There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[TheGunShoj]

I know what he was "trying" to say, I was highlighting how poorly he was saying it. He said "Cannot even support your claims in the thread you allege it happened?" Now who is he referring to. He did not say "you cannot even support.." or "I cannot even support.. " or "Joe Blogs cannot even support..." just "cannot even support..." So, was he saying that he cannot support my claims or was he saying that I cannot support my claims. I am doing what he does all the time in his posts to me.

Now put them together as it could have read.

Mestemia said "I Cannot even support your claims in the thread you allege it happened I'm. Serenity7855 replied "I'm not looking for your support"

Does it make sense to you now?

Yes. It makes sense that you just admitted to deliberately misrepresenting what he said even though you understood exactly what he meant. Good job.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I posted this to you recently. It is so easy to forget.

I didn't forget. I was asking for Ritalin because you refused to tell him. Thanks for the assist!

 

[Serenity7855]

It was neither a typo nor did it intentionally make no sense. It was sarcastic. (And not a good sarcastic either.)

Funny, this joke was told to me by the efficiator of the sealing room in the London temple, as we were waiting for a list of names. My wife still goes to the temple, so, I will tell her to tell him of your concerns. I thought it was funny, as did everyone else in the sealing room. Maybe you are a little sensitive.

By the way, I know that the general authorities make it very clear that members of the church should avoid debating forums, such as this one, as it breeds contention and the B of M says that

3 Nephi 11:29

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another

You are contending with me and being disobedient to the teachings of the church, just by being here.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes. It makes sense that you just admitted to deliberately misrepresenting what he said even though you understood exactly what he meant. Good job.

Thank you. I was mimicking him so I did a good job.

 

[Serenity7855]

I didn't forget. I was asking for Ritalin because you refused to tell him. Thanks for the assist!

Ah, pack mentality.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Ah, pack mentality.

I actually thought it would be funny if you would have posted right after I did. Because I asked immediately after he did and you turned him down. I even used the same verbage "What religion do you claim?" figured it would be obvious what I was doing but apparently not.

 

[Serenity7855]

Do you actually believe these facts to be true?
Because they are not.

Ah, you know this, how? Only just saying it does not make it right.

The majority of biblical scholars put the Jesus Papyrus date at 200AD.

The evidence that I have seen, including the acclaimed documentary "Eye witness of Christ" put it at 61AD.

"Unreliable information is being circulated among the supporters of the King James Only view that the recently discovered Magdalen Papyrus, allegedly dated AD 60, proves that the King James Version is correct and that most modern versions are incorrect.

Yes, the unreliable information is the dating of 200AD. I use the KJV of the bible.

This claim seems to be traced to a gross misinterpretation of a recent book by Matthew d’Ancona and Carsten Peter Thiede entitled Eyewitnesses to Jesus.[1] Such irresponsible information gives the false impression that there is an essentially complete manuscript of the Greek New Testament that dates from a period within the lifetime of the Apostles, and that this manuscript supports the Textus Receptus text tradition that underlies the King James Version. Such an impression is far from the truth."

The Trail of the Jesus papyrus lead scholars to date the papyrus at 61AD. As far as I can see the evidence is irrefutable.

JAMES D. PRICE, PH.D. - THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MAGDALEN PAPYRUS

For every site that debunks it you will find a site that confirms it.

There are no historical accounts of Jesus outside of the gospels. What few there were have been proven to be forgery.

You might be right. I don't know.

The Jesus tomb, if you bothered to actually investigate, suggests that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead and also had a son, was married, and many other contradictions to the NT.
Doesn't really matter because as Wiki says it"s:

Then you didn't understand what was being said. None of the ossuaries contained the bones of Jesus but it is very likely that it was his families tomb which confirms that his family existed so he existed, especially as one of the ossuaries contain the inscription "James, brother of Jesus"

"controversy within the archaeological and theological fields, as well as among linguistic and biblical scholars."

Meaning it's probably fraud.

Or it is accurate.

The Dead Sea scrolls do not confirm the NT at all!? Why do people keep not understanding this?

No, it speaks of the coming Messiah.

J.P. Holding was asked over and over on a forum to produce some sourced documents that show Jesus as part of history, outside of the gospels, there are none.

By this, are you saying that all of the historical writing speaking of Jesus cannot be used in evidence because the are contained in the bible.

I thought telling falsehoods was something Christians tried not to do?

Quite so.

 

[adi2d]

I actually thought it would be funny if you would have posted right after I did. Because I asked immediately after he did and you turned him down. I even used the same verbage "What religion do you claim?" figured it would be obvious what I was doing but apparently not.

