And further to the post above, didn't the prophecy state that the Messiah would descend from the house of David. Problem is Jesus dosn't because Joseph isn't his real father - God is (who is also himself).
Plus the prophecy stated the Messiah would be born in Nazareth. The evidence suggests Jesus wasn't. Only two of the gospels actually deal with Jesus' birth and they both attempt to deal with this problem in order to make sure Jesus' life 'fits' the prophecy. The most celebrated one that many of us are taught in school has his family (including his pregnant mum) making the arduous journey across many miles on a donkey (a bit dedicated for a cencus wern't they? - these days it's a struggle to get people to walk 100 yards to vote). Unfortunate thing is the Romans kept fairly meticulous records and they show that this particular cencus wasn't decreed until 6 years after the date of Jesus' birth. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.
But who cares about meticulously and painstakingly researched primary historical sources when you have the scribblings of a few 4th century 'saints' with a political agenda to peddle.
And further to the post above, didn't the prophecy state that the Messiah would descend from the house of David. Problem is Jesus dosn't because Joseph isn't his real father - God is (who is also himself).
Plus the prophecy stated the Messiah would be born in Nazareth. The evidence suggests Jesus wasn't. Only two of the gospels actually deal with Jesus' birth and they both attempt to deal with this problem in order to make sure Jesus' life 'fits' the prophecy. The most celebrated one that many of us are taught in school has his family (including his pregnant mum) making the arduous journey across many miles on a donkey (a bit dedicated for a cencus wern't they? - these days it's a struggle to get people to walk 100 yards to vote). Unfortunate thing is the Romans kept fairly meticulous records and they show that this particular cencus wasn't decreed until 6 years after the date of Jesus' birth. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.
But who cares about meticulously and painstakingly researched primary historical sources when you have the scribblings of a few 4th century 'saints' with a political agenda to peddle.
If you're interested in a justification for Jesus lineage look here http://www.direct.ca/trinity/duel.html it's a very interesting read. This answers some of your questions, perhaps not as clear cut as you'd ike but it is a scholarly attempt.
you're right in the fact that scholars have taken issue with the timing of the census and depending on your presupposition you'll prob (just as most people do) choose side that agrees with your philosophy.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Does that mean you DO have evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin?
I am an atheist but would be happy to convert were I to see the evidence so I'd be delighted if you could share it with us.
You have the same evidence as I do, you just chose to not accept it, and that's fine... I have studied and read but I also believe that what the Bible says is true. And you don't believe what it says is true.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.
.
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
And further to the post above, didn't the prophecy state that the Messiah would descend from the house of David. Problem is Jesus dosn't because Joseph isn't his real father - God is (who is also himself).
Plus the prophecy stated the Messiah would be born in Nazareth. The evidence suggests Jesus wasn't. Only two of the gospels actually deal with Jesus' birth and they both attempt to deal with this problem in order to make sure Jesus' life 'fits' the prophecy. The most celebrated one that many of us are taught in school has his family (including his pregnant mum) making the arduous journey across many miles on a donkey (a bit dedicated for a cencus wern't they? - these days it's a struggle to get people to walk 100 yards to vote). Unfortunate thing is the Romans kept fairly meticulous records and they show that this particular cencus wasn't decreed until 6 years after the date of Jesus' birth. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.
But who cares about meticulously and painstakingly researched primary historical sources when you have the scribblings of a few 4th century 'saints' with a political agenda to peddle.
Matthew’s Gospel begins: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph.
Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam.
Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1) He grew up in Nazareth
there's plenty of evidence (if you consider the Bible to be historical evidence) that Jesus knew he was the Messiah...it's in the way he taught, lived, things that are written
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, `I am the Son of God.'"
John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.
John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Mark 14:61b-62 [61b] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" [62] "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Luke 22:66-70 [66] At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. [67] "If you are the Christ, " they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, [68] and if I asked you, you would not answer. [69] But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." [70] They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me."
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, `I am the Son of God.'"
John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.
John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Mark 14:61b-62 [61b] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" [62] "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Luke 22:66-70 [66] At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. [67] "If you are the Christ, " they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, [68] and if I asked you, you would not answer. [69] But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." [70] They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me."
Obviosuly you guys are believers and I have no doubt you believe in the inherent 'goodness' or whatever or the Christian message - you therefore quite nobly wish others to come around to your way of thinking. But you can't expect to convince an atheist (or rationalist) by citing biblical scripture as so called evidence. Even if I dismiss any accusations of an agenda (be it of a political or any kind) and agree for arguments sake that they were written in good faith they are still subjective secondary documents - some written centuries after the events they purport to document. Even were I believe what I was writing was the absolute truth I could not sit here and write accounts of the life of somebody who lived in the 18th century and expect future scholars to consider them a reliable historical source.
The bible is not evidence guys. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
I said there's no evidence to suggest he BELIEVED he was the Messiah (I do not by the way claim he never existed). Claiming is not believing.
If I flap my arms and squwark like a Chicken it dosn't mean I believe I am one.
Matthew’s Gospel begins: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph.
Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam.
Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1) He grew up in Nazareth
there's plenty of evidence (if you consider the Bible to be historical evidence) that Jesus knew he was the Messiah...it's in the way he taught, lived, things that are written
So Matthew and Luke's gospels contradict each other. In their desperate attempt to conform to the Messianic prophecy one fabrocates a lineage on his virgin mother's side and the other seeks a 'bloodline' to David through a guy who aint his Dad anyway.
Then again we all descend from Adam Eve (or a common progenitor if you prefer Darwin to Genesis) so in some we all descend from the same ancestors anyway. Hey presto the question of his descent from the house of David was a mute point all along.
If you're interested in a justification for Jesus lineage look here http://www.direct.ca/trinity/duel.html it's a very interesting read. This answers some of your questions, perhaps not as clear cut as you'd ike but it is a scholarly attempt.
you're right in the fact that scholars have taken issue with the timing of the census and depending on your presupposition you'll prob (just as most people do) choose side that agrees with your philosophy.
I'll choose the side that is backed up by the most convincing evidence. In my humble opinion there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of God. Believe me if I were ever to encounter evidence that convinced me of the existence of God, heaven and an eternal life I would be the happiest man alive and spend the rest of my days doing cartwheels and buying everyone ice cream.
Thanks for taking the trouble to post the link by the way - I'll check it out.
Obviosuly you guys are believers and I have no doubt you believe in the inherent 'goodness' or whatever or the Christian message - you therefore quite nobly wish others to come around to your way of thinking. But you can't expect to convince an atheist (or rationalist) by citing biblical scripture as so called evidence.
Then we are at an impasse then. I'll admit I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but how much written information do we have about that time period, and would much information be written about those small occurrences? I have no idea. It's not like today's day and age (I'm not saying you think this way) where information is so readily available and accessible and it is repeated by hundreds of news sources; I imagine the amount of written documentation from that time period pales in comparison to the amount of archiving we have today. And if you choose to not accept one of the handful of historical texts (which has internal and external validation) then that's fine, but it is evidence. Have a good one.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Then we are at an impasse then. I'll admit I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but how much written information do we have about that time period, and would much information be written about those small occurrences? I have no idea. It's not like today's day and age (I'm not saying you think this way) where information is so readily available and accessible and it is repeated by hundreds of news sources; I imagine the amount of written documentation from that time period pales in comparison to the amount of archiving we have today. And if you choose to not accept one of the handful of historical texts (which has internal and external validation) then that's fine, but it is evidence. Have a good one.
Yes the Gospels are 'evidence' of a sort - or at least they deserve to be considered as such. But like I said from a critical and objective point of view they carry as much weight as a reliable histrorical source as a story written by me, here, today about a guy in 18th century Siberia I never met (and again - that's not even to bother delving into the various motivations the gospel writers would have had for embellishing or fabricating what culturally inherited information they did legitimately claim to process).
And whilst there is a smattering of genuinely valid evidence to suggest that Jesus probably did exist (we can make the same judegemnt about King Arthur for example - he was in all likelihood a war leader and figurehead of a given Pagan clan in and around the English/Welsh border - but to go from there to the imaginative leap that he was accompanied by a wizard who could tell the future and conversed with magical charcaters who lived in the lakes is to abandon the requirement of validated evidence and 'believe ' i - ie in the absence of genuine evidence - in the plethora of literary accounts that shamelessly but imaginatively embellish our historical understanding). THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WAS SUPERNATURAL AND COULD RETURN FROM THE DEAD. I know some disciples say they saw his resurrected self whilst they were fishing but again that really isn't genuine evidence in the scientific sense is it. As Wesley Snipes said in the little box of wisdom that is Passenger 57: "I know mother-f*kers who say they've seen Elvis in the mall but that don't make it so'.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WAS SUPERNATURAL AND COULD RETURN FROM THE DEAD. I know some disciples say they saw his resurrected self whilst they were fishing but again that really isn't genuine evidence in the scientific sense is it. .
Outisde of the Bible I agree with what you say. And I guess that's also why they call it faith. I BELIEVE that the Bible is true and to ME it is evidence Jesus was supernatural. I believe Jesus and God exist in the same way that you believe, as a self admitted atheist, that they don't exist (or at least Jesus isn't God since God doesn't exist). Neither of us knows 100%, but we both believe that one option is true.
i do like the wesley snipes quote.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Outisde of the Bible I agree with what you say. And I guess that's also why they call it faith. I BELIEVE that the Bible is true and to ME it is evidence Jesus was supernatural. I believe Jesus and God exist in the same way that you believe, as a self admitted atheist, that they don't exist (or at least Jesus isn't God since God doesn't exist). Neither of us knows 100%, but we both believe that one option is true.
i do like the wesley snipes quote.
You dont have to justify your beliefs...many of us agree with you.
Outisde of the Bible I agree with what you say. And I guess that's also why they call it faith. I BELIEVE that the Bible is true and to ME it is evidence Jesus was supernatural. I believe Jesus and God exist in the same way that you believe, as a self admitted atheist, that they don't exist (or at least Jesus isn't God since God doesn't exist). Neither of us knows 100%, but we both believe that one option is true.
i do like the wesley snipes quote.
I take your point but I assume (I prefer that to 'believe' - but that's just me being a bit anal over my choice of words) God dosn't exist because there's no evidence at all that he does (other than the Bible but there's no point rehashing the debate over the validity of that as a historical document). You are right I cannot know 100% - from my point of view that's because you cannot prove a negative (we'd have never gone to war with Iraq on the justification of non-existent WMD if you could).
You can't prove that fairies and unicorns or any creature of the imagination categorically dosn't exist either, but most of us don't take them very seriously. Religion we do because it is supported and cemented by powerful institutions and centuries of cultural ingrained dogma - but to me it's no more valid.
Cheers for jousting with me though (and I'm glad you like my Snipes quote).
I take your point but I assume (I prefer that to 'believe' - but that's just me being a bit anal over my choice of words) God dosn't exist because there's no evidence at all that he does (other than the Bible but there's no point rehashing the debate over the validity of that as a historical document). You are right I cannot know 100% - from my point of view that's because you cannot prove a negative (we'd have never gone to war with Iraq on the justification of non-existent WMD if you could).
You can't prove that fairies and unicorns or any creature of the imagination categorically dosn't exist either, but most of us don't take them very seriously. Religion we do because it is supported and cemented by powerful institutions and centuries of cultural ingrained dogma - but to me it's no more valid.
Cheers for jousting with me though (and I'm glad you like my Snipes quote).
Nothing is valid...science changes all the time. Whats right today is wrong tommorow
(other than the Bible but there's no point rehashing the debate over the validity of that as a historical document).
).
i'm going to disagree. Obviously, there IS some point to debating the Validity of the Bible as an historical document. But first off. let me be up front by saying that, contrary to an earlier post of yours, i don't care if you believe as i do. i could care less whether you share my Christian faith or not. i'm not in the business of converting you and i certainly have not chosen this message forum as my personal mission field. that being said, the scholarly (even in secular circles) dating of the gospels places Mark at about 70 A.D. ( which is really not all that late). Now, the NT book of Acts ends with its central character Paul still alive and under some kind of arrest in Rome. This means Acts was probably written sometime before Paul was put to death which means it had to have been written no later that A.D 62. Luke wrote the book of Acts as the second of two parts the first of which was his Gospel. The Gospel of Luke incorporates parts of Mark, indicating Mark was written before Luke! Ultimately, what you end up with is Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, or perhaps even the late 50's. Jesus was put to death apx A.D. 30-33, which leaves only a gap of 25 to 30 years, tops! That, is very much within the time frame of eyewitnesses, including hostile eyewitness who could have easily called bullshit. Lets compare that to the earliest written accounts we have of Alexander the great dated apx. 400 years after HIS death and the fact that Historians consider THEM generally trustworthy.
