25 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywill
You conveniently evaded the request to go through even one chapter and separate the authentic from the legendary. It is all legendary, is your reason.
what i said was that it's impossible. look at it this way. everything in luke and mattehew that is not also in mark can be considered a legendary addition over the earlier legend of christ portrayed in mark.
"The legend was rampant." This is just your assertion with nothing to back it up.
...
"The legend was out of control" - pure assertion with nothing to substantiate it other than blatant prejudice.
this is simply untrue. the rampant legend assertion is backed up by the history of the early church(es) and numerous mss of the christ legend floating around. these are proof positive of a legend in the making.
You have not demonstrated that was was present was legend.
your inability to recognize the solid evidence for what it is does not defeat my argument.
How do you know Christ was not born of a virgin ?
How do you know He did not raise Lazarus from the dead ?
How do you know He did not tell Nicodemus "You must be born again" ?
i don't know that he did or didn't. what i know about it is irrelevant. what i do know is that there were many things that were not accepted as canon. the mere presence of such material is proof that varied and conflicting stories of christ were being distributed uncontrollably and this remained the case until a powerful state got behind a specific set of myths to adopt and persecuted anything that disagreed with the established dogma.
Micah's prophecy was a supernatural foretelling. How did Jesus arrange His birth in Bethlehem so as to appear a very likely candidate for that prophecy ?
leaving aside the problems associated with jesus's place of origin, and bethlem issues, he could not have been the anointed portrayed in micha.
i assume you're referring to this verse:
5:2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
jesus never became ruler in israel. micah is talking about someone else. so we can accurately state that the "micah" connection is a legendary addition, perhaps made by those who didn't understand the OT very well.
How did Jesus arrange His death so as to fall on the day the pascal lamb would have been sacrificed ? How did He stir up the opposition so it just happen to come to a boiling point of execution at that time ?
he wouldn't have to do any of these within the growing legend theory. it's easy enough to write-in when he lived or died to coincide with some obscure passage from the OT that's probably talking about something or someone else and since there is no contemporary accounting of the tale external to the bible, it's safe to assume that it's all legendary.
You may argue that everything confirming Christ's identity as Son of God and Messiah was fabricated after the fact. That requires a wild leap of faith more reckless than simply trusting the account.
i disagree. a simple examination of the historical perspective; the numerous mss, the infighting, numerous sects with conflicting theologies, and supporting (or lack thereof) evidence, one would need a great deal of faith to believe the nonsense.
Why ? If you want a fantastical legend, the more material the better.
not quiet, you have to try to keep it as believable as possible, so you would select the material that the most people believe at the time of the choosing... and kill the rest to keep them silent.
1.) In building a legend about Jesus and His disciples why would they portray themselves as dim-witted at times, failing to understand what Jesus was saying (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16)
Wouldn't a more convincing legend place the disciples as the very astute and wise intelligencia. Why would they risk people dismissing the story because they were dull at times ?
2.) In building a legend why would them portay themselves as uncaring about their Master - falling asleep pn Jesus twice when He asked them to pray (Mark 14:32-41)
Wouldn't the legend builders have a vested interest in always looking good ?
...
This and many other details have a candidness about them which rings of realism and not legend.
this isn't the problem you think it is. they're trying to grow christ into someone with transcendent wisdom and superhuman ability, beyond the reach of mortal understanding at times. someone to be trusted and believed. this actually helps the legend along.
this is of course assuming that anyone in the audience was actually involved in the authoring of the final material.
Then things recorded about Jesus do not match the intent to build a legend.
1.) Would it help or hurt their cause to inform us that some of Jesus' own brothers did not believe in Him ?
...
Supporters of a political candidate would surely sweep scandelous rumors under the rug. That is if they wanted to build a legend
you're assuming the legend building came from a central source and was by design. legends aren't built by design, they happen and they happen erratically without control. what they did was pick and choose from existing legends which ones they wanted to canonize based on how many people were willing to believe the selected legends.
You boasted before that Atheists know the Bible better than believers. I have found that the Bible has an interesting effect on some people. The less they read it, the more they fancy themselves as experts on it.
i agree with this. christians often fancy themselves experts on it.
