Robert M. Price - Pagan Parallels to Christ - Part 1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Atheist Talk cable program by Minnesota Atheists.
"Robert M. Price - Pagan Parallels to Christ - Part 1" recorded 3/31/2007
Robert M. Price gives a lecture on pagan parallels to Christ at a Minnesota Atheist Meeting.
Minnesota Atheists practices positive, inclusive, active, friendly neighborhood atheism in order to:
- Provide a community for atheists
- Educate the public about atheism
- Promote separation of state and church
www.mnatheists....
Minnesota Atheists
Master's thesis on historical Jesus. Interesting.. I spent many hours looking that stuff up as well.. there was roughly 70 historians living in and and Jerusalem during the supposed time line of Jesus.. not one wrote about Jesus Christ? Most the Apostles didn't know how to write? And what was written was word of mouth for 60-150 years at average? By unknown authors? Year 1 wasn't in effect for over 400 years? Political reasons made Christianity happen, it evolved from the people's superstitions
Finally, someone besides me sees Christianity for what it really is - a political party pretending to be a religion.
looks like you are in a bathroom
Eternal Cycles No, it's the holding cell in the Richard Burton as O'Brian interrogator of the film 1984.
I Could listen To Prices voice for hours. ‘ Love it!
It's amazing the extent that religious people go to in order to rationalize their faith.
They'll even murder people to rationalize it.
Not all accounts in the NT are original.
Mythology is fun when you dont care that it is fiction.
Until it takes offence at you having fun and decides you should be punished with death.
That could be the most impressive speech ever given in what appears to be a mens changing room. Robert M price rocks.
Damn!! Santa fights back!!
*****
oh for heaven's sake.. really? seriously... really?? Ok, please accept my humble apology for the damage incurred by your retinas from the reading my comment. Rest assured that your eyes will heal in time, however, the anal retentia will be much more problematic for you long term. :-)
***** What's wrong with looking like Santa? Anyone might put on a few extra pounds, when tempted with so much cookies and milk.
hahaha u cracked me up XD
The raising of the daughter of Apollonius of Tyre is actually a classic description of a child suffering from diving reflex - or as lifeboatmen say "they're not dead until they're warm and dead" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_reflex
I am struck by how much the description of her revival sounds like a very real-world recounting of a practical medical procedure, seen through the eyes of that time. Good for that Healer! I hope he's being well cared for now...
"Apollonius couldn't have been a source for the life of Jesus" Why not? If Apollonius was first century, then he could easily have had a significant impact. The gospels did not exist until at least 70 CE. so Apollonius may well have been more relevant than Jesus by that time.
I don't know where this is, but 40 years ago, many universities embraced the bathroom tile motif. I live with it daily.
Minnesota Athiests see ... There are some Americans with Brains. Power to you Guys .
ancient adventure novel: SUDDENLY, PIRATES!
21st century space opera: SUDDENLY, PIRATES!
Pirates have nothing better to do than introduce themselves into plots at the vital moment.
@Pinche: The books "The Search For The Twelve Apostles" by William Steuart McBirnie and "The Twelve: The Lives Of The Apostles After Calvary" by C. Bernard Ruffin deal with the apostles.
A great talk. One of the best series of video's I've seen on this subject is TruthSurge's "Beyond a reasonable doubt- excavating the empty tomb", well worth a watch on TH-cam
The supposed savior of souls of Christians, was just the most recent savior-myth story. Example as follows, from the book, and please note how Chrishna was spelled, before the Christians came up with the word Christ, and how the Hindus then changed the spelling of their supposed savior to "Krishna."
The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors … Christianity before Christ, by Kersey Graves … first published in 1875.
and finally these twenty Jesus Christs (accepting their character for the name) laid the foundation for the salvation of the world, and ascended back to heaven.
1. Chrishna of Hindostan.
2. Budha Sakia of India.
3. Salivahana of Bermuda
4. Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.
5. Odin of the Scandinavians.
6. Crite of Chaldea.
7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.
8. Baal and Taut, “the only Begotten of God,” of Phenicia.
9. Indra of Thibet.
10. Bali of Afghanistan.
11. Jao of Nepaul.
12. Wittoa of the Bilingonese.
13. Thammuz of Syria.
14. Atys of Phrygia.
15. Xamolxis of Thrace.
16. Zoar of the Bonzes.
17. Adad of Assyria.
18. Deva Tat,aud Sammonocadam of Siam.
19. Alcides of Thebes.
20. Mikado of the Sintoos.
21. Beddru of Japan.
22. Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.
23. Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls.
24. Cadmus of Greece.
25. Hil and Feta of the Mandaites.
26. Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.
27. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls.
28. Ischy of the Island of Formosa.
29. Divine teacher of Plato.
30. Holy One of xaca.
31. Fohi and Tien of China.
32. Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece.
33. Ision and Quirinus of Rome.
34. Prometheus of Caucasus.
35. Mohammud, or Mahomet, of Arabia.
These have all received divine honors, have nearly all been worshiped as Gods, or sons of Gods; were mostly incarnated as Christs, Saviors, Messiahs, or Mediators; not a few of them were reputedly born of virgins; some of them filling a character almost identical with that ascribed by the Christian’s bible to Jesus Christ; many of them like him, are reported crucified; and all of them, taken together, furnish a prototype and parallel for nearly every important incident and wonder-inciting miracle, doctrine and precept recorded in the New Testament, of the Christian’s Savior. Surely, with so many Saviors the world cannot, or should not, be lost.
@keishahawkins Do you understand the term 'peer review' at all? Particularly in the case of Richard Carrier, his books have been published by a university, which means the level of scrutiny they have been subjected to prior to publication, scrutiny by his academic peers mind you, not by some brainwashed fanatic who believes in fairytales, is intense and beyond academic reproach. It means that not only his factual evidence but his methodology has been vigorously examined and found to be sound. That is what the words mean. I don't need to know much more than that to give them some serious thought. And when several academics of a similar standard start saying the same things then I believe it can't be ignored. And the thing about truth that you guys don't seem to get... It doesn't stop being ťrue just because you don't believe it.