In addition, to all this, the NT has undergone all of the strict scrutiny historians place on all ancient historical documents used to test crdibility, such as the authors intention, ability, bias, character, and consistency, test of corroborations, as well as a test of any adverse witnesses, and it stands up VERY well as Historically reliable.
If you also consider the archeolgically confirmed people, places, and events mentioned in the NT, what we are left with is a very SOUND and, in fact, valid historical document.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
So Matthew and Luke's gospels contradict each other. In their desperate attempt to conform to the Messianic prophecy one fabrocates a lineage on his virgin mother's side and the other seeks a 'bloodline' to David through a guy who aint his Dad anyway.
Then again we all descend from Adam Eve (or a common progenitor if you prefer Darwin to Genesis) so in some we all descend from the same ancestors anyway. Hey presto the question of his descent from the house of David was a mute point all along.
how you get that the two books contradict each other i don't know.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
how you get that the two books contradict each other i don't know.
They don't. One traces Jesus lineage through Mary, the other traces his line back from Joseph. Thats not a contradiction, it is simply both sides of the coin. The two accounts compliment eachother. They don't contradict at all.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i'm going to disagree. Obviously, there IS some point to debating the Validity of the Bible as an historical document. But first off. let me be up front by saying that, contrary to an earlier post of yours, i don't care if you believe as i do. i could care less whether you share my Christian faith or not. i'm not in the business of converting you and i certainly have not chosen this message forum as my personal mission field. that being said, the scholarly (even in secular circles) dating of the gospels places Mark at about 70 A.D. ( which is really not all that late). Now, the NT book of Acts ends with its central character Paul still alive and under some kind of arrest in Rome. This means Acts was probably written sometime before Paul was put to death which means it had to have been written no later that A.D 62. Luke wrote the book of Acts as the second of two parts the first of which was his Gospel. The Gospel of Luke incorporates parts of Mark, indicating Mark was written before Luke! Ultimately, what you end up with is Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, or perhaps even the late 50's. Jesus was put to death apx A.D. 30-33, which leaves only a gap of 25 to 30 years, tops! That, is very much within the time frame of eyewitnesses, including hostile eyewitness who could have easily called bullshit. Lets compare that to the earliest written accounts we have of Alexander the great dated apx. 400 years after HIS death and the fact that Historians consider THEM generally trustworthy.
In addition, to all this, the NT has undergone all of the strict scrutiny historians place on all ancient historical documents used to test crdibility, such as the authors intention, ability, bias, character, and consistency, test of corroborations, as well as a test of any adverse witnesses, and it stands up VERY well as Historically reliable.
If you also consider the archeolgically confirmed people, places, and events mentioned in the NT, what we are left with is a very SOUND and, in fact, valid historical document.
When I said there was no point rehashing the validity of the Bible as a historcial doscument I was talking specifically to Chopitdown - as we'd already gone back and forth on the point a couple of times.
But yeah you're right about the accepted dating of the Gospel according to Mark. I'll just add the following with respect to it's reliability:
Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was added after the original autograph. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[26] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:7, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested.
Also note that unlike both Matthew and Luke, Mark does not offer any information about the life of Jesus before he begins his ministry, including neither the nativity nor a genealogy. As I previously suggested the fact that these other gospels alternatively attempt to propose geneological links to the house of David through his Virgin mother and non-Dad Jospeh respectively indicates a cynical and contradictory attempt to demonstrate (circa invent) such a link - shame they couldn't have sat down and got their story straight as to which side of his 'family' they were gonna claim descends from the holy house (a bit like the cartel of high priests and their Roman masters who selected which words of God were canonical and which apocraphyl).
