon what is demonstrably false. On the other hand you are asking not only that the old falsehoods are accepted but that new falsehoods are accepted, without demur, because you declare them true. At this point you are not only harming yourself by your lies but are attempting to harm others with your deception.

[zeemike]

93. Conservatism and Libertarians are not a religion too

But you will play hell trying to convince them there is anything but the truth of their faith in the teachings of Ayn Rand...it is not about religion only, it is about ridged belief in one system that closes the mind to any other idea.
And I am not here to convert you to anything...you must learn things yourself...and I don't give a fuck what anyone reading this thinks...some will understand what I say and some will not...and I will not be able to convert anyone to anything.

But all you know about the bible is what you have read while looking for contradictions and errors with which to declair it bullshit with...That is common with people of non faith, just as common as those fundies that read it for tid bits that support their own belief system...I read it for the story, and made no judgment as to whether it is all true or not...that is the diference...and I can tell you that the teachings of Jesus was in no way common in those times...and he made blistering attacks on the common belief of the times...and even phisically attacked the money changes in the temple, that was near and dear to the Roman as well as the Jewish leadership...and his predecessor John the Baptist was beheaded for his criticism of the system they believed in.

But you are wrong, there is no elite class of people that can receive any truth...anyone can receive it if they are willing to open their mind and let it in...but most are too afraid to do that because they are afraid of what is behind that door that will shatter what they have been so heavily invested in...be it faith in fundamentalist religion or belief in materalism....change and being wrong is what is feared

[intaglio]

95. Your response is irrelevant and it begins with a straw man ...

... you lose

[fadedrose]

92. Much of your posts remind me of the Jesus Seminar (Q, etc)

I used to subscribe to it. Most of the Gospels are made up, very little is actually ascribed to Jesus....Thiering on the other hand, gives Jesus' real persona a going over like the Seminar never gave him. Thiering was a member at the time I was subscribing. She wrote, among other books, Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls," finally released by the catholic church which insists that the residents of Qumron were not Christians, but Essenes or something like that. She disagrees.

I have both books of Pseudepigrapha, and honestly have not read them all. There's just too much for one lifetime to absorb all this stuff...

But I do believe what I read in her books. It all makes sense. I just got the 3rd one from the library, having a hard time reading it because so much happens in the news lately that it's hard to concentrate on two millennium ago...

[intaglio]

94. Not looked at Funk's group

My knowledge of C. Siniaticus and C. Alexandrinus comes from a job I had years ago when I was lucky enough to work with those whose job it was to study those Mss. and some of the P.Oxyrhincus.

Ehrlmann's book "Forged" is a useful guide to the anonymity of the authors of the Bible.

My personal theory regarding Jesus is that it was a common name at the time and wandering preachers, whilst not 2 a penny, were far from rare so there is a pretty good chance that several of these minor figures existed. Following the disastrous First Jewish/Roman war fragments of tales were gathered, together with the ideas of the Pauline, Gnostic and Essene mystery religions. Looked at in this light -
1) Mark becomes an allegory of the end of that War using these old fragments:

2) The Matthew author reinterprets Mark adding a more Jewish flavour:

3) Luke is a response to that possibly at the urging of Saul/Paul:

4) John may have been three people, a collector of tales perhaps as early as 40-50 CE; the author who wrote the Epistles and the Apocalypse (the last as an allegory of the destruction of the Temple) and the editor who pulled them all together:

5) Lastly there is Paul the purveyor of a Jewish mystery religion to the Gentiles.

It is even possible that the origin of Jesus "of Nazareth" or "the Nazarine" or "the Nazarite" may have been Mark's allegorical attempt to tie the foundations of the Jewish/Roman War to the earlier final battle of the Galilean revolt in 6 CE.

I stress this is only my personal idea

[fadedrose]

89. Try reading this post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4019384

Dr. Barbara Thiering, U of Austrailia, would disagree with you. She studied and transcribed the Dead Sea Scrolls from Greek, written contemporaneous with the Gospels, give great detail about the early Christians, and the reason Josephus doesn't say much about Jesus...

The gnostic gospels were written around the same time, perhaps a little later. Thiering claims that John (real name unknown) was Jesus himself who was becoming anit-Jewish because of their rejection of him. He wanted to relax Jewish laws to convert more people . . .

[intaglio]

91. There have been lots of reasons found why Josephus might have been silent

One was even that Josephus was "Mark" which, as written without the resurrection, can be seen as the work of a disenchanted cult member.

The problem really is that there are several contemporaneous sources all of whom are silent.

I've also seen a theory that Marcion wrote Pauls' epistles

[NuclearDem]

42. Fine, so we end up finding this mythical Roman document on Jesus.

It still remains that the Jesus everyone knows has been created out of countless other older religious traditions: the Egyptians, the Greco-Roman pantheon, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Canaanite mythology.

Even if there was an historical Jesus, he's most likely to have been an insurgent against the Romans who was executed and subsequently deified much later by what we know as the early church.

[zeemike]

49. That is a theory not a fact.

And all kinds of literature is similar to other literature...that does not prove they are the same story...there is nothing new under the sun.

And saying it is "most likely" implies you have some evidence for it, other than speculation.

[Rozlee]

27. Yes, many heroes, kings and luminaries are made legendary more by their followers than their own

documented achievements during their lives. And you're right; although many of them were considered great, they didn't create world religions. The belief in Jesus' divinity has created over 2 billion worshipers today.

