Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Yes, unless it can be shown to be an error in translation or copyist mistake.
    But I don't accept every verse. The gospels, letters and books of the NT were were written by many different authors.
    I don't accept everything that I read in theNT.

    Jesus claimed God was his Father in a direct way. As in he was the heir to the throne so to speak. He spoke to the Father and the Father spoke to him directly. You are ignoring the context.
    In Mark's gospel (for example) did not once claim to be 'the Son of God', some unclean spirits called him 'Son of God' and a Roman Soldier did when he was on the cross.
    Who do you think heard the 'unclean spirits' and do you believe in spirits?
    Who heard what any soldiers said by the cross?....... Magadalene, Salome and some other women watched from afar, and I don't believe that Mary or Disciple John were anywhere ndear that event.

    However, Jesus is reported to use the words 'Son of man' a dozen times, so firstly 'Son of God' was not used, and secondly, do you think that the author or the man whop told about those events would know tha\t 'Son of Man' was a special title?
    I've read that 'Son of Man' was a general term used by those folks in a similar way that men (here today) might use words like 'This bloke, or this fella' ( This fella's going to the match tonight!'

    No not "a" son of man but "THE" Son of Man. In Daniel 7 "the Son of Man" is a divine title given to the the Messiah. Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah (Christ in Greek) and divine.
    In Christianity it might be decided what Daniel meant, but I am not a Christian. It could mean anything, but possible it could mean 'An unknown' because everybody was titled 'son of -----' their father, and 'son of ----' could mean 'An Unknown'.
    No divine title, nor any links to the word 'Christ', nor did any of the other claims in those verses come to be.

    You can't forgive someone's sin against someone else. Only against you. Jesus forgave all of their sins, against GOD. And yes he did return and will again. You have no logical reason to accept only the parts of the bible you want and dismiss the rest.
    I do not trust in every author. I do not trust every verse. I am not a Christian, but a researcher of the Historical Jesus and I refer to facts and some history outside of the gospels.

    Who was Peter. Cephas is "Rock" in Aramaic, Peter is "Rock" in Greek (well "Petros" and Peter is the anglified version of that)
    Cephas meant more than just 'Rock' to the boatmen of Gennesaret, it meant Anchor. Simon was Jesus's anchor or anchorman. I think you would be more correct if you thought of Simon in that way.
    Since Jesus called Simon 'Cephas' why wouldn't you?


    No I don't.
    Jesus checked out everything in the Temple on that last Sunday, ransacked the bazaar and picketed the Temple Courts on the Monday, went back to do it again on the Tuesday ........... and have I not read or heard a Christian pay much attention to any of that....... Selection of material seems to be at the very centre of much of Christianity.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

      Unless you are fully conversant with every MSS that is available and you are proficient in Greek and Syriac [re the NT]. How would you determine that?
      Yes.......... and not every author can be trusted with their accounts, nor can fiddling, edits and additions be discounted.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        No.
        You were replying to the question:- Isn't that the result of the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendar?

        That could make a difference to the date of Christian feasts, but it didn't make any difference to the ancients who simply watched (for instance) the return of the sun, the return of which was noticeable to them shortly after the shortest day.

        So Yule or any of its other titles was fixed to that time, regardless of any number which might have been given to that day. Christianity reversed a feast in to that ancient celebration.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Esther View Post

          This may sound rude but it isn't. The thing is that it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about Jesus. The NT is very clear about who Jesus is and who he isn't.
          But that is how you see, read and perceive it.
          I think that Jesus was a man rebelling against Priesthood corruption, Temple scams, a Temple coin which was an outrageous insult and more.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

            Because scholars have studied those manuscripts for 2,000 years and most modern bibles will footnote any controversial verses or additions/deletions. Again you show you have never read the bible.
            No. Scholars who might have found controversies in the bible probably kept quiet and saved their lives thus.
            Modern researchers have been much more brave, felt much more safe.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by eider View Post

              No. Scholars who might have found controversies in the bible probably kept quiet and saved their lives thus.
              Modern researchers have been much more brave, felt much more safe.
              Not so much kept quiet about it as hid what they found in plain sight. More than a few scholars have made comments that pass unnoticed by people who aren't paying attention.

              Duff for example drops a translation exercise into the section about subjunctives in his Elements of New Testament Greek that makes a particular translation error (John 6:29 ) patently obvious, but the significance of the exercise passes without notice by most.
              Last edited by tabibito; 01-19-2023, 03:45 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                Because scholars have studied those manuscripts for 2,000 years and most modern bibles will footnote any controversial verses or additions/deletions. Again you show you have never read the bible.
                From where did you get the notion that: My emphasis.

                scholars have studied those manuscripts for 2,000 years


                However, now I understand what you intended. You are referring to references to different readings and so forth.

                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by eider View Post

                  You were replying to the question:- Isn't that the result of the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendar?

                  That could make a difference to the date of Christian feasts, but it didn't make any difference to the ancients who simply watched (for instance) the return of the sun, the return of which was noticeable to them shortly after the shortest day.

                  So Yule or any of its other titles was fixed to that time, regardless of any number which might have been given to that day. Christianity reversed a feast in to that ancient celebration.
                  So you're impervious to facts, I see.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by eider View Post
                    But I don't accept every verse. The gospels, letters and books of the NT were were written by many different authors.
                    I don't accept everything that I read in theNT.


                    In Mark's gospel (for example) did not once claim to be 'the Son of God', some unclean spirits called him 'Son of God' and a Roman Soldier did when he was on the cross.
                    Who do you think heard the 'unclean spirits' and do you believe in spirits?
                    Who heard what any soldiers said by the cross?....... Magadalene, Salome and some other women watched from afar, and I don't believe that Mary or Disciple John were anywhere ndear that event.

                    However, Jesus is reported to use the words 'Son of man' a dozen times, so firstly 'Son of God' was not used, and secondly, do you think that the author or the man whop told about those events would know tha\t 'Son of Man' was a special title?
                    I've read that 'Son of Man' was a general term used by those folks in a similar way that men (here today) might use words like 'This bloke, or this fella' ( This fella's going to the match tonight!'


                    In Christianity it might be decided what Daniel meant, but I am not a Christian. It could mean anything, but possible it could mean 'An unknown' because everybody was titled 'son of -----' their father, and 'son of ----' could mean 'An Unknown'.
                    No divine title, nor any links to the word 'Christ', nor did any of the other claims in those verses come to be.


                    I do not trust in every author. I do not trust every verse. I am not a Christian, but a researcher of the Historical Jesus and I refer to facts and some history outside of the gospels.


                    Cephas meant more than just 'Rock' to the boatmen of Gennesaret, it meant Anchor. Simon was Jesus's anchor or anchorman. I think you would be more correct if you thought of Simon in that way.
                    Since Jesus called Simon 'Cephas' why wouldn't you?



                    Jesus checked out everything in the Temple on that last Sunday, ransacked the bazaar and picketed the Temple Courts on the Monday, went back to do it again on the Tuesday ........... and have I not read or heard a Christian pay much attention to any of that....... Selection of material seems to be at the very centre of much of Christianity.
                    Rather than argue with you about your excuses above, how about you let me know what criteria you use to decide which parts you accept as true and which parts you reject. How do you decide which is which? If you think the bible authors are lying in once place, why would you accept anything they said elsewhere?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      From where did you get the notion that: My emphasis.

                      scholars have studied those manuscripts for 2,000 years


                      However, now I understand what you intended. You are referring to references to different readings and so forth.
                      I am at a loss at what you are saying above.

                      You asked me how do I know what parts of the bible are errors and I answered. I trust the experts and such errors are noted in most modern bible translations. How is that any different than what you claim by reading books on the subject written by experts? You yourself are not an expert on ancient manuscripts.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by eider View Post

                        No. Scholars who might have found controversies in the bible probably kept quiet and saved their lives thus.
                        Modern researchers have been much more brave, felt much more safe.
                        So much so that whoever inserted the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) was quaking in his sandals. The same with the various long endings to Matthew and on the flip side, Erasmus wrt the Comma Johanneum (I John 5:7-8).

                        Once again reality comes crashing down on your ignorance-fueled speculations.



                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                          Rather than argue with you about your excuses above, how about you let me know what criteria you use to decide which parts you accept as true and which parts you reject. How do you decide which is which? If you think the bible authors are lying in once place, why would you accept anything they said elsewhere?
                          I suspect he's like many Cafeteria Christians who only accept the parts they like and can agree with.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            From where did you get the notion that: My emphasis.

                            scholars have studied those manuscripts for 2,000 years


                            However, now I understand what you intended. You are referring to references to different readings and so forth.
                            Okay Ms. Cavil, for 1950 or so years.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Okay Ms. Cavil, for 1950 or so years.
                              I was only talking about since the NT, and we have writings from the church fathers dating back to the first century discussing scripture and so on.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                                Rather than argue with you about your excuses above, how about you let me know what criteria you use to decide which parts you accept as true and which parts you reject. How do you decide which is which? If you think the bible authors are lying in once place, why would you accept anything they said elsewhere?
                                Yes, I can do that for you:-
                                Miracles that can have natural explanations I keep. All the rest I dump.
                                References to actions which make prophecies to be fulfilled I dump.
                                Very long speeches by Jesus I dump.......... just who remembered those 'word for word'?
                                Much of John's gospel gets dumped, but some pieces of info ring true to me, for instance, why would the author/s make up the name of Judas's father? etc etc.
                                Stories that don't make sense probably are not true, such as a young pregnant Mary going walkabout to see relatives in Judea!!!
                                Claims such as the Baptist being related to Jesus when he later sends disciples to ask if Jesus is the one.....etc etc
                                Claims of coming back to life......... out.


                                I sieve the gospels for what I believe is true. Gotta be honest, it's like that advert that declares 'It's the ---- that J--- W--- reject that makes J--- W---- the best.'
                                I do not offer excuses, I offer my reasons, it's just that you see things your way and only your way can be right for you.

                                Much of G-Mark is the true story, imo,

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X