I don't understand your point about sacrificing himsef meaning he does not lead a sinless life...help me out with that. does sacrifciing your life for another count as sin in your view? who else resurrected the dead? muhammad? moses? better yet, who else RESURRECTED THEMSELVES? you have really bought into the "textual error" thing. i invite you to read the earliest Christian creeds...very early 1st century stuff...that makes the same basic assertions about the nature of Christ that mainstream Christianity makes today. again....i personally find more reliability in the testimony of so many eyewitnesses over the "well...when no one else was around...God told me that what you all claim was true 300 years ago isn't really true." refute the evidence for the cross...for the resurrection. but making conclusory statements with no evidence is not the same as what the new testament seeks to do, at all.
Please provide a link. I am aware of the Nicean creeds (325 CE), but that is not what you are referring to, right?
ii've cited them to you before....it's in the diad-something....and they're recited in some of paul's letters as well, where they're taken out as text. i think it's done once in a letter to the corinth...and maybe colossians?
Are you kidding? "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother." —Galatians 1:18-19 That's a strong argument?
No, I am not. Throwing Bible verses at me will likely not change my mind. I do not believe it is a strong argument, just that it is as strong as the Biblical resurrection stories. Remember an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary proof, which is not evident in the Bible's JC resurrection stories. In the end, this reduces these stories to believe statements. All religions are built on believe statements; thus, this is not such a Bad Thing (tm).
No Worries, I gave you the verses from Galatians because Paul wrote Galatians. You accept that Paul was a real person, right? Do you accept that Paul wrote Galatians? Do you accept Galatians as evidence that Jesus Christ was a real person? Do you accept Galatians as evidence that there really was a disciple of Jesus named Peter? What evidence is there to support that argument?
The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence by Simon Greenleaf S.17 Peter's agency in the narrative of Mark is ... confirmed by the fact that his humility is conspicuous in every part of it, where anything is or might be related of him; his weaknesses and fall being fully exposed, while things which might redound to his honor, are either omitted or but slightly mentioned; that scarcely any transaction of Jesus is related, at which Peter was not present, and that all are related with the circumstantial minuteness which belongs to the testimony of an eye-witness. We may therefore regard the Gospel of Mark as an original composition, written at the dictation of Peter, and consequently as another original narrative of the life, miracles, and doctrines of our Lord.
Okay, in seeing that this thread is still somehow going on, it is painfully clear that we have 2 people who want to keep getting the last word in, no matter what. Face it, KateBeckinsale7, you are not going to convince No Worries of your viewpoint. Give it up, please or I am going to think that you are like the people behind this comic strip:
Because from what I have observed from this thread, No Worries is simply being reactive to KB7. Believe me, TraJ, there is nobody here that I disagree with on their views on everything like I do with NW, but I fail to see how quoting scripture (and long passages at that that takes up a good 15 minutes to really read and digest) is going to change his mind. I know that you are a preacher or minister because I remember reading you talking about it. Yet, I never see you post in the fashion that is being done in this thread. Rhetorical question here - but why is that the case? Why do you not quote scripture like KB7 is doing? Maybe you feel, like I do, that non-believers are more likely to give our religion a chance by observing our actions instead of having stuff forced down our throats. Anyway, I probably should have not said anything but this annoys me so much. And seeing that other thread in the hangout reminded me, right away, of this thread.
I accept that Paul existed and wrote the a letter to the Galations which later made its way into the New Testament cannon. The NT cannon was established in the second half of the second century (probably closer to 200 CE than 150 CE). What I do not know is how many writers had their way with Galations before it entered the cannon and between then and our earliest extant versions thereof. Carnalizing JC is certainly a possibility. The first NT cannon was established by the Marcionites. The heretical Marcionists did not believe in an earthly JC. The Marcionite cannon included the Pauline epistles. To accept the Pauline letters, the Marcionites must have believed that these letters did not establish in them an earthly JC. Secular and some biblical scholars have noticed that the Pauline letters as they exist now contains barely a mention of an earthly JC. For a more detailed discussion wrt this go here: The Jesus Puzzle. The conclusion of this analysis is that the Gospels (and their associated traditions) developed after Paul wrote his letters. Biblical scholars dispute the above claim have come up with 17 references to an earthly JC. See The Non - Silence of Paul. Given that we do not know the textual history of the Pauline letters, we can not say definitely one way or the other whether the above 17 references were later redactions or not. A strong argument can be made that the Pauline letters should have included more Gospel material.
The careful reader would notice that KB7 ask questions and I answer them. And my questions to KB7 generally get responded to with more questions for me to answer. Go figure.
This is just completely inaccurate. Some excavation work was done a few years ago, although over a short period of time (April 22nd May 6th, 1997). They found some pottery dating "from the 2nd cent. BCE to the 4th cent. CE (as well as more recent material from the 11th to the 12 cent. CE and the modern period). (See http://www.csec.ac.uk/farm.htm and http://www.csec.ac.uk/nazareth.html). It's been suggested that Nazareth was an extremely small village (with as few as 35 people or so). No wonder Josephus doesn't mention it by name. I have, however, run across a quote in which Josephus described Sepphoris (a city that was about three miles from Nazareth) as "situated in the heart of Galilee, surrounded by numerous villages." He left them unnamed. But there is little doubt among up-to-date scholarship that one of these villages was Nazareth. "Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources ... Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." (Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42) "Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1, p.300-301) It is not surprising that knowledge of the Nazareth of the early first-century has almost been lost. There wasn't much there to begin with. On top of that (no pun intended -- at least not at first), many structures were built in the following years that I suspect make thorough excavation difficult at best. They may be able to dig around the hospital, but I doubt they'll ever get permission to dig through it. In the future, could you give references? I'd like to know where you're getting these things.
I understand what you mean. But it's obvious that No Worries wants the last word just as much as anyone else. Sure, he may be willing to quit -- as long as his response is the last response. The reason I don't quote the Scriptures as much is because No Worries and I don't have that as common ground. If someone doesn't accept them, why use them? If I were discussing something with someone who had the same view of the Scriptures that I do, and we were discussing a biblical point, then I would quote more. I just try to start where I perceive the other person in the discussion is.
No Worries -- the Nazareth thing. I pointed out to you that excavations have been done there. there are mentions of nazareth in contemporaneous historical documents. i've shared that stuff with you before.
KB7 keeps asking questions!!! As long as KB7 keeps asking questions, I will keep providing my epiphanic answers
and i've read accounts of actual arachaelogists who have excavated the site. so...i don't know what to do with this, no worries. other than to say you might want to check another source than jesusneverexisted.com.
Sources are actually a big part of the problem of looking into the history of Jesus. Neither the pro-bible or the anti-bible folks can be trusted to not oversell their argument. Matthew says Jesus grew up in the CITY of Nazareth. Even the pro-bible folks now admit that at best Nazareth was "an extremely small village". What do we make of this discepancy? If we take the middle road between an extremely small village and none at all, we get a small community of farmers. Could Joseph a carpenter make a living in such a community? Could the Nazareth stories in the NT take place in such a community? I know I have beat the Gospel of Mark like a drum but ... Mark, the first written Gospel, does not have much to say about Jesus's life before his mission started. Could we allow that maybe JC's followers did not know much about his life before then? Is JC's life before his mission started important to the message JC preached?