Anyway, your legend building theory is not realistic given many details of the Gospels. The propogandist of fictional material would not introduce problematic material jeopardizing reputation of the Messiah legend or their own pristine authenticity.
...
Not very good Legend Builders.
your examination of the details is not realistic. the mss were written by different authors and from different schools of theology. the legend builders had to pick from the materials at hand based on the popularity of the mss, and perhaps inject a few points or special translations of their own. perhaps make original sources 'disappear' forever. that the story of christ is a growing legend is beyond doubt given the vast amount of evidence in support of it. attempting to justify or theorize the specific content of the selected material does not change this fact.
i do agree with the last part. they aren't very good legend builders. they made it too obvious.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritFor your information, the legend writings did not occur until long
is someone forcing you to participate in this thread?
after those books that we have in the New Testament. Those
legend gospels and writings about Jesus where discarded by the
church. So you have no need to worry about them.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritOriginally posted by jaywill
You conveniently evaded the request to go through even one chapter and separate the authentic from the legendary. It is all legendary, is your reason.
what i said was that it's impossible. look at it this way. everything in luke and mattehew that is not also in mark can be considered a legen ...[text shortened]... they aren't very good legend builders. they made it too obvious.
what i said was that it's impossible. look at it this way. everything in luke and mattehew that is not also in mark can be considered a legendary addition over the earlier legend of christ portrayed in mark.
You haven't proved that Mark consists of an "ealier legend".
That's pure assertion with nothing to back it up.
"The legend was out of control" - pure assertion with nothing to substantiate it other than blatant prejudice.
this is simply untrue. the rampant legend assertion is backed up by the history of the early church(es) and numerous mss of the christ legend floating around. these are proof positive of a legend in the making.
It does not prove that all writings about Jesus Christ were fictional.
There are a lot of writings about a notable person floating around.
That doesn't mean they are all fictional or all factual.
Paul publically mentions the 12 apostles and 500 (take a few away) who culd vouch the Jesus resurrected.
Your case might be better if you could point to a letter from one of these saying Paul was exagerating - building a legend. It would at least make your case stronger.
I would add that the earliest Christian apologetics that we can detect was against Gnostic writers who said Jesus was too good to be material.
It appears that the early apologetics of the apostles was aimed against those who were not teaching that there was no such person, but that He was too wonderful to be material.
That is why John sets his personal testimonial so strongly that he did see blood and water coming from the slain body of Jesus:
"But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he says what is true, that you also may believe." (John 19:33,34)
In other words - "Look people, I SAW blood come out of His body. He was not a phantasm. He was not immaterial. He was not as the Gnostic teach - TOO GOOD to be material."
You have not demonstrated that was was present was legend.
your inability to recognize the solid evidence for what it is does not defeat my argument.
What solid evidence ? Your evidence is not "solid". Alternative explanations are quite plausible. People see an exciting thing and want to cash it, jump on the bandwagon, give their opinion, exaggerate. So there were a lot of "gospels" that are considered apachraphal.
You call that "solid evidence" that there was no truth in the record of Jesus.
How do I know you haven't just drawn the line at what you have an inability to believe that God could do ?
How do you know Christ was not born of a virgin ?
How do you know He did not raise Lazarus from the dead ?
How do you know He did not tell Nicodemus "You must be born again" ?
i don't know that he did or didn't. what i know about it is irrelevant. what i do know is that there were many things that were not accepted as canon.
This is silly. You are suggesting that NOTHING spurious may be written about a real historical person.
What personal benefit to Paul did he secure by preaching a Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead ? Aside from whippings, imprisonment, persecution, stonings, being hounded from town to town, surrounded by people who made an oath to kill him, etc. What benefit did he derive from propogating this fictional legend ?
Don't you think he could have lived a much easier life if he stopped insisting to travel and preach about a fictional , legendary Christ ?
the mere presence of such material is proof that varied and conflicting stories of christ were being distributed uncontrollably and this remained the case until a powerful state got behind a specific set of myths to adopt and persecuted anything that disagreed with the established dogma.
How does that explain Micah's prophecy written centries beforehand of a born King in Bethlehem whose going forth is from eternity ?
Are you going to argue that it really wasn't written previously. Maybe Matthew made it up that that Micah wrote that in the Old Testament ?
Whose legend building ? I think you are.
