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

[Spartan]

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

You still have no proof practicing Conservative Christians are more violent.

 

[Spartan]

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.

Pagels is the one full of horse manure.

Beyond Credibility: A Critical Review of 'Beyond Belief'

 

[joelr]

LOL. In your dreams.

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

In my dreams? I could care less what character does what in what myth, I'm just telling you known facts.
You need history lessons on your own religion?
Jesus was arguing against the the Pharisees in the gospels and sounds like Hillell the liberal Rabbi who was a founder of the liberal school of the Pharisees who argued against the conservative Shamitaes.


That article you linked to is using current ideals and has nothing to do with the biblical characters and what was liberal for them.

Christianity was a counter curtural movement who was against the main 4 sects of Judaism.
A fringe anti-elite group.
The Essenes were as well and their teachings on divorce and many cultural idea line up with Christian ideas. This was a liberal movement.

 

[joelr]

Nah. There's way too many differences.

Isn't there something about lying in your doctrine? You didn't read that journal, it's not available to download for free.
The Jesus narrative obviously contains re-writes of older OT stories but that isn't where the majority of the concepts come from. Those are just interesting literary devices used in many myths.

 

[joelr]

Pagels is the one full of horse manure.

Beyond Credibility: A Critical Review of 'Beyond Belief'

Again, it's the WRONG BOOK! I referenced The Gnostic Gospels. Not Beyond Belief?

And I demonstrated that your first apologetic review completely lied and tried to say Pagels "mischaracterized" the letter from Athenasius. She did not and I provided the page and link to Pagel's book and the words from Athenasius letter to show he was literally telling a lie. Seems like a Christian trend.

And once again this new non-scholarship dribble makes no significant points but quibbles on some minor points.
And conjecture, of course there is more of that. The fact that there are these gnostic gospels and writing from Ireaneous makes Pagels case.
No one in these reviews are disputing that early Christianity was far more diverse than we thought and that the bishops wanted a power structure where only they could read and interpret scripture. Which was my original point.

You're not going to apologetics around that fact.

 

[Spartan]

Isn't there something about lying in your doctrine? You didn't read that journal, it's not available to download for free.
The Jesus narrative obviously contains re-writes of older OT stories but that isn't where the majority of the concepts come from. Those are just interesting literary devices used in many myths.

<facepalm>

Do you know how hard it had to be back then for what theological liberals like to call poor, uneducated fishermen, to get their hands on Old Testament scrolls? And not only are these unlearned Gospel writers suddenly able to read and write Hebrew and Greek, but now they're spending untold hours perusing through scrolls they can't even afford and probably aren't easily available, to come up with with these brilliant, alternative narratives that today astound the scholars of this world to the point they write whole books about them! Yep, and if you believe they could be doing all that then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

It's also humorous to me how the skeptics love the revisionist narratives but suddenly when it comes to the resurrection, their heads swivel and hiss like the possessed girl in The Exorcist.

 

[Spartan]

In my dreams? I could care less what character does what in what myth, I'm just telling you known facts.
You need history lessons on your own religion?
Jesus was arguing against the the Pharisees in the gospels and sounds like Hillell the liberal Rabbi who was a founder of the liberal school of the Pharisees who argued against the conservative Shamitaes.

That article you linked to is using current ideals and has nothing to do with the biblical characters and what was liberal for them.

Christianity was a counter curtural movement who was against the main 4 sects of Judaism.
A fringe anti-elite group.
The Essenes were as well and their teachings on divorce and many cultural idea line up with Christian ideas. This was a liberal movement.

The Jesus liberals claim to love is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible made judgments about people, told them if they did not repent of their sins, they would perish (Luke 13:3). Jesus is God in the Bible, and he's the one who delivered the Ten Commandments and the proscriptions against gay sex and fornication.

From my prior link:

"...first we need to recognize some of the major influences of modern liberalism:

“So, I think we need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination.

When you claim Jesus as a liberal, you are putting him under the same umbrella as these men. But if The Lord were to come back, call you up into the mountain like Peter, James, and John, and bless you with another scene like the Transfiguration, somehow I doubt that, instead of making Moses and Elijah appear before you, He would summon the souls of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx.” – Matt Walsh Satan is a Liberal

Was Jesus a liberal?

 

[sooda]

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

You make no sense at all. The Sermon on the Mount was supposedly to a Jewish audience.

In first century Palestine the Jews were tearing themselves to pieces.. Different factions fought each other and the Romans. Didn't have anything to do with Christians much less "violent Christians".

 

[Spartan]

You make no sense at all. The Sermon on the Mount was supposedly to a Jewish audience.

And today the Sermon on the Mount is being received predominately by Christians, not so much Jews.

Liberal Christians, like Nancy Pelosi, must be blinded to the scriptures, since they approve of sodomy, abortion, forced redistribution of wealth, moral relativism, and a number of other abominations contrary to scripture.

 

[sooda]

And today the Sermon on the Mount is being received predominately by Christians, not so much Jews.

Liberal Christians, like Nancy Pelosi, must be blinded to the scriptures, since they approve of sodomy, abortion, forced redistribution of wealth, moral relativism, and a number of other abominations contrary to scripture.

The Sermon on the Mount probably wasn't written until after the destruction of the Temple. Its extremely popular among Palestinian Christians.

The Essenes living around the Dead Sea had similar Beatitudes.

WHAT IS THE SERMON OF THE MOUNT?
The term “The Sermon of the Mount” originated from the title of Augustine’s commentary on Matthew 5 – 7, De Sermone Domini in Monte, which was published in 391 – 396 AD.

Matthew 5 – 7 became well known as the Sermon on the Mount in the 16th Century. The modern term of Matthew 5 – 7 is “Sermon on the plain”. This term is used mainly to differentiate between Luke’s shorter version..

Significance Of The Sermon Of The Mount Religion Essay

 

[Spartan]

The Sermon on the Mount probably wasn't written until after the destruction of the Temple. Its extremely popular among Palestinian Christians.

The Gospels confirm a much earlier date, during the life of Jesus.

Matthew 5 – 7 became well known as the Sermon on the Mount in the 16th Century. The modern term of Matthew 5 – 7 is “Sermon on the plain”. This term is used mainly to differentiate between Luke’s shorter version..

No, those are two different occasions when a similar speech by Jesus was given to two different audiences. The geography of those two sermons is different. One is on a mountain and the other on a plain,.

 

[sooda]

The Gospels confirm a much earlier date, during the life of Jesus.



No, those are two different occasions when a similar speech by Jesus was given to two different audiences. The geography of those two sermons is different. One is on a mountain and the other on a plain,.

Good grief.. The gospels weren't written during the life of Jesus.. Stop and think.

There are NO mountains. The Sermon on the Plain is Luke's version.

 

[Spartan]

Good grief.. The gospels weren't written during the life of Jesus.. Stop and think.

Think yourself. It doesn't matter that they were written later. The Gospels were about the life of Jesus some forty years before 70 AD.

 

[sooda]

Think yourself. It doesn't matter that they were written later. The Gospels were about the life of Jesus some forty years before 70 AD.

Mark didn't know Jesus.. He was a disciple of Peter and neither did Luke. Stop and think.

 

[joelr]

<facepalm>

Do you know how hard it had to be back then for what theological liberals like to call poor, uneducated fishermen, to get their hands on Old Testament scrolls? And not only are these unlearned Gospel writers suddenly able to read and write Hebrew and Greek, but now they're spending untold hours perusing through scrolls they can't even afford and probably aren't easily available, to come up with with these brilliant, alternative narratives that today astound the scholars of this world to the point they write whole books about them! Yep, and if you believe they could be doing all that then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Oops, you should of held off on that facepalm. It cute that you think the gospel writers were fishermen.

The gospels are rich in mythic literary devices, ring structure, markan sandwiches, chiastic structure, idiom, allusion, and Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the mythic archetype Rank-Raglin scale, 1 below King Arthur.

So we know without any doubt that the gospel writers were highly educated writers creating really good mythology.


"Chiastic structure, or chiastic pattern, is a literary technique in narrative motifs and other textual passages. An example of chiastic structure would be two ideas, A and B, together with variants A' and B', being presented as A,B,B',A'.

