Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[Spartan]

Lesson? Excellent lesson in how to cherry pick scripture to suit one's needs and a great set up for demonstrating the Bible s full of contradictions and has no idea what it wants to say.

Judge not.
Jesus commanded his disciples not to judge. Judge not, that ye be not judged. Matthew 7:1
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged. Luke 6:37

And Paul seemed to agree with Jesus on that. (In his epistle to the Romans, anyway.) Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Romans 2:1
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:10

As did the author of James. Who art thou that judgest another? James 4:12

Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7:4
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the
mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7:5
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

You post all that scripture and you don't even know that there are plenty of anti-judgemental passages as well?

<chuckle> Are you judging?

“Judge not, and you will not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

Jesus is not saying that we cannot make judgments about people’s actions, he is saying that we should not be hypocrites if we do. In Matthew 7:5 he says, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brothers eye.”

 

[Spartan]

You can call it "weird" but it's facts demonstrated over and over by scholars and the work is peer-reviewed.

From video

"it's long been known, mainstream scholars, tons of peer-reviewed literature have established this that a lot of the stories about Jesus are really stories about Moses that have been updated.
Like Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story."

Nope, not buying it. You can make up parallels to a lot of ancient personalities if you want. The authentic Jesus is in the Gospels.

 

[lukethethird]

Nope, not buying it. You can make up parallels to a lot of ancient personalities if you want. The authentic Jesus is in the Gospels.

If only that were true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You use a lot of subterfuge and self denial to hide the fact you will not deal with the reality of what people actually write in their post when it comes to you being put on the spot. Well the spot is getting bigger and you are still squirming. That is all you have demonstrated. A knack for sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes when you are proven to be unable to deal or cope with the truth when put right in front of you. Subterfuge and denial does not make it go away. All you have demonstrated is your brain washing and most of it done by yourself. Oh and the inability to argue anything you cannot answer for yourself when put on the spot. EVERYONE can see it, it is not going away.

Not sure how you got that from my posts asking you for evidence to back up your claims.
Rather, it seems you are just projecting your shortcomings onto me. What is it you claim I am being deceitful about? Please be specific, I'd really like to know.

So, do you have evidence for your claims, or not? And how many times do I have to ask?

 

[joelr]

Nice theory. The historical Gospels tell the real story.

They tell a story. Not very original.
And not even THE original story in Christianity. The historical gospels are not considered history and were not likely the first Christian teachings.

Unfortunately what people believe today is just a product of a power grab by Bishop Irenaeus and other church leaders who insisted on a church structure where only they could teach and interpret scripture.

"But the discoveries at Nag Hammadi have upset this picture. If we admit that some of these fifty-two texts represents early forms of Christian teaching, we may have to recognize that early Christianity is far more diverse than nearly anyone expected before the Nag Hammadi discoveries.


Contemporary Christianity, diverse and complex as we find it, actually may show more unanimity than the Christian churches of the first and second centuries. For nearly all Christians since that time, Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox, have shared three basic premises. First, they accept the canon of the New Testament; second, they confess the apostolic creed; and third, they affirm specific forms of church institution. But every one of these-the canon of Scripture, the creed, and the institutional structure--emerged in its present form only toward the end of the second century. Before that time, as Irenaeus and others attest, numerous gospels circulated among various Christian groups, ranging from those of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to such writings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth, as well as many other secret teachings, myths, and poems attributed to Jesus or his disciples. Some of these, apparently, were discovered at Nag Hammadi; many others are lost to us. Those who identified themselves as Christians entertained many--and radically differing-religious beliefs and practices. And the communities scattered throughout the known world organized themselves in ways that differed widely from one group to another.

​

Yet by A. D. 200, the situation had changed. Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal. Whoever challenged that consensus, arguing instead for other forms of Christian teaching, was declared to be a heretic, and expelled. When the orthodox gained military support, sometime after the Emperor Constantine became Christian in the fourth century, the penalty for heresy escalated."



Excerpt from: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels -- The Nag Hammadi Library


Excerpt from:
The Gnostic Gospels
by Elaine Pagels

 

[joelr]

<chuckle> Are you judging?

“Judge not, and you will not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

Jesus is not saying that we cannot make judgments about people’s actions, he is saying that we should not be hypocrites if we do. In Matthew 7:5 he says, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brothers eye.”