What I found funny is he changed his religion to Christian under his avatar when you asked

 

[Serenity7855]

I actually thought it would be funny if you would have posted right after I did. Because I asked immediately after he did and you turned him down. I even used the same verbage "What religion do you claim?" figured it would be obvious what I was doing but apparently not.

No. You just asked and he asked and then insulted me. I was not about to Tell him after he insulted me. It is no secret. It is my razondetra.

 

[Serenity7855]

What I found funny is he changed his religion to Christian under his avatar when you asked

If you think that is funny then you would love my jokes.

We should all stop picking on the man who complains about not being given enough food to eat. Doesn't he have enough on his plate? . :clap

 

[Alt Thinker]

Part 1

You will have to do better then your own interpretation. Chapter and verse so that I can refute it for you.

The Gospels do not merely differ, they contradict each other.

Underlined sections below are from the above post. The reference was to post-resurrection stories. But to understand the purpose of the contradictions we must look at the intentions of the authors, most especially Matthew and Luke.

Matthew, who has Jesus spend a lot of time in Galilee, has the Apostles immediately go to Galilee because Jesus said to go there. They meet Jesus there.

Matthew’s intent is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Matthew’s target audience are Jesus following Jews. He uses several techniques to accomplish this. One I will mention in passing is the numerous references to Jewish scriptures that he presents as prophesies fulfilled by Jesus. These are too many to link.

Matthew’s intent is clear from the outset in the genealogy he opens with. (Matthew 1:1-17) “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham”. Matthew lists the ancestors of Jesus from Abraham (the founder of Judaism) to the present, arranging the list into three groups of 14. We may note that 14 is the gematria value of David, the sine qua non of messiah ancestors.

However Matthew also tells us that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph, but the literal Son of God. Since Joseph marries Mary, Jesus inherits the genealogy by adoption. To bolster his case that a woman can be important in heavily patriarchal Judaism (she is part of Matthew’s group of 14), Matthew embellishes his list of names with references here and there to illustrious spouses.

Matthew’s nativity story (Matthew 2) introduces two memes, that Jesus is the King of the Jews and the idea of Jesus as the New Moses. It is the wise men who call Jesus the King of the Jews causing Herod much grief. Warned by an angel, Joseph, Mary and Jesus flee from a Jewish ‘King’ (Herod) to Egypt. (In addition Matthew gets another prophesy fulfillment when they come back and yet again when they settle in Nazareth.) Matthew later uses this Moses meme when he has Jesus give the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-8), handing down his directions for fulfilling the Law by righteous thinking over and above just following the letter of the Law. Note that Matthew’s Jesus emphasizes that the Jewish Law will never go away.

Following the baptism by John, Matthew’s Jesus travels about teaching (including the long Sermon on the Mount), talking in parables and performing miracles. But when he returns to his home in Nazareth and teaches in the synagogue he is not taken seriously because he is just Jesus the carpenter’s son. (Matthew 13:53-58).

Matthew has Jesus travel about Galilee and even a little beyond the Jordan for half a dozen more chapters. Eventually he has Jesus start out for Jerusalem. From this pronouncement until Jesus is at Jerusalem, Matthew devotes a mere 18 verses to the journey. (Matthew 20:17-34)

In Matthew the public ministry of Jesus in Galilee and a bit beyond starts at Matthew 4:12 and the journey to Jerusalem begins at Matthew 20:17. The journey lasts 18 verses.

This is all background. Now let us look at the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Matthew

Matthew 28

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
…
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

The disciples go to Galilee to meet Jesus, Galilee where Jesus has spent virtually all of his ministry. This is the end of Matthew. No explanation of what happened to Jesus. Where did he go?

To be continued…

 

[Alt Thinker]

Part 2

Luke, who has Jesus rejected almost immediately and concentrates on Jerusalem, has the Apostles stay near Jerusalem. Jesus appears to them there for the first time then leads them to nearby Bethany and ascends into heaven from there.

Matthew’s focus was Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, concentrating heavily on his presence in Galilee. Luke’s audience is mainly gentile and so he focuses on a universal Jesus.

Luke also presents a genealogy for Jesus (Luke 3:23-38. This differs radically from Matthew’s. To begin with it is not immediately clear why Luke presents one at all. He says of Jesus, “He was the son, so it was thought[/U}, of Joseph”. Matthew goes to great lengths to stress the importance of the ancestry of Jesus and connecting Jesus to it via Mary, whom he embeds in the list. Luke, instead of starting the story with it like Matthew, does not mention it until the end of chapter 3. And then he essentially dismisses its importance with “so it was thought”.

So why does Luke have a genealogy? Because Matthew had one and Luke want to shift focus from a strongly Jewish Jesus to a universal one. He does this by presenting the genealogy differently from Matthew in every way he can think of, emphasizing a universal Jesus along the way.

Matthew goes forward from Abraham. Luke goes backward all the way to Adam.
Matthew includes Solomon the great king. Luke goes through a different son of David.
Matthew uses a 14 (gematria David) oriented structure. Luke has no structure.
Matthew mentions women and includes Mary. Luke omits women and Mary.
Luke even has different names in Joseph’s recent ancestry.
How does Luke emphasize a universal Jesus? Luke’s genealogy appears just after Jesus is baptized.

Luke 3
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.

God calls Jesus his Son. And how does Luke refer to Adam, the ancestor of everyone, the culmination of Luke’s genealogy?

Luke 3:38
… Adam, the son of God

Since everyone is descended from Adam, everyone is a child of God, like Jesus.

We should note that Luke does not neglect Mary. On the contrary, while Matthew’s version of the divine conception of Jesus is mostly about Joseph (Matthew 1:18-25), Luke version is all about Mary. (Luke 1:26-53) Joseph is barely mentioned at all.

Luke’s nativity story (Luke 2:1-20) is also very different from Matthew’s. No wise men, no Herod, no King of the Jews, no flight to Egypt. Instead Luke has Jesus born in very humble circumstances and the fact announced to mere shepherds. We may also note that Matthew has the family go from Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth, Luke has them go from Nazareth to Bethlehem to Nazareth. Luke does mention Herod briefly: “In the time of Herod king of Judea…”
(Luke 1:5) but he plays no role in the story.

As we saw, Matthew has Jesus do quite a few things before the Rejection at Nazareth. Luke has it happen right away. (Luke 4:14-30) Matthew has Jesus rejected because they do not want to take this carpenter’s son they all know seriously. In Luke it is because he intimates that they (Jews) will not be worthy of the messiah but non-Jews will. They go postal on him but he gets away.

An odd thing about this passage. At one point Jesus says, “And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’” (Lk 4:23) The problem is that Jesus has not yet gone to Capernaum or performed any miracles. He goes to Capernaum after being rejected at Nazareth in Lk 4:31 and performs his first miracle there. It is clear what has happened here. Luke has moved the rejection from its much later point in Matthew in order to immediately shift focus away from Jews and to gentiles. But Luke apparently missed the fact that he was creating an anachronism this way.

Luke follows Matthew fairly closely from this point until the point Matthew has the rejection. But Luke pares it down noticeably. Among other things, all of the distinctly Jewish flavor of the Sermon on the Mount is gone, as is much of the text. In fact it is not even on a Mount anymore.

Luke 6

12 One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray…
…
17 He went down with them and stood on a level place.

Luke has Jesus come down to the level of the people before addressing them. No Jewish ‘New Moses’ handing down commandments here.

Luke omits a large section of Matthew (Matthew 14:22-Matthew 16:12). Sometimes called the Great Omission, this material also appears in Mark. Luke’s omission is not really surprising. Among other things, it includes unkind comments about gentiles and some material probably incomprehensible to gentiles. (I happen to think that Luke also had problems with the repetition of prior material and some other odd things. But that is another topic.) But probably most importantly it delayed the journey to Jerusalem, Luke’s special concern.

Luke’s journey to Jerusalem begins Lk 9:51 and lasts until Lk 19:27. The 60 mile journey would probably have taken three days but the amount of material presented seems too large for that small timeframe. It is in the framework of going to Jerusalem that Luke presents most of his unique material. Among many other things, here is where we find the story of the Good Samaritan, with its emphasis on the righteousness of a non-Jew. We need not analyze this entire lengthy section, merely note that Luke emphasized Jerusalem while Matthew emphasized Galilee.

Luke’s post-resurrection story (Luke 24) shows two marked contrasts to Mathew’s. The story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus is unique to Luke and serves the purpose of redirecting the scattering disciples back to Jerusalem. And rather than being told to go to Galilee to meet Jesus, Jesus himself takes them to Bethany, near Jerusalem, where he ascends into heaven.

Rather than the Gospels being written without corroboration as has been claimed (despite all the common text!) or drawing on a hypothetical Q document, it is clear that Luke was well aware of the Gospel of Matthew and intentionally made pointed changes to it to shift the focus for a gentile audience.

To be continued…tomorrow

 

[McBell]

I know what he was "trying" to say, I was highlighting how poorly he was saying it. He said "Cannot even support your claims in the thread you allege it happened?" Now who is he referring to. He did not say "you cannot even support.." or "I cannot even support.. " or "Joe Blogs cannot even support..." just "cannot even support..." So, was he saying that he cannot support my claims or was he saying that I cannot support my claims. I am doing what he does all the time in his posts to me.

Now put them together as it could have read.

Mestemia said "I Cannot even support your claims in the thread you allege it happened I'm. Serenity7855 replied "I'm not looking for your support"

Does it make sense to you now?

and this blatant dishonesty from someone who claims the higher moral ground is one of the reasons you are not taken seriously.

 

[RitalinOhD]

The evidence that I have seen, including the acclaimed documentary "Eye witness of Christ" put it at 61AD.

Interesting, as the only person I see claiming this is Theide. And he's on record as referencing the last part of the first century, which could be anywhere from 50-99AD.

Yes, the unreliable information is the dating of 200AD. I use the KJV of the bible.

It's only unreliable because you disagree with it in order to support your position. Show how the information is unreliable, unless you wish to continue to be seen as dishonest. Something other than this supposed "Acclaimed" Eyewitness to Christ.

The Trail of the Jesus papyrus lead scholars to date the papyrus at 61AD. As far as I can see the evidence is irrefutable.

Again, no one other than Theide is supporting this position that I can see, other than apologists who just assume he's correct for the same reasons you do. If you have evidence that others are in agreement with him, then who are they? Who are these supposed scholars you are claiming? Show the work they did to study and date this item.

For every site that debunks it you will find a site that confirms it.

Prove it.

 

[RitalinOhD]

Ah, pack mentality.

Hardly. If you hadn't claimed your sensitive feelings were hurt by my supposed "insult", then he wouldn't have asked.

 

[RitalinOhD]

What I found funny is he changed his religion to Christian under his avatar when you asked

I find it more sad actually.

The funny part is he still claims Christian and Deist. Two extremely conflicting ideologies, outside of "Christian Deist", which based on his views, he is not.

 

[Serenity7855]

Part 2

Luke, who has Jesus rejected almost immediately and concentrates on Jerusalem, has the Apostles stay near Jerusalem. Jesus appears to them there for the first time then leads them to nearby Bethany and ascends into heaven from there.

Matthew’s focus was Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, concentrating heavily on his presence in Galilee. Luke’s audience is mainly gentile and so he focuses on a universal Jesus.

Luke also presents a genealogy for Jesus (Luke 3:23-38. This differs radically from Matthew’s. To begin with it is not immediately clear why Luke presents one at all. He says of Jesus, “He was the son, so it was thought[/U}, of Joseph”. Matthew goes to great lengths to stress the importance of the ancestry of Jesus and connecting Jesus to it via Mary, whom he embeds in the list. Luke, instead of starting the story with it like Matthew, does not mention it until the end of chapter 3. And then he essentially dismisses its importance with “so it was thought”.

So why does Luke have a genealogy? Because Matthew had one and Luke want to shift focus from a strongly Jewish Jesus to a universal one. He does this by presenting the genealogy differently from Matthew in every way he can think of, emphasizing a universal Jesus along the way.

Matthew goes forward from Abraham. Luke goes backward all the way to Adam.
Matthew includes Solomon the great king. Luke goes through a different son of David.
Matthew uses a 14 (gematria David) oriented structure. Luke has no structure.
Matthew mentions women and includes Mary. Luke omits women and Mary.
Luke even has different names in Joseph’s recent ancestry.
How does Luke emphasize a universal Jesus? Luke’s genealogy appears just after Jesus is baptized.



God calls Jesus his Son. And how does Luke refer to Adam, the ancestor of everyone, the culmination of Luke’s genealogy?


Since everyone is descended from Adam, everyone is a child of God, like Jesus.

We should note that Luke does not neglect Mary. On the contrary, while Matthew’s version of the divine conception of Jesus is mostly about Joseph (Matthew 1:18-25), Luke version is all about Mary. (Luke 1:26-53) Joseph is barely mentioned at all.

Luke’s nativity story (Luke 2:1-20) is also very different from Matthew’s. No wise men, no Herod, no King of the Jews, no flight to Egypt. Instead Luke has Jesus born in very humble circumstances and the fact announced to mere shepherds. We may also note that Matthew has the family go from Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth, Luke has them go from Nazareth to Bethlehem to Nazareth. Luke does mention Herod briefly: “In the time of Herod king of Judea…”
(Luke 1:5) but he plays no role in the story.

As we saw, Matthew has Jesus do quite a few things before the Rejection at Nazareth. Luke has it happen right away. (Luke 4:14-30) Matthew has Jesus rejected because they do not want to take this carpenter’s son they all know seriously. In Luke it is because he intimates that they (Jews) will not be worthy of the messiah but non-Jews will. They go postal on him but he gets away.

An odd thing about this passage. At one point Jesus says, “And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’” (Lk 4:23) The problem is that Jesus has not yet gone to Capernaum or performed any miracles. He goes to Capernaum after being rejected at Nazareth in Lk 4:31 and performs his first miracle there. It is clear what has happened here. Luke has moved the rejection from its much later point in Matthew in order to immediately shift focus away from Jews and to gentiles. But Luke apparently missed the fact that he was creating an anachronism this way.

Luke follows Matthew fairly closely from this point until the point Matthew has the rejection. But Luke pares it down noticeably. Among other things, all of the distinctly Jewish flavor of the Sermon on the Mount is gone, as is much of the text. In fact it is not even on a Mount anymore.



Luke has Jesus come down to the level of the people before addressing them. No Jewish ‘New Moses’ handing down commandments here.

Luke omits a large section of Matthew (Matthew 14:22-Matthew 16:12). Sometimes called the Great Omission, this material also appears in Mark. Luke’s omission is not really surprising. Among other things, it includes unkind comments about gentiles and some material probably incomprehensible to gentiles. (I happen to think that Luke also had problems with the repetition of prior material and some other odd things. But that is another topic.) But probably most importantly it delayed the journey to Jerusalem, Luke’s special concern.

Luke’s journey to Jerusalem begins Lk 9:51 and lasts until Lk 19:27. The 60 mile journey would probably have taken three days but the amount of material presented seems too large for that small timeframe. It is in the framework of going to Jerusalem that Luke presents most of his unique material. Among many other things, here is where we find the story of the Good Samaritan, with its emphasis on the righteousness of a non-Jew. We need not analyze this entire lengthy section, merely note that Luke emphasized Jerusalem while Matthew emphasized Galilee.

Luke’s post-resurrection story (Luke 24) shows two marked contrasts to Mathew’s. The story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus is unique to Luke and serves the purpose of redirecting the scattering disciples back to Jerusalem. And rather than being told to go to Galilee to meet Jesus, Jesus himself takes them to Bethany, near Jerusalem, where he ascends into heaven.

Rather than the Gospels being written without corroboration as has been claimed (despite all the common text!) or drawing on a hypothetical Q document, it is clear that Luke was well aware of the Gospel of Matthew and intentionally made pointed changes to it to shift the focus for a gentile audience.

To be continued…tomorrow

Well, I am totally bewildered and disconcerted. What do you want from me? What question do you want me to answer? You really need to be more specific. Once I am certain as to the details of these contradictions I can then refute them, and what I cannot refute, a quick Google will provide the refutation for me. So, please, if you intend posting anymore, can you show me the specific contradictions.

 

[Serenity7855]

Hardly. If you hadn't claimed your sensitive feelings were hurt by my supposed "insult", then he wouldn't have asked.

Oh, you are sorely mistaken. My feeling were not hurt. No, I have come to expect odious and abnoxious posts from posters such as yourself, who base their post on the person and not the topic. No, I am not hurt I just do not see why I should give my time and effort to confrontational bigots.

 

[Serenity7855]

Interesting, as the only person I see claiming this is Theide. And he's on record as referencing the last part of the first century, which could be anywhere from 50-99AD.

Try watching the documentary.

It's only unreliable because you disagree with it in order to support your position. Show how the information is unreliable, unless you wish to continue to be seen as dishonest. Something other than this supposed "Acclaimed" Eyewitness to Christ.

Visa Versa

Again, no one other than Theide is supporting this position that I can see, other than apologists who just assume he's correct for the same reasons you do. If you have evidence that others are in agreement with him, then who are they? Who are these supposed scholars you are claiming? Show the work they did to study and date this item.

Try watching the documentary.

Prove it.

I need to prove such a well known principle? Really?

 

[Serenity7855]

I find it more sad actually.

The funny part is he still claims Christian and Deist. Two extremely conflicting ideologies, outside of "Christian Deist", which based on his views, he is not.

Sad? I do not believe in a interventionary, hence the leaning towards diest in an attempt to give an accurate and honest representation. But you are trivialising and taunting me instead of discussing a topic. It is school yard revenge because I made you argument look ridiculous instead of just learning from your monumental error. Pride, ah. You seem to be well, equipped with who and what I am. Do you know me?