Anyway I already stated in a previous post there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Jesus - the historical figure - the man - the philosopher and moraliser who may or may not have exploited the Messianic prophecy to swell his following - probably did exist - I do not dispute that - and the early gospels are a contributing factor in the establishment of that concensus. As such he is a man I admire on the level of Ghandi or Martin Luther King. A man well ahead of his time and a shining light to all he most ceratainly was, but no more supernatural than Uri Geller.
You mention accounts of Alexander the Great being written 400 years after his death. The point is that if accounts written only half a century (or less) after his death were discovered that said Alexander the Great was 'supernatural' - ie performed 'miracles' and rose from the dead - would those accounts (on their own without any other 'evidence' whatsoever) be enough to convince you or the majority of historical scholars that he was indeed supernatural? Of course it wouldn't. Even if there were accounts satisfactorily verified as being written during his life time that were written by people claiming to have witnessed Alexander's miracles and resurrection we would not just accept that he was superhuman and supernatural on the basis of somebody elses ancient say so. But that is all the evidence you have that Jesus was supernatural. A smattering of 2,000 year old alleged eye witness accounts don't count for sh*t to any credible and discerning historian. But Jesus's alleged 'divinity' and 'supernaturalness' was institutionalised by self serving power and wealth hungry clerics, and propogated by (probably very decent and well meaning) moral philosphers, woven into the fabric of our culture and society, passed down from generation to generation in schools and homes and hey presto - in 21st century Western society people still believe in 'magic'.
They don't. One traces Jesus lineage through Mary, the other traces his line back from Joseph. Thats not a contradiction, it is simply both sides of the coin. The two accounts compliment eachother. They don't contradict at all.
If in an attempt to support my application to Oxford Univesity I state on my CV that I am descended from Isaac Newton - and my Mum & Dad both independently and unbeknownst to each other claim I am descended on their respective sides, I'm sure most selectees would waste little time in assuming they are blatantly lying out their arses in an attempt to support my claim.
the earliest written accounts we have of Alexander the great dated apx. 400 years after HIS death
Not quite right... there is a contemporary account of his death! There were numerous accounts of Alexander the Great written during his lifetime but none of these have actually survived to our day. BUT they were still there when the histories of Alexander were written and the historians heavily relied on these sources. Also, the original sources are referenced in these accounts. Also, archeology, etc. validates these accounts.
EDIT - not to debate - just thought I would slip it in for 'accuracy'
Also note that unlike both Matthew and Luke, Mark does not offer any information about the life of Jesus before he begins his ministry, including neither the nativity nor a genealogy. As I previously suggested the fact that these other gospels alternatively attempt to propose geneological links to the house of David through his Virgin mother and non-Dad Jospeh respectively indicates a cynical and contradictory attempt to demonstrate (circa invent) such a link - shame they couldn't have sat down and got their story straight as to which side of his 'family' they were gonna claim descends from the holy house (a bit like the cartel of high priests and their Roman masters who selected which words of God were canonical and which apocraphyl).
It becomes clear on examining the four Gospel accounts that the writers do not simply repeat one another’s narratives, nor do they write solely to provide several witnesses for this most vital Bible record.
Although Mark had access to the Gospel of Matthew and his record contains only 7 percent that is not contained in the other Gospels, it would be a mistake to believe that Mark simply condensed Matthew’s Gospel and added a few special details. Whereas Matthew had portrayed Jesus as the promised Messiah and King, Mark now considers his life and works from another angle. He portrays Jesus as the miracle-working Son of God, the conquering Savior. Mark puts stress on the activities of Christ rather than on his sermons and teachings. Only a small proportion of the parables and one of Jesus’ longer discourses are reported, and the Sermon on the Mount is omitted. It is for this reason that Mark’s Gospel is shorter, though it contains just as much action as the others. At least 19 miracles are specifically referred to.
Matthew wrote primarily for the Jews, and Mark for non-Jewish readers, especially the Romans. Luke’s Gospel was addressed to the “most excellent Theophilus” and through him to other persons, both Jews and non-Jews.
In giving his account a universal appeal, he traces the genealogy of Jesus back to “Adam, son of God,” and not just to Abraham, as does Matthew in writing specially for the Jews.
the Gospel writers all considered Jesus' life ans works from different angles...
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
Comments
Plus the prophecy stated the Messiah would be born in Nazareth. The evidence suggests Jesus wasn't. Only two of the gospels actually deal with Jesus' birth and they both attempt to deal with this problem in order to make sure Jesus' life 'fits' the prophecy. The most celebrated one that many of us are taught in school has his family (including his pregnant mum) making the arduous journey across many miles on a donkey (a bit dedicated for a cencus wern't they? - these days it's a struggle to get people to walk 100 yards to vote). Unfortunate thing is the Romans kept fairly meticulous records and they show that this particular cencus wasn't decreed until 6 years after the date of Jesus' birth. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.
But who cares about meticulously and painstakingly researched primary historical sources when you have the scribblings of a few 4th century 'saints' with a political agenda to peddle.
If you're interested in a justification for Jesus lineage look here http://www.direct.ca/trinity/duel.html it's a very interesting read. This answers some of your questions, perhaps not as clear cut as you'd ike but it is a scholarly attempt.
you're right in the fact that scholars have taken issue with the timing of the census and depending on your presupposition you'll prob (just as most people do) choose side that agrees with your philosophy.
You have the same evidence as I do, you just chose to not accept it, and that's fine... I have studied and read but I also believe that what the Bible says is true. And you don't believe what it says is true.
How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.
Matthew’s Gospel begins: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph.
Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam.
Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1) He grew up in Nazareth
there's plenty of evidence (if you consider the Bible to be historical evidence) that Jesus knew he was the Messiah...it's in the way he taught, lived, things that are written
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, `I am the Son of God.'"
John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.
John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Mark 14:61b-62 [61b] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" [62] "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Luke 22:66-70 [66] At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. [67] "If you are the Christ, " they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, [68] and if I asked you, you would not answer. [69] But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." [70] They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me."
Obviosuly you guys are believers and I have no doubt you believe in the inherent 'goodness' or whatever or the Christian message - you therefore quite nobly wish others to come around to your way of thinking. But you can't expect to convince an atheist (or rationalist) by citing biblical scripture as so called evidence. Even if I dismiss any accusations of an agenda (be it of a political or any kind) and agree for arguments sake that they were written in good faith they are still subjective secondary documents - some written centuries after the events they purport to document. Even were I believe what I was writing was the absolute truth I could not sit here and write accounts of the life of somebody who lived in the 18th century and expect future scholars to consider them a reliable historical source.
The bible is not evidence guys. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
I said there's no evidence to suggest he BELIEVED he was the Messiah (I do not by the way claim he never existed). Claiming is not believing.
If I flap my arms and squwark like a Chicken it dosn't mean I believe I am one.
So Matthew and Luke's gospels contradict each other. In their desperate attempt to conform to the Messianic prophecy one fabrocates a lineage on his virgin mother's side and the other seeks a 'bloodline' to David through a guy who aint his Dad anyway.
Then again we all descend from Adam Eve (or a common progenitor if you prefer Darwin to Genesis) so in some we all descend from the same ancestors anyway. Hey presto the question of his descent from the house of David was a mute point all along.
I'll choose the side that is backed up by the most convincing evidence. In my humble opinion there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of God. Believe me if I were ever to encounter evidence that convinced me of the existence of God, heaven and an eternal life I would be the happiest man alive and spend the rest of my days doing cartwheels and buying everyone ice cream.
Thanks for taking the trouble to post the link by the way - I'll check it out.
Then we are at an impasse then. I'll admit I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but how much written information do we have about that time period, and would much information be written about those small occurrences? I have no idea. It's not like today's day and age (I'm not saying you think this way) where information is so readily available and accessible and it is repeated by hundreds of news sources; I imagine the amount of written documentation from that time period pales in comparison to the amount of archiving we have today. And if you choose to not accept one of the handful of historical texts (which has internal and external validation) then that's fine, but it is evidence. Have a good one.
Yes the Gospels are 'evidence' of a sort - or at least they deserve to be considered as such. But like I said from a critical and objective point of view they carry as much weight as a reliable histrorical source as a story written by me, here, today about a guy in 18th century Siberia I never met (and again - that's not even to bother delving into the various motivations the gospel writers would have had for embellishing or fabricating what culturally inherited information they did legitimately claim to process).