First he is absolutely saying not to judge?? It's written plain, are you really going to apologetics around that so you can keep judging?

Second he's saying if you judge you should STOP JUDGING and be understanding and you won't need to be all judgmental in the first place.

 

[joelr]

Nope, not buying it. You can make up parallels to a lot of ancient personalities if you want. The authentic Jesus is in the Gospels.

They are not parallels but examples of clear copying. But you miss the point, it's not for changing the mind of fundamentalists (you obviously didn't watch it), it's an open forum. It's for anyone interested in knowledge who isn't stuck in a belief system.

Or someone interested in actually trying. Demonstrate a source of myth that one can parallel the Jesus story so close as to have Jesus doing 1 miracle for each commandment and the miracles and commandments match up.
Or how Luke transforms the Kings narrative word for word:

"Kings" "Luke"

"It happened after this" - "It happened afterward"

"At the gate of Serepta Elija met a widow.." - "At the gate of Nain Jesus met a widow"

"Another widows son was dead" - "Another widows son was dead" - "

"...expressed unworthyness on account of sin" - "...expressed unworthyness on account of sin"

"..recognize Elija as a man of god and the word he speaks is truth" - "..recognize Jesus as a man of god and the word he speaks is truth"

and so on.....

 

[Spartan]

They are not parallels but examples of clear copying.

But you miss the point, it's not for changing the mind of fundamentalists (you obviously didn't watch it), it's an open forum. It's for anyone interested in knowledge who isn't stuck in a belief system.

Or someone interested in actually trying. Demonstrate a source of myth that one can parallel the Jesus story so close as to have Jesus doing 1 miracle for each commandment and the miracles and commandments match up.
Or how Luke transforms the Kings narrative word for word:

"Kings" "Luke"

"It happened after this" - "It happened afterward"

"At the gate of Serepta Elija met a widow.." - "At the gate of Nain Jesus met a widow"

"Another widows son was dead" - "Another widows son was dead" - "

"...expressed unworthyness on account of sin" - "...expressed unworthyness on account of sin"

"..recognize Elija as a man of god and the word he speaks is truth" - "..recognize Jesus as a man of god and the word he speaks is truth"

and so on.....

There's many parallels in history. I'll cite the parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy that are so well known. But does that mean those were copied? Nope. So I don't give your parallels any credence for being "copied".

 

[Spartan]

First he is absolutely saying not to judge?? It's written plain, are you really going to apologetics around that so you can keep judging?

Second he's saying if you judge you should STOP JUDGING and be understanding and you won't need to be all judgmental in the first place.

“When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.” – Ezekiel 33

 

[Spartan]

They tell a story. Not very original.
And not even THE original story in Christianity. The historical gospels are not considered history and were not likely the first Christian teachings.

Unfortunately what people believe today is just a product of a power grab by Bishop Irenaeus and other church leaders who insisted on a church structure where only they could teach and interpret scripture.

"But the discoveries at Nag Hammadi have upset this picture. If we admit that some of these fifty-two texts represents early forms of Christian teaching, we may have to recognize that early Christianity is far more diverse than nearly anyone expected before the Nag Hammadi discoveries.

Contemporary Christianity, diverse and complex as we find it, actually may show more unanimity than the Christian churches of the first and second centuries. For nearly all Christians since that time, Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox, have shared three basic premises. First, they accept the canon of the New Testament; second, they confess the apostolic creed; and third, they affirm specific forms of church institution. But every one of these-the canon of Scripture, the creed, and the institutional structure--emerged in its present form only toward the end of the second century. Before that time, as Irenaeus and others attest, numerous gospels circulated among various Christian groups, ranging from those of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to such writings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth, as well as many other secret teachings, myths, and poems attributed to Jesus or his disciples. Some of these, apparently, were discovered at Nag Hammadi; many others are lost to us. Those who identified themselves as Christians entertained many--and radically differing-religious beliefs and practices. And the communities scattered throughout the known world organized themselves in ways that differed widely from one group to another.

Yet by A. D. 200, the situation had changed. Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal. Whoever challenged that consensus, arguing instead for other forms of Christian teaching, was declared to be a heretic, and expelled. When the orthodox gained military support, sometime after the Emperor Constantine became Christian in the fourth century, the penalty for heresy escalated."

Excerpt from: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Save your breath. Pagels is another one of your hair-brained liberal revisionists.

Exposing Elain Pagel's Revisionist Christianity - Beyond Unbelief -- A Critical Response to Elaine Pagels’ _Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas_

Excerpt: "The purpose of this paper has been to counter some of the false claims that Pagels made in her book Beyond Belief. In this paper we have seen how Pagels attacks the notion of Christian orthodoxy on a number of fronts. In her first chapter she claimed that Christianity started as an ethical system and that the uniformity of belief was a late-first century addition by the writer of the Gospel of John. We countered that notion by appealing to Paul specifically but also to all the first-century writers of the New Testament. In her second chapter, she claimed that the choice of John over Thomas was not based on pre-existing orthodoxy, but on political realities that made John a more advantageous choice to those in power. We countered this main assertion by showing it to be conjecture since there is no proof that the early church was even aware of the gospel of Thomas, while there is ample evidence for the authoritative use of John practically from its date of composition. In her third chapter, Pagels claimed that the early church rejected the biblical conception of the image of God in man in order to preclude the possibility that men were divine and thus able to speak for God. We countered this assertion by pointing out that the Biblical conception of the image of God is not one that ever ascribed divinity to man. In her fourth chapter, Pagels claimed that Irenaeus introduced a coercive foreign orthodoxy into the church in order to unify the church and stifle diversity. We countered this claim by showing that orthodoxy was not introduced by Irenaeus but was an idea present early on and that Irenaeus was not coercive but rather used reason and scripture to convince his opponents. Finally, in the fifth chapter, Pagels sought to show that Irenaeus’ successors such as Athenasius solidified through coercive means what Irenaeus had begun, demanding that writings of their opponents be destroyed. We countered this final assertion by noting that Pagels was forced to mischaracterize the writings of Athenasius and actually resorted at one point to fabricating a quote in order to make her point."

 

[joelr]

There's many parallels in history. I'll cite the parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy that are so well known. But does that mean those were copied? Nope. So I don't give your parallels any credence for being "copied".

Lincoln and Kennedy have a bunch of coincidences and no one has ever suggested or considered they were copied.
Lukes use of rehtorical imitation is accepted as a fact in scholarship. It has nothing to do with "my parallels".

Journal Article
Luke 7,36-50 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4,1-37: A Study in Luke's Use of Rhetorical Imitation
Thomas L. Brodie

Luke 7,36-50 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4,1-37: A Study in Luke's Use of Rhetorical Imitation on JSTOR

 

[joelr]

“When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.” – Ezekiel 33

Ezekiel? Sorry NT ideals replaced OT concepts for Christians ~2000 years ago. Or do you still believe Aholah and Aholibah were Yahweh's wives?

 

[sooda]

Ezekiel? Sorry NT ideals replaced OT concepts for Christians ~2000 years ago. Or do you still believe Aholah and Aholibah were Yahweh's wives?

Good grief.. I never heard of that before.

Dwindling In Unbelief: The two wives of Yahweh: Aholah and Aholibah

 

[joelr]

Save your breath. Pagels is another one of your hair-brained liberal revisionists.

Exposing Elain Pagel's Revisionist Christianity - Beyond Unbelief -- A Critical Response to Elaine Pagels’ _Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas_

Excerpt: "The purpose of this paper has been to counter some of the false claims that Pagels made in her book Beyond Belief. In this paper we have seen how Pagels attacks the notion of Christian orthodoxy on a number of fronts. In her first chapter she claimed that Christianity started as an ethical system and that the uniformity of belief was a late-first century addition by the writer of the Gospel of John. We countered that notion by appealing to Paul specifically but also to all the first-century writers of the New Testament. In her second chapter, she claimed that the choice of John over Thomas was not based on pre-existing orthodoxy, but on political realities that made John a more advantageous choice to those in power. We countered this main assertion by showing it to be conjecture since there is no proof that the early church was even aware of the gospel of Thomas, while there is ample evidence for the authoritative use of John practically from its date of composition. In her third chapter, Pagels claimed that the early church rejected the biblical conception of the image of God in man in order to preclude the possibility that men were divine and thus able to speak for God. We countered this assertion by pointing out that the Biblical conception of the image of God is not one that ever ascribed divinity to man. In her fourth chapter, Pagels claimed that Irenaeus introduced a coercive foreign orthodoxy into the church in order to unify the church and stifle diversity. We countered this claim by showing that orthodoxy was not introduced by Irenaeus but was an idea present early on and that Irenaeus was not coercive but rather used reason and scripture to convince his opponents. Finally, in the fifth chapter, Pagels sought to show that Irenaeus’ successors such as Athenasius solidified through coercive means what Irenaeus had begun, demanding that writings of their opponents be destroyed. We countered this final assertion by noting that Pagels was forced to mischaracterize the writings of Athenasius and actually resorted at one point to fabricating a quote in order to make her point."

"Save your breath", then posts some apologetic junk on the wrong book? Also, Jesus was also liberal.

The author, not a historian at all.
Matthew Gross received his masters degree from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, in 2004.

But he really makes no significant points at all, he just quibbles and makes jabs at Pagels.
His gospel dating is not supported by any scholarship, he doesn't even know his own religion is monolatric having other divine or supernatural beings like angels, he lies about Irenaeus, he claims she uses conjecture while everything he says is basically conjecture.

Oh yeah, also, that review is THE WRONG BOOK!?!?!


I referenced The Gnostic Gospels not Beyond Belief??

Which can be read for free here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52cdf95ae4b0c18dd2d0316a/t/53e074cee4b0ea4fa48a5704/1407218894673/Pagels,+Elaine+-+The+Gnostic+Gospels.pdf

 

[joelr]

Save your breath. Pagels is another one of your hair-brained liberal revisionists.

Exposing Elain Pagel's Revisionist Christianity - Beyond Unbelief -- A Critical Response to Elaine Pagels’ _Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas_

We countered this final assertion by noting that Pagels was forced to mischaracterize the writings of Athenasius and actually resorted at one point to fabricating a quote in order to make her point."

Not at all, Athenasius says several times to reject and decline and can't stop ranting about these books in the new fragment. It can be found online.


"
Therefore, it is fitting for us to decline such books. For even if a useful word is found in them, it is still not good to trust them. For this is work of the wickedness of those who have conceived of mixing one or two inspired texts, so that, through such deception, they might somehow cover up the evil teachings that they have clearly created. Therefore, it is even more tting for us to reject such books, and let us command ourselves not to proclaim anything in them nor to speak anything in them with those who want to be instructed, even if there is a good word in them, as I have said. For what do the spiritual Scriptures lack that we should seek after these empty voices of unknown people? It is appropriate for us to cite the text that is written about them:

"
A New Fragment of Athanasius's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter.


She says this on pg 147

This Tragic Gospel




This quote "cleanse the church from every defilement" must be a different translation. But his intent is exactly what she writes it is? It isn't a mischaracterization at all?
This guy is full of crap.

 

[Spartan]

Also, Jesus was also liberal.

LOL. In your dreams.

Here's numerous examples of whey Jesus was NOT a liberal: Was Jesus a liberal?

 

[sooda]

LOL. In your dreams.

Here's numerous examples of whey Jesus was NOT a liberal: Was Jesus a liberal?

The Sermon on the Mount is about non-violent liberation theology... and perhaps it wasn't created until after the crucifixion and the destruction of the temple, but its still very enlightened idea..

 

[Spartan]

The Sermon on the Mount is about non-violent liberation theology... and perhaps it wasn't created until after the crucifixion and the destruction of the temple, but its still very enlightened idea..

That assumes practicing Conservative Christians are more violent? I doubt it.

 

[Spartan]

Lincoln and Kennedy have a bunch of coincidences and no one has ever suggested or considered they were copied.
Lukes use of rehtorical imitation is accepted as a fact in scholarship. It has nothing to do with "my parallels".

Journal Article
Luke 7,36-50 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4,1-37: A Study in Luke's Use of Rhetorical Imitation
Thomas L. Brodie

Luke 7,36-50 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4,1-37: A Study in Luke's Use of Rhetorical Imitation on JSTOR

Nah. There's way too many differences.

 

[sooda]

That assumes practicing Conservative Christians are more violent? I doubt it.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King both studied non violent resistance in Sermon on the Mount. The idea being to shame the enemy.