outhouse
Atheistically
Im sorry you do not understand the current state of historicity.
There is no conspiracy theory, there is only education and knowledge, of which you seem to avoid both.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do you think the Good News of Jesus Christ is?
- Thread starter jah59
- Start date
Im sorry you do not understand the current state of historicity.
There is no conspiracy theory, there is only education and knowledge, of which you seem to avoid both.
Who's the conspirators?
Well, it seems to range from a bunch of Jews out to make a name for themselves to the Roman Catholic Church after the formation of their religion!? I suppose it depends on who's making the accusation that the Bible is not inspired! Do you subscribe to one of them?
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Do we not all see that the old saying is true?..."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". 
"Evidence" is only evidence to those who accept the source.
The thing is...we don't have to convince anyone of anything...all we have to do is put it out there and those who respond are the ones who are supposed to. There will be something in the message that stirs the hearts of some. But we will never convince others, just as they will never convince us. This is demonstrated by the response of the Jews to the preaching of Paul and Barnabas.....
"The next sabbath nearly all the city gathered together to hear the word of Jehovah. When the Jews got sight of the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began blasphemously contradicting the things being spoken by Paul. And so, talking with boldness, Paul and Bar′na·bas said: It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you. Since you are thrusting it away from you and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. In fact, Jehovah has laid commandment upon us in these words, I have appointed you as a light of nations, for you to be a salvation to the extremity of the earth.
When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers. Furthermore, the word of Jehovah went on being carried throughout the whole country. But the Jews stirred up the reputable women who worshiped [God] and the principal men of the city, and they raised up a persecution against Paul and Bar′na·bas and threw them outside their boundaries. These shook the dust off their feet against them and went to I·co′ni·um. And the disciples continued to be filled with joy and holy spirit." (Acts 13:44-52)
Contradicting and "shooting" the messenger are nothing new. The truth is not obviously truth to those who are not "rightly disposed".
People will believe whatever they wish to believe. That is what free will is for. We choose life on God's terms, or we choose death on our own.
As Paul also wrote..."For it is written: I will make the wisdom of the wise perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual I will shove aside. Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." (1 Cor 1:19-21)
What appears to be "foolish" to some, is "wisdom" to others...and to God. It's really that simple. God will not force himself on anyone. People are free to reject, ridicule and even persecute those who try to promote the Bible's message of truth.
No one comes to the son without an invitation from his Father. (John 6:44) No invitation...no entry into the kingdom.
God is all about allowing the exercise of free will. He has already told us what happens to those who abuse it....but we are still free to make our own choices, for our own reasons. :yes:
"Evidence" is only evidence to those who accept the source.
The thing is...we don't have to convince anyone of anything...all we have to do is put it out there and those who respond are the ones who are supposed to. There will be something in the message that stirs the hearts of some. But we will never convince others, just as they will never convince us. This is demonstrated by the response of the Jews to the preaching of Paul and Barnabas.....
"The next sabbath nearly all the city gathered together to hear the word of Jehovah. When the Jews got sight of the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began blasphemously contradicting the things being spoken by Paul. And so, talking with boldness, Paul and Bar′na·bas said: It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you. Since you are thrusting it away from you and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. In fact, Jehovah has laid commandment upon us in these words, I have appointed you as a light of nations, for you to be a salvation to the extremity of the earth.
When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers. Furthermore, the word of Jehovah went on being carried throughout the whole country. But the Jews stirred up the reputable women who worshiped [God] and the principal men of the city, and they raised up a persecution against Paul and Bar′na·bas and threw them outside their boundaries. These shook the dust off their feet against them and went to I·co′ni·um. And the disciples continued to be filled with joy and holy spirit." (Acts 13:44-52)
Contradicting and "shooting" the messenger are nothing new. The truth is not obviously truth to those who are not "rightly disposed".
People will believe whatever they wish to believe. That is what free will is for. We choose life on God's terms, or we choose death on our own.
As Paul also wrote..."For it is written: I will make the wisdom of the wise perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual I will shove aside. Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." (1 Cor 1:19-21)
What appears to be "foolish" to some, is "wisdom" to others...and to God. It's really that simple. God will not force himself on anyone. People are free to reject, ridicule and even persecute those who try to promote the Bible's message of truth.
No one comes to the son without an invitation from his Father. (John 6:44) No invitation...no entry into the kingdom.
God is all about allowing the exercise of free will. He has already told us what happens to those who abuse it....but we are still free to make our own choices, for our own reasons. :yes:
So these people are all in their shady buildings, twiddling their fingers, talking amongst themselves about the lies they'll spread? Or do you just throw the label "conspiracy theory" at anyone who regards the Bible as man-made?
It is my own conclusion that the Bible in its entirety is man-made, not God-written. It is not based on any conspiracy, or based on any perceived malicious intent by the authors. Instead, I regard it more or less like a "greatest of" compilation: the Tanakh of Jewish literature, and the New Testament of early Christian literature.
Last edited:
roger1440
I do stuff
You side stepped the question. How is the birth of Jesus a sign for Ahaz?
John Martin
Active Member
I see there are various archetypes: Moses is an archetype who represents the Law, the Old Covenant.
John the Baptist,represents an archetype, who announces the end of the Old Covenant and arrival of the New Covenant.
Virgin Mary is an archetype who discontinues the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob and gives birth to the God of 'I am what I am'. God with in us(Emanuel). She gives birth to the seed of New Covenant.
Jesus Christ inaugurates the New Covenant and goes beyond that and realizes that he and God were one.
John the Baptist had higher message than Moses. Mary had higher message than John the Baptist, Jesus had higher message than Mary.
The God of Moses is the God of the Jews.
The God of Jesus Christ is the God of all.
Moses inaugurated Jews as the chosen people of God.
The Unity between God and Israel is Old Covenant.
Jesus inaugurated: one God, one creation and one humanity.
The unity between God,creation and entire humanity is the New Covenant.
Last edited:
So in your mind my suggestion that perhaps you should broaden your perspective amounts to "berating you".
You may have noticed, or you probably haven't, that when you say something reasonable I don't argue with you. You say there is better documentation for the NT than many other ancient documents. Fine, I am not arguing that.
But when you said that the very existence of Julius Caesar was questionable by comparison I said that was nonsense, and you modified the statement. And I hope that you learned from that to be more careful with your words in the future. Really you should be thanking me.
Now I am going do you a similar favour and tell you that your idea about a conspiracy is absolutely insane. Your welcome.
outhouse
Atheistically
Does this look like Jews making the statement?
Or just common knowledge.
Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Matthew
Early Christian tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus,[80] but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness
There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus.[87] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The book was probably written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[6] The author used a variety of oral sources, including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative, which he rewrote (scholars debate by how much) and connected with introductions and conclusions; possibly the first connected narrative was not the gospel we know but an earlier proto-Mark, which underwent one or more revisions before the modern version was produced.[7]
The author wrote in Greek for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians, probably in Rome (Mark uses a number of Latin terms), although Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have all been offered as alternatives
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I thought that the 'Good News' of Jesus Christ was basically a marketing strategy begun back in the 70's to re-brand the Christian god.
Essentially the emphasis on the fearful, terrifying god of the OT was seen as a factor in diminishing attendances in Church and the lack of appeal god fearing had for the younger crowd. Hence making over Jesus into the friendly buddy to all 'Good News Bible' type hippy modern all lovin god.
Essentially the emphasis on the fearful, terrifying god of the OT was seen as a factor in diminishing attendances in Church and the lack of appeal god fearing had for the younger crowd. Hence making over Jesus into the friendly buddy to all 'Good News Bible' type hippy modern all lovin god.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Do we not all see that the old saying is true?..."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".
"Evidence" is only evidence to those who accept the source.
The thing is...we don't have to convince anyone of anything...all we have to do is put it out there and those who respond are the ones who are supposed to. There will be something in the message that stirs the hearts of some. But we will never convince others, just as they will never convince us. This is demonstrated by the response of the Jews to the preaching of Paul and Barnabas.....
"The next sabbath nearly all the city gathered together to hear the word of Jehovah. When the Jews got sight of the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began blasphemously contradicting the things being spoken by Paul. And so, talking with boldness, Paul and Bar′na·bas said: It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you. Since you are thrusting it away from you and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. In fact, Jehovah has laid commandment upon us in these words, I have appointed you as a light of nations, for you to be a salvation to the extremity of the earth.
When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers. Furthermore, the word of Jehovah went on being carried throughout the whole country. But the Jews stirred up the reputable women who worshiped [God] and the principal men of the city, and they raised up a persecution against Paul and Bar′na·bas and threw them outside their boundaries. These shook the dust off their feet against them and went to I·co′ni·um. And the disciples continued to be filled with joy and holy spirit." (Acts 13:44-52)
Contradicting and "shooting" the messenger are nothing new. The truth is not obviously truth to those who are not "rightly disposed".
People will believe whatever they wish to believe. That is what free will is for. We choose life on God's terms, or we choose death on our own.
As Paul also wrote..."For it is written: I will make the wisdom of the wise perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual I will shove aside. Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." (1 Cor 1:19-21)
What appears to be "foolish" to some, is "wisdom" to others...and to God. It's really that simple. God will not force himself on anyone. People are free to reject, ridicule and even persecute those who try to promote the Bible's message of truth.
No one comes to the son without an invitation from his Father. (John 6:44) No invitation...no entry into the kingdom.
God is all about allowing the exercise of free will. He has already told us what happens to those who abuse it....but we are still free to make our own choices, for our own reasons. :yes:
Then allow all to accept an even easier maxim...
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil 1:27 ; 2 th 2:13 )"
source:Easton's Bible Dictionary
I agree that (religious) "faith" should never be conflated nor accused with any semblance of verifiable or experimental established fact. They are no where near the same thing, though many "believers" wish to muddy the waters that the two are the same thing.
They are not.
"Faith" and/or "belief" (in a religious context) are essentially interchangeable when making claims of existential "truth", versus providing scientifically derived experiments, evidences, and conclusions as (best available) "fact".
The "good news" as offered in Christian biblical texts is...if you "believe" that Jesus (the) Christ is your only Lord and Savior, and you "submit" to His Holy will, then you will live on for eternity. I am open to correction on this
"Faith" or "Belief" will tell you that this claim is "true".
People that retain a human and evolved element of skepticism and doubt, may not find "belief" or "faith" just doesn't fit the bill.
Really? Read it again. Did you even read my response? The prophecy is made to the "house of David" (verse 13) -- not Ahaz, who refused it to ask for a sign!
It takes all kinds of thought. You're entitled to your opinion as well. Thank you for leading me to bring out that point though.
fantôme profane;3892105 said:So in your mind my suggestion that perhaps you should broaden your perspective amounts to "berating you".
You may have noticed, or you probably haven't, that when you say something reasonable I don't argue with you. You say there is better documentation for the NT than many other ancient documents. Fine, I am not arguing that.
But when you said that the very existence of Julius Caesar was questionable by comparison I said that was nonsense, and you modified the statement. And I hope that you learned from that to be more careful with your words in the future. Really you should be thanking me.
Now I am going do you a similar favour and tell you that your idea about a conspiracy is absolutely insane. Your welcome.
No, my statement was "the historical record of manuscript evidence backing up the New Testament makes the very existence of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great questionable by comparison". This is a true statement. The weight of the historical record, which comes from ancient manuscripts by the way, documenting the accounts of the New Testament is immensely greater than any ancient manuscripts documenting the existence of Julius Caesar. I was merely saying I should have qualified it more, although I'm not sure how now, for those who have trouble understanding plain English.
Which point? All kinds of thought?
If that's your point, then you would not outright dismiss sources that contradict yours as "conspiracy theories", but rather take the time to analyze them as the serious scholarship that the vast bulk of it is. Scholars and historians are known to disagree on many things.
First of all, understanding so-called "plain English", on top of being a difficult task even for native speakers due to the fact that English sucks as a language, is not the problem. Word choice and usage is generally more important, and if you aren't careful with the words you use, you will be misunderstood even by people who speak the language better than you do.
Anyway, there's far more documented evidence of Julius Caesar, in addition to all the archaeological evidence of his existence, than there is of Jesus Christ, of whom all there is is early Christian literature like the Gospels. From what I understand, there are no non-Christian sources that mention Jesus; whereas there's plenty of non-Roman sources that mention Julius Caesar.
The weight of historical record is not just from manuscripts. That's a gross oversimplification of how historicity is established. Plenty of other things can be used.
outhouse
Atheistically
Exactly.
His life was recorded by many eye witnesses.
jesus not a single one.
We know exactly what Julius looked like.
Jesus we dont have a clue.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sadly that is a very common lie found in Christian apologetics. There is a far greater body of historical evidence for many other ancient figures than there is for the NT. For Julius Ceaser for example there are coins, statues, hundreds of legal documents, public records, images etc etc etc - enough to outweigh the evidence for the historicity of Jesus a hundred times over.
Which leads to the second very common lie found in Christian apologetics, that the historicity of Jesus has somehow been established to the point of near certainty - which is simply not the case.
When I last looked, the general consensus was that there was very likely an individual, or perhaps a group of individuals, who could be seen as the historical basis for the figure of Jesus Christ.
The same is pretty much said about King Arthur. At least with the Once And Future King, there's a few actual names we can point to as potential candidates, and a single historical event that's intimately tied to the King (the Battle of Baden Hill).
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Exactly my point and thankyou.
A general consensus that there was likely to have been an individual or group of individuals who could be seen as the historical basis of Jesus.
Is of course a radically different notion than that the historicity of Jesus has been evidentially confirmed, and that all serious scholars know this.
I love the reference to Arthur, that was beautifully pertinent given that he is another of the historical messiah myths.