Poll: Is Jesus the Reason for the Season?

Well when you put it that way...

hehehe

Yeah. That's why so many liberals are boycotting stores that say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Marry Christmas."

Can't. Already married.

Sorry 'bout that.

Such misspellings occur when you've had insomnia and are running on about 12 hours total sleep over 3 nights.

this^

Afterall, a holiday called CHRISTmas couldn't possibly be about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, could it?

Nope! The church merely made it about Jesus.

in the dark ages they borrowed several traditions from pagans and used them as their own.

X-mas and Easter being 2 of them.

that he was born is beyond dispute as is the historical record of His life.

According to the bible? Hardly a factual book.

So, to me it does not matter when we celebrate His birth as long as we do celebrate it.

Holee Chao! That's a great idea to solve the war over "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays"! Just move the celebration of Jesus' birth to another time of the year! It's not like it hasn't been done before.

Just move the celebration of Jesus' birth to another time of the year!

You mean to when his birthday actually takes place?

You mean to when his birthday actually takes place?

While that would be a good idea, I'm sure some folks ( like the Conservapedia bible translators ) would rather move it to July 4th or something. Ya know, to prove what a "Christan Nation" this is and all...

I'm thinking late Spring to early Fall. Again - the shepherds were in the fields - that means there was pasturage for the sheep. And I'd suggest that, because they left their flocks to go see the baby, it was probably late spring since the predators would have had a few meals so hunger pressure on them wouldn't have been too hard, but they weren't under pressure to fatten for the winter either or the shepherds wouldn't have left them.

So the 4th of July is probably out. ;-D

While no one knows the exact date that our Savior was born, that he was born is beyond dispute as is the historical record of His life

there is no historical record of Jesus . the text from Josephus on Jesus ? not his but added later by some scribe.

Jesus ( which was as common a name as John ) very well may not have existed but have been an amalgamation of various beliefs , hopes and people. Seems more likely .

so your wrong. and no the bible is not proof. it was written by people who never knew anyone named Jesus . Not one eye witness wrote any of the gospels. They were written long after he died and not by any of the 'disciples' .

and no the bible is not proof. it was written by people who never knew anyone named Jesus . Not one eye witness wrote any of the gospels. They were written long after he died and not by any of the 'disciples' .

That's a pretty confident and bold assertion to discredit the Bible in such short order. Do you happen to be a textual critic who has some good reasons to make this claim? If so (or even if not a textual critic), I'd like to hear some of your reasoning behind this bold assertion.

actually I'm not a critic but two of my best friends are. Both work in the field of Biblical history. One is a strict translator .

Me ? I just wanted to become a nun when I was younger. Until I actually studied the bible ( and the history of religion) and it's history . The actual beliefs of the culture then as well as before and after . And how the early church edited , twisted and made up it's own views. ( the bible was not a book so to speak until the 4th century . The fact that 'jesus' says not to preach to gentiles 3 different times yet later after his resurrection the rules are changed to preach to gentiles . Was Jesus wrong when he was alive to say ' only preach to the jews ? do not go unto the gentiles ? ' . make a mistake ? )

Here are some points from Professor Bart Ehrman ...

# Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they're attributed. Others are likely forgeries.
# The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.
# The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at
odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.
# The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.
# Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.
# The commonly told story of Jesus -- his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of
four vastly different gospel narratives.

and the four gospels ? anyone knowledgeable knows none were written by the disciples. Just their names were given to the gospels .

from an exchange from one of those friends of mine .....

Clement of Alexandria, writing about 200 AD, wrote a treatise based on Mark 10:17-31 ("Who is the Rich Man Who Shall be Saved?"); otherwise, Clement never mentions the gospels or quotes from them, basing all the rest of his writing on the Old Testament. Nevertheless, this one treatise is sufficient to show that the Gospel of Mark, or at least, an earlier version, existed at that time.

Best evidence indicates that the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were written between 150 and 180 AD (See below.), the Gospel of Luke quotes from Mark, so it was written later; and the Gospel of John quotes from Luke, so it too, was written later. The people who wrote these gospels were not there for any of the events they describe.

Irenaeus ("Against Heresies"), writing about 180 AD, mentions the four gospels by name and describes them as containing a chronology of Jesus' life. He did not directly quote from them, but his description fits what we now call the Synoptic Gospels. He was the first ancient writer to do so.

Papias, writing about 150 AD, mentions a collection of Jesus' sayings by Mark, but laments that they contain no biographical information, unlike the modern version of Mark. Was Papias' Mark later reworked into the Synoptic Mark?

Justin Martyr, writing about 150 AD, tells the story of the Last Supper. It is clear from this that there were at least bits and pieces of the modern gospels at that time (Justin did not mention any gospel by name, nor did he say how many there were.), yet with Papias' comments, we know that they weren't in the modern form.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 117 AD while en route to Rome (where he would be executed), wrote numerous letters to the various churches, but never once mentioned or quoted from the gospels.

St. Paul did not mention the gospels. If anybody knew of them, he should have.

To echo Maco "The cry that 'Most authors assign a first century date to the gospels' means only that most authors are Christian" and desperately want the earliest possible date to support the idea that Jesus was historical. The evidence does not bear this out. The earliest confirmed date for the existence of the gospels is 147 years after Jesus was supposedly executed.

The gospels of Mark and Matthew contain references to the destruction of the Temple (which happened in 70 AD). The Apocalypse of Mark references an earthquake (There are two known candidate earthquakes: Josephus mentions one in 67 AD and one in 115 AD wrecked Antioch and a Roman supply depot, nearly killing Emperor Trajan.). The same Apocalypse of Mark also mentions "war and rumors of war," nicely describing the socail situation just before the Bar Kochba Rebellion.

Mark and Matthew's description of Jesus' arrest, execution and ascension, have all the earmarks of a Roman play whose likely author was the Roman Senator, Seneca (d. 65 AD). Matthew contains several lines which appear to have been written by Philo of Alexandria in 41 AD. Josephus' writings contain references to 19 different people named Jesus, many of which have characteristics similar to the biblical Jesus.

There is no historical reference to anybody named "Jesus of Nazareth." There was no Nazareth. The town was founded in the late second century and in any case, does not match the biblical description of "Nazareth."

Of all the gospels, the Gospel of Thomas has the best chance of actually preserving some history in that among its 114 sayings may be some from a historical Jesus. The problem: we have no way to determine which Jesus Thomas was referring to, or which sayings might actually have come from the hypothetical Jesus.

The most-likely explanation: the biblical Jesus is a legend, based on a composite of many historical prototypes combined with a few fanciful tales. One can just barely glimpse a vision of him through the mists, but without enough clarity to know if the vision has anything of substance behind it.

8.8 Best comment EVER on the subject!! Thank you.

sorry ... Jesus isn't returning.

according to the bible , Jesus thought and said he'd be returning during the lifetime of those disciples he was speaking to ( not hundreds or thousands of years later , but their lifetime ) . He didn't and the early christians actually gave up the notion of his return.

it was a common held belief then that the end of days was upon the world . Jesus , if he actually existed believed this as well. During that time in jewish belief all would be raised and this is what Jesus is referring too.

Ripley8

"sorry ... Jesus isn't returning.

according to the bible , Jesus thought and said he'd be returning during the lifetime of those disciples he was speaking to ( not hundreds or thousands of years later , but their lifetime ) . He didn't and the early christians actually gave up the notion of his return."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting. Let's see what the Bible says about it then, in context:

Mark 8

³¹ Then Jesus began to tell them that the Son of Man^[c] must suffer many terrible things and be rejected by the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but three days later he would rise from the dead. ³² As he talked about this openly with his disciples, Peter took him aside and began to reprimand him for saying such things.^{[d] 33} Jesus turned around and looked at his disciples, then reprimanded Peter. "Get away from me, Satan!" he said. "You are seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God's."

³⁴ Then, calling the crowd to join his disciples, he said, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. ³⁵ If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it. ³⁶ And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?^{[e] 37} Is anything worth more than your soul? ³⁸ If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Mark 9

Jesus went on to say, "I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My guess is that is the Scripture to which you referred. Now, let's take a look at what Jesus may have been speaking of:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark 9

² Six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up a high mountain to be alone. As the men watched, Jesus' appearance was transformed, ³ and his clothes became dazzling white, far whiter than any earthly bleach could ever make them. ⁴ Then Elijah and Moses appeared and began talking with Jesus. ⁵ Peter exclaimed, "Rabbi, it's wonderful for us to be here! Let's make three shelters as memorials^[a]—one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." ⁶ He said this because he didn't really know what else to say, for they were all terrified.

⁷ Then a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my dearly loved Son. Listen to him." ⁸ Suddenly, when they looked around, Moses and Elijah were gone, and they saw only Jesus with them.

interesting ... but the bible is not a reliable source . It has some geography , some verifiable history , but not much.

London exists ..... Harry Potter does not.

and no ... Jesus isn't returning. Even he thought he'd be returning within the life time of those disciples he was speaking too.

Ripley8

"interesting ... but the bible is not a reliable source . It has some geography , some verifiable history , but not much.

and no ... Jesus isn't returning. Even he thought he'd be returning within the life time of those disciples he was speaking too."

-----------------------

The bolded part is your opinion, and I can respect that, as you are certainly entitled to reject that which you do not believe. The non-bolded part was answered by what is written in Mark 9, as was quoted. While you are certainly welcome to disbelieve was is written therein, it is adequately addressed.

Walt D

"In other words, the Bible is absolute truth and the Word of God. How do we know? It says so in the Bible. Round and round and round we go!"

---------------------

Walt, if you don't believe what the Bible says, then fine. Believe or disbelieve whatever you like. What you will see me refute are instances in which the Bible is misquoted or taken out of context, thus my response to Post #9.1.

Sorry somehow my link ended up in the wrong place before...

Mark is found to be a forgery.

(having trouble with links around here today)

Quoting a forged document isn't very credible.

rwarner

Mark is found to be a forgery.

---------------------

For those who remember BASIC:

GOTO POST #25.1

UNA_Lion -

your biblical assertion means nothing. Just because the bible says so doesn't make it fact. Just like London exists in the Harry Potter novel doesn't mean Harry Potter or the magic is real.

nor did Jesus fulfill the requirements according to his religion , Judaism , to be considered Messiah. Being a good Jew he would have known this.

as for satan ... ? As Jesus would have believed ? An angel of God.

Lucifer never fell from anywhere. This term is used only once in the Bible and it is in reference to a Babylonian king. There was no "fall". This is a misnomer.

John J. Robinson A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and--ironically--the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."

Here's a brief synopsis of The Origins of Satan by Professor Elaine Pagels (Princeton University):

"Pagels charts the evolution of the Jewish and Christian concept of evil from Old Testament times to the present day (although the majority of the book deals with the New Testament era). She explains how ' Satan ' didn't always refer to an evil being but was initially used to represent an obstacle. After that meaning, it evolved into a meaning which was used to unify your group against your enemies/adversaries or 'satan'. The Jews still don't, nor did they ever, believe in or create the Satan/Devil being/creature/character of Christian lore.

It wasn't until New Testament times and later that the concept of an evil being who is actually called 'Satan' or the 'Devil' or ' Lucifer ' evolved. It is interesting to see how these concepts have continued to persist throughout religious and political history with groups stigmatizing others not in their group (whether it be religious, political, racial, etc.) as being 'of the devil'. Dictatorships and other authoritarian organizations always need an external enemy to bind their followers together."

The Origins of Satan
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973118...TF8&s=books

lastly ... using the bible ? all evil comes from God.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6)

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

and 6 days later ? some say 8 days later. unreliable.

Harry Potter did alot of magic but that doesn't make it real.. Just because the bible says something doesn't make it fact. It was common in those days for 'miracles'

question ... why didn't Jesus ever heal an amputee ? why has one never been healed ? or is that too hard for God to do ?

"your biblical assertion means nothing. Just because the bible says so doesn't make it fact. Just like London exists in the Harry Potter novel doesn't mean Harry Potter or the magic is real."

--------------

Ripley8, The Bible can be made to say any number of things, out of context, and a great many people interpret it different ways. For the record, I always thought Isaiah 14 spoke of the fall of nations - not Satan. This deals with the fall of Satan:

Revelation 12

¹ Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. ² She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth.

³ Then I witnessed in heaven another significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads. ⁴ His tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky, and he threw them to the earth. He stood in front of the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her baby as soon as it was born.

⁵ She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne. ⁶ And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.

⁷ Then there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels. ⁸ And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven. ⁹ This great dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.

--------------

As for the rest of your cherry-picked verses, I won't take time to deal with them here. Recommend reading the entire Bible, from beginning to end. Have you? If you choose not to believe it - fine. That is your privilege. If it's a fairy tale to you, then frankly that's your own personal issue.

It's not a fairy tale, you are being disingenuous. Who but you suggested it was?strawman.

Your faith is your own business, you don't have to attack others to maintain it and if you do what is it but a weapon?

winsomecowboy, good call ... concede that you did not refer to the Bible as a fairytale.

As to attacking others, hopefully you don't see me doing that here. You should find that my posts take on mis-quotations of the Bible and verses used out of context. Unfortunately, did allow myself to be dragged into a discussion on the Bible's authenticity, which is a difficult thing to prove one way or another.

No worries. I'm actually the last person to be lecturing anyone on civility. Enjoy your Christmas.

As to the gift giving - that seems to have its roots in the Wise Guys who came and gave Jesus gifts. But today's orgy of giving is completely warped.

TO WHOM did the wise guys give gifts? Each other? Nope. Mary & Joseph? Nope. They gave to Jesus. As it is written, As you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it to me. So what would be appropriate would be to give gifts to Jesus via "the least of these" - ie give to the poor and those who are in need. THAT would be appropriate.

There's a great story someone used at a 'ted' speech that illustrated childrens natural tendency to bravely improvise and 'give it a go'. A quality that is lost via the stultifying influence of the way our education system is set up.

I can give you a link if interested.

Anyway, nativity play, enter the three wise men [in a jumbled order]

wise kid one, "I bring you gold"

wise kid two, "I bring you Myrrh"

wise kid off balance cos he's out of order glances briefly at his line written on the back of his 'gift'.

"Um...Frank sent this."

But for others it is what it is to them and I respect and accept that.

How much better would the world be if everyone said that.

Well said Susi.

One would hope the deafening noise would settle down.

Thanks Jimster.

For me as a Christian Catholic, His birth is the reason.

But for others it is what it is to them and I respect and accept that.

It would be nice if more people respected other peoples' right to their beliefs. Not necessary have to agree with them-- but some of the mocking of others' views is excessivley nasty at time, IMO.

Well there seems to be some people with respect. Thank you, Susie and krishna, well said.

Hetep and Respect Kareem in my Coffee, Hmm, are you waiting for Kwanzaa too?

but the beautiful redemption story

And that's all it is-just a story.

Thank you for your opinion. Are you implying that all "stories" are false because they are "stories"?

Are you implying that all "stories" are false because they are "stories"?

That particular story anyway! Plus the story of Creation, the story of Adam & Eve, the story of the great Flood, to name a few others.

Just curious...have you ever read the Bible with any pursuit of truth? I started reading it when I had some big life questions such as: 1. What's the purpose of my life?, 2. How can we know if God exists?, 3. Why do I feel guilty inside?, 4. What will happen when I die? It was like reading Chinese to me at first, but I believe God was revealing the truth to me as I kept reading over a few years and I found answers to these major questions. I am so thankful for Jesus who took my place on the cross and offered me unconditional love and forgiveness and the gift/promise of eternal life. I would encourage you to read the Bible with an open mind and in pursuit of truth.

Merry Christmas friend!

His birth was only important because of His Death and Resurrection. Without both of those, His birth was irrelevant.

Exactly!!!!! Jesus was against commands and teachings of men they are of no value in combating the desires of the flesh. We were to go on seeking the things above not the things upon earth. We are to commemerate his death and resurrection. His life here was temporary but he was resurrected to eternal spiritual life.

Of course the pagans here on the vine and elsewhere claim easter as one of their days as well.

Because Easter was originally a Pagan holiday too, much like X-mas.

Forgiveness, salvation, eternal life are what is possible as a result of what we celebrate Christmas and Easter and none of them are possible without the acts of the One whom we celebrate this season.

None of them are possible in reality anyway.

Easter is a pagan fertility festival - eggs and rabbits are fertility symbols. (As also is "Valentine's Day" - aka the Roman festival of Lupercalia). Easter eggs and rabbits are from Ostara, Goddess of the Dawn. See, she really liked kids - and had this bird. One day to amuse them she turned her bird into a rabbit, and so now you get Easter eggs from a rabbit.

Buddhism in a nutshell

Everytime I open a coconut I say to myself "this could be the one."

That particular copy of the Book of Mark is, yes:

ScienceDaily (Dec. 15, 2009) — A biblical expert at the University of Chicago, Margaret M. Mitchell, together with experts in micro-chemical analysis and medieval bookmaking, has concluded that one of the University Library's most enigmatic possessions is a forgery. The book, a copy of the Gospel of Mark, will remain in the collection as a study document for scholars studying the authenticity of ancient books.

There is no earlier copy!

rwarner

There is no earlier copy!

-------------

Yes, there is.

Referencing wikipedia! LOL!!!

Where is the credible reference.

Your evidence does not stand. Regardless in a debate one cannot use the debated material as a reference, that is not how it works.

rwarner

"Referencing wikipedia! LOL!!!"

--------------------

What part of the source do you dispute? A blanket denunciation of a source without something of substance is not sufficient. That said...

There are more:

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

... and more

... and more ... Could keep going, but you have access to internet search engines too. The earliest forms of New Testament manuscripts are in various languages, including Hebrew and Greek. The article to which you linked regarded but one copy of the book of Mark. Surely, you don't think older manuscripts were thrown away, after new ones were made?

I have done the reading. Been doing it for years. I was just saying, basically, that you are using The Bible and Wikipedia as references in a debate. Wikipedia is not known for accuracy and The Bible is well...a book written by men.

Btw, Aramaic texts are the only really credible ones and the only one is Thomas.

If the older manuscripts weren't thrown away where are they and why are they credible? (most were written hundreds of years after the biblical Christ character by men who never knew said man, I could claim just as well as anyone that I knew the mind and heart of so and so and write it down and call it true.)

Do you have any idea what are in the vaults at the Vatican? Things we're never supposed to see.

You can go on and on if you choose but I was simply commenting on your debate references. They're weak. Circular logic can go on and no to no end. I'm stepping off the carousel now. Thanks for the ride.

"I have done the reading. Been doing it for years. I was just saying, basically, that you are using The Bible and Wikipedia as references in a debate. Wikipedia is not known for accuracy and The Bible is well...a book written by men."

Yes, we know you dispute the authenticity of the Bible, and Wikipedia is a pretty-well monitored and policed source from what I can tell.

--------------

"Btw, Aramaic texts are the only really credible ones and the only one is Thomas."

That's your opionion, which I, and many Bible scholars, reject.

--------------

"If the older manuscripts weren't thrown away where are they and why are they credible? (most were written hundreds of years after the biblical Christ character by men who never knew said man, I could claim just as well as anyone that I knew the mind and heart of so and so and write it down and call it true.)"

Please see the multiple sources I quoted. I could copy and paste what is in them, but that would be pointless.

---------------

"Do you have any idea what are in the vaults at the Vatican? Things we're never supposed to see."

Not a clue, but then I'm not a Roman Catholic, so I don't really care.

--------------

"You can go on and on if you choose but I was simply commenting on your debate references. They're weak. Circular logic can go on and no to no end. I'm stepping off the carousel now. Thanks for the ride."

The onus is on you to disprove the references or specifically point out their weaknesses. Again, a blanket statement will not suffice, at least not in logical debate. If anyone here is guilty of employing logical fallacies, it is yourself, especially in the form of a straw man:

"Since this copy of Mark is a forgery, the book of Mark is also a forgery."

*just applauding*

Have a terrific holiday!

You too, rwarner.

fyi ... the gospel of Mark has no resurrection ending ( so why no resurrection ? hhhmmm could be the other writers made it up to enhance their stories ) and most agree Mark was the first composed. . It the Resurrection story was added by later scribes.

In Mark's story, Jesus is buried in a tomb. Mark's original ending of the gospel does not contain an account of the resurrection; that ending, now contained in the gospel of the New Testament, was added by a later author. Mark ended his work on a stark note. Two women enter the tomb, and they see a young man dressed in white. He explains that Jesus has been raised, and he instructs the women to tell Peter and the other disciples. The women flee in terror.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmmark.html

and there is no original manuscripts for any of the gospels save some letters by Paul ..... just copies. all different.

"Btw, Aramaic texts are the only really credible ones and the only one is Thomas."

That's your opionion, which I, and many Bible scholars, reject.

not so ,, if the disciples actually wrote anything ? it would have been in Aramaic since they , like Jesus , did not believe in preaching to gentiles ( which would have used as is koine greek. as well as aramaic. Jews spoke and wrote both for business interests ) but it would have been used by later after Paul when people broke away from the original sect of christians to follow Paul's idea of Christianity ... what we have today. Not what Jesus started which excluded gentiles.

but the disciples couldn't read nor write. Jesus is thought to have written in dirt , but since the only people who say this couldn't read , he could have been scribbling as well. Not alot of calls for a writing day laborer ( as most poor were ) as was Jesus before he became a street preacher did.

and again .. Of all the gospels, the Gospel of Thomas has the best chance of actually preserving some history in that among its 114 sayings may be some from a historical Jesus. The problem: we have no way to determine which Jesus Thomas was referring to, or which sayings might actually have come from the hypothetical Jesus.

The onus is on you to disprove the references or specifically point out their weaknesses. Again, a blanket statement will not suffice, at least not in logical debate. If anyone here is guilty of employing logical fallacies, it is yourself, especially in the form of a straw man:

the only straw man argument is yours. you can't use the bible to prove the bible ! It's like using a Harry Potter book to prove Harry Potter is real !! lmao.

Wikipedia is not known for accuracy ! It's a start point for sure to research , but it is notorious for errors ! It is not policed in any manor. Anyone can add or detract from it. here .. from Wikipedia its self !

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have similar disclaimers.
No formal peer review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

now , had you done some real research. you would have known this !

"not so ,, if the disciples actually wrote anything ? it would have been in Aramaic since they , like Jesus , did not believe in preaching to gentiles ( which would have used as is koine greek. as well as aramaic. Jews spoke and wrote both for business interests ) but it would have been used by later after Paul when people broke away from the original sect of christians to follow Paul's idea of Christianity ... what we have today. Not what Jesus started which excluded gentiles."

-------------------

The language of the time for business also included "street Latin," but it is believed that many disciples of Jesus spoke and wrote Greek.

There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment.

-------------------

"but the disciples couldn't read nor write."

And your evidence for this is?

-------------------

"and again .. Of all the gospels, the Gospel of Thomas has the best chance of actually preserving some history in that among its 114 sayings may be some from a historical Jesus. The problem: we have no way to determine which Jesus Thomas was referring to, or which sayings might actually have come from the hypothetical Jesus."

Once again, that is your opinion, which you seem to readily confuse with facts.

-------------------

"the only straw man argument is yours. you can't use the bible to prove the bible ! It's like using a Harry Potter book to prove Harry Potter is real !! lmao."

Who is using the Bible to "prove" the Bible? What I asserted (and still do) is that you either accidentally or deliberately attempted to make the case that since one copy of a particular book of the Bible possessed evidence of forgery, then all copies of that book (regardless of language or age) are also fake. Was that not your premise? If it is, then you committed a logical fallacy ... in particular a false dilemma. Will you now further assert that all modern translations of Mark come from the alleged forgery you cited and to which you linked?

-------------------

"Wikipedia is not known for accuracy ! It's a start point for sure to research , but it is notorious for errors ! It is not policed in any manor. Anyone can add or detract from it. here .. from Wikipedia its self !"

Indeed, which is why it can be a good starting point, as you wrote. What you did in a prior post is immediately dismiss that particular source without providing further evidence against the material it contained. Noticing such, I added more links, none of which you've mentioned.

------------------

"now , had you done some real research. you would have known this !"

Again, please post anywhere, anything I've written that states Wikipedia is an all-in-one source for reference. I invite you to dig through anything I've posted for such evidence, if you like.

His disciples wrote ? yet the gospels were not written by them .

The Gospels are very different on Jesus from illiterate John 7:15 to reading from scrolls Luke 4:16-30 . Obviously the writers didn't know . More than likely he was illiterate as most first century Jews were !

Paul had no clue to any written gospel. If anyone would have it would have been him but obviously they weren't written yet !!

again .. educate yourself ...

"The cry that 'Most authors assign a first century date to the gospels' means only that most authors are Christian" and desperately want the earliest possible date to support the idea that Jesus was historical. The evidence does not bear this out. The earliest confirmed date for the existence of the gospels is 147 years after Jesus was supposedly executed.

My evidence the disciples couldn't read or write ? if they had don't you think they'd get their story straight ?

the oldest fragment of writing we have ? dated to about 125 AD

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/features/new_testament_manuscripts.htm

your not backing up your arguement with fact but opinion !! show me some neutral links ! not christian but neutral.

as for wiki ? you were parading it as factual ... yet it isn't a good source . if one stops research there one is lazy . because you may find that who posted it had an agenda .

I can't say where you've referenced since you don't back up what you say with links ! you haven't given any facts .... just your opinion !!

"His disciples wrote ? yet the gospels were not written by them . The Gospels are very different on Jesus from illiterate John 7:15 to reading from scrolls Luke 4:16-30 . Obviously the writers didn't know . More than likely he was illiterate as most first century Jews were !"

There you go again, confusing your opinion with facts. Where is your evidence that the gospels were not written by Jesus' disciples? Helpful hint: Feeling really strong about something is not the same as evidence.

1. Acts records the beginning history of the church with persecutions and martyrdoms being mentioned repeatedly. Three men; Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus all play leading roles throughout the book. They were all martyred by 67 A.D., but their martyrdoms are not recorded in Acts.
2. The church in Jerusalem played a central role in the Book of Acts, but the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. was not mentioned. The Jewish historian Josephus cited the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as befalling the Jews because of their unjust killing of James the brother of Jesus.
3. The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire that burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.

   Conclusion: These books, Luke-Acts, were written while Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events, and had opportunity to research portions that he was not an eyewitness to.

The rest of your charges are refuted here, here, here, here, here, here, and a plethora of historical criticisms about the Bible answered here.

-----------

"again .. educate yourself ..."

Read one of the many (non-Wiki) links above and feel free to do the same.

;)

Edit: Seems a couple of links were repeated ... my apologies.

here are facts on the gospels

John -

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

Regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Davidson says: "The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible" (Canon of the Bible, p. 127).

Yes , Paul wrote the letters . but ...............

It is concluded that there is only a slim connection between the teachings of Paul and those of
the Jesus of history. Either the life and teachings and teachings of the historical Jesus were not
of interest to Paul or else they were simply not known. His focus is on the Christ figure, the post death
and post-resurrected Jesus, who communicates directly with him and through him. This
reinforces the view that Paul was the founder of a separate religion, one about the Christ, not
one centered upon the teachings and mission of Jesus.

http://www.barriewilson.com/pdf/If-We-Only...-about-Jesus.pd

it must be noted 'supposed ' communication. consensus is Paul probably had epilepsy which would explain his aura , falling off the horse , flash of light , voices , hysterical blindness .... or he was mentally ill. He obviously had a problem with human sexuality.
and actually 'supposedly' Paul was converted by Ananias of Damascus because a vision Ananias had told him to heal the blind Paul and convert him.

here you go ..some reading for you to do.

The Historical Figure of Jesus (pages 63-66):

We do not know who wrote the gospels. They presently have headings "according to Matthew", "according to Mark", "according to Luke" and "according to John". The Matthew and John who are meant were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Mark was a follower of Paul, and possibly also Peter, Luke was one of Paul's converts. These men -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- really lived, but we do not know that they wrote Gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century. I have surmized as evidence elsewhere and I shall not repeated here, except for one point. The Gospels as we have them were quoted in the first half of the second century, but always anonymously (as far as we can tell from surviving evidence). Names suddenly appear about the year 180. By then there were a lot of gospels, not just our four, and the Christians had to decide which ones were authoritative. This was a major issue, on which there were very substantial differences of opinion. We know who won: those Christians who thought that four Gospels, no more and no fewer, where the authoritative records of Jesus.... (pp., 63-64)

The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders
http://www.amazon.co...ref=sib_dp_ptu#

The New Testament is not the testimony of eyewitnesses. I believe this, in itself, calls into doubt (To what degree...?) the reliability and accuracy of the New Testament.

From Professor Reginald Fuller's book a "Critical Introduction to the New Testament" starting on pp., 195-96:

highlights from various Biblical exegetes from the Kerry Temple article "Who Do Men Say I am" (Notre Dame Magazine, Issue No.27, February 2007).

In many ways the figure of Jesus is like a poem—-or, as one prominent Catholic scholar wrote, "Jesus is a parable." The story of his life has not come to us like a news report or documentary film that presents historical events literally and factually....

One day I sat in the office of the Reverend Robert Krieg, C.S.C., who teaches Christology at Notre Dame, and tried to explain this analogy to him. "Looking for Jesus," I said, "is like being back in a poetry class dissecting a poem. The poem is layered with meanings, and everyone has a different opinion. Nobody is certain any more what the poet intended, and you're left with a variety of very subjective interpretations."

Krieg nodded but cautioned against individual interpretations not supported by the Catholic faith tradition and centuries of scholarship. And he warned against looking for the "truth" about Jesus in terms of literal or historical facts.

One of the world's leading authorities on the subject is the Reverend Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., whose two massive books, Jesus: An experiment in Christology and Christ as Lord, are more than ample evidence that deciphering the life and times of Jesus is a formidable undertaking. The Dutch theologian has been challenged by the Vatican for his conclusions on three occasions and exonerated each time.

"The first thing to remember," he once said, "is that there are limitations to what we can know by using the historical-critical approach. The only texts that we have show Jesus already proclaimed as Christ by the church and by his first disciples. The New Testament is the testimony of a believing people, and what they are saying is not history but expressions of their belief in Jesus as Christ. But that belief is filled up and determined by who Jesus historically was, and this allows us to reconstruct Jesus to a certain extent."

&:

More importantly, the four gospels were compiled not as historical documents but as testimonies of faith by communities of believers. "They are not precise, factual accounts and they weren't intended to be," says John Collins, an internationally known biblical scholar and Notre Dame professor of theology. "There was a lot of embellishment. The evangelists were not reporters or historians in the modern sense. They were telling stories with a view to getting points across, not necessarily with a view to accuracy of detail."

&:

Many of the stories about Jesus contained in these ancient documents [Gospels, canonical and not] Kannengiesser says, were tales commonly applied to mythical figures and heroes of the time. "It was almost obligatory to have such stories available," the theologian says; "they were stock stories told to convert people to Jesus." Tales of virgin births, divine heroes, and miracles workers were relatively common 2,000 years ago and simply did not mean what they do to us today.

SOURCE: SikhSpectrum.com Quarterly
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022007/temple.htm

and your sources ? lmao funny.

As you reject my sources Ripley8, so I reject yours. See how easy that is?

It seems neither of us will convince the other, and further posts will be non-constructive. Therefore, the debate is hereby terminated, and we will agree to disagree.

ah but mine are from actual theologians , historians and heads of university. yours wasn't . second hand opinion.

like from Got Questions Ministries ! lmao .

Don't forget Barloph, the brown-nosed reign-mutt