She's not going to listen. She'd rather hand her power over to the purveyors of mythology.
3 years and counting @keishahawkins .....
@@ghostriders_1 6y now
@170221dn: As I stated the Bible states that there is one God. What does it say? Deut. 6:4: "Hear , O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD". According to Jesus, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all have one name. He said this in Matthew 28:19. In John 5:43 He says He came in His Father's name. In John 14:26, the Holy Spirit has the same name. So all three share the same name. Even in the NT, it is constantly affirmed that there is only one God. So it is wrong to assume that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is referring to three gods, because that's not biblical. There is only one. As the apostle John said in Revelation 4:2, he saw only one on the throne.
Evidence for the existence is all we ask. Quoting the bible does not prove a god exists. And you can't use the bible to prove the bible.
Agreed. TrthSurge just uploaded a new episode in the series. Excellent.
@Agimaso Schandir: My point in the earlier post is that only scriptures that Jesus and the Jews quote from that they claim came from from Moses were actually written by Moses. So the other scriptures that you quote are irrelevant. The books "Reinventing Jesus" by Daniel Wallace, "Hijacking the Historical Jesus" by Phil Fernandes and "Finding the Historical Christ" by Paul Barnett answer the question of whether Jesus existed. The book "Evidence for the Historical Jesus" by Josh McDowell gives evidence for Jesus as well as Moses. And tradition in and of itself does not invalidate Moses' authorship. Even Jesus, who claimed to be God, attributed the Torah to Moses. Since all Scripture is inspired by God, Jesus should know more than anyone whether or not Moses wrote that portion of the Bible.
Yelling "Genetic fallacy!" at people when you're discussing such a vague topic as ancient history is also pretty laughable. When the evidence is sparse you need to be able to generalize to get any kind of understanding of what's going on. While this may not be strictly logically valid this doesn't really matter, because logical arguments won't help you prove anything either. You're trying to establish models that explain the evidence, not do math.
@antihero gnome: I never claimed that he was in academia; that was your assumption. He is someone who did the research on his own, as did others, and refutes any idea of borrowing. Actually, Devaki was not a virgin; she had seven kids prior to Krishna. Jesus' mother, Mary, was of royal lineage, but not a princess as Devaki was. The house of David was not even in power when Jesus was born, so He had humble beginnings. According to the myth, Devaki was locked in prison and her first six kids were killed by Kansa, her uncle. There was no traveling to pay a yearly tax. Krishna also had foster parents that saved him from Kansa while Jesus was raised by His birth mother and her husband. The movie "Zeitgeist Refuted: Final Cut" refuted the whole notion that Jesus' birth and Krishna's are the same. Again, his uncle Kansa, only killed the first six kids of Devaki, so there was no slaughtering of thousands of infants, since the prophecy only mentioned the eighth child of Devaki would kill Kansa. Also, some scholars have even rejected that thousands of kids were even killed in Bethlehem, since Bethlehem was small. And that quote from Sir William Jones is wrong, because in the actual Hindu texts, none of that is mentioned. In Daniel Wallace's book, he explains the infancy gospels as second century documents, and that the early church rejected them, for obvious reasons. Jesus went into Egypt according to Hosea 11:1. Even though Krishna raised the dead and healed, these can be seen in the OT prophets Elijah and Elisha, who both raised the dead and healed people. A lot of religious figures taught similar things, but there are some things that Jesus did not teach that Krishna didAlso, Krishna had many wives; Jesus stressed marriage to only one, and had none Himself. Zeitgeist has been refuted many times, and as I have said other people have already refuted the idea of Krishna dying on a cross for sins and rising from the dead. The principal texts say he died after being struck by an arrow. The Hindu trinity is Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, not Krishna. Also, Jesus never claimed to be the second person to the trinity. He claimed belief in one God in Mark 12:29-31 which comes from Deut. 6:4. Also, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one name, according to Jesus, and that would be the name Jesus. Jesus' crucifixion was prophesied in Deut. 21:22-23, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and Zech. 12:10. It replaced the Levitical priesthood sacrifices that the high priest did yearly on the day of atonement. Instead of a priest slaughtering an animal for atonement, Jesus' blood was shed once for all. Also, God in Gen. 3:21 did the first animal sacrifice, and also prophesied of His crucifixion in Gen. 3:15. As Jesus said repeatedly, He came to fulfill the Hebrew Scriptures. Also, as I keep asking, if Krishna is the "savior" of humankind, then why aren't Hindus preaching it? If Krishna had eyewitnesses to His resurrection and ascension, why weren't they motivated to go and preach Krishna to the nations, as Jesus' disciples was? Because in Hinduism, it is tolerant of all other religions. Therefore, Krishna is not the savior of humanity, since all paths lead to the same god. No matter what religion you follow, it's all the same thing, and this is not what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that He was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man could come to the Father but by Him. His apostles taught that salvation is only found in the name of Jesus. His apostles were not content to just keep Jesus as Savior to themselves; they preached Him among the non-Jews, Jesus commanded. Why don't people know Krishna as their savior? Because Jesus is the true savior, and the only one who died for our sins. It is at the name of Jesus, not Krishna, that all knees will bow and confess Him as Lord.
Uh, yes, actually you DID claim he was in academia. This is the problem with you people - you can't remember from one minute to the next which lie you told.
@Vanessa McClean: Actually, I was referring to the scholars who are trying to make Christians lose their faith. And if people didn't care about what it is that we believe, they wouldn't attack it so much. They would allow us the freedom to practice what we believe, and not try to stop us from doing it. And by the way, you do care what I believe, because you responded to me, informing me about Hector Avalos and his videos. Plus, we are not forcing what we believe onto other people; others are doing that to us. Why do you think atheism and other religions are allowed to flourish here? We are not against freedom of religion, or the lack thereof. However, people are against us practicing our religion, and this is why people of faith feel that they are being pressured to choose between their faith and the law. Never mind that we are supposed to be tolerant, but I guess being tolerant only works one way. And yet again, insulting someone's faith does not make you look good. You don't have to abide by the laws; break them. And plus, you can't speak for everyone listening to me. I am on here because I am required by God, as I have previously explained to another person on here, in 2 Peter 3:15 to give a defense of the faith. I know that not everyone is going to listen; that's not my problem, nor my main concern. As God told the prophet Ezekiel 2:7 that his job was to speak the words of God, regardless of whether his people heard him or not. So it is with us. Jesus requires us to share the gospel. That's our job. It is not our job to convert anyone; only God can turn someone's heart. Bo Jinn says in the book "Illogical Atheism" that no amount of evidence is going to make anyone believe in the Bible, and that is true, especially when they have their minds made up. Paul talks about people being hard hearted in Eph. 4:18, and people are definitely that today.
When you Christians are killing people because we don't believe your lies, that kinda shoots your argument in the head, doesn't it.
Do you think 'pagan myths' were limited to Osiris and Mithras? Where do you think the concept of hell originated? The concept of a god/man was painfully Greek (and Egyptian)... so do you consider these pre-Israel cultures pagan or not?
Older viewers will remember the days when the only video recording devices were potatoes.
Thanks for the post. I knew of some of these, but not all. Didn't know there was that many. Do you know how many were literally within Jesus' supposed life span?
None of the accounts can be dated to Jesus' alleged lifetime. The earliest was written at least 80 years after the alleged Crucifixion would've happened.
The reason you can't dismiss Price like that is that we already know that religions develop in ways that include random borrowing of ideas. You also have to understand that he doesn't start from the pagan parallels and then concludes that Jesus was a myth because he's similar. Rather, we start from the Jesus story being improbable due to obviously legendary content, contradictions, lots of different views of Jesus etc
There is something that bother me about the "Jesus may have been some random guy" hypothesis. At what point do you take so many of the attributes away from the religious Jesus character that saying he existed, but as some little known itinerant preacher, becomes meaningless?
Every culture in the ancient Middle East had its own savior-based mystery cult. Christianity is just a mystery cult that got official backing.
Yes, it’s like saying I don’t believe in Superman, but I do believe in Clark Kent.
Religion and ignorance, it's a match made in heaven.
Christ is basically the Dioscuri, from the Ordinance of Melchi-Zedek as the bible self it puts in place. Archangel and Highpriest. Dark and Light. Good and Evil. This dualism (from Zoroastrism) is all over the O.T. and N.T. as well. The dioscuri known in Greek mythology (Gemini) and in Mithraism. Also the origin of the trinity.
TH-cam, could you do something about this Keisha Hawkins? She is the spammer to end all spammers!
lol! spammer to end all spammers.too funny Jennifer.. by thier many words they feel they will be heard. au contraire. but they are like petty mosquitos at times i do agree.
jesus is pagan surly thats well understood uts even right there in the bible this is not news to me or other celts
I agree with eternal , looks like a bathroom! Maybe curtains or something would help.
@Steve Hooper: I find it hilarious that atheists love to try to insult those who have a difference of opinion. You for some reason cannot stand the fact that there are scientists willing to admit that evolution is not what everyone says it is. I am always told by atheists to think for myself, but when I do and use my mind to question evolution, somehow it's wrong. Either I have the right to think for myself or I don't. Don't tell me to think for myself, but only when it applies to creation. I should be able to question what I want, and that includes evolution. I have the right to check out why it is that scientists are not only questioning it, but leaving the belief in evolution, as Dr. Gary Parker did.
Keisha Hawkins lol, what scientists? Cite some of these scientists and let’s see how many are secular and how many are nothing but apologists.
Volume of posts and repetition the the name Dr. Gary Parker doesn’t make a convincing argument, just a tiresome one.
How is evolution relevant. Why not bring up quatum mechanics.
it's Story that made people feel better about life because life is hard
"And what was written was word of mouth for 60-150 years at average?"
Isn't that a bit on the "late" side?
Setting the crucifixion at 33 AD we get a temporal distance to:
Mark ca. 37-45 years (ca. early 70s AD)
Luke/Matthew ca. 50-60 years (ca. 80s AD)
John ca. 60-90 years (ca. 90s-110s AD)
Or you're perhaps going for much later composition dates?
Not that it really matters as we don't necessarily even credit eye witness (such as "alien abductees") when they make fantastic but unsupported claims
@Agimaso Schandir: The fact is, according to books such as "The New Answers Book 4" by Ken Ham and "Tower of Babel" by Bodie Hodge prove other accounts from a round the world of the story of the Tower of Babel. The reason why He scattered them in the first place is because they were rebelling against His command to replenish the earth by wanting to stay in that one place.
What are you, Ken Ham's girlfriend or something? Does Mrs. Ham know about you two?
I my POV is much more interesting to point out the parallels of the gospels with the helenistic literature and pagan cultures that we have more certainty that were already at place between 90-180CE. I think it is much more convincing because it would use the same skeptical parameters we ask believers to use in the first place.
@jeffphansen77 indeed. i think religion would've died out long ago if not for the concept of hell.
...although having looked at that guy's channel, there's a load of atheist videos in his favourites so i guess he was kidding.
There could be all kinds of reasons, including job security, but given that Ehrman wrote an entire book about why he thinks Jesus existed I suppose you could read that. I don't think he argues convincingly there though and he seems to not have a consistent standard of evidence.
@Garret AJ: Answers in Genesis has a book called "The New Answers Book 1" in which they answer how animals spread throughout he earth after the flood. Also, Dr. Carl Werner write a book called "Living Fossils" where he shows that modern day plants and animals were living at the same time as dinosaurs, because they were found at dinosaur dig sites alongside them, as was admitted by the scientists he spoke with.
Keisha Hawkins What do you mean modern day plants were discovered next to dinosaurs? You mean the plants ancestors or several layers above?
Carl Werner, the creationist??? Really?
OK, well, OK then. Just, OMG, Carl Werner! Wow! How to argue against such an authority. Wow :p
What scientists, where they some kind of paleontologists? Were they misquoted?
Living fossils: You mean like present day humans?
Keisha Hawkins This type of evidence would warrant a Nobel prize. If it were true.
So my guess is you're making assumptions that the scientific community is just guessing and making blind assertions. They are doing science (which is a method) do decipher what's true. Bringing a hypothesis to a theory is a process that is rigorous and requires mountains of evidence.
Scientists don't get a free pass. They have to work very hard to prove what they say. Carl Werner is no exception.
+keisha Hawkins I guess it depepnds where your base arguments come from. If they are naturally theist in nature and then you seek to disprove your position, you are actually already basing your search for knowledge on a confirmation bias. If you believe that a mass of evidence, albeit assumptive in nature, will have a combined effect on your overall conclusion, this in itself is an "argument ad populum" line of reasoning. The tricky point when comparing science and theism is that if a theist is proved wrong, they are no longer a theist, if the scientist is proved wrong they are still a scientist. having an open mind but maintaining a stance that needs to be invalidated is not open mindness. Its like If i say "I believe in aliens, but i am open to changing my view if you can prove me wrong.......". See what i have done here: I have made my belief first and then applied logic to its disproval....Rather than applying logic to generate my belief. Some inferences cannot be proved wrong scientifically, they can only be debated with ontological and existential reasoning. This of course is not enough to the theist because it does not signify "substantial evidence" againt the position. Herein the fallacy lies as the theist does not use this same rational and critical approach to their initial belief and why they believe it. This discrepancy is none other than self-confirmation bias. Open mindness is a state with no preconceived notions being open to the full breadth of new information........Its hard for me to see this in your reasoning. Modern theologions do not base their arguments on the bible, they admit that it is self contradictory and inaccurate, even william lane craig says that his belief is not based on biblical text but rather historical evidence of jesus and philosophical/ontological arguments for the existence of God. The bible is merely a reference, which is exactly why this is the same as me believing in aliens because I have studied mayan artifacts very closely. THe very act of me underpinning my belief with something ambiguous and highly debated, is me thinking i have seen something that the hundreds of thousand of other theists or philosophers have not. THis is such a close minded line of reasoning, cant you see ? If you have something to say, using this approach is just hindering the truth, if any, that you are trying to espouse. If your quest is to spread truth you should do it in a more philosophical way because all the arguments you have made on this page would be laughed at by modern christian apologetics as well as theism/deism. Now the true test is if you can understand why they would laugh. If you cant then your just not open minded and are being blinded by your own experience and possibly fallacious methodology of gathering information and understanding its ontological underpinnings.
Agreed. That will raise much more convincing arguments, indeed.
The Jesus story is filled with mythical elements also found in much older pagan myths, including the pagan mystery religions. The early church fathers could not deny this, as it was obvious to many at the time, and came up with the desperate claim that the devil plagiarized the Jesus story in advance in these pagan myths. The gospel writers also used Old Testament stories to create the Jesus myth - many sources were used.
I think it's a washroom -- he's flushing Christianity down the drain.
:-)
Don't we normally flush shit?
The Mother archetype, which symbolizes the unconscious psyche, gives birth to the Self, which is symbolized by Jesus, Apollonius, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, and many others. If one does not understand depth psychology and the archetypes of the unconscious, it is impossible to understand the origins of these myths and writings, which after all, originated from the archetypes in the collective unconscious. The Hero has a thousand faces.
JESUS is ENGLISH for the LATIN JESU which comes from the Greek word IESOUS, the shorthand of the HEBREW word YESHUA (meaning "He Will Safe") YESHUA itself is the HEBREW short word of YEHOSHUA (meaning"The Lord Saves")..NOW wait for it, YEHOSHUA translated into ENGLISH means JOSHUA which means either 1.An Israelite leader who succeeded Moses, or 2.The sixth book of the Bible. JESUS does not mean "Yahweh Saves" or "The Lord Saves" or even "He Saves". For there's NO English meaning to JESUS at all.
Im an atheist, but personally I dont think that Apollonious of Tyana is a rock solid parallel to the gospel narratives, specially because of the lose dating of the documents that appears to be from ~ 200 CE. Even proposing a late date for the autographs of the gospels they cant go that far. Between 200-300CE the copies of the gospels are already too much abundant, being collected by he early church.
The position the debunked fool holds wasn't being attacked with ad hominem attacks, it was just a plain old insult. The guy uses sources no serious scholar even considers valid, he's a joke. One can count the number of scholars that buy into the Jesus was a myth theory on one hand.
@Van Smack: The books ""Evidence For The Historical Jesus" by Gary Habermas and "Myth?" by David E. Anderson, among others, clearly prove that wrong. Even the book "Searching For Jesus" by Robert J. Hutchinson prove that a good number of non-Christian scholars do not deny the existence of Jesus, but they dispute what is in the Gospels. His book is intended to give the archaeological evidence that proves that the gospel accounts of Jesus's life are indeed correct.
Dr. Price is absolutely correct. His method is quite tedious.
@Bill Keon: The only reason why mythicism has any popularity at all is because it is something that people want to believe is true. They don't want to believe that Jesus was based on the OT prophecies of the Messiah. But these people ignore the same Bible which says that the pagan gods that these people worshipped were demons (Deut. 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Cor. 10:20). Never mind the Bible says there is only one God, and beside Him there is no other (Is. 45:5-6). How would the NT writers have copied the story of Jesus, when not only did they believe that no other god existed, but that the gods of the people around them were demons? That doesn't make sense. In Acts 10:28, Peter admitted that it was unlawful for a Jew to even keep company with a non-Jew, let alone borrow from their religion. And also, never mind that even atheists have refuted the mythicist claim, as David E. Anderson proves in his book "Myth?". Millennials may be fleeing religion, but it's sad that people have to lie to them in order to get them to believe that what they've been taught cannot be trusted. If more millenials were like me, they would be checking these claims out and seeing that they have no merit.
@antihero gnome: Actually, the claim from Christian historians state the obvious: the bias comes from secular scholars, not them. No one is against a quest for the truth. But when certain biases interfere with the quest for truth, then there is a problem. As I have stated before, there is evidence of a historical Jesus, as scholars have proven. The ones who are dishonest and misleading are these scholars. Judas Iscariot is not hated at all, and by religious figure, I meant the founder of a religion. And the reason why I am up in arms about defending Jesus is because we are called to do so in 1 Peter 3:15. I care about what theses scholars say because it is wrong. My question is, if people want to believe in Jesus, why is that a problem? Nobody attacks the historicity of Krishna. Why Jesus? I have heard about Bart Ehrman, but respectfully disagree with him. The Gospels are not fictions, as scholars have pointed out. As I have said before, the early church readily accepted these four and no others for the specific reasons that they were written early by eyewitnesses, or by people who had access to them, and they were widely circulated and used throughout the churches. Paul even quotes from Luke twice (1 Cor. 11:23-25 from Luke 22:17-20; 1 Timothy 5:18 from Luke 10:7). Peter accepted Paul's letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Also, none of Paul's epistles were seen as forgeries. They were readily accepted as well. Daniel Wallace explains in his book that some NT books were not accepted at first, among them being Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, Jude, and Revelation, because the early church was not sure who wrote them. They did not just accept any book and add it to the canon. The four Gospels were accepted even though they had no names on them, while several NT books had the names of the apostles on them and they rejected them in the beginning. None of the books were written decades later. They were written during the time of the apostles, and as is proven by the Bible itself, the apostles often endorsed each other. As Daniel Wallace says in his book, the early church knew how to detect forgeries, and this is why there are other gospels and other works that exist that were excluded from the canon.
@antihero gnome: Again, just because something predates what is written in the Bible does not mean that it is older than oral tradition, which is what some people believe these accounts were until they were written down. It does not follow that they were borrowed from these texts, especially when compared together. This is why books such as Ken Ham's "The New Answers Book 4" and "Flood Legends" by Charles Martin include not only the Babylonian texts of creation but also the flood to prove that although there are similarities, there are also massive differences between them, and as I said before, the differences are what's ignored. For example, there are numerous gods mentioned in the Babylonian account, while there is only One in the Genesis account. Death was involved in the Babylonian account, while the Bible makes clear that there was no death in the beginning, and this is why God looked at what. He made and said that it was very good. Death did not come until Adam and Eve sinned. Also, the later Hebrew Scriptures are not based off of any other texts, as other scholars have refuted. As I keep saying, it is all based on bias, and people's unwillingness to accept the Bible for what the authors said it was: a divinely inspired book. Why? Because the supernatural is denied.
@vivahernando1: You completely took that verse out of context, but that's not surprising. What I am simply doing is following the command set forth by Peter in 1 Peter 3:15 to always be ready to give a defense of the faith. In Jude 3, we are told to earnestly contend for the faith. Therefore, I am required to do what I am doing. The Bible should be read in context. But again, it is not surprising that people love to take it out of context.
@Pinche: Obviously, the chicken came first. It is not a trick question. According to Genesis 1, God made all animals and humans fully mature with the ability to be able to reproduce. This is why He repeatedly stated for animals and humans to be able to reproduce according to their kind, and we still see this today.
The Messiah would have been born during the Jewish fall feast of Tabernacles, [during the Roman census] Which explains the pile of fodder (hay in a manger?). The caravan was in transit, and was at rest for the week long feast when Messiah was conviently born.
We need more CHARACTERS like this in the theological camp.
@antihero gnome: As I have already stated, according to the Hindu texts, Krishna died by being shot in the foot with an arrow. He was not resurrected, but his spirit ascended into paradise. Therefore, there is no parallel between Jesus and Krishna. And yet again, if Krishna did all of that for humanity, who doesn't humanity know about it? What aren't Hindus sharing it with everyone? People are preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus worldwide, and yet not a single Hindu is trying to convert anybody to Krishna? Again, in Hinduism, all religions lead to the same god, so there is no need for Krishna to be the savior of all humanity, since no matter what path a person is on, it's going to lead them to god anyway.
So in a way he's just trying to explain the mess that's already there.
I think you're underplaying the prevalence of Hellenism in Palestine during this era and Hellenistic Judaism in general.
Ba ha ha!!! Love it!
If 30 years misinformation was able to deceive an entire nation - such as what happened to the Philippines - how much more could 1500 years do to an entire world?
he drips with scorn, and certitude
as opposed to every televangelist
and truth
Price does not have a job? Why??? In my comment I said that Ehrman believes that Jesus lived as a man but I may have misled some by stating that he believes in an actual living breathing Jesus. Ehrman believes that Jesus lived and died and that's it. He has debated against the probability of Jesus being resurrected.
Robert M. Price, here are his credentials as Presented to Wikipedia described by Robert M. Price himself.
"A former Baptist minister, he was the editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism from 1994 until it ceased publication in 2003, and has written extensively about the Cthulhu Mythos, a "shared universe" created by the writer H. P. Lovecraft.[7] He also co-wrote a book with his wife, Carol Selby Price, Mystic Rhythms: The Philosophical Vision of Rush (1999), on the rock band Rush. "Robert M. Price is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of 150 writers and scholars who study the historicity of Jesus, the organizer of a Web community for those interested in the history of Christianity,[8] and sits on the advisory board of the Secular Student Alliance.[3] He is a religious skeptic, especially of orthodox Christian beliefs, occasionally describing himself as a Christian atheist."
As I read Robert M. Price's Resume, he comes across as a man who’s views change with times based on what might sell on the book shelves month to month. "describing himself as a Christian atheist." ???
Wrong. His views change based on new discoveries
Wait, you can read? I'm shocked.
Thank you so much!!!! :D
damn. 99 per cent of comments here are by one person. can we have a little bit more diversity?
Apollonius couldn't have been a source for the life of Jesus, since he was post-Christian. Our earliest source for him is 2nd cent CE. Chariton has been variously dated, but even the earliest date would make possiible for him to have influenced only John, and the most striking similarities are already found in the much earlier Synpotics. If there was any influence, it could only have been John to Chariton, not the other way round.
Prove it. You haven't even read what you're blathering about.
Bart Ehrman disagrees with Robert Price on the historicity of Jesus. Bart says Jesus really did exist even if as just a man who died. Price lately casts doubt on whether Jesus existed at all. Why would Ehrman hold steadfast on an actual living breathing Jesus when he agrees everywhere else with Price? WHY???
Ehrman feels for some strange reason that he needs to stay on good terms with Christians. He's afraid of their political influence.
@Garrett AJ: I am responding to your comment, just not in the way you want me to. And God already has provided evidence for His existence. According to Romans 1:18-20, creation in and of itself is proof enough that God exists. It's just that some people (atheists) suppress that knowledge, as the Bible says. This is why evolution was proposed in the first place, as Dr. Gary Parker, an ex-evolutionist, says in his book "Creation Facts Of Life". In the book "Reinventing Jesus" by Daniel Wallace, he gives evidence outside of the Bible for not only Jesus' existence, but also for his divinity. And I don't expect a quick conversion, because if you really wanted to know any of the information you're demanding of me, you would look for it on your own, because it's there. It's easy for atheists to ignore such information, because they don't want to believe anyway.
Keisha Hawkins
"This is why evolution was proposed in the first place"
evolution was proposed because christians investigating gods world discovered that a lot of it made sense if god had done it via evolution. It was only when the timelines required by evolution were discovered that evolution became a problem for a lot of religions.
As for you evidence that the god of the bible is true, quoting the bible is just a joke. The bible is the proposition IT IS NOT THE EVIDENCE.
There is no more evidence for the bible being true than there is for Robin Hood, King Arthus or Harry Potter for the matter.
More of the ridiculous list, that didn't fit in comment box,
Lucanus Suetonius Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus Pausanias
@antihero gnome: According to the book "The Big Argument: Does God Exist?" by John Ashton, one of the writers gives evidence for the exodus. And also, the books "Reinventing Jesus" by Daniel Wallace and "Hijacking the Historical Jesus" by Phil Fernandes prove that Jesus did in fact exist.
Keisha Hawkins
There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that the story of Exodus occurred. Ze'ev Herzog professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University wrote in Deconstructing ‘’The Walls Of Jericho’’ “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction-made in the seventh century [BCE]-of a history that never happened.”
The Exodus as a legendary account and Moses being a fictional character are accepted by academia it’s pretty much an open and shut case. Even Jewish scholars agree with this as Jewish commentator andauthor Rabbi David Wolpe has also known about the Exodus Myth. In his article, "Did the Exodus Really Happen?" he mentions that other rabbis wanted him to keep the fiction of the Exodus story on the down-low. The basic story of the Exodus from Egypt (extracting supernatural elements) was touted to me as one of the most historical aspects of the Bible, yet it never happened. This seriously puts into question the historicity of any and all of the Bible stories.
As far as a historical Jesus, the evidence is just not there. Even Bart Ehrman who actually believes there was a real Jesus says: ‘’ But the unfortunate thing about Jesus is that we have such scanty documentation about his life.Most people don't realize this, but Jesus is never mentioned in any Greek or Roman non-Christian source until 80 years after his death.
There is no record of Jesus having lived, in these sources. In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!''
@ Bill Keon: If Jesus exists, then that means God exists, because He is the manifestation of God in the flesh, as He and the apostles taught. Scholars, mainly secular or liberal Christians, love to ignore His clear teachings about His deity and insist that He was just a man. That is not what He said about Himself. Actually, Jesus is not a failed apocalyptic preacher, as scholars want to believe. In his book "Searching For Jesus", Robert J. Hutchinson examines the claims of these scholars and proves that their view is wrong, based on not only the complete teaching of Jesus about the kingdom, but also what the apostles taught in the epistles as well about it. Did He teach that it was coming during the time of the apostles, or is that what they thought in and of themselves? Surely He taught that the end of the world would come, and He gave them the signs of the end, but that does not mean that He Himself actually believed that it would come during their time. A lot of the signs did not begin to really take place until recently in history. The apostles certainly believed that He could come at any moment, as they had an urgency to their message and told the church that His return was at hand. But Jesus' main focus was establishing God's kingdom, as were the apostles, as Hutchinson explains, and not ranting about an apocalypse during the time of the apostles. Mark's gospel was not written around 70 AD. In 1 Cor. 11:23-25, written in 55 AD, Paul quotes Luke 22:19-20. Luke then says in the first few verses of his gospel that there were others who had written about Him. The early church always knew that he was talking about Matthew and Mark. Also, Mark does not have a completely human Jesus in it. This is the argument that people try to have to claim that His deity was added later. For example, Mark 2:1-12 records Him saying He can forgive sins, which offended the Jews, because only God can forgive sins. Mark 4: 36-41 records that He rebuked the waves of the sea, which is what God can do according to Psalm Psalm 65:7. Also, the very title that He used for Himself, Son of Man, denotes deity. In Dan. 7:13-14, the Son of Man receives worship from all nations, something that only God will receive. Besides, the gospels were written to different people, and for different reasons. Matthew was written to Jews, which is why he relied the most on OT prophecy. Mark was written to Romans, which explains why he had to explain Jewish customs to his readers. Luke was written to a man named Theophilus. They were not writing to downplay His apocalyptic message. John is not anti-apocalyptic, it is just in a different form from the synoptic gospels, which all record His message about the end of days. Just because something is the consensus of scholars does not make what they say accurate. They want to believe that His main message was apocalyptic, so they project that onto Him to claim that He failed. But out of all the people who claimed to be messiah before and after Him, He is the only one who continues to be worshipped worldwide. I would say that He was not a failure. You can believe what you want about Him, but I agree with C.S. Lewis, as do millions of others: He is Lord.
Yes, a lot of people write books including Hutchinson, Ehrman, Price, Avalos, Carrier. You said if jesus exists, then god exists. Well there are two assumptions there, neither of which are proved. If jesus exists that does not mean god exists and vice versa. Step outside the bible and the argument for how a god (as theists supernaturally describe her) has not even conceptualized how it could exist. Mark had to be written after 70 CE because of the description of the destruction of the Temple in 70. This is the consensus of virtually ALL biblical scholars today. None of the so-called miracles can be confirmed as historic by historians. This is because, as Ehrman insightfully says, historians can only grant probabilistic ascent to proposed events on the weight of the evidence. But a miracle BY DEFINITION is the LEAST probable event to happen. Miracles cannot be historic. That is also why you don't see an historian or scientist in an academic journal concluding in the summary "the reason we got this experimental result is because it was a miracle! god did it!". You say - He is the only one who continues to be worshipped worldwide. I would say that He was not a failure. You can believe what you want about Him, but I agree with C.S. Lewis, as do millions of others: He is Lord. To say this you are clearly showing yourself to have the blinders on. 'He is the only one to be worshipped worldwide"??? Muhammad, Allah, Buddah, Shiva. Lewis missed one "L" word, Legend. On balance from the total weight of the evidence he appears to be Lunatic (deluded) and Legend.
@antihero gnome: Actually, according to Daniel Wallace in the book "Reinventing Jesus", the church fathers started quoting from the Gospels as early as the late first century. According to the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, they give a chart of the early church fathers who quoted from the NT books starting in 95 AD and ending in 110 AD. 25 of the 27 NT books had been quoted from. Also, evangelical scholars have been admitted that the gospels are anonymous, but include the fact that the early church fathers were in agreement that the men whose names are on them actually wrote them. One of the criteria for a NT book to be included in the canon was that it had to be written by an apostle, or someone who knew an apostle, as is the case with Mark and Luke, who were not eyewitnesses. This is why the Gnostic Gospels were rejected, because they were not only late, but also, they were not written by eyewitnesses like the Gospels.
+Keisha Hawkins
‘’according to Daniel Wallace in the book "Reinventing Jesus", the church fathers started quoting from the Gospels as early as the late first century.’’
That is one fact that is correct, the first mention of the Gospels comes in the year 180AD.
‘’Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, they give a chart of the early church fathers who quoted from the NT books starting in 95 AD and ending in 110 AD. 25 of the 27 NT books had been quoted from.’’
Of course the quotes are reported in the writings of Irenaeus since none of the original writings by Ignatius or Polycarp or Papias has survived. And their testimony is reported in later sources. It’s like the story of I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy who knew Jesus. Even the surviving writings of Clement or Origen are from the 4th and 5th century.
‘’ but include the fact that the early church fathers were in agreement that the men whose names are on them actually wrote them.’’
See my previous comment.
‘’This is why the Gnostic Gospels were rejected, because they were not only late, but also, they were not written by eyewitnesses like the Gospels.’’
Well the early Church fathers quote the gnostic Gospels at least 400 times which is more than the quotes that are alluded to the official Gospels.
There is no reason to believe that the gnostic Gospels were written very much later that the canonical scriptures. The Gospel of Thomas for instance is estimated around the year 140 AD based on the teachings of Thomas who was an Apostle.
Don’t you find it strange that Matthew would basically copy the Gospel of Mark since Matthew is supposedly an eyewitness while Mark is not?
Monty Python-Bring out your dead!
"I'm not dead yet"!
@Bill Keon: You claim that you love human beings, but at the same time, demean them by claiming that you want to save them from superstition, fear, and oppression, as if we are somehow suffering for believing what we do. Contrary to what you and others may want, we do have the freedom of religion, just like you have the freedom to not be religious. Why is it that atheists cannot respect people's right to be religious? And who says that I am not educated, or that I have no self worth? Again, this is all bias from atheists who want to believe that religious people are uneducated, which is far from the truth. Atheists want to deny that we are sinners, which is not surprising, since the Bible says most men want to proclaim their own goodness (Prov. 20:6). They don't want to believe that they are sinners in need of a redeemer. But then these same atheists turn around and complain about the evil in the world. Who is the cause of it? According to the Bible, sinful men. Since we are born into sin, we are capable of committing some of the most heinous atrocities, which human history has proven. The Bible makes it clear that the human heart is wicked (Gen. 8:21, Jer. 17:9, Matt. 15:19). Their claim is that religion makes people do evil things, and therefore religion itself is evil. Yet they ignore things that have happened in history by people who were not religious, which proves that it is not religion after all that makes people do evil things; man himself is just wicked. Jesus' sacrifice does not mean we have no responsibility; it is recognizing that man is in an impossible state to redeem himself. It is popular nowadays to believe that a redeemer is not necessary, but if it was possible for man to save himself, he would have done it already. The sacrifice of Jesus does not demean us; it proves our worth because it shows us how much God is willing to show his love toward us by taking on the punishment for our sins Himself. Also, not all scholars believe that the exodus is a myth. There are some who say it it did happen. And also, the NT is not a myth, as Frank Turek and Norman Geisler in their book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" proves. Archeology has proven dozens of claims in both the book of John and Acts. Also, in his book "Searching For Jesus", Robert J. Hutchinson gives archeological proof that the Jesus of the NT is the actual person who lived, and not the erroneous Jesus that modern scholars want to imagine. Therefore, your claim is not true; you just want it to be. The Fall is not a mythical story, seeing that other people around the world know about it. For example, in the book "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson, not only does he recount stories of people all over the world who know God, but spotlights a particular group of people from Burma who have stories related to the book of Genesis, specifically the Fall. The story of Adam and Eve are known across the globe, as Ken Ham shows in his book "The New Answers Book 4". Not only do people know about creation, but they also know about the Tower of Babel, as well as the flood. Why would they know about the fall, if it's a mythical account? It's a mythical account only to those who want to view it that way, and this continues to prove my point that a lot of these scholars come to their views not based on true scholarship, but on lies and their own views about Jesus and the Bible. These same people love to ignore evidence that clearly proves their position wrong, which is not true scholarship. Therefore, Jesus' sacrifice is required, and this is why millions of people throughout time as well as now continue to come to faith in Him, because they realize they can't do it alone. The only ones who reject this are the ones who don't like the rules that come along with there being a God. And again, if you truly love human beings, then this would require you to respect the fact that there are some who want to be religious, just like I have to respect the fact that there are others who are not. Also, if a person does not want me to be "superstitious", then people should not bring forth lies from "scholars" that have been proven wrong I don't know how many times. Deliberately lying to people should be be tolerated.
Considering all the people Christians have murdered in this world since they first got started, don't sit there and tell us that Christianity loves anyone or anything but itself.
@antihero gnome: People have already answered the claims that Krishna died for the sins of mankind, and they have proven that they are false claims. Books such ad "Myth?" by David E. Anderson and "In Defense Of The Bible" have explained the so-called parallels between Jesus and Krishna and showed that they are false. Plus, Anderson included articles from online where atheists have even refuted the idea that Jesus is a copycat of Krishna. If Krishna really died and rose for the sins of mankind, why weren't his supposed followers motivated to preach Krishna not only in India, but all over the world? Jesus' followers not only preached to the Jews, but they preached to pagans. And Christians have been motivated to share the gospel wherever the went throughout the centuries, including India. Why aren't Indians and non-Indians motivated to share the truth of Krishna's death for the sins of mankind? It seems strange that for the last 2,000 years, both Jews and non-Jews have been instrumental in taking the gospel message all over the world, letting people know that Jesus died and rose for their sins, but nobody felt compelled to do the same for Krishna. If he really rose from the dead, why was no nobody changed by it like Jesus' apostles? Surely something like that would change the lives of his followers as Jesus' resurrection did for his.
+Keisha Hawkins
David E. Anderson is wrong in his analysis. The parallels are too overwhelming to be ignored. Krishna is the human incarnation of the high god Vishnu every incarnation of Vishnu is sent to earth to save mankind from its sin. Krishna is the 8th incarnation. Ironically the 10th and final incarnation of Vishu is strikingly similar to what is written in the book of revelations yet was written 1000 years before. Both Krishna and Jesus had similar life events I mean they were
practically the same in several aspects. Both Krishna and Christianity are theologies of grace and offer eternal life to their followers. Krishna even goes further as when Krishna defeated the demons he granted them access to
heaven.
@Pinche: This is why the Bible needs to be read in context. Yes, the Bible acknowledges that there are other gods, but these are referred to as idols, as is seen in Psalm 96:4-5. They are also known as demons in Lev. 17:7 and Deuteronomy 32:17. This is why God in the Bible repeatedly forbade Israel to have anything to do with either the people of the neighboring lands, or their gods because He knew that they were nothing but demons masquerading as gods. He also calls Gentiles to Him in Isaiah 45:22, calling for them to look only to Him for salvation, because there is no other way. The apostle Peter says the same of Jesus in Acts 4:12. Therefore, while there may be other "gods", they are bit nothing but demons, and there is only one way to be saved, and that is through Jesus Christ. Also, the Holy Spirit is God Himself. This is why the Bible refers to it as the Spirit of God, and this is why there is a punishment with blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Prove it.
@17022dn: According to Dr. Gary Parker, the ones who were the most enthusiastic about evolution wanted to explain design without a designer. They wanted a world in which there was no God to be accountable to, and even he admitted that was why he liked evolution in the first place. Also, as he points out, evolution goes against the plan of God, because according to the Bible, death is an enemy. In evolution, it's the hero. So for Jesus to die for sin would make no sense, since Jesus would have been opposing God's plan. This is why a lot of Christians historically have stood against evolution. Also, quoting the Bible to prove it is fine. As I said before, when people want to claim there are contradictions in the Bible, what do they use? The Bible. The Bible is then used as evidence. Plus, there is much evidence for the Bible, but as I said before, atheists don't care to find out because they don't want to believe.
A religious doctorate is just a piece of paper. Call me when you can quote an actual credentialed scientist.
@Alex Howie: Actually, loving people is why I do what I do. And while you are slamming me for what I do and how I do it, the apostles, especially Paul, were known for going to both Jews and Gentiles and reasoning with them from not only the Scriptures, but also from science as well. Plus, apologetics is commanded, as is written in 1 Peter 3:15. I am not on here to solely debate; my objective is to defend the faith from false claims made by people like Robert Price. I can't help if people respond to my posts, but since they do, shouldn't I address it? Also, I do respect people's beliefs that differ from mine, unlike many atheists whom I have conversed with over the years, who have belittled me and called me out of my name simply because of what I believe. I have never done that to anyone. It seems that atheists should learn a little about love and respect for other's beliefs, not me. Plus, Christianity is not only about the threat of hell. People are Christians because we love Jesus and are grateful about His sacrifice for us. Yes, we warn people about hell because Jesus also did, but that is not that main reason people should turn to Christ. Immoral behavior should be punished, but God is a merciful God who does not want people to go to hell. And people have abused Scripture throughout the years, but it does not justify child abuse. Also, loving people alone in this generation sometimes is not enough. Sometimes people need to hear evