Mary is the most important figure in Christianity

[outhouse]

There was no divine intervention;

Just like the people in your books.

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus was not born of a natural conception (man and woman having sexual intercourse). That's what makes it supernatural. There was no seed of a man that tainted Jesus in any way. Jesus was God in the flesh. His birth, sinless life, miracles, death and resurrection (empty tomb) validate His claims.

Jesus did not die on the Cross; he died a natural and peaceful death in India at the age of about 120 years.

There was no resurrection; it is invented by Paul and the Church; just to mislead the Christians.

Regards

 

[Looncall]

I am a Syrian Orthodox Christian which is part of Oriental Orthodoxy rather than Eastern Orthodoxy (Orthodox Church in America is Eastern Orthodox). We, Oriental Orthodox Christians (Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian, Egyptian Coptic etc.) broke away from Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. In fact Eastern Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Church are closer to each other in many beliefs than Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Thus many of our(Oriental Orthodox) beliefs are vastly different from what Eastern Orthodox Church teaches.

Council of Chalcedon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oriental Orthodoxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All this disagreement about religious notions indicates to me that it is not anything real that is being discussed.

 

[blueman]

That is not susbstantiated.

By all historical accounts, he was born normal.




What makes it supernatural is the unknown authors who wrote using rhetoric and mythology. That and a possibly purposeful tranlation error, that of maiden to virgin.

The reality is these authors were far removed from the birth of jesus, most scholars claim no historicity to any aspect of the birth of the man.




There is no tainting with seed. It is no sin.

I think people have problems if they make that claim. It is a natural and normal human function required of life.



I can write a book and claim my plastic yellow ducky has all that attributed to him, and it validates nothing.

Your claim is another unsubstantiated claim.

It is substantiated by Scripture and could have been challenged or disputed by people who were living during that time. There is no other credible piece of work that does just that. Secondly, how do you vet ancient history or history in general. Were the conquests of Alexander the Great history or legend? What about Homer's Iliad? We look at the textual construct of ancient documents and how they've withstood the test of time and research independent sources, both biblical and secular regarding said events. No other ancient documents can stand up to the rigors of time than the Old and New Testaments. Myths do not even scratch the surface of the authenticity of people, places, context and things as referenced in the Holy Scriptures. To classify as mythical is a easy and lazy explanation.

 

[outhouse]

It is substantiated by Scripture and could have been challenged or disputed by people who were living during that time.

And yet there are many historical errors

Rhetoric does not get challenged, it was just how they wrote.

The resurrection was added later to Mark. The first gospel talks almost nothing about it. Had that been a real event, it would have been blown out of porportion. Instead we see a later author adding it to mark.

There is no other credible piece of work that does just that.

Why was Augustus named "son of god" before Jesus was even born?

Why were the unknown gospel authors cometing against his divinity?

Secondly, how do you vet ancient history or history in general.

We study it to find the truth and the possible historical core.

No other ancient documents can stand up to the rigors of time than the Old and New Testaments.

Wrong

Much of the OT has been translated in error, by literalist, who ruin the morals and teachings that were allegoric and metaphoric, written using mythology to explain the important lesons they wanted to teach.

To classify as mythical is a easy and lazy explanation.

You dont have a clue how these were written. Nor do I or anyone credible claim the book is ALL mythology it is not.

Basically your not attacking me at all, your attacking every credible university in the whole world, as I am repeating what they teach.

If you would like to learn the real history that is known, and what lies in grey areas, and what is fiction, and what is not. It takes careful study. If you would like to learn I will help point you in the right direction.

If your mind is closed and you wish to refuse knowledge and education, NO ONE can help you. And you would have no right debating topics you know nothing about.

 

[Sleeppy]

Jesus did not die on the Cross; he died a natural and peaceful death in India at the age of about 120 years.

There was no resurrection; it is invented by Paul and the Church; just to mislead the Christians.

Regards

Where is he buried?

 

[outhouse]

Where is he buried?

A few scholars say he was thrown in a pit, or eaten by wild dogs and vultures. That was what typically happened back then.