[NuclearDem]

37. Some wars and forced conversions had more to do with that.

[Rozlee]

52. That's true.

Christianity would never had gotten a serious toehold if it hadn't been for Constantine starting the process of ramming it down the throats of Europe, which eventually spread it to the Americas. It might have died a natural death if it had remained in fractured sects in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Near Asia and Africa.

[intaglio]

60. Alexander the Great? plenty of evidence

Coins, writings (both Greek and non-Greek) of the time, cities, statuary and inscriptions, closely dated archaeology.

Plato and Aristotle much less but more than the evidence for Paul - all have surviving copies of their writings but both the Greeks are cited by those who opposed them at the time; the only similar citations for Paul are from much later forged texts. Pythagoras is closer to mythological but Pythagoras has writings directly attributed to him plus there was cult founded by him, rather like Paul.

Socrates and Hippocrates are closer to Jesus and it has been credibly argued that Socrates was an invention of Plato's but the closest match from the Greek world is Aesculapius; born of a maid and fathered by a God, early life spent in an alien culture learning, displayed supernatural skills in learning and healing, wandered teaching and healing, taught his followers, raised the dead and in some traditions was raised from the dead as a god.

[snooper2]

64. Really? ROFL

I love funny posts first thing on Monday morning...Some people will even think you are being serious

[zeemike]

66. That is because what you don't understand you ridicule.

I is far easier than trying to understand.

[snooper2]

67. I Jesus made up of matter?

[fadedrose]

90. He existed, but not as depicted

[sarisataka]

15. I always assume Jesus' stance on homosexuality was contained in this-

when asked what is the greatest commandment, He said there are two, one to love God

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Matt. 22:39

I don't see any qualifiers in that statement.

[Beartracks]

23. Jesus didn't comment on The Gay. That was JESUS®. n/t

[Agschmid]

24. Kick.

[raging moderate]

25. Actually, Paul was a recovering supercilious patriarchal prig.

And he even mocks himself a little about it, playing up what a goody two-shoes he had been most of his life, arrogantly proud of having touched all the right bases, circumcised on the eighth day, studied all the right things, kept all the most exacting laws perfectly, etc. etc. etc. I think you can see him trying to get over it, trying to learn to be chatty and friendly and humble. His letters are addressed to so many women fellow workers, with whom he has evidently had friendly chats, and to whom he sends affectionate little encouragements and bits of advice. The passage that D.H. Lawrence called the most awful thing ever said about women ("It is better to marry than to burn with desire&quot was actually said TO some women friends ABOUT men. One of these women had evidently learned that some man was interested in marrying her. He was suggesting that she might be happier in the long run if she stayed single, and didn't have to please her spouse all the time. And he ended it with a nonchalant phrase indicating that anyway, that's what has turned out to be true for him. Paul got struck by lightning or something, had a vision, was blinded so he had to depend totally on others for several weeks. Ever after, he was like somebody who suddenly waked up and realized that he had been wrongheaded all his life. He reminds me of how it feels when you sit too long in one position and your foot goes to sleep, and you limp around painfully and irritably for a long time, but you're trying to be nice, honest you are, it's just that it takes so much out of you to do it. Later, he wrote that wonderful passage on "charity" (lovingkindness), concluding that all the other things will fail in the end, but that will never fail.

[47of74]

96. I thought I heard, or read somewhere that some of what Paul was attributed with writing...

....were actually written by his little hanger-on Timothy.

[hrmjustin]

35. I love much of Pauls writings but the women hating, gay hating, and sex hating stuff I can do

without.

I agree with Paul on the death and resurrection of Christ but my thoughts on God and Jesus are much more inclusive.

[raging moderate]

38. Do you ever get the feeling that we gentiles stumbled into a giant family argument?

The first Christians were Jewish apostates who decided to invite a bunch of non-Jews into their new religion. At first, they debated about whether they should require the non-Jews to observe the Jewish laws. There is that scene in which Paul ("Shorty&quot and Peter ("Rocky&quot were talking it over, and Paul told Peter, "These Laws have always been tricky for us Jews to manage; do you really think THESE poor people can do it?" and Peter thought about some of their new friends and said, "Uh, well, I'll pray about it." He reported later that the answer was that God had decided to let the Gentiles off the hook. Of course, they were careful not to haul their new friends into the Temple; there are several passages indicating that Paul or Luke or some other Hellenized Jews went into the Temple but their Gentile friends waited outside for them. And then there is that thing all the Jewish Christian writers did, calling themselves dead once in awhile: "And don't forget, everybody, I'm dead! Except I've gone right on living, in the Christian faith!" They write like older brothers, solicitous and affectionate and somewhat overbearing. Later in life, it suddenly hit me that probably they had been declared dead by their families, in those little mock funerals. And had formed a new family together.

[hrmjustin]

39. Yes it did seem like a family argument.

Paul is an interesting person but he has too many hangups.

[raging moderate]

55. I see your little line at the end is a quotation from one of Paul's letters.

Funny how we love our crooked brothers with all our crooked hearts.

[hrmjustin]

73. I try to live the line but I fall short.

[47of74]

44. Nobody fucks with The Jesus.

[madrchsod]

63. jesus did say something about homosexuals.....

http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm

lot`s of variations of the meaning of matthew 19-12.

[SidDithers]

82. The Jesus did say a few things about slavery, tho...

Unfortunately, it wasn't "Hey guys, slavery is wrong. People shouldn't be kept as slaves"

It was more like 'don't beat your slaves too much', and 'if you're a slave, respect your master'.

Sid

[RKP5637]

101. As my dad said eons ago, "A story book, don't take it seriously." n/t