Jesus never existed.
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
this is what get's me....and why I consider all of this bullshyte as trolling. This thread is no fricken different than the "Jesus is gay" thread. It's a fricken troll with the sole purpose of trashing Christian beliefs. I have never understood the need of athiests to trash something that they supposedly don't believe in. What the Frick is it to you if someone else believes in Christ? What is your need to trash that belief?
"It has been argued that there is an impending sense of persecution in the Gospel, and that this could indicate it being written to sustain the faith of a community under such a threat. As the main Christian persecution at that time was in Rome under Nero, this has been used to place the writing of the Gospel in Rome."
If this is an indication of when it was written then the persecution Christians suffered at the hand of the Jews should also be counted. Was Stephen killed within afew years of the cross? Before Saul became Paul he was very active in the persecution of Christians. The Jews are also said to follow Christian teachers from town to town.
Ac:13:50: But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
1Th:2:15: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
"Babylon being interpreted as a derogatory or code name for Rome, as the famous ancient city of Babylon ceased to exist in 275 BC."
1Pe:5:13: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
Why the name change, should it not have been this fellow? Peter did not have a son before the cross.
Ac:12:25: And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
"Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean geography and customs[17][18][19], supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area and its customs, unlike the historical Peter."
Too bad those aren't actually mentioned in detail.
"Therefore, if Mark was written before Luke/Acts, Robinson dates Mark to the mid fifties."
What is to say that there were many copies made from one original. In their travels, very early travels, copies of those 4 books could have been left in many places visited. Not copies of copies but copies of originals. Isn't the best way to spread the news would be to leave a record of what is being taught. Scriptire does point to 'letters' being passed to more than one 'church', some are specifically mentioned as being sent to others. If that is a part not from the one the Vatican has then there is more than one copy, all copies would have to be later than any original.
"Dating of Mark after 70 AD is based upon the belief that Jesus could not have supernaturally prophesied future events, but the text of Mark must reflect events that had already occurred. Thus, the dating of Mark divides those who consider supernatural prophesy by Jesus as impossible from those who view it as possible that Mark could have been written before the events described took place."
No kidding, redate the book because you don't believe in prophecy.
That passage is not about 70AD, if it were it would have been earler in the same chapter, it would belong with this verse.
M'r:13:2: And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
"Scholars have also pointed out that the last verse of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Mark 12:9 alludes to the slaughter and exile of the Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans after 70[32] (according to historians, the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem only after the Bar Kokhba revolt[33]). "
M'r:12:9: What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
Others would mean Gentiles, that came asbout when Peter had a vision in Acts (8 I believe). The jews were made desolate in this verse.
M't:23:38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
That is just previous to Mk:13, the temple leaders were toast when Jesus exited the temple that very time. That it happened 40 years later (and then continued) was not even worth mentioning.
"A small group of scholars, including the German radical critical scholar Hermann Detering,[35] see a 2nd century date for Mark."
Not likely unless you want to move Christ's presense that far foreward.
If this is an indication of when it was written then the persecution Christians suffered at the hand of the Jews should also be counted. Was Stephen killed within afew years of the cross? Before Saul became Paul he was very active in the persecution of Christians. The Jews are also said to follow Christian teachers from town to town.
Ac:13:50: But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
1Th:2:15: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
"Babylon being interpreted as a derogatory or code name for Rome, as the famous ancient city of Babylon ceased to exist in 275 BC."
1Pe:5:13: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
Why the name change, should it not have been this fellow? Peter did not have a son before the cross.
Ac:12:25: And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
"Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean geography and customs[17][18][19], supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area and its customs, unlike the historical Peter."
Too bad those aren't actually mentioned in detail.
"Therefore, if Mark was written before Luke/Acts, Robinson dates Mark to the mid fifties."
What is to say that there were many copies made from one original. In their travels, very early travels, copies of those 4 books could have been left in many places visited. Not copies of copies but copies of originals. Isn't the best way to spread the news would be to leave a record of what is being taught. Scriptire does point to 'letters' being passed to more than one 'church', some are specifically mentioned as being sent to others. If that is a part not from the one the Vatican has then there is more than one copy, all copies would have to be later than any original.
"Dating of Mark after 70 AD is based upon the belief that Jesus could not have supernaturally prophesied future events, but the text of Mark must reflect events that had already occurred. Thus, the dating of Mark divides those who consider supernatural prophesy by Jesus as impossible from those who view it as possible that Mark could have been written before the events described took place."
No kidding, redate the book because you don't believe in prophecy.