And whilst there is a smattering of genuinely valid evidence to suggest that Jesus probably did exist (we can make the same judegemnt about King Arthur for example - he was in all likelihood a war leader and figurehead of a given Pagan clan in and around the English/Welsh border - but to go from there to the imaginative leap that he was accompanied by a wizard who could tell the future and conversed with magical charcaters who lived in the lakes is to abandon the requirement of validated evidence and 'believe ' i - ie in the absence of genuine evidence - in the plethora of literary accounts that shamelessly but imaginatively embellish our historical understanding). THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WAS SUPERNATURAL AND COULD RETURN FROM THE DEAD. I know some disciples say they saw his resurrected self whilst they were fishing but again that really isn't genuine evidence in the scientific sense is it. As Wesley Snipes said in the little box of wisdom that is Passenger 57: "I know mother-f*kers who say they've seen Elvis in the mall but that don't make it so'.
Outisde of the Bible I agree with what you say. And I guess that's also why they call it faith. I BELIEVE that the Bible is true and to ME it is evidence Jesus was supernatural. I believe Jesus and God exist in the same way that you believe, as a self admitted atheist, that they don't exist (or at least Jesus isn't God since God doesn't exist). Neither of us knows 100%, but we both believe that one option is true.
i do like the wesley snipes quote.
You dont have to justify your beliefs...many of us agree with you.
I take your point but I assume (I prefer that to 'believe' - but that's just me being a bit anal over my choice of words) God dosn't exist because there's no evidence at all that he does (other than the Bible but there's no point rehashing the debate over the validity of that as a historical document). You are right I cannot know 100% - from my point of view that's because you cannot prove a negative (we'd have never gone to war with Iraq on the justification of non-existent WMD if you could).
You can't prove that fairies and unicorns or any creature of the imagination categorically dosn't exist either, but most of us don't take them very seriously. Religion we do because it is supported and cemented by powerful institutions and centuries of cultural ingrained dogma - but to me it's no more valid.
Cheers for jousting with me though (and I'm glad you like my Snipes quote).
Nothing is valid...science changes all the time. Whats right today is wrong tommorow
Science doesn't change all the time. Science progresses, though.
You seem to be one of those people who thinks science is the opposite of religion. It's not.
naděje umírá poslední
i'm going to disagree. Obviously, there IS some point to debating the Validity of the Bible as an historical document. But first off. let me be up front by saying that, contrary to an earlier post of yours, i don't care if you believe as i do. i could care less whether you share my Christian faith or not. i'm not in the business of converting you and i certainly have not chosen this message forum as my personal mission field. that being said, the scholarly (even in secular circles) dating of the gospels places Mark at about 70 A.D. ( which is really not all that late). Now, the NT book of Acts ends with its central character Paul still alive and under some kind of arrest in Rome. This means Acts was probably written sometime before Paul was put to death which means it had to have been written no later that A.D 62. Luke wrote the book of Acts as the second of two parts the first of which was his Gospel. The Gospel of Luke incorporates parts of Mark, indicating Mark was written before Luke! Ultimately, what you end up with is Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, or perhaps even the late 50's. Jesus was put to death apx A.D. 30-33, which leaves only a gap of 25 to 30 years, tops! That, is very much within the time frame of eyewitnesses, including hostile eyewitness who could have easily called bullshit. Lets compare that to the earliest written accounts we have of Alexander the great dated apx. 400 years after HIS death and the fact that Historians consider THEM generally trustworthy.
In addition, to all this, the NT has undergone all of the strict scrutiny historians place on all ancient historical documents used to test crdibility, such as the authors intention, ability, bias, character, and consistency, test of corroborations, as well as a test of any adverse witnesses, and it stands up VERY well as Historically reliable.
If you also consider the archeolgically confirmed people, places, and events mentioned in the NT, what we are left with is a very SOUND and, in fact, valid historical document.
how you get that the two books contradict each other i don't know.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
They don't. One traces Jesus lineage through Mary, the other traces his line back from Joseph. Thats not a contradiction, it is simply both sides of the coin. The two accounts compliment eachother. They don't contradict at all.
When I said there was no point rehashing the validity of the Bible as a historcial doscument I was talking specifically to Chopitdown - as we'd already gone back and forth on the point a couple of times.
But yeah you're right about the accepted dating of the Gospel according to Mark. I'll just add the following with respect to it's reliability:
Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was added after the original autograph. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[26] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:7, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested.
Also note that unlike both Matthew and Luke, Mark does not offer any information about the life of Jesus before he begins his ministry, including neither the nativity nor a genealogy. As I previously suggested the fact that these other gospels alternatively attempt to propose geneological links to the house of David through his Virgin mother and non-Dad Jospeh respectively indicates a cynical and contradictory attempt to demonstrate (circa invent) such a link - shame they couldn't have sat down and got their story straight as to which side of his 'family' they were gonna claim descends from the holy house (a bit like the cartel of high priests and their Roman masters who selected which words of God were canonical and which apocraphyl).
Anyway I already stated in a previous post there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Jesus - the historical figure - the man - the philosopher and moraliser who may or may not have exploited the Messianic prophecy to swell his following - probably did exist - I do not dispute that - and the early gospels are a contributing factor in the establishment of that concensus. As such he is a man I admire on the level of Ghandi or Martin Luther King. A man well ahead of his time and a shining light to all he most ceratainly was, but no more supernatural than Uri Geller.
You mention accounts of Alexander the Great being written 400 years after his death. The point is that if accounts written only half a century (or less) after his death were discovered that said Alexander the Great was 'supernatural' - ie performed 'miracles' and rose from the dead - would those accounts (on their own without any other 'evidence' whatsoever) be enough to convince you or the majority of historical scholars that he was indeed supernatural? Of course it wouldn't. Even if there were accounts satisfactorily verified as being written during his life time that were written by people claiming to have witnessed Alexander's miracles and resurrection we would not just accept that he was superhuman and supernatural on the basis of somebody elses ancient say so. But that is all the evidence you have that Jesus was supernatural. A smattering of 2,000 year old alleged eye witness accounts don't count for sh*t to any credible and discerning historian. But Jesus's alleged 'divinity' and 'supernaturalness' was institutionalised by self serving power and wealth hungry clerics, and propogated by (probably very decent and well meaning) moral philosphers, woven into the fabric of our culture and society, passed down from generation to generation in schools and homes and hey presto - in 21st century Western society people still believe in 'magic'.
If in an attempt to support my application to Oxford Univesity I state on my CV that I am descended from Isaac Newton - and my Mum & Dad both independently and unbeknownst to each other claim I am descended on their respective sides, I'm sure most selectees would waste little time in assuming they are blatantly lying out their arses in an attempt to support my claim.
Not quite right... there is a contemporary account of his death! There were numerous accounts of Alexander the Great written during his lifetime but none of these have actually survived to our day. BUT they were still there when the histories of Alexander were written and the historians heavily relied on these sources. Also, the original sources are referenced in these accounts. Also, archeology, etc. validates these accounts.
EDIT - not to debate - just thought I would slip it in for 'accuracy'
It becomes clear on examining the four Gospel accounts that the writers do not simply repeat one another’s narratives, nor do they write solely to provide several witnesses for this most vital Bible record.
Although Mark had access to the Gospel of Matthew and his record contains only 7 percent that is not contained in the other Gospels, it would be a mistake to believe that Mark simply condensed Matthew’s Gospel and added a few special details. Whereas Matthew had portrayed Jesus as the promised Messiah and King, Mark now considers his life and works from another angle. He portrays Jesus as the miracle-working Son of God, the conquering Savior. Mark puts stress on the activities of Christ rather than on his sermons and teachings. Only a small proportion of the parables and one of Jesus’ longer discourses are reported, and the Sermon on the Mount is omitted. It is for this reason that Mark’s Gospel is shorter, though it contains just as much action as the others. At least 19 miracles are specifically referred to.
Matthew wrote primarily for the Jews, and Mark for non-Jewish readers, especially the Romans. Luke’s Gospel was addressed to the “most excellent Theophilus” and through him to other persons, both Jews and non-Jews.
In giving his account a universal appeal, he traces the genealogy of Jesus back to “Adam, son of God,” and not just to Abraham, as does Matthew in writing specially for the Jews.
the Gospel writers all considered Jesus' life ans works from different angles...
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks