mazaje:

Firstly, non of the writers of the 4 gospels claim to know Jesus or have meet him any where in their writings. . .The gospels were written in 3 person narrative very long after Jesus died in Greek ,a language him and his disciples never spoke. . .They spoke Aramaic. . .Papias and later Ireanues were the first persons to ascribe authorship to the anonymous documents(gospels). . .

Morning Mazaje,

Now according to your logic...

When a writer is silent about meeting the object of his write-up then it means the writer never met the person.

Writing style determines whether the writer met the object of his write-up.

Can you provide evidence to show that Matthew and John NEVER spoke Greek?

Hope you do know that what you hold on to has very many implications as regards the history of a number of individuals, as Anony has pointed out already?

mazaje:
Not written any where except in the gospel stories which was written by gentile christians who do not even know much about the Jews and how their judiciary operate. . . .

Yet the Jewish Encyclopedia written by Jews for Jews disagrees with you

There were NO christains in AD 30 any where. . .Jesus himself we are told died some where around AD 33, the cult of Jesus followers started after Jesus died, there were NO christians any where in AD 30, so what exactly are you talking about?. . .The accounts in the gospel of Mark(which is the first gospel and which all other gospels were copied from and embellished) about Jesus's trial by the sanhendrin remains very questionable and has been disputed by many scholars, the writer of Mark, clearly a gentile does not know how the Jewish legal system functioned. . . Mark's account is questionable in that had a trial before the Sanhedrin taken place as he described, it most likely would have been illegal under Jewish law. . . According to Jeiwhs scholars like Robert Maddox, Kelhoffer, and Rabbi Wilson the trial could not have taken place at night and would have required two separate hearings. Because that how was the sanhendrin functioned at that time. . .The gospel of Mark indicates that Jesus faced the charge of blasphemy, but nothing in Mark indicates that Jesus said anything that would actually constitute blasphemy under Jewish law Scolars like Rabbi Boteach have stated that the sanhindrin did not have the powers to persecute people based on what the gospels wrote about them. . .The early christians were not violating any Jewish laws as such could not be arrested by the sanhidrin. . .As for the trail before Pilate, no followers of Jesus were believed to have been present at any such trial, so the dialogues recorded in gospel accounts (which range from the few words in Mark to a more extensive dialogue between Pilate and Jesus in John's version) are almost certainly fictitious. . . .

I meant that by 30 AD, the Sanhendrin had such powers therefore they could easily have arrested and tried Jesus Christ in 33 AD.

So what am I to do with this propaganda?. . .This is pure fiction because the sanhendrin had no power to execute anybody as you rightly pointed out yourself. . .

As I said, they had power to arrest and try Stephen and I have just shown you that Stephen was killed in an outburst of rage rather than a formal judgment. Compare Stephen's trial in Acts 6-7 to Peter and John's trial in Acts 4 and 5:25-42. Notice the difference in the process of judgment.

One more thing, the Rabbi said that Paul was not even a member of the Sanhendrin. . . "And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). But it is fairly clear that Paul wasn't actually a member. So Paul going about persecuting christians is a myth. . .He had no such powers. . .

Are you serious? No one ever said that Paul was a member of the Sanhendrin. The Sanhendrin was a council of 70 elders of which Paul wasn't at the time. The point I am arguing is that Paul was given authority by the Sanhendrin to make arrests and enforce the law. You miss the point so badly it hurts

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

There is no contradiction there.

Act 9:7 The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

Act 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. (NIV)

The Greek word akouo can be interpreted as "hearing" or "understanding"

GEJ has the power to go after BH, Paul was a no body he was not a member of the sanhendrin as such does not have the power to prosecute any body. . .It made a lot of sense for him to be a christians because he wanted to teach his own theology to the gentiles. . .He even called himself the apostle of the gentiles. . .He wanted the gentile to follow his ways. . .Christian persecution in the hands of Jews in Jerusalem as I have stated was embellished according to historians. . .

Now this is just silly. I have shown you that the Sanhendrin did indeed have the power to prosecute and punish people and I have shown you that Paul was an enforcer empowered by the Sanhendrin. You have no case.

mazaje:


The first gospel to be written is the gospel of Mark and all the other gospels were copied from it. .The original manuscript does NOT contain the great commission. . .The foot note of the NIV and other english translations said these about the ending of Mark. . .

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.

Obviously some one added it. . .

Gud mornin @mazaje, again u state things u dnt know. As far as the bible is concern all the bible scriptures were written by Jews. Matthew & John were part of the twelve, Luke was among the 70, why Mark was a relation of Peter n its believe dats it was Peter that furnished Mark's account.
@mazaje ask u again ur history did it state that Jesus came in flesh and if was killed? and I still waiting for d answer abt what u believe in. Tanx

Mr anony:
That's exactly what I said. The fact they didn't mention the miracles doesn't mean they didn't happen. Argument from silence


By the way, Luke was a historian


Red herring

If the historians didnt mention it and there is no archeological/physical evidence then how do you know that it is true?

Luke is not an accepted historian. He never intended his works to be historical. Try again

striktlymi:

Morning Mazaje,

Now according to your logic...

When a writer is silent about meeting the object of his write-up then it means the writer never met the person.

Writing style determines whether the writer met the object of his write-up.

Can you provide evidence to show that Matthew and John NEVER spoke Greek?

Hope you do know that what you hold on to has very many implications as regards the history of a number of individuals, as Anony has pointed out already?

Another tiny fact: Even the historians Mazaje talks about (Josephus in particular) have multiple writing styles showing up in their writings. Does this mean they are not authentic? No. In those days it was commonplace for people to employ scribes and copyists to write on their behalf hence it wouldn't be surprising to see little variations here and there.

Logicboy03:
If the historians didnt mention it and there is no archeological/physical evidence then how do you know that it is true?

Luke is not an accepted historian. He never intended his works to be historical. Try again

This shows your ignorance because that is exactly what Luke intended for his work to be. All you had to do was read Luke 1:1-4

Logicboy03:



What is Mr. Troll if not a troll?

SAY NO TO ANONYISM!

So you concluded that he was calling you a troll by concluding that it was you behind that moniker? Uh huh.

Damascus is a Syrian city. Why would the Hebrew Sanhedrin have the power to prosecute heretics and unbelivers of the Jewish faith in a foreign city by sending Saul? It's probably just my ignorance but can anyone shed light on this?

This is another example of you closing your ears and singing lalalala.

mazaje: What is all this epistle about that fails to address anything at all?. . .Paul clearly sort out to abolish the law of Moses and change many things like the dietary laws and laws of circumcision among other things. The main issue at hand here is who founded Christianity and if the people that founded Christianity as we know if today are following what Jesus said or made things up and created their own religion out of the Jesus character, a religion that actually involved some of the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings and theology that has nothing to do with him. Jesus and PAUL NEVER thought the same thing at least from the bible. The writings attributed to Paul are more propaganda & embellishment than reality.

This idea has already been comprehensively debunked. I put it to you that you cannot show anywhere that the messages of Paul and Christ contradict without selectively denying the bible and quote-mining scripture.

Firstly NOWHERE in the bible did Jesus ever claim that salvation was for everybody. . .. Jesus SPECIFICALLY said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel and claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted.(Mark 4). Jesus told those that followed him that they shall see him sit on the throne shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. He makes no mention of the gentiles when he was talking about judgement in his heavenly kingdom, he only referred to the 12 tribes of Israel not the gentiles. Paul who never meet Jesus came and said he is an apostle to the gentiles. . .

So the claim is that Jesus was exclusively to the Jews and not the Gentiles? Let us test that claim

1. In John 4, Jesus preaches to a Samaritan woman and a whole Samaritan village.

2. In Matthew 24:14, Jesus says "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

3. In Mark 14:9, Jesus says of the woman who anointed him with the alabaster box of precious ointment: "Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her."

How about the prophecies concerning Christ?

4. Prophet Isaiah according to Matthew
This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope."
Matthew 12:17-21 (originally from Isaiah 42:1-4)

5. Simeon the prophet when the baby Jesus was presented to him he said:
"Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel." Luke 2:29-32


My dear mazaje, you have no case!

striktlymi:

Morning Mazaje,

Now according to your logic...

When a writer is silent about meeting the object of his write-up then it means the writer never met the person.

Writing style determines whether the writer met the object of his write-up.

Can you provide evidence to show that Matthew and John NEVER spoke Greek?

Hope you do know that what you hold on to has very many implications as regards the history of a number of individuals, as Anony has pointed out already?

The gospels were NOT written by the disciples of Jesus, there were written very long after Jesus died, by Greek speaking christians in foreign lands. . . .No where in the gospels does Matthew, Mark or John claim authourship any where. . .I told you that it was the church fathers that decided to ascribe authourship to the anonymous documents(gospels). Noiw let me ask you a question. . .Take away the tittle assigned to the book of Matthew by the church fathers. How you you know that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew from reading the book?. . .Pls tell me. . .

PhenomenonVFX:

Acts 9:1-9. Here Paul sees the light and hear's the voice of Jesus and the people with him didnt see the light but they heard the voice. And he was to go into the city to be told what to do.

Acts 22:6-10. Here the people with him didnt hear the voice but they saw the light. And he was still to go into the city to be told what to do.

Acts 26:14-19. Here Paul is told by Jesus himself what to do. And actually it was so beautifully stated that I think Paul embellished a little in order to impress Agrippa.

Thanks for making me read the bible again after a long time. I was beginning to forget why I dropped it. Now I remember.
I believe in Jesus (he was truely God-sent) and his philosophy and basic teachings. Not the magical stories u guys have created to propagate ur religion.

I have answered this in my response to mazaje here.

As for Acts 26 which I didn't cover, I don't see any contradiction rather what I see is the writer of Acts employing a summary so that he focuses on the words of Christ which are more important and omits the other details of going into Damascus and meeting Ananias etc which are not quite as important and hence not necessary to repeat

mazaje:

The gospels were NOT written by the disciples of Jesus, there were written very long after Jesus died, by Greek speaking christians in foreign lands. . . .No where in the gospels does Matthew, Mark or John claim authourship any where. . .I told you that it was the church fathers that decided to ascribe authourship to the anonymous documents(gospels). Noiw let me ask you a question. . .Take away the tittle assigned to the book of Matthew by the church fathers. How you you know that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew from reading the book?. . .Pls tell me. . .

You know what is weird about you? On one hand you claim that the gospels are not authentic because nowhere did the supposed author claim ownership then on the other hand when presented with Paul's letters where he clearly claims ownership. You also claim they are not authentic and it is all a big conspiracy.

As I have been saying and will continue to say, you are simply being irrational

You have started from the default position that it is all a conspiracy by Polycarp, Iraneus and co. so no matter where the evidence points. You'll just blame it on the church fathers.

Mr anony:
Yet the Jewish Encyclopedia written by Jews for Jews disagrees with you

Disagrees with me how?. . .

I meant that by 30 AD, the Sanhendrin had such powers therefore they could easily have arrested and tried Jesus Christ in 33 AD.

You said Paul was arresting christians, that was what you said. . .Sanhendrin was sending Paul to Syria to go and arrest people in another country?. . .I showed you how Mark's rendering of Jesus arrest and trail by the sanhendrin is pure fiction. . .Let me repeat what I wrote before. . Mark, clearly a gentile does not know how the Jewish legal system functioned. . . Mark's account is questionable in that had a trial before the Sanhedrin taken place as he described, it most likely would have been illegal under Jewish law. . . According to Jeiwhs scholars like Robert Maddox, Kelhoffer, and Rabbi Wilson the trial could not have taken place at night and would have required two separate hearings. Because that how was the sanhendrin functioned at that time.

As I said, they had power to arrest and try Stephen and I have just shown you that Stephen was killed in an outburst of rage rather than a formal judgment. Compare Stephen's trial in Acts 6-7 to Peter and John's trial in Acts 4 and 5:25-42. Notice the difference in the process of judgment.

Stephen's account in the book of Acts is propaganda, those that killed him would have been arrested because they clearly violated the laws. . .

Are you serious? No one ever said that Paul was a member of the Sanhendrin. The Sanhendrin was a council of 70 elders of which Paul wasn't at the time. The point I am arguing is that Paul was given authority by the Sanhendrin to make arrests and enforce the law. You miss the point so badly it hurts

To the extent of going to another country to make arrest eh?. . .Pls tell me who was Paul?. . .The Roman Emperor?. . .

There is no contradiction there.

Act 9:7 The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

Act 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. (NIV)

The Greek word akouo can be interpreted as "hearing" or "understanding"

You quickly went to a bible translation that suits you eh?. . .

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. KJV. . .

Which of these translations is true, because they are NOT talking about the same thing. .

Now this is just silly. I have shown you that the Sanhendrin did indeed have the power to prosecute and punish people and I have shown you that Paul was an enforcer empowered by the Sanhendrin. You have no case.

And Paul's name appears on which Jewish document?. . .Who is Paul and who knows him apart from what the church fathers claim or have said about him?. . .Which Jewish document mentions him any where. . .So the Sanhendrin had the power to send Paul to Damascus to arrest people, eh?. . .Saying I have no case is not a point of argument. . .You have to show it. . .So far you haven't at all. . .

mazaje:

The gospels were NOT written by the disciples of Jesus, there were written very long after Jesus died, by Greek speaking christians in foreign lands. . . .No where in the gospels does Matthew, Mark or John claim authourship any where. . .I told you that it was the church fathers that decided to ascribe authourship to the anonymous documents(gospels).

I gave you a very simple task...provide evidence for your claims but yet you repeat what has already been said?

mazaje:
Noiw let me ask you a question. . .Take away the tittle assigned to the book of Matthew by the church fathers. How you you know that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew from reading the book?. . .Pls tell me. . .

This is very funny! How do you know that the history of Alexander the great is authentic considering that the earliest work available was written over 300 years after the death of Alexander?

I will use the exact same method you used in arriving at the authenticity of the above to determine who to ascribe the Gospels to.

For starters what does this passage tell you:

Luke 1:1-4
New International Version (NIV)


1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

@mazaje again u lie. Apst John declared clearly in John 21:20-25 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Vs 21: Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22: Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23: Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 24: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
So how come did u say John never ascribed the writings to himself or u've read this part of the bible?

@mazaje again u lie. Apst John declared clearly in John 21:20-25 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Vs 21: Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22: Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23: Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 24: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
So how come did u say John never ascribed the writings to himself or u've read this part of the bible?

@mazaje again u lie. Apst John declared clearly in John 21:20-25 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Vs 21: Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22: Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23: Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 24: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
So how come did u say John never ascribed the writings to himself or u've read this part of the bible?

Mr anony:
I hope you do realize that in most if not all of ancient history, the writings come long after the deaths of the protagonists. In fact Jesus Christ is the most attested figure in ancient history. You haven't really made any point here

Attested figure in anceint history how. . .All the stories written about him were bassed on hear say. . .Non of the gospels writers claims to know him or have ever meet him any where, they were all writing based on hear say. . .Most attested figure yet the documents that contain his story remains some of the most contradictory documents ever. . .Spare me please. . .

Lol, now you have denied a whole book because it doesn't fit into the theory you are trying to form

Show me from the book of acts where Luke said he wrote any part of it. . .

Again all you did here was arbitrarily claim that the book of Acts was fake just so you could claim Paul wasn't tortured. No points scored

The book of acts is pure propaganda. . .Example it talks about the Sanhendrin executing Stephen, some thing is is completely against the law. . .

This is just weird and quite ignorant. The gospel that Christ resurrected was proclaimed as soon after Christ did. The sad thing is that you've started of by saying that anything that will tell you that Christ resurrected is a lie. The demand you are making is like one asking for a piece of ancient historical writings that proves Socrates died by drinking poison but then I start by saying Plato, Aristotle and other Greek writers are liars. It is simply an irrational position to hold

The claim that Jesus died is ONLY a christian claim. . .The empty tomb remains ONLY a christian story. . .The empty tombs story is not to be found anywhere, just as the story of Mohammed ascending into heaven on the back of a wing beast. . .The remain religious claims and that is all. . .The story about Jesus resurrection was only in circulation among the christian community. . .

Please cite some of these people

The hadiths. . .

No actually I want to see the hadiths that talk about Mohammed doing this. Please provide them

Its called Kitab al Miraj. . .According to Islamic traditions he ascended to heaven on the back of a wing beast in Jerusalem. . .

But you haven't shown this, you have only claimed it. I'd like to see the Josephus quote and the Hadith quotes please.

By the way, I still want you to tell us which of Paul's letters you think were actually written by him and which ones weren't and why.

That is not the point the point am making here is that the Pauline letters and their authours have a different theology from that of the Jewish Jesus. . .

Obi1kenobi: Damascus is a Syrian city. Why would the Hebrew Sanhedrin have the power to prosecute heretics and unbelivers of the Jewish faith in a foreign city by sending Saul? It's probably just my ignorance but can anyone shed light on this?

Once again, can anyone educate me on why the Sanhendrin have the power to authorize the prosecution of Jews in Damascus, a Syrian city? Anyone?

striktlymi:

I gave you a very simple task...provide evidence for your claims but yet you repeat what has already been said?

I have already. . .

This is very funny! How do you know that the history of Alexander the great is authentic considering that the earliest work available was written over 300 years after the death of Alexander?

I will use the exact same method you used in arriving at the authenticity of the above to determine who to ascribe the Gospels to.

The story of Alexander the great could be all made up. . .I do not dispute that. . .Most stories in antiquity were embellised. . .That is a known fact. . .Most start through oral traditions and as we know most get embellised over time. . .Even the bible it self can be shown to contain this. . .Many stories have been embelished when you start from the earliest gospel which is Mark to the last which is John, let me give you as example. . .When Jesus was allegedly raised from the dead and the lady entered his tomb, according to Mark the earliest gospel the lady saw a man, by the next gospel Matthew, she saw two men, by the time of the last gospel of John the woman saw two angles, so clearly you can see the embelishment of the tradition even there in the bible. . .I don't care about Alexander the great. . .Even the church fathers like Eusebius acknowledge that the stories in the bible were very different from each other. . .

For starters what does this passage tell you:

Luke 1:1-4
New International Version (NIV)


1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

What is this?. . .You expect the authour to say he didn't properly investigate what he was writing down?. . .The author was writing a religious document he claims to be inspired by some god some where, so what do you expect?. . .

Obi1kenobi: Damascus is a Syrian city. Why would the Hebrew Sanhedrin have the power to prosecute heretics and unbelivers of the Jewish faith in a foreign city by sending Saul? It's probably just my ignorance but can anyone shed light on this?

That's a good question. Let us start from what we know.

1. We know the Sanhendrin had the power to arrest and imprison people
2. We know that the Nabatean King Aretas IV was friendly to the Jews
3. We have reason to believe that Jews were very influential in Damascus and other parts of Syria at the time
4. When we read Acts 9:1-2 we see who the letters Paul was bearing was addressed to

But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Now Paul was going from Jerusalem to Damascus and he was going to act by the permission of the Jewish authority of Damascus.

So yes I think it is a very plausible situation.

Mr anony:

I put it to you that based on the same criteria you have been using to judge the new testament and the life of Christ, you cannot legitimately form an opinion from the sources you have provided. The reasons are as follows:-

1. Apart from Philo and Mark, none of the others was even born at the time of Christ. They never met Him nor knew Him.
So Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus are hereby disqualified.
By the way this also applies to anything they wrote about that happened before their birth. This includes everything Tacitus wrote about Ceasar Augustus, Tiberius etc. We can't trust that Augustus Ceasar ruled Rome because Tacitus was not yet born during the the time of Augustus according to your logic.

Sure, we can trust that every thing that tacitus wrote about Ceacer Augustus is true. . We CAN'T. . .We know Ceaser Augustus ruled Rome because we have his coins, bust and other things, so you are streaching things too much here. . .We can not trust everything written about him by people that were not around him. . Same with the bible. . .We can not trust what was written in the bible about Jesus because the writers did not know him or have meet him and they wrote very long after he died. . .

2. We are left with Philo and Mark. The only writings we have of Philo apart from one short paragragraph breifly mentioning him in Josephus' Antiquities are his own writings about himself and since Philo was never a general in the Roman army or some other prominent political ruler we cannot even be sure that Philo even wrote the things we say that he wrote or that he was being honest when he wrote them.
.
By the way, I hope you know that this will also apply to philosophers like Plato and Socrates. They never were prominent and most of what we know about them were written by themselves. In the case of Socrates, he was written entirely by Plato. According to your logic, more and more Frauds are poping up in classical history.

We can NOT trust ancient history completely, most hgistorians AGREE to this. . .Ancient history can not be trusted completely because of many reasons. . .Most things were written long after the happened, oral traditions are mostly changed over time and embellished etc. . .That is a fact. . .Historians go though and try to seperate the embellishments from the real or plausible events. . .But that is not the point the point here is that major events are recorded by multiple sources and that is how historians accept their veracity. . .If the story of Jesus is true as reported in the gospels, then they extra biblical sources should corraborate them. . .That's my point. . .

3. And finally we come to Mark, though he was a contemporary of Christ, it is uncertain that Mark actually met Christ. We know about him through the book of Acts....but according to you Acts is a fairy tale so we can't even trust that there was a Mark. besides the oldest surviving version of Acts is dated at about 70 AD some 35 years after the death of Christ. By Mazaje's logic Mark is also discredited.

Sure, who is Mark?. . .I am talking about the book ascribed to Mar not Mark the individual. . .Yopur evidence to show that Mark the individual wrote the book of Mark is what?. . .Where did he claim authurship in the book?. . .

You see the problem is that you are so intent on discrediting Christ that you have discredited all of history as well. I always point out to you when you are being irrational and this is one such example.

I am more interested in the vericity of the claims of the Jesus story, so far all the story is nothing but fiction written by people based on hear say, people that do not know him or have ever meet him. . .

1. Could you tell us where in Mark 4 you got this?

2. Context?

3. And what is this meant to prove?

4. And you have just debunked yourself by admitting that the Sanhendrin did in fact arrest, try and condemn Jesus.

For the Sanhedrin I was just going by what was reported in the story not its veracity. . .

Mr anony:
You know what is weird about you? On one hand you claim that the gospels are not authentic because nowhere did the supposed author claim ownership then on the other hand when presented with Paul's letters where he clearly claims ownership. You also claim they are not authentic and it is all a big conspiracy.

As I have been saying and will continue to say, you are simply being irrational

You have started from the default position that it is all a conspiracy by Polycarp, Iraneus and co. so no matter where the evidence points. You'll just blame it on the church fathers.

Sure the gospels are not authentic because NOBODY knows who actually wrote them. . .If the early church fathers decided to ascibe the name of Peter to the gospel of Matthew, it would have been know as the gospel of Peter instead of Matthew. . .You can't trust a book if you don't even know who wrote it. . .Authouship is very impoartant. . .Even books with known authurs can not be trusted talk more of books whose authours remain unknown. . .

As for Paul's letters, they are nothing but embellished propaganda. . .By the way he did not claim authorship to all of the letters ascribed to him. .

You are not bringing any evidence any where. . .You are just trying to defend a theological position. . .

The church fathers are all biased and are not fair arbiters. . .They all had their own interest. . .Christianity as we know it today is their own handiwork. . .

mazaje:

I have already. . .

I must have missed where you gave this 'impeccable evidence'...do you mind showing us again? A link with proper guidance will do.

mazaje:
The story of Alexander the great could be all made up. . .I do not dispute that. . .Most stories in antiquity were embellised. . .That is a known fact. . .Most star through oral traditions and as we know most get embellised over time. . .Even the bible it self can be shown to contain this. . .Many stories have been embelished when you start from the earliest gospel which is mark to the last which is John, let me give you as example. . .When Jesus was allegedly raised from the dead and the lady entered his tomb, according to Mark the earliest gospel the lady saw a man, by the next gospels she saw two men, by the time of the last gospel of John the woman say two angles, so clarly you can see the embelishment of the tradition even there in the bible. . .I don't care about Alexander the great. . .Even the church fathers like Eusebius acknowledge that the stories in the bible were very different from each other. . .

From your comments above, you seem not to trust the works of experts as far as ancient 'history' is concerned....

mazaje:
What is this?. . .You expect the authour to say he didn't properly investigate what he was writing down?. . .The author was writing a religious document he claims to be inspired by some god some where, so what do you expect?. . .

So that is all you noted from that? Now let me tell you what I noticed from that part of sacred scriptures:

1) The manuscript from which those verses came has been reliably dated close to the time of Christ and his Apostles.

2) The author of the book was part of the very early Christians.

3) He was known by them and to the one whom the book was addressed to, hence there was no need for a formal introduction.

4) He had some other scripts and testimonies that can be traced back to the Apostles and the first disciples of Christ.

5) He did his own private investigations to verify which scripts and stories were true and which were pure myth.

6) The book was intended for just one individual but luckily it got to some third party.

7) The book was not written in secret.

8.) Since it was not written in secret, it follows that people, especially Christians at the time would know who authored the book.

9) Since the author is known, it is not uncommon for those who lived close to this time to know the name of the author.

...so many other things I can get from that passage alone that you fail to realize. I wonder why!


Now, another exercise if you don't mind. Read the following passage and tell me what you noticed:

John 21:22-25
New International Version (NIV)

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

noblefada:
Gud mornin @mazaje, again u state things u dnt know. As far as the bible is concern all the bible scriptures were written by Jews. Matthew & John were part of the twelve, Luke was among the 70, why Mark was a relation of Peter n its believe dats it was Peter that furnished Mark's account.
@mazaje ask u again ur history did it state that Jesus came in flesh and if was killed? and I still waiting for d answer abt what u believe in. Tanx

Morning brother. . .Not all the sciptures were witten by Jews. . .Part of the new testament were written by gentile christians. . .Am an athiest. . .

Mr anony:
This shows your ignorance because that is exactly what Luke intended for his work to be. All you had to do was read Luke 1:1-4

Lol.....


1) Luke 1;1-4 is only stating that he gathered information from eye witnesses and others who had works on the faith.

2) An excellent point was made in the wikipedia article I read on luke as a historian;

Luke as a historian

A medieval Armenian illumination, by Toros Roslin.
Most scholars understand Luke's works (Luke-Acts) in the tradition of Greek historiography.[10] The preface of The Gospel of Luke[11] drawing on historical investigation identified the work to the readers as belonging to the genre of history.[12] There is some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach.
Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." It should be noted, however, that Ramsay makes no claims about the events described by Luke.[13] Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."[14] New Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.[15]
On the purpose of Acts, New Testament Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has noted that "Luke's account is selected and shaped to suit his apologetic interests, not in defiance of but in conformity to ancient standards of historiography."[16] Such a position is shared by most commentators such as Richard Heard who sees historical deficiencies as arising from "special objects in writing and to the limitations of his sources of information."[17] However, during modern times, Luke's competence as a historian is questioned, although that depends on one's a priori view of the supernatural. A materialist would see a narrative that relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc., as problematic as a historical source. And it is understood that Luke did not intend to record history. His intention was to proclaim and to persuade. Many see this understanding as the final nail in Luke the historian's coffin.[18] Robert M. Grant has noted that although Luke saw himself within the historical tradition, his work contains a number of statistical improbabilities such as the sizable crowd addressed by Peter in Acts 4:4. He has also noted chronological difficulties whereby Luke "has Gamaliel refer to Theudas and Judas in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke (5:36-7)'[10

mazaje:

Morning brother. . .Not all the sciptures were witten by Jews. . .Part of the new testament were written by gentile christians. . .Am an athiest. . .

Pls can point out which ones that were written by nibble Jews?

Good job on that Luke research Logicboy. So much for a book written by the inspiration of God. I never trust any book written by people who have a biased interest in the subject they were discussing and then claim their book is factual history. I might as well start believing the Koran while I am at it.

PhenomenonVFX: Good job on that Luke research Logicboy. So much for a book written by the inspiration of God. I never trust any book written by people who have a biased interest in the subject they were discussing and then claim their book is factual history. I might as well start believing the Koran while I am at it.

The problem with Luke is that no body knows him any where. . .He does not tell any body who he is, he does NOT even mention his name in the book of Luke or Acts. . .the church fathers just decided to say it was Luke that wrote the books and that is all. . .

The bible is NOT a history book, but a book of theology, some of the gospels even stated that they were written so that people will believe in them. . .They are not historical accounts but very biased stories meant to bring people to accept what the religion and theolgy writers were selling. . .Luke is NOT a historian. . .The book they church fathers said he wrote is not a historical, book. . .Luke did not say he wrote any book any where. . .

striktlymi:

I must have missed where you gave this 'impeccable evidence'...do you mind showing us again? A link with proper guidance will do.



From your comments above, you seem not to trust the works of experts as far as ancient 'history' is concerned....

Ancient history is full of embelishment, I just gave you a very good example from the bible, in the first gospel that was written the woman was said to have seen a man when she entered the tomb by the time of the 4th gospels many years later the same woman was said to have seen 2 angels when she entered the same tomb. . .Even in the bible you can see embelisshment of tradition over time. . .

So that is all you noted from that? Now let me tell you what I noticed from that part of sacred scriptures:

1) The manuscript from which those verses came has been reliably dated close to the time of Christ and his Apostles.

50-60 years is not close. . .

2) The author of the book was part of the very early Christians.

OK. . .

3) He was known by them and to the one whom the book was addressed to, hence there was no need for a formal introduction.

OK, but the authour himself claims he got his information from third parties that witnessed the events, he does not claim to have known Jesus or meet him any where. . .From his introduction it was obvious he was retelling events based on hear say. . .He was not a witness to any of them himself. . .

4) He had some other scripts and testimonies that can be traced back to the Apostles and the first disciples of Christ.

OK. . .

5) He did his own private investigations to verify which scripts and stories were true and which were pure myth.

So he claims, but he didn't tell us what his sources were and how he went about diffrentiating myth from reality, he only stated it. . .carries no weight as far as am concerned. . .

6) The book was intended for just one individual but luckily it got to some third party.

OK. . .

7) The book was not written in secret.

Sure. . .The book was written in kione greek to a hellenistic audience. . .

8.) Since it was not written in secret, it follows that people, especially Christians at the time would know who authored the book.

Maybe, maybe not. . .

9) Since the author is known, it is not uncommon for those who lived close to this time to know the name of the author.

You haven't established this, you just stated it. .

...so many other things I can get from that passage alone that you fail to realize. I wonder why!

Many other things i cn also get from the passage that you also fail to see...

Now, another exercise if you don't mind. Read the following passage and tell me what you noticed:

John 21:22-25
New International Version (NIV)

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

From the part in bold you can see clearly that it is an interporlation, some one not even the author of the book of John said the part in bold, trying to give credibility to the stories that were written in the book. . .The gospel of John was written way too late to be of any value and importance. . .It brings its own theology and portrays Jesus in a different light than the other gospels. . .it embelishes almost every account reported in the other gospels. . .

mazaje:

Ancient history is full of embelishment, I just gave you a very good example from the bible, in the first gospel that was written the woman was said to have seen a man when she entered the tomb by the time of the 4th gospels many years later the same woman was said to have seen 2 angels when she entered the same tomb. . .Even in the bible you can see embelisshment of tradition over time. . .






50-60 years is not close. . .



OK. . .



OK, but the authour himself claims he got his information from third parties that witnessed the events, he does not claim to have known Jesus or meet him any where. . .From his introduction it was obvious he was retelling events based on hear say. . .He was not a witness to any of them himself. . .




OK. . .



So he claims, but he didn't tell us what his sources were and how he went about diffrentiating myth from reality, he only stated it. . .carries no weight as far as am concerned. . .



OK. . .



Sure. . .The book was written in kione greek to a hellenistic audience. . .



Maybe, maybe not. . .




You haven't established this, you just stated it. .



Many other things i cn also get from the passage that you also fail to see...




From the part in bold you can see clearly that it is an interporlation, some one not even the author of the book of John said the part in bold, trying to give credibility to the stories that were written in the book. . .The gospel of John was written way too late to be of any value and importance. . .It brings its own theology and portrays Jesus in a different light than the other gospels. . .it embelishes almost every account reported in the other gospels. . .

Never mind!!!

Well I guess this guys will stop at nothing to discredit the faith. For xtians reading this let me tell you guys something, when I started studying the scriptures long while back I wondered why the bible was written the way it was and why somethings which I thought were not necessary was even penned down! but this past few weeks I've come to understand now. People will stop at nothing in their quest to deceive others and pervert the scriptures. But thanks be to God the foundations of God standenth sure.
I heard it a long time ago, The three cardinal points to destabilize and discountenanant the Christian believes
1. Discredit the bible, say its stories are made up
2. Discredit Jesus Christ say he never died that it was all make believe
3. Finally discredit the biggest NT apostle, Paul not because he wrote most of the NT but because of the content, Paul taught more about grace and the truth that you only have to believe the gospel to be saved.
Going thru this thread I guess its no longer a myth or hearsay but now staring us in ur face.