Question about Jesus..

Huh? I am not sure that I understood what you just said. What I am saying is that Nag is only dated to 400 A.D. It contains some of the "lost books" but that alone isn't enough to verify the date of authorship. Did they exist then? Of course. Were the "lost books" authentic? Well, given that the earliest extant manuscripts are from 300 to 400 AD and they are not mentioned in ANY earlier documents (religious or secular). To presume that they are authentic simply because they say they are is to impose a theory over the facts. The fact is that the historical evidence needed to validate the authenticity of the "lost" books is simply non-existent or , at the least, undiscovered. You claim that the were destroyed by Constantine. Please cite your evidence. (Note that detroying "anything he didn't agree with" is not sufficient. You must show what he destroyed or else your argument becomes pretty vacuous as we don't know exactly what he did or didn't agree with.)

No. I am not saying that it is NOT evidence. What I AM saying is that it is not compelling evidence in comparison with the evidence for the canonical books.

Where are you getting this information? Heresy existed LONG before Constantine. Marcion was excommunicated for heresy in 144 AD. Montanism (the Cataphrygian Heresy) arose in the 2nd century. Heresy sprung up quickly in the early church (and it still springs up pretty regularly now, too).

Okay. Constantine called the council of Nicea. Now, can you cite any record where Constantine had sway over the decision making process? Do you know how the canonization went? Did Constantine actually sit on the council? He WAS there, but everything that I have read states that he acted as a mediator between disagreeing parties. Nowhere that I have found in the records of what happened at Nicea does it indicate that Constantine had control over the contents of Scripture. Given that there are documents that describe the events, could you please provide evidence that Constantine determined the books that went into the NT?

I don't accept the fact that he subsequently destroyed other works as evidence that he controlled the contents of the NT because there are other explanations that have as much explanatory power as the idea of him wanting to eliminate "everything he didn't agree with." I do not dispute that he did it. I dispute the motive that is impugned on him.

Could you please clearly demonstrate the circular reasoning that I am using?

The actions of a man demonstrate the content of his character. However, a man's actions do not demonstrate the truth or falseness of his ideas. The dark ages would not make Christianity less true or false. This commits the fallacy of ad hominem.

 

The scriptures teach that they are one God but exist separately. That is why when Jesus during the sermon on the mount said, are Father who art in heaven. Jesus was on the earth the Father was in heaven. Also Jesus told His followers that when He left the Holy Spirit would come and teach them. All of them fully God yet separate. The scriptures demonstrate that they are separate, and not restricted by any physical connection.

 

Herein lies the crux of your problem.
The facts are a matter of public record. You either do a google search or go to your local library where you can then read and authenticate history and scholarship to your heart's content.
That is your responsibility to yourself, deny it though you may. Your attempts to make me responsible for giving reference (that you, like all manipulators, will invariably denigrate) are dissembling distractions removed from the point at hand.

The evidence has been given any number of times, but because you hold and defend belief over fact you dissemble, contrive, & manipulate so as to steer the discussion away from the historical facts that are a matter of public record and waiting for any who choose to read them. Your refutations are nothing other than testimony of your state of denial.
But that cannot and will not change history or historical fact ~ that the Pagan Emperor Constantine assembled the contents of the bible in it's entirety and founded the christian church.
Like it or not.

 

You sir, are extremely silly.
The dude above is just telling you straight-up history and evidence. He's just a christian rel major who likes his religion and likes a good discussion. This is standard, accepted, taught since 1967 Christ. Rel.

Yes, the church did go around destroying the remnants of pagan religion, especially some of the alternate, greek-ish gospels and their followers. This and everything else Romans had a hand in was terrible, violent and bloody.
HOWEVER.
For the most part, sects and other religions got out-competed.
What then can you say is the work of God and the work of men?
Constantine (or one of the early popes) even regretted the fact that the gospels had been transfered from an oral tradition to a inflexible canon. He thought the generation to generation changes were due to god and not man, given thier unpredictable and natural change.
As for the pentateuch, you might have to X that one too. Check out some of the archeology from the assumed time of King David. And how did the Torah suddenly appear out of nowhere as the law of moses? Was it the hand of God or king Elisha?

Perhaps it is just a question of faith?
If you try to go to point Y from point 0, you cant get to point X.
Maybe you need to be at Z.

Probably shouldn't have told you anything, you're gonna think on it and come up with some more poo.
​

 

Elisha was a prophet not a king. The law of Moses didn't "appear it. Moses wrote the first five books of the bible.

 

he came to spend his time teaching the desciplesd and leading makind,healing the sick,raising the dead,i think writting a book would ahve taken up too much time,jesus knew that his days were numbered and he came to earth to do alot of things,he knew what he was called to do

 

Not the penteuch, the Torah. And I meant king Josiah, sorry.
The relevance to the pentetuch is through the commentaries on the Torah and the ability of Jewish society to keep track of the sacred texts during it's more baalist periods.
Check Kings 22+23 -- The "book of the law" or "the book of the covenant" are found in the temple and Josiah starts cleaning out all the baalist/occultist elelments from the country and starts celebrating passover, as last done in Judges.
This book could be either the penteteuch or the Torah, or Dr Seuss.
Another strike against the Torah was the scolarly effort to justify it through the bible. These are the Mishnah -- commentaries on the Torah.
Anyways, there's probably a good argument why this is false, don't take my word for it.

 

""First of all.. I'm not attacking anyone or anything.. I'm just wondering about something.

Jesus had this great message for mankind.. right? What I'm wondering.. why didn't he take the time to write it down or (in case he couldn't write) sit down with someone and dictate?

Because he didn't, there are 4 (or, depeding how you look at it, 3 similar and 1 different) gospels and a lot of discussion about what is or isn't the word of God, what is being put in there by mankind, how did the Holy Spirit help getting things right in the bible etc etc.

It just seems to make more sense if Jesus took (the equivalent of) pen and paper and instead of indulging on a last supper, he would write stuff down for his diciples and us. He could've just taken the OT, and add things, cross things through that didn't apply anymore.. underline stuff that was really important.. etc etc.. and add his own things.

That would've made things way more easy. What are your thoughts on this?""


How often do you think somebody in the world thinks about that? everymilliseconds?

If you know,
Do you believe?

 

My thoughts are that if jesus was having such an impact as subsequent christianity portrays, he should appear in contemporary Diaspora writings (Jewish, Greek, or Roman history/religious) of the time. But he doesn't rate a mention.
The great deceipt ~
The case of the missing jesus.

​

http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/biblefraud/internalgif/fraud.htm

http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk/

 

sorry could you repeat that one?
I think what you're saying is that
the Jews after the 2nd diaspora did'nt write about Jesus?
If that's what your saying, then you got it wrong. They had their own version of Jews for Jesus before the temple was destroyed and they got destroyed in a Jewish cultural unification effort after the diaspora. Ever hear of the Essenes and Pharisee and Saducees today? The unification after the diaspora is why.

 

It must have been one enlightened man and one enlightened religion that brought centuries of the most grotesque barbarism into the world.


So..... those were christian barbarians invading the western empire with the Huns? I was under the impression that the church saved much of the only surviving knowledge of antiquity, thanks for straightening that out.

 

My thoughts are that if jesus was having such an impact as subsequent christianity portrays, he should appear in contemporary Diaspora writings (Jewish, Greek, or Roman history/religious) of the time. But he doesn't rate a mention.
key word: contemporary

 

You want contemporary writings? Christ's ministry was only three years long. And people couldn't just churn out books like we can today. So, you want a book written while Christ was a well-known, public speaker in the countryside surrounding Jerusalem which talks about His life? Not only that, you want it to survive the ages? The VAST amount of literature written in the past is lost to us. Yet you hold this against the existence of Christ? If you don't think that Christ lived for this reason, you might as well start throwing out other historical figures like Plato, Socrates, Tacitus, some of the Ceasars... Many ancient figures would fade into non-existence if concurrent authorship is a requirement for proof of existence.
Also, please don't think that all the world knew or cared about Christ while He lived on Earth. From a Roman point of view, He would just be seen as another peasant rebel (like Barrabas). What made an impact on the world (turned the world upside down in some cases) were the early Christians (Peter, Paul, James, John, etc.) who went about dying at the hands of the Romans who at death said that they had seen Christ after His resurrection. What's funny is that many of them DO have contemporary writings.

Could you please cite the Eusebius quote. I have read some that were similar, but not that quote exactly. Could you please let us know where you found it? BTW, just parroting a website doesn't make it true. And it doesn't look like that website has really done their homework. Let's look at the Leo X quote.

Turns out that the quote is a forgery. It isn't real. The quote was ascribed to Leo by an Catholic apostate named John Bale. John Bale was a satirist and playwright. It was in his *satire* of the Roman Catholic church that this quote appears. For the whole thing, in context, here you go:

[size=+1][size=+0]Leo the tenth was a Florentine borne, of the noble house of Medicea, and called ere he were Pope John Medices. He being Deacon and Cardinal of Saint Maries, contrarie to all hope was chosen to succede Julius. He beinge diligetly from his youth trained up in learning under learned schoolmaisters, and especially one Angelus Politianus, did afterward greatly favour learned men. When he was but. xiv. yeres olde he was made cardinall by Innocentius the. viii. and at the yeres of xxxviii. he obtained the papacie. This Leo was of his owne nature a gentil and quiet person:but often times ruled by those that were cruell and contencious men, whom he suffered to do in many matters according to their insolent wil. He addicting himselfe to nicenesse, and takinge ease did pamper his fleshe in diverse vanities and carnal pleasures: At banqueting he delighted greatly in wine and musike: but had no care of preaching the Gospell, nay was rather a cruell persecutour of those that began then, as Luther and other to reveale the light thereof: for on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie: Sleidan faith he sente letters and bulles of pardons into all nations for suche as woulde give money for them, the effectes of his pardons were diverse, some especially to sell licence to eate butter, chese, egges, milke, and fleshe upon forbidden dates, and for this purpose he sent divers treasurers into al coutreis, and namelye one Samson a monke of Millaine into Germany, who by these pardons gathered out of sundrie places such hewge sommes of money that the worlde wondered at it, for he offered in one day to geve for the Papacie above an hundred and twentie thousand duckates.

So you have a non-historical quote from a known playwright and satirist (both forms of literature are non-historical in nature and both distort facts for the benefit of their reader's entertainment). The above is from the satirical work (with a historical format) [/size][/size][size=+1][size=+0]The Pageant of Popes.
[/size][/size]

 

But other than the actual characters in the story, no one else cept Josephus mentions a single one of them, I mean 'contemporary writers' that is.

 

jesus was 'the way' I think that means he was god realised, so he could do mirciales and feed thousands of people from a few fiish etc.. maybe the way the bible was written was a metaphor for the way he saw things. ?????????????

 

Cut the hogwash fellas ~ the NT portrays MULTITUDES and MIRACLES attributed to Jesus, and MULTITUDES flocked to where he was supposed to be going next, as well as the involvement of Roman and Synagogue officialdom come crucifixion.
But the problem is apologists. It always has been and always will be. Apologists presume on behalf of fact. You guys do that over and over to sustain belief above fact.
That you admit christ was historically insignificant is admission that he was also historically irrelevant to the extent that contemproary historians didn't know he existed.
That is ~ until the myth-makers made a man into a god.

Only those who actively seek truth will find. Those who actively seek to maintain belief will never find truth.
It has taken me many years to overcome the paradigm built by false belief. Many years of actively seeking truth, because I believe that God would only deal in truth. Not lies.
My discoveries did not come easily or without some deep pain and difficulty in accepting them. But they came because I put truth above belief. You cannot expect to be spoon-fed on a journey that is of your own choosing. It is those who seek that find, not those who want to be effortlessly shown. Seek and ye shall find. Not all history has been destroyed by the christian church, despite it's best efforts to do so over many centuries, even up to the present.

 

yeah!! i have a christian friend who is just liTEAL LOVE JOY AND PLAYFULNESS... woops capitals..she says it's not religion that's to blame it's the way it's interpreted...i have to say I don't know what she means as i'm not as eveolced as her...but i totally reckon i'll findout what day..an be like ooohh yyeah!

 

What are you looking for? What is your point? How does a lot of people following a teacher around differ at all from bunch of Jews going to the temple every Saturday? Both are religious in scope, deal with religious teachers, and deal with large numbers of people. Why would a concurrent writer think that this was so unique as to write it down in the short three years that it was going on?
And while you mentioned miracles, I have to ask, why do you think that historians of the day would be any *less* skeptical than you are?

I keep asking you for facts and you keep responding with vacuous statements. Where are these facts that apologists dismiss or ignore?

I never said that He was historically insignificant. Historically, He was VERY significant. However, just because concurrent historians didn't write about a teacher from a small town who went about doing good does not at all invalidate the claims of scripture. Your argument stems from the fact that no concurrent historians wrote about Him while He was alive. I say "so what"?
Also, who are these supposed "myth-makers"? Are those the ones who went to tortuous death proclaiming that Jesus Christ is alive and that they had seen Him ressurrected after being Crucified?

Also, as you refused or are unable to cite the Eusebius quote, that tells me that you either don't want to do your homework, or that you are incapable of using proper research techniques (could be lack of training, lack of accessibility to documents, or both even). This doesn't help your credibility.

 

If you had the faith of a mustard seed you would have confidence enough in the certainty of your biasses to put them aside, knowing that they are built upon the rock of salvation and cannot be altered. But you are afraid to do so. You are too afraid to seek the truth as it stands.Your indoctrination is more important than reality.
You would much rather a circular argument to manipulate than account for your faiths falsity.
On the path of truth you have to find it. If you're worthy of the truth ~ seek it.
I'll not cast hard won pearls before swine whose sole aim is to trample them under foot.

 

Nice dodge. When you cannot back up your argument, you begin to attack me for being "too afraid to seek the truth as it stands." So, instead of telling me how afraid I am, why do you not back up your statements and claims?

Please demonstrate my circular reasoning. Where have I assumed the truth of the thing I am trying to prove?

So I am swine now, huh? Nice ad hominem argument there.

Now, back to what I asked previously, Will you cite the Eusebius quote or will you simply let your credibility disintegrate?

Something to think about, would you have found the truth if people had withheld information and evidence the way you are doing in refusing to back up your claims?