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

[Spartan]

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.

Jesus was a liberal? I've already shown that's a load of nonsense. He is the God who condemned gay sex sin. If that's liberal then there's no reasoning with you.

 

[Spartan]

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?!?!

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.

The fan fiction is yours. You're the same guy who claims the Gospel writers copied their various narratives from Old Testament stories. Claims, claims, claims. That's your bag. The amount of horse manure you throw against the wall to see what sticks is astounding.

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):

"the entire historicity field recognizes that much of the pagan traditions are part of Christianity"?

You really need a lot of help with your pagan history.

From the article in question:

"Professor Ronald Nash, a prominent philosopher and theologian agrees that the “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.” Nash then goes on to say, “Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue.”

Leading New Testament scholar Professor Craig Keener explains that “When you make the comparisons,” between the historical Jesus and the claims made by mythicists, “you end up with a whole lot more differences than you do similarities.”

Michael Bird, who is on the editorial board for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, as well is a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity, is visibly annoyed by the same recurrent trope saying that “Now I am normally a cordial and collegial chap, but to be honest, I have little time or patience to invest in debunking the wild fantasies of “Jesus mythicists”, as they are known. That is because, to be frank, those of us who work in the academic profession of religion and history simply have a hard time taking them seriously.”

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

You're busted.

 

[sooda]

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!

Non violent liberation theology was very liberal for the 1st century.

And remember Jesus stopped them from stoning the prostitute.

 

[Spartan]

Non violent liberation theology was very liberal for the 1st century.

And remember Jesus stopped them from stoning the prostitute.

Jesus told her to go and sin no more. Liberals don't like anyone telling them which carnal sin they engage in is wrong.

 

[sooda]

Jesus told her to go and sin no more. Liberals don't like anyone telling them which carnal sin they engage in is wrong.

What?

Are you inferring the prostitute was a liberal?

 

[Spartan]

Non violent liberation theology was very liberal for the 1st century.

And remember Jesus stopped them from stoning the prostitute.

If Jesus were a liberal then the liberal left should be receiving him big time. But that's not what we see.

"It's not just Obama but the Democratic Party at large. Is its frequent disrespect for the God of the Bible, Christian home-schoolers and the constitutionally protected religious liberty of Christians indicative of something or just a matter of my imagination? How about Democrats' hostility to voluntary prayer in public schools, their selective excising of Christian history from public school textbooks, their allergy to Christian-themed hymns in public schools or their dislike of Christmas displays in the public square? How about leftist Hollywood's routine depiction of Christians as fanatical lunatics? Remember when the Democratic National Committee denounced God in three votes and took the word and concept of God out of the party platform at the 2012 convention?+ - David Limbaugh

Here's more on Obama - THE MOST BIBLICALLY HOSTILE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President | John Ankerberg Show

 

[sooda]

If Jesus were a liberal then the liberal left should be receiving him big time. But that's not what we see.

"It's not just Obama but the Democratic Party at large. Is its frequent disrespect for the God of the Bible, Christian home-schoolers and the constitutionally protected religious liberty of Christians indicative of something or just a matter of my imagination? How about Democrats' hostility to voluntary prayer in public schools, their selective excising of Christian history from public school textbooks, their allergy to Christian-themed hymns in public schools or their dislike of Christmas displays in the public square? How about leftist Hollywood's routine depiction of Christians as fanatical lunatics? Remember when the Democratic National Committee denounced God in three votes and took the word and concept of God out of the party platform at the 2012 convention?+ - David Limbaugh

Here's more on Obama - THE MOST BIBLICALLY HOSTILE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President | John Ankerberg Show

My God, how sad and ignorant.

 

[lukethethird]

Jesus was a liberal? I've already shown that's a load of nonsense. He is the God who condemned gay sex sin. If that's liberal then there's no reasoning with you.

The only non-liberal Gods that condemn gay sex actually are gay but they want to conceal the fact by pretending to condemn it, we know this because heterosexual Gods don't care what gays do.

 

[joelr]

Jesus was a liberal? I've already shown that's a load of nonsense. He is the God who condemned gay sex sin. If that's liberal then there's no reasoning with you.

No you showed an article about what it means to be a liberal in 2019.
Jesus teachings were the liberal versions of Judaism. That means he was a liberal. The Hillilites were the most liberal and Jesus was spreading the word of Rabbi Hillel.
Stop posting articles that deal with modern times and thinking that means anything about Jesus?