Micah's prophecy was a supernatural foretelling. How did Jesus arrange His birth in Bethlehem so as to appear a very likely candidate for that prophecy ?
leaving aside the problems associated with jesus's place of origin, and bethlem issues, he could not have been the anointed portrayed in micha.
Leaving aside some excuses some skeptics have circulated trying to weaken the Micah prophecy, which you have perhaps bought into, the scholars of the Hebrew Bible told Herod that if he wanted to find a born Messiah, he should look to the city of Bethelehem.
That is what they said. I guess they hadn't gotten to Internet Infidel's website yet.
That Christ is still in the process of fulfilling many promises is reasonable. The people turned on Moses after the first encounter with Pharoah flopped. And so also their faith was tested through plagues #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so one up to 10. Even after the Exodus they had their doubts at the Red Sea and in the wilderness.
Moses fulfilling the promises given to Abraham were gradually worked out. The same is true of the Messiah Jesus. Point is that NO one has gotten off with such a impressive start, FROM BETHELEHEM.
The wavering said "But many out of the crowd believed into Him and said, Will the Christ, when He comes, do more signs than this man has done ? (John 7:31)
How do you explain that a prophet or man of God from Bethlehem got off to such an convincing start as a candidate for Micah's prophecy ?
i assume you're referring to this verse:
5:2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
jesus never became ruler in israel.
A rejected Ruler is possible. David was a ruler of Israel and was hiding the mountains from his son Absalam and his son's assasins.
Why not a divine Ruler in the long ongoing process of being accepted by His nation ?
David was anointed to be King of Israel and spent years persecuted by a furiously jealous King Saul. We believe that David and his life was a foreshadow and type of Christ.
A progressive unfolding and revelation of His kingship over Israel is possible. I mean we are talking about Someone Who will be King for ETERNITY.
micah is talking about someone else. so we can accurately state that the "micah" connection is a legendary addition, perhaps made by those who didn't understand the OT very well.
Who else said of himself and ACTED like the eternal One ?
Names ?
And the scribes and priests didn't understand the OT too well as , say, Internet Infidels ? There's another possibility. They understood better than you think. But they didn't like the idea of repenting to God for their sins.
How did Jesus arrange His death so as to fall on the day the pascal lamb would have been sacrificed ? How did He stir up the opposition so it just happen to come to a boiling point of execution at that time ?
he wouldn't have to do any of these within the growing legend theory. it's easy enough to write-in when he lived or died to coincide with some obscure passage from the OT that's probably talking about something or someone else and since there is no contemporary accounting of the tale external to the bible, it's safe to assume that it's all legendary.
Secular Soures for Jesus Christ. Dr. Gary Habermas:
You may argue that everything confirming Christ's identity as Son of God and Messiah was fabricated after the fact. That requires a wild leap of faith more reckless than simply trusting the account.
i disagree. a simple examination of the historical perspective; the numerous mss, the infighting, numerous sects with conflicting theologies, and supporting (or lack thereof) evidence, one would need a great deal of faith to believe the nonsense.
Those are excuses. You are saying there should have been absolutely no disagreement about anything.
There is great dispute about the causes of World War I. We don't assume it is legend becuase there were arguments over what caused World War I.
The dark day over the globe on the day Jesus died is confirmed by secular sources. We know it could not have been a solar eclipse.
not quiet, you have to try to keep it as believable as possible, so you would select the material that the most people believe at the time of the choosing... and kill the rest to keep them silent.
If John wanted to suppress sayings which seem to contradict his prologue that Jesus was God become flesh (John 1:1,14) we would expect John to surpress a number of problematic statements of Jesus in his Gospel.
If Jesus was faithful Son of God we would expect Luke to suppress that He cried out on the cross asking why He had been forsaken by God.
Your suppression theory fails badly.
[quote]
1.) In building a legend about Jesus and His disciples why would they portray themselves as dim-witted at times, failing to understand what Jesus was saying (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16)
Wouldn't a more convincing legend place the disciples as the very astute and wise intelligencia. Why would they risk people dismissing the story because they were dull at times ?
2.) In building a legend why would them portay thems...
25 Aug 11
4 edits
Does this sound like legend making or more like investigative journalism ?
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplised among us, even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered to us,
it seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)
Luke says he "carefully investigated all things from the first". Luke was a physician and traveling companion to the Apostle Paul.
Does this sound like legend making or careful historical writing ?
"Now in the fifteenth year of the government of TIBERIUS CEASAR, while PONTIUS PILATE was governor of Judea, and HEROD was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother PHILIP was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and LYSANIAS was tetrarch of Abilene, During the high priesthood of ANNAS and CAIAPHAS, the word of God came to JOHN the son of ZACHARIAH in the wilderness." (Luke 3:1-2)
Where is the "Once Upon a Time in a Far Off Land" of legends and fairy tales ?
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywill
"The legend was out of control" - pure assertion with nothing to substantiate it other than blatant prejudice.
we are going into circular argumentation here. it's apparent that no amount of evidence is going to convince you of the growing legend of christ. this problem is compounded by your seeming misunderstanding of what a legend is. you're still arguing the legend as built by a planned central source scarecrow even after i pointed out that is not the case.
perhaps i did not expect you to understand from the onset of this discussion, yet i used it to make my arguments and they can stand on their own merits.
in conclusion, i will say that the evidence (outlined earlier) show a growing legend of christ and it took the might and influence of a powerful state to canonize the legend and prevent further deterioration by destroying alternative fiction and those with ideas considered dissident (or heretical).
it should be stated however that evidence of a growing legend only suggests a legend and such things can't be proven or falsified due to the existing circumstances.
i will make some further comments for clarification and perhaps elucidate further on legendary figures:
It appears that the early apologetics of the apostles was aimed against those who were not teaching that there was no such person, but that He was too wonderful to be material.
a legend does not imply that there was no original person, though it does not assert it either. the gnostic view for example, is a diverging legendary view of christ.
You call that "solid evidence" that there was no truth in the record of Jesus.
How do I know you haven't just drawn the line at what you have an inability to believe that God could do ?
further, a legend also does not imply that there is not truth in the record of the legendary individual, nor does it assert truth.
to follow a growing legend, you start from the earliest accounting and follow a chronological order of events and attributions. if there are attributions in later accounting that does not appear in earlier accounting, it suggests a legendary addition.
This is silly. You are suggesting that NOTHING spurious may be written about a real historical person.
i'm making no such claims. many historical persons also have legendary attributions. see col. james bowie for an example.
How does that explain Micah's prophecy written centries beforehand of a born King in Bethlehem whose going forth is from eternity ?
...
A rejected Ruler is possible. David was a ruler of Israel and was hiding the mountains from his son Absalam and his son's assasins.
as i proved conclusively, jesus cannot be the person referred to in micah. your example is vain, david was king in israel prior to having sons. jesus never became ruler in israel, there was no israel when jesus purportedly walked the earth. this is an obvious false legendary attribution to give more credibility to christ's ministry.
Why not a divine Ruler in the long ongoing process of being accepted by His nation ?
...
A progressive unfolding and revelation of His kingship over Israel is possible. I mean we are talking about Someone Who will be King for ETERNITY.
if he ever becomes a ruler of israel, then you may refer to the micha prophecy being fulfilled, not before.
Secular Soures for Jesus Christ. Dr. Gary Habermas:
irrelevant. i said there are no contemporary sources. 100-150 years after his ministry are not contemporary.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou don't seem to understand that at Christ's first coming He fulfilledOriginally posted by jaywill
"The legend was out of control" - pure assertion with nothing to substantiate it other than blatant prejudice.
we are going into circular argumentation here. it's apparent that no amount of evidence is going to convince you of the growing legend of christ. this problem is compounded by your seemi ...[text shortened]... are no contemporary sources. 100-150 years after his ministry are not contemporary.
only the suffering servant portions of the prophecies. Upon his second
coming He will fulfill the remainder of the prophecies. Jesus, himself,
said, "I will come again".
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsthere is no suffering servant prophecy for the messiah. what you fail to understand is that christ utterly and completely failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy.
You don't seem to understand that at Christ's first coming He fulfilled
only the suffering servant portions of the prophecies. Upon his second
coming He will fulfill the remainder of the prophecies. Jesus, himself,
said, "I will come again".
stating that he will return to finish the job only confirms that he didn't fulfill the requisite prophecies and that he's a failed messiah, a false prophet.
27 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou sound like one of the Jews that have temporarily been blinded.
there is no suffering servant prophecy for the messiah. what you fail to understand is that christ utterly and completely failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy.
stating that he will return to finish the job only confirms that he didn't fulfill the requisite prophecies and that he's a failed messiah, a false prophet.
But the sad think is that it is probably permanent for you.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindshehe. the jews are smart enough to know their own scriptures and to know that none of the messianic prophecies have been fulfilled by this mythical jesus character.
You sound like one of the Jews that have temporarily been blinded.
But the sad think is that it is probably permanent for you.
there are tests for false prophets in their scriptures, and unfortunately for jesus, he fails them.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIs 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
there is no suffering servant prophecy for the messiah. what you fail to understand is that christ utterly and completely failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy.
stating that he will return to finish the job only confirms that he didn't fulfill the requisite prophecies and that he's a failed messiah, a false prophet.
BOOYAH! game, set, match! the problem with your entire argument is you reeeealllly don't know what's in the bible, you only know what you've read from people who desperately wish they could discredit the bible
27 Aug 11
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't seem to understand that at Christ's first coming He fulfilled
only the suffering servant portions of the prophecies. Upon his second
coming He will fulfill the remainder of the prophecies. Jesus, himself,
said, "I will come again".
You don't seem to understand that at Christ's first coming He fulfilled
only the suffering servant portions of the prophecies. Upon his second
coming He will fulfill the remainder of the prophecies. Jesus, himself,
said, "I will come again".
He accomplished redemption for sinners. And He accomplished resurrection.
He saw the fruit of the travail of His soul and was satisfied. More satisfaction is to come.
He extended His days through resurrection and imparting His life into those who believe into Him.
IF you have not come forward to partake of that eternal redemption, the prophecy may have "failed" as far as your personal partaking of it is concerned. That is not Christ's fault. You should instead come forth believing that the redemption may occur and that by His stripes you would be healed.
"Because He poured out His life unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, Yet He alone bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressor." (Isa. 53:12b)
As the transgressor, like the rest of us, you may benefit from having your sins cleansed away by this Redeemer if you come forward to God in faith. Your not coming forward is not His failed prophecy. It is that you have not yet become part of "the many".
Now concerning your quotation of this passage - "I will come again" .
This coming again has already taken place. Contrary to what may be popular opinion, this coming again refers to His resurrection. It does not refer to His second coming.
He went TO THE CROSS to prepare a place for sinners to get into God, into the Father. He said He would come again and receive us to Himself that where He is we also might be.
No, that does not mean in Heaven. That means in the Father - in God. He had to go to the cross to prepare a place for us IN GOD. He went to the cross to accomplish eternal redemption that man may get into God and have a standing in God - an organic union with God.
The proof of this is in comparing verse 2 with verse 23:
"In My Father's house are many abodes; if it were not so I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you to Myself, so that where I am you also may be." (John 14:2,3)
"Judas, not Iscariot, said to Him, Lord, and what has happened that You are to manifest Yourself to us and not to the world ?
Jesus answered and said to him. If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
The Greek word in the plural we translate "abodes" in verse 2 is identical in the singular form in verse 23 - abode.
In His Father's house are many "abodes". And after He goes to prepare a place for us He will come to His lover with His Father and make an ABODE with him. The abodes in the Father's house are therefore human beings within whom the Triune God has come to make a dwelling place within them.
He is not talking about He will go to Heaven and fix up mansions for us to move into in the future. He is talking about going to the CROSS, to die a redeeming death for sinners, and coming again to them IN RESURRECTION to make an ABODE in the innermost spiritual being of those believers.
The Father's house is the corporate group of human beings within whom the Son and the Father as the Spirit have come in to dwell in them making them the abodes.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo you believe that these legends were NOT based on a real person?
hehe. the jews are smart enough to know their own scriptures and to know that none of the messianic prophecies have been fulfilled by this mythical jesus character.
there are tests for false prophets in their scriptures, and unfortunately for jesus, he fails them.
If you believe Jesus never existed then you were being "dishonest"
from the beginning and there was no need for jaywill to discuss the
matter with you at all. You have wasted all our time with your
"D I S H O N E S T Y"
Dasa would agree, I'm sure.