My answer is, we dont know what happened. Nor where.

They also state it is factual he died on a cross. I believe this.

 

[blueman]

Where is he buried?

There is no basis for your claim. The majority of scholars (both Christian and Skeptic) agree on the following:

(1) He was crucified at the command of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberus
(2) He was buried in a borrowed tomb (Joseph of Arimathea)
(3) After 3 days, the tomb was empty

Try referencing both independent biblical Gospels, Paul's Epistles) and secular (Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Seutinus, Thallas, Pliny The Younger) before you make invalid statements.

 

[blueman]

And yet there are many historical errors

Rhetoric does not get challenged, it was just how they wrote.

The resurrection was added later to Mark. The first gospel talks almost nothing about it. Had that been a real event, it would have been blown out of porportion. Instead we see a later author adding it to mark.



Why was Augustus named "son of god" before Jesus was even born?

Why were the unknown gospel authors cometing against his divinity?



We study it to find the truth and the possible historical core.




Wrong

Much of the OT has been translated in error, by literalist, who ruin the morals and teachings that were allegoric and metaphoric, written using mythology to explain the important lesons they wanted to teach.




You dont have a clue how these were written. Nor do I or anyone credible claim the book is ALL mythology it is not.

Basically your not attacking me at all, your attacking every credible university in the whole world, as I am repeating what they teach.

If you would like to learn the real history that is known, and what lies in grey areas, and what is fiction, and what is not. It takes careful study. If you would like to learn I will help point you in the right direction.

If your mind is closed and you wish to refuse knowledge and education, NO ONE can help you. And you would have no right debating topics you know nothing about.

The resurrection was not added to Mark. Secondary divergence in regards to independent sources does not make them invalid nor does it impact the central doctrine of the Gospels. Secondly, an older creed predating Mark's Gospel and passed down to Paul (as referenced in 1 Corinthians 15) validates that the resurrection appearances were well documented. Many of Paul's Epistles predated the Gospel narratives. In addition, what explains the disciples boldness to preach the Gospel not too long after going into hiding (post-cruxifiction), Saul's conversion (Paul) and the rapid spread of Christianity throughout Judea and Rome?

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus was not born of a natural conception (man and woman having sexual intercourse). That's what makes it supernatural. There was no seed of a man that tainted Jesus in any way. Jesus was God in the flesh. His birth, sinless life, miracles, death and resurrection (empty tomb) validate His claims.

Then why do Christians say Jesus was the only begotten son of god?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Where is he buried?

Jesus is said to be buried in a tomb at Mohallah Khanyar, Srinagar, Kashmir, in India.

Regards

 

[outhouse]

The resurrection was not added to Mark.

Mark 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, believe that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1] Textual critics have identified two distinct endings—the "Longer Ending" (vv. 9-20) and the "Shorter Ending," which appear together in six Greek manuscripts, and in dozens of Ethiopic copies. The "Shorter Ending," with slight variations, runs as follows: "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."


Gospel writer Mark gives no description of the resurrected Jesus

Hypotheses about the ending[edit]

Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:

• Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (later in the transmission-process) composed the "Longer Ending" as a conclusion to what was interpreted to be a too-abrupt account.
• Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death or sudden departure from Rome), whereupon another person finished the work (still in the production-stage, before it was released for church-use) by attaching material from a short Marcan composition about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.
• Mark wrote an ending which was accidentally lost (perhaps as the last part of a scroll which was not rewound, or as the outermost page of a codex which became detached from the other pages), and someone in the 100's composed the "Longer Ending" as a sort of patch, relying on parallel-passages from the other canonical Gospels.
• Verses 16:9–20 were written by Mark and were omitted or lost from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidentally, perhaps intentionally. (Possibly a scribe regarded John 21 as a better sequel to Mark's account, and considered the "Longer Ending" superfluous.)
• Mark wrote an ending, but it was suppressed and replaced with verses 16:9–20, which are a pastiche of parallel passages from the other canonical Gospels.

Many of Paul's Epistles predated the Gospel narratives

All 7 of them did that we can attribute to Paul and his communities that helped him write these.

The other epistles are probably pauls later disciples.

 

[Sleeppy]

Jesus is said to be buried in a tomb at Mohallah Khanyar, Srinagar, Kashmir, in India.

Regards

Have you validated that the body is Jesus'?

 

[outhouse]

Jesus is said to be buried in a tomb at Mohallah Khanyar, Srinagar, Kashmir, in India.

Regards

STOP talking about thing syou know nothing about.

 

[blueman]

Then why do Christians say Jesus was the only begotten son of god?

Regards

"Only Begotten" in the Greek translation is monogenes, which speaks to the uniqueness in kind that Jesus is in relation to to the Father. He is eternal in nature and was this in the beginning (John 1:1) and His incarnation for a divine purpose represented the manifestation of God in the flesh. Begotten speaks to His position within the triune Godhead(Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

 

[paarsurrey]

Have you validated that the body is Jesus'?

The Indian Government has taken this matter in their hands.
There are many Indian scholars who endorse it.

Regards

 

[blueman]

Mark 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, believe that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1] Textual critics have identified two distinct endings—the "Longer Ending" (vv. 9-20) and the "Shorter Ending," which appear together in six Greek manuscripts, and in dozens of Ethiopic copies. The "Shorter Ending," with slight variations, runs as follows: "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."


Gospel writer Mark gives no description of the resurrected Jesus

Hypotheses about the ending[edit]

Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:

• Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (later in the transmission-process) composed the "Longer Ending" as a conclusion to what was interpreted to be a too-abrupt account.
• Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death or sudden departure from Rome), whereupon another person finished the work (still in the production-stage, before it was released for church-use) by attaching material from a short Marcan composition about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.
• Mark wrote an ending which was accidentally lost (perhaps as the last part of a scroll which was not rewound, or as the outermost page of a codex which became detached from the other pages), and someone in the 100's composed the "Longer Ending" as a sort of patch, relying on parallel-passages from the other canonical Gospels.
• Verses 16:9–20 were written by Mark and were omitted or lost from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidentally, perhaps intentionally. (Possibly a scribe regarded John 21 as a better sequel to Mark's account, and considered the "Longer Ending" superfluous.)
• Mark wrote an ending, but it was suppressed and replaced with verses 16:9–20, which are a pastiche of parallel passages from the other canonical Gospels.

All 7 of them did that we can attribute to Paul and his communities that helped him write these.

The other epistles are probably pauls later disciples.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the older manuscripts did end abruptly at Mark 16:8. But at that point, what had been confirmed? The tomb was empty! If later disciples of Mark added additional information (versus 9-20), it implies that there were older sources regarding the resurrection narrative. Many scholars agree that the oldest creed (as referenced in 1 Corinthians 15) predates Mark and was circulating within a few years after the death of Jesus.

 

[blueman]

The Indian Government has taken this matter in their hands.
There are many Indian scholars who endorse it.

Regards

Are you kidding me? Compared to the 1 and 2nd century sources I cited? Ask yourself how many independent sources agree with those Indian scholars.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus did not die on the Cross; he died a natural and peaceful death in India at the age of about 120 years.

There was no resurrection; it is invented by Paul and the Church; just to mislead the Christians.

Regards

Sources, plz.

 

[sojourner]

It is substantiated by Scripture and could have been challenged or disputed by people who were living during that time. There is no other credible piece of work that does just that. Secondly, how do you vet ancient history or history in general. Were the conquests of Alexander the Great history or legend? What about Homer's Iliad? We look at the textual construct of ancient documents and how they've withstood the test of time and research independent sources, both biblical and secular regarding said events. No other ancient documents can stand up to the rigors of time than the Old and New Testaments. Myths do not even scratch the surface of the authenticity of people, places, context and things as referenced in the Holy Scriptures. To classify as mythical is a easy and lazy explanation.

No. It really isn't. The bible isn't nearly as historically-reliable as you assert here.