Your not even in the argument, your posting about current events as if Jesus is here and weighing in his opinions.
We can only judge people from the Bronze age by the Bronze age. He wanted gentiles to join without being circumcised or that they observe the purity code, this is one of the most liberal ideas in those times.

 

[joelr]

The fan fiction is yours. You're the same guy who claims the Gospel writers copied their various narratives from Old Testament stories. Claims, claims, claims. That's your bag. The amount of horse manure you throw against the wall to see what sticks is astounding.

Oh so you think they are just claims, then I'll give you evidence and prove you wrong.
Even though I gave plenty of evidence and now your pretending that didn't happen.

At 23"09 he covers a few of the dozens of direct copies from Kings into Luke

At 15:42 of this video he references PhD Paul Achtemier paper on how Jesus was a re-write of Moses.
There are tons of peer-reviewed literature that establishes this without a doubt.

Now I already know you'll ignore the evidence and simply say "uh, I'll stick with Jesus"......because you can't mount a defense of your own. But still, evidence...busted!

"the entire historicity field recognizes that much of the pagan traditions are part of Christianity"?

You really need a lot of help with your pagan history.

From the article in question:

"Professor Ronald Nash, a prominent philosopher and theologian agrees that the “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.” Nash then goes on to say, “Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue.”

First of all 1st century apologist in 150 AD admitted pagan religions and Christianity have little differences:

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
Huh, 1st century apologist is saying what modern apologists are now denying! BUSTED!!


But Mithraism IS NOT A DYING AND RISING SAVIOR GOD?!?! How many times do I have to say this?

"Other savior gods within this context experienced “passions” that did not involve a death. For instance, Mithras underwent some great suffering and struggle (we don’t have many details), through which he acquired his power over death that he then shares with initiates in his cult, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a death. Mentions of resurrection as a teaching in Mithraism appear to have been about the future fate of his followers (in accordance with the Persian Zoroastrian notion of a general resurrection later borrowed by the Jews). So all those internet memes listing Mithras as a dying-and-rising god? Not true. So do please stop repeating that claim. Likewise, so far as we can tell Attis didn’t become a rising god until well after Christianity began (and even then his myth only barely equated to a resurrection; previous authors have over-interpreted evidence to the contrary). Most others, however, we have pretty solid evidence for as actually dying, and actually rising savior gods."


I already pointed this out, Mithras is not one of the 6 dying rising savior gods who pre-date Jesus.
bbbbbbusted

"Leading New Testament scholar Professor Craig Keener explains that “When you make the comparisons,” between the historical Jesus and the claims made by mythicists, “you end up with a whole lot more differences than you do similarities.”

PhD Carrier on differences:

"Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth."

Michael Bird, who is on the editorial board for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, as well is a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity, is visibly annoyed by the same recurrent trope saying that “Now I am normally a cordial and collegial chap, but to be honest, I have little time or patience to invest in debunking the wild fantasies of “Jesus mythicists”, as they are known. That is because, to be frank, those of us who work in the academic profession of religion and history simply have a hard time taking them seriously.”

He's talking about older crank mythicist theories, like the one by Atwell.
PhD biblical historian lists some of the real similarities in an article:

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

wow, not such "wild fantasies" after all. Busted.

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

You're busted.

Ha, did you just repost that article full of lies, half truths that I just debunked and you ignored. But added "busted" to it? Ha, you're really playing the fool here.
It's beyond clear believing in what's true is of no importance to you.

 

[RESOLUTION]

There was night and council the next day and there are slight contradictions as well among different accounts. It wasn't "off record" either because scribes were there.

At the bottom of the page all accounts are compared:
Sanhedrin trial of Jesus - Wikipedia

The Romans or the Jews accounts or both?

 

[Spartan]

Oh so you think they are just claims, then I'll give you evidence and prove you wrong.
Even though I gave plenty of evidence and now your pretending that didn't happen.

At 23"09 he covers a few of the dozens of direct copies from Kings into Luke

At 15:42 of this video he references PhD Paul Achtemier paper on how Jesus was a re-write of Moses.
There are tons of peer-reviewed literature that establishes this without a doubt.

Now I already know you'll ignore the evidence and simply say "uh, I'll stick with Jesus"......because you can't mount a defense of your own. But still, evidence...busted!


First of all 1st century apologist in 150 AD admitted pagan religions and Christianity have little differences:

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
Huh, 1st century apologist is saying what modern apologists are now denying! BUSTED!!


But Mithraism IS NOT A DYING AND RISING SAVIOR GOD?!?! How many times do I have to say this?

"Other savior gods within this context experienced “passions” that did not involve a death. For instance, Mithras underwent some great suffering and struggle (we don’t have many details), through which he acquired his power over death that he then shares with initiates in his cult, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a death. Mentions of resurrection as a teaching in Mithraism appear to have been about the future fate of his followers (in accordance with the Persian Zoroastrian notion of a general resurrection later borrowed by the Jews). So all those internet memes listing Mithras as a dying-and-rising god? Not true. So do please stop repeating that claim. Likewise, so far as we can tell Attis didn’t become a rising god until well after Christianity began (and even then his myth only barely equated to a resurrection; previous authors have over-interpreted evidence to the contrary). Most others, however, we have pretty solid evidence for as actually dying, and actually rising savior gods."


I already pointed this out, Mithras is not one of the 6 dying rising savior gods who pre-date Jesus.
bbbbbbusted





PhD Carrier on differences:

"Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth."



He's talking about older crank mythicist theories, like the one by Atwell.
PhD biblical historian lists some of the real similarities in an article:

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

wow, not such "wild fantasies" after all. Busted.

Ha, did you just repost that article full of lies, half truths that I just debunked and you ignored. But added "busted" to it? Ha, you're really playing the fool here.
It's beyond clear believing in what's true is of no importance to you.

So you're saying that the Gospel writers copied from pagan deities? Prove it. Who copied exactly what, when, where, and why? Just throwing a bunch of claims against the wall to prop up your jack-legged theology isn't going to cut it. In doing so you make all the New Testament figures complicit in your left-wing follies. That's bizarre.

 

[Spartan]

No you showed an article about what it means to be a liberal in 2019.
Jesus teachings were the liberal versions of Judaism. That means he was a liberal. The Hillilites were the most liberal and Jesus was spreading the word of Rabbi Hillel.

Jesus is God in the Bible and the author of Old Testament Judaism to begin with. Some liberal, LOL! And then he instituted the New Covenant.

So you've got no case. This is what happens when liberals like you kick the deity of Jesus to the curb.

If Jesus were a liberal, then the liberals would love him. But most of them don't. And for those liberals who do it's been my experience that they've reconstituted Jesus to be less of a divine Savior and more of an itinerant philosopher who would never condemn anyone or whatever illicit life styles they might currently be involved with.

"Indeed, isn’t it the progressive Christian system that is always pushing back against people who make absolute moral claims? Morality is relative, we are told. Morality is ever-changing and culturally conditioned. There is no one true morality. Don’t push your morality on me."

10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity #1: Is Jesus Our Lord or Our Example?

 

[Spartan]

No you showed an article about what it means to be a liberal in 2019.
Jesus teachings were the liberal versions of Judaism. That means he was a liberal.

The liberal version of Christianity is a lot like "Milquetoast" Christianity:

Milquetoast Christianity says Jesus was a good teacher and a moral man. Biblical Christianity says he is the Divine King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the Savior of mankind.

Milquetoast Christianity says we are to be friends with this world. Jesus says, “If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

Milquetoast Christianity says to be content and comfortable with whom and where you are in your spiritual life. Biblical Christianity says that we are called to a higher purpose, and God’s will is not to let you remain as you are, but to become conformed to the image of Jesus Christ and do God’s will.

Milquetoast Christianity says there are many paths to God, and we are all God’s children. Biblical Christianity says Jesus is the only way of salvation, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).

Milquetoast Christianity teaches salvation without self-denial; the crown without the cross, and has compromised the word of God in order to make friends with the world. Biblical Christianity says that it is a bad sign for the Christianity of this day when it provokes so little opposition from the world. When the Church and the world can jog along together side by side comfortably, you may be sure there is something wrong.

Milquetoast Christianity is a lukewarm, feel-good, worldly philosophy. Jesus teaches that if you are lukewarm about the things of God, he will spit you out of his mouth (Revelation 3:16).

Milquetoast Christianity says, “Just confess Jesus and you’re in.” Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father.” Milquetoast Christianity says, “Just say this simple prayer and you’re in.” Jesus says, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

Milquetoast Christianity subverts godly marriage and defends shacking up and gay marriage by arguing these are “consenting adults” in love. Adulterers are “consenting adults.” God says that love does not rejoice in iniquity.

Milquetoast Christianity says proselytizing is offensive. Jesus says to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Milquetoast Christianity says the Holy Spirit is some kind of Star Wars force. The Word of God says the Holy Spirit is Divine (Acts 5), the 3rd Person of the Godhead, and that HE convicts people of their sins and leads people to Christ for salvation.

Milquetoast Christianity says miracles no longer occur (if they did at all). Jesus says, “Arise and walk; I am the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”

Milquetoast Christianity has replaced Father God with Mother Earth, and God’s Word with the doctrines and teachings of unregenerate men.

Repentance is seldom taught in milquetoast Churches. Jesus says “unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13:3).

Milquetoast Christianity teaches a watered-down gospel that sends people to hell. Biblical Christianity teaches a no-nonsense, born-again faith in Jesus Christ that brings eternal life.

Milquetoast Christianity mocks Biblical “fundamentalists” as some kind of extremists. Jesus was a zealot for the things of God and so were his disciples. And what is a “zealot,” except perhaps someone who believes in God more than their accuser.

Milquetoast Christianity gathers a great number of teachers together to say what their itching ears want to hear. Biblical Christianity preaches the truth of God’s Word, and His alone.

Days and sometimes weeks and months go by when milquetoast Christians do not think about Jesus, the Word of God, or the salvation of souls. They seldom talk about Jesus much less lead others to salvation.

Milquetoast Christianity doesn’t believe in a literal hell. Biblical Christianity says that not only is there a literal hell, but if people don’t repent and believe that Jesus is the one he claims to be, they will indeed die in their sins, and hell will not be far behind.

Milquetoast Christianity

 

[joelr]

So you're saying that the Gospel writers copied from pagan deities? Prove it. Who copied exactly what, when, where, and why? Just throwing a bunch of claims against the wall to prop up your jack-legged theology isn't going to cut it. In doing so you make all the New Testament figures complicit in your left-wing follies. That's bizarre.

I'm only using information from the PhD biblical historicity field. It may seem "bizarre" to you but all this is common knowledge in scholarship.

We know the other gospels are re-writes of Mark, I've already covered this. And all of them are written in the same mythical style as other pagan religious fiction from the times. There are reasons why they wanted a savior god of their own, besides that they were emerging everywhere in the region Judaism needed updating.

The author of Mark obviously used stories and prophecies from the OT but fashioned a new savior god , a Jewish version. The Jesus story fits exactly as a Jewish version of the savior-god mytheme. There are 6 we know for sure are pre-Christian.


Understanding the Context, PhD Carrier:

"Within the confines of what was then the Roman Empire, long before and during the dawn of Christianity, there were many dying-and-rising gods. And yes, they were gods—some even half-god, half-human, being of divine or magical parentage, just like Jesus (John 1:1-18; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Philippians 2:6-8 & Romans 8:3). And yes, they died. And were dead. And yes, they were then raised back to life; and lived on, even more powerful than before. Some returned in the same body they died in; some lived their second life in even more powerful and magical bodies than they died in, like Jesus did (1 Corinthians 15:35-50 & 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Some left empty tombs or gravesites; or had corpses that were lost or vanished. Just like Jesus. Some returned to life on “the third day” after dying. Just like Jesus. All went on to live and reign in heaven (not on earth). Just like Jesus. Some even visited earth after being raised, to deliver a message to disciples or followers, before ascending into the heavens. Just like Jesus.



Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth.


Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence.
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

Jesus is God in the Bible and the author of Old Testament Judaism to begin with. Some liberal, LOL! And then he instituted the New Covenant.

So you've got no case. This is what happens when liberals like you kick the deity of Jesus to the curb.

If Jesus were a liberal, then the liberals would love him. But most of them don't. And for those liberals who do it's been my experience that they've reconstituted Jesus to be less of a divine Savior and more of an itinerant philosopher who would never condemn anyone or whatever illicit life styles they might currently be involved with.

"Indeed, isn’t it the progressive Christian system that is always pushing back against people who make absolute moral claims? Morality is relative, we are told. Morality is ever-changing and culturally conditioned. There is no one true morality. Don’t push your morality on me."

10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity #1: Is Jesus Our Lord or Our Example?

You sound confused. Still with the "modern liberals"? "Modern liberals don't love Jesus..." So? How do modern ANYTHING have to do with 2000 years in the past?

Your now resorting to saying since some passages say Jesus is god then Jesus is exactly like the OT god?
Even though the NT is completely revolutionary in comparison and is why Christians often say "Jesus brought a new covenant" when people ask about the brutality and absurd things god does in the OT?

By the way Jesus also says he is NOT god in the bible as well.

In the NT Jesus argues as a Hillelite. Hillel was a liberal Jew who was teaching much of what was "new" with the Jesus movement.
Hillel wanted all races to be able to worship god as well as several other radically liberal concepts for the time.

Hillel (הלל) was a famous Jewish religious teacher who lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod around the beginning of the Common Era (d. 10-20 C.E.).




Hillel is also known for his opposition to his Judaean colleague and successor, Shammai. Despite Hillel's own careful observance of the Jewish law, in these debates, he generally advocated milder interpretations of Halakha (Jewish law and tradition)


Several anecdotes speak of Hillel helping people to turn to God, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. The most famous of these stories tells of his teaching a summary of the Torah to a non-Jew while standing on one leg


Hillel stated his own prominent virtues. He considered "love of his fellow man" the kernel of Jewish teaching.
The Golden Rule

The comparative response to the challenge of a Gentile who asked that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot, illustrates the character differences between Shammai and Hillel. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel accepted the question but gently chastised the man:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn[10]


Love of peace
The exhortation to love peace emanated from Hillel's most characteristic traits—from that proverbial meekness and mildness—as in the saying: "Let a man be always humble and patient like Hillel, and not passionate like Shammai"


Other maxims
"Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place."[12]

Hillel’s awareness of his own insufficiency is expressed in the maxim, "Don't trust yourself until the day you die."[12]

"Whosoever destroys one soul, it is as though he had destroyed the entire world. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the entire world."[13]




No matter how many times you bring up modern anything you will not change the past. Hillel was what a liberal was 2000 years ago. Jesus obviously was teaching this school of philosophy. Shammai was the conservative.
In fact here is another obvious source of WHERE THE NT AUTHORS GOT THEIR STORY FROM.

 

[joelr]

The liberal version of Christianity is a lot like "Milquetoast" Christianity:

Milquetoast Christianity says Jesus was a good teacher and a moral man. Biblical Christianity says he is the Divine King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the Savior of mankind.

Milquetoast Christianity says we are to be friends with this world. Jesus says, “If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

Milquetoast Christianity says to be content and comfortable with whom and where you are in your spiritual life. Biblical Christianity says that we are called to a higher purpose, and God’s will is not to let you remain as you are, but to become conformed to the image of Jesus Christ and do God’s will.

Milquetoast Christianity says there are many paths to God, and we are all God’s children. Biblical Christianity says Jesus is the only way of salvation, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).

Milquetoast Christianity teaches salvation without self-denial; the crown without the cross, and has compromised the word of God in order to make friends with the world. Biblical Christianity says that it is a bad sign for the Christianity of this day when it provokes so little opposition from the world. When the Church and the world can jog along together side by side comfortably, you may be sure there is something wrong.

Milquetoast Christianity is a lukewarm, feel-good, worldly philosophy. Jesus teaches that if you are lukewarm about the things of God, he will spit you out of his mouth (Revelation 3:16).

Milquetoast Christianity says, “Just confess Jesus and you’re in.” Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father.” Milquetoast Christianity says, “Just say this simple prayer and you’re in.” Jesus says, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

Milquetoast Christianity subverts godly marriage and defends shacking up and gay marriage by arguing these are “consenting adults” in love. Adulterers are “consenting adults.” God says that love does not rejoice in iniquity.

Milquetoast Christianity says proselytizing is offensive. Jesus says to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Milquetoast Christianity says the Holy Spirit is some kind of Star Wars force. The Word of God says the Holy Spirit is Divine (Acts 5), the 3rd Person of the Godhead, and that HE convicts people of their sins and leads people to Christ for salvation.

Milquetoast Christianity says miracles no longer occur (if they did at all). Jesus says, “Arise and walk; I am the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”

Milquetoast Christianity has replaced Father God with Mother Earth, and God’s Word with the doctrines and teachings of unregenerate men.

Repentance is seldom taught in milquetoast Churches. Jesus says “unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13:3).

Milquetoast Christianity teaches a watered-down gospel that sends people to hell. Biblical Christianity teaches a no-nonsense, born-again faith in Jesus Christ that brings eternal life.

Milquetoast Christianity mocks Biblical “fundamentalists” as some kind of extremists. Jesus was a zealot for the things of God and so were his disciples. And what is a “zealot,” except perhaps someone who believes in God more than their accuser.

Milquetoast Christianity gathers a great number of teachers together to say what their itching ears want to hear. Biblical Christianity preaches the truth of God’s Word, and His alone.

Days and sometimes weeks and months go by when milquetoast Christians do not think about Jesus, the Word of God, or the salvation of souls. They seldom talk about Jesus much less lead others to salvation.

Milquetoast Christianity doesn’t believe in a literal hell. Biblical Christianity says that not only is there a literal hell, but if people don’t repent and believe that Jesus is the one he claims to be, they will indeed die in their sins, and hell will not be far behind.

Milquetoast Christianity

Total red herring. Arguing that modern liberal Christians don't interpret the bible correctly is completely meaningless to this discussion?
Jesus was teaching a liberal version of Judaism in comparison to his opponents.
You cannot change that fact.

"Milquetoast Christianity" exists because most people are not gullable enough anymore to take ancient bronze age mythology as literal fact so church leaders are trying to keep membership by offering a watered-down version.
I know that fundamentalists are all butt-hurt that some fellow Christians are not still mentally living in the 3rd century but fundamentalists seem to enjoy judging, feeling superior and pointing out that their god condems heretics so it works out fine.

 

[Spartan]

Total red herring. Arguing that modern liberal Christians don't interpret the bible correctly is completely meaningless to this discussion?
Jesus was teaching a liberal version of Judaism in comparison to his opponents.
You cannot change that fact.

"Milquetoast Christianity" exists because most people are not gullable enough anymore to take ancient bronze age mythology as literal fact so church leaders are trying to keep membership by offering a watered-down version.
I know that fundamentalists are all butt-hurt that some fellow Christians are not still mentally living in the 3rd century but fundamentalists seem to enjoy judging, feeling superior and pointing out that their god condems heretics so it works out fine.

Nope, you're the one out in left field. What I posted were examples I've seen over and over again from liberals who claim to be Christian. I've yet to see one of them who doesn't screw up either the deity of Jesus, the resurrection, repentance, or the historical Jesus / Gospels.

 

[Spartan]

You sound confused. Still with the "modern liberals"? "Modern liberals don't love Jesus..." So? How do modern ANYTHING have to do with 2000 years in the past?

Your now resorting to saying since some passages say Jesus is god then Jesus is exactly like the OT god?
Even though the NT is completely revolutionary in comparison and is why Christians often say "Jesus brought a new covenant" when people ask about the brutality and absurd things god does in the OT?

By the way Jesus also says he is NOT god in the bible as well.

People who say Jesus is not a God of divine Judgment like in the OT fail to mention the Judgments of Jesus in the Book of Revelation. You just made that same error yourself.

As far as Jesus claiming NOT to be God, you blew that also: Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Even if He Did, Why Should I Believe It? - Josh.org

You know, I've never seen a view of the New Testament and the deity of Jesus Christ so bizarre as how you butcher it. You're way, way out in left field, far left of even a gaggle of spiritually-challenged liberal theologians. Quite frankly, your views are BIZARRE. I don't know of any mainstream church that has such a twisted view of scripture as what you put out daily. It's completely alien to the truth of Jesus Christ and built on a foundation of lies and fantasies.

 

[Spartan]

I'm only using information from the PhD biblical historicity field. It may seem "bizarre" to you but all this is common knowledge in scholarship.

We know the other gospels are re-writes of Mark, I've already covered this.

Stop right there. "WE" don't know of any such thing.

My NIV Bible says, about the authorship of Matthew, "The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve disciples, was its author."

For Mark, the notation is, "...it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark."

For Luke is says, "...much unmistakable evidence points to Luke (as the author)."

And for John, "The author is the apostle John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the theory that the other Gospel authors copied Mark. One is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. No doubt Jesus went over everything with them in the 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension. The disciples may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping them recall what Jesus taught. That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have told you."