Various chiastic structures are also seen in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament"



"In narratology and comparative mythology, the Rank–Raglan mythotype (sometimes called the hero archetypes) are narrative patterns proposed by psychoanalyst Otto Rank and later on amateur anthropologist Lord Raglan that lists different cross-cultural traits often found in the accounts of heroes, including mythical heroes."

1. Mother is a royal virgin
2. Father is a king
3. Father often a near relative to mother
4. Unusual conception
5. Hero reputed to be son of god
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7. Hero spirited away as a child
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country
9. No details of childhood
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13. Becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully
15. He prescribes laws
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17. Driven from throne and city
18. Meets with mysterious death
19. Often at the top of a hill
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him
21. His body is not buried
22. Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

It's also humorous to me how the skeptics love the revisionist narratives but suddenly when it c

comes to the resurrection, their heads swivel and hiss like the possessed girl in The Exorcist.

Is it funny to you like how the fishermen wrote the gospels?

First of all they are not "skeptics" but almost the entire field of PhD biblical history?

I'm actually not sure what you are talking about here? The resurrection is the easiest part of the story to explain.
Even apologist Justin Martyr around 150AD wrote that what Christians believed was not different than other pagan religions? Back then he just was able to say his version was the best one. Now we know this is obvious BS.
So modern apologists have to deny that this was ever true.


Christian apologist Justin Martyr (Dialogue 69):


"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in common with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius]. Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse.

 

[joelr]

The Jesus liberals claim to love is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible made judgments about people, told them if they did not repent of their sins, they would perish (Luke 13:3). Jesus is God in the Bible, and he's the one who delivered the Ten Commandments and the proscriptions against gay sex and fornication.

From my prior link:

"...first we need to recognize some of the major influences of modern liberalism:

“So, I think we need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination.

When you claim Jesus as a liberal, you are putting him under the same umbrella as these men. But if The Lord were to come back, call you up into the mountain like Peter, James, and John, and bless you with another scene like the Transfiguration, somehow I doubt that, instead of making Moses and Elijah appear before you, He would summon the souls of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx.” – Matt Walsh Satan is a Liberal

Was Jesus a liberal?

Who are you responding to? Do you even read posts before responding?
You just wrote " modern American liberalism, " which has nothing to do with Bronze age Jews.

Your buddy, the character Jesus in the NT was a liberal. He sided with the liberal versions of the Pharisees who were far more liberal than the conservative Shamitaes.
What about this don't you get?

The conservative Pharisees would have added to your liberal list something far more important to them- "Jesus freaks want to accept Gentiles into membership without demanding that they be circumcised or that they observe the purity code"

The Jesus movement was liberal as was Jesus.
In the NT, your book, Jesus argues as a Hillilite, a LIBERAL FACTION.


"Sayings resembling the teaching of Jesus occur among the sayings of Rabbi Hillel, for instance, and Hillel was active in Pharisaic circles. "

 

[Spartan]

Who are you responding to? Do you even read posts before responding?
You just wrote " modern American liberalism, " which has nothing to do with Bronze age Jews.

Your buddy, the character Jesus in the NT was a liberal. He sided with the liberal versions of the Pharisees who were far more liberal than the conservative Shamitaes.
What about this don't you get?

Jesus was NO liberal. Liberals screw things up. They screw up Biblical history. They screw up economics. They screw up politics. They've created a holocaust butchering the innocent unborn. And contrary to God's (Jesus') commandments, they've turned America into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Here's a short list of why Jesus was no liberal. Was Jesus a liberal?

So get a new dog. JESUS WAS NO LIBERAL!

 

[Spartan]

Oops, you should of held off on that facepalm. It cute that you think the gospel writers were fishermen.

It's humorous that you think some of them weren't.

Jesus saw Peter and Andrew casting a fishing net into the sea. Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19).

So we know without any doubt that the gospel writers were highly educated writers creating really good mythology.

The mythology is what you're doing, revising Biblical history.

The resurrection is the easiest part of the story to explain. Even apologist Justin Martyr around 150AD wrote that what Christians believed was not different than other pagan religions?

Jesus is resurrected in all four Gospels and various epistles.

23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions.

 

[joelr]

Jesus was NO liberal. Liberals screw things up. They screw up Biblical history. They screw up economics. They screw up politics. They've created a holocaust butchering the innocent unborn. And contrary to God's (Jesus') commandments, they've turned America into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Here's a short list of why Jesus was no liberal. Was Jesus a liberal?

So get a new dog. JESUS WAS NO LIBERAL!

I've already shown that Jesus was a liberal in his time. All you've done is repeat your assertion that uses modern concepts of what a liberal is. Jesus is not part of modern times, what about this can you not understand?
You have not responded to the actual argument FOR THE SECOND TIME but rather are responding to another fake argument that you seem to be having with yourself or some imaginary person.
Jesus was a liberal, the Jesus movement was very liberal compared to all other factions of Judaism.

 

[joelr]

It's humorous that you think some of them weren't.

Jesus saw Peter and Andrew casting a fishing net into the sea. Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19).

Wait did you just quote a fictional story as evidence of history? Of course it says they were fishermen IN THE STORY?!?!?!?

But the writers of the gospels were highly educated writers who understood - ring structure, Markan sandwiches, chiastic structure, idiom, allusion, and Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the mythic archetype Rank-Raglin scale, 1 below King Arthur-


So of course they were not fishermen?? They were some of the BEST WRITERS OF MYTH alive. They DID NOT CATCH FISH FOR A LIVING?!?!

The mythology is what you're doing, revising Biblical history.



Jesus is resurrected in all four Gospels and various epistles.

23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions.

Like I pointed out it's known that 90% of the Greek in Mark is copied verbatim into Matthew and 50% verbatim into others. So there is only Mark's account, the rest are fan fiction.

But this article you linked to is actually one of the most uneducated things I've ever seen that was pretending to be a scholarly article. Everything is wrong. You clearly don't care if what you believe is true or not.

1. Professional scholars unanimously reject the claim that Jesus is a pagan copy.


It's the opposite, the entire historicity field recognizes that much of the pagan traditions are part of Christianity. In fact even 1st century apologist admitted it as well:
Christian apologist Justin Martyr (Dialogue 69):

When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in common with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius]. Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse.


2. Experts in the field unanimously agree that Jesus lived and that we can know things about him. This is very unlike the many pagan gods.

Nope, the only PhD do do a historicity study does not agree. Then he says it's "unlike pagan religions" to know things about the demi-god character but his next point is that we don't know anything about pagan religions?


3. We actually know very little about these pagan secretive religions.

See, so how would he know to say that? But actually HE may not know much but there is plenty of information to understand that Jesus is just a pagan copy.


4. Most of what we know of secretive pagan religions comes after Christianity, not before it.


There are 6 pre-Christian dying/rising savior gods.



5. The Jewish were a people who refrained from allowing pagan myths to invade their culture.


PhD Richard Carrier points out that most of the concepts in the OT were written in after the Persian invasion. The Persians were Zoroastrian and this is where good god vs evil god, world ends in fire, all people in the religion go to the afterlife, world ends in fire and all of the main tenants of the religion. Congats on being a Zorastrian.



6. The New Testament canon is history unlike much of the pagan secretive mysteries.

We don't know what the original Marcionite canon was and we don't know much at all of Gnostic Christianity.



8. The Jesus of history does not fit the profile of someone that would be a myth.

Ha, that's why Jesus score 18 (as high as King Arthur) on the Rank Raglin scale. Ha!



9. Much of these secretive pagan religions have little to do with concrete history.

Suddenly he know a lot about Pagan religions?? The gospels may be set in history but they are written as myth.


10. Evidence of dishonest pseudo-scholar work – Dorothy Murdock:

Yup, PhD Carrier points out some of her mistakes.


11. None of the mythicists are actual scholars in the relevant fields of expertise.

This was written in 2015 but he was still wrong then.


14. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is unique.

Every different savior demi-god is unique because they contain elements of different religions. But theuy are overall all just copies of each other.



16. That Jesus is a copy of Horus is rejected by scholars.


Then he goes god by god. He picks out most of the gods that were not dying/rising savior gods but some of them he gets wrong.

There are definitely gods who died and were resurrected in 3 days to save followers and forgive sin. 6 of them before Jesus. I can show you all of them and I will only use PhD sources.

You should stop posting apologetics articles, it's hard to tell if they are lying or stupid?
It must be nice to write articles for people who will believe whatever you write as long as it backs up their beliefs?