That passage is not about 70AD, if it were it would have been earler in the same chapter, it would belong with this verse.
M'r:13:2: And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
"Scholars have also pointed out that the last verse of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Mark 12:9 alludes to the slaughter and exile of the Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans after 70[32] (according to historians, the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem only after the Bar Kokhba revolt[33]). "
M'r:12:9: What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
Others would mean Gentiles, that came asbout when Peter had a vision in Acts (8 I believe). The jews were made desolate in this verse.
M't:23:38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
That is just previous to Mk:13, the temple leaders were toast when Jesus exited the temple that very time. That it happened 40 years later (and then continued) was not even worth mentioning.
"A small group of scholars, including the German radical critical scholar Hermann Detering,[35] see a 2nd century date for Mark."
Not likely unless you want to move Christ's presense that far foreward.
For logical consistency, gerryh, you should now drop in to the "Life after death" thread and make the same objection to people trashing Islam. Or are you the only one that's right? It's probably too subtle for you to get, but implicit in that is answer to your question. Read Christopher Hitchens for a really LONG answer. .
I agree none should show disrespect on other peoples theological beliefs, the problem I have with religion is that people have used religion to gain political power, and that sucks, also religion has become a multimillion dollar industry who pay no taxes to municipalities, provincial, and federal, and are on record few administrators including the ministers are in ivory towers while people donate money to pay God.....
I wasn't even aware that Darwinism was now a religion, the 'ism' should have been the big clue I guess.
I also object to that...I objected to the cartoon displays of Allah. I celebrated when that Canadian rag went tits up after it reprinted those same cartoons. There is no reason to trash or belittle someones religeous beliefs.
Why should theological beliefs get a free pass? People inject religiously-based arguments into public policy debates about abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, capital punishment, and a host of other things, they've got to take the hits that'll open them to, just as any other argument does. If the religiously-based arguments are not well founded, and most of them aren't, they're just arguments from authority, they deserve to be challenged.
This might come as a surprise but the really, really rich don't pay taxes either. Some day you, and a whole lot of others, might actually discover that learning about God is pretty much free. The church donations are mostly for show for the neighbours (tax deductible also) and a trickle does make it out to the poor (just don't try to take any candlesticks with you the next time you are in such a building. $1,000 worth of books is not going to make you any smarter than reading a Bible you find laying around abandoned.
I guess it would depend on if you do give somebody a free pass, Politicians and Corporations and Bankers should also be fair game in the 'who's causing the most trouble for mankind', or is it a give-in that they are corrupt and nothing can be done against them?
Yes there is. Robert Heinlein said it best:
"On two subjects the overwhelming majority of people regarded their own opinions as Absolute Truth, and sincerely believed that anyone who disagreed with them was immoral, outrageous, sinful, sacrilegious, offensive, intolerable, stupid, illogical, treasonable, actionable, against the public interest, ridiculous, and obscene.
The two subjects were (of course) sex and religion.
On sex and religion each American citizen knew the One Right Answer, by direct Revelation from God.
In view of the wide diversity of opinion, most of them must necessarily have been mistaken. But on these two subjects they were not accessible to reason.
'But you must respect another man's religious beliefs!'
For Heaven's sake, why? Stupid is stupid--faith doesn't make it smart."
Attack the 'establishment' with the same vigor and you won't have to worry about anything at all, the 'disappeared' never do. But then these guys are also your heros, you swallow blindly anything they feed you.
See, I find that all well and good for you to say gerry. You aren't a zealot. But, as much as it gets under your skin to sit and listen to them preach about how Jesus and God don't exist, it must get equally under their skin to sit and listen to herald and the like post thread after thread explaining how religion is THE way, and people will go to hell without it. Tit for tat in my books. If one zealot is okay, then the opposing zealot ought to be. For most things anyway.
Nice to see you two maintaining your usual standards of cogent, reasoned, evidence-based argument. :roll:gerryh said:
A good argument for Jesus being 'fiction' should involve more than 'prove He's not' or 'because I say so'.
For the 'fire and brimstone' types asking them for relevant verses is usually enough to tone them down. I often wonder if they think that if they don 't 'do the gathering' then everybody is lost, rather than just let the 'right person' do it when the time is right for any certain individual. The basket is still full at the end of the day.
There hasn't been a lot of conversation around that video. I would hope it took more than a 12 min video to create his 'fictional' view.
What would you call 'presented facts' compared to 'opinion pieces' in that video?
Jesus claims to be on the lookout for us, yet we have people who are saying that He didn't have His apostles write anything for decades and decades. As a parent is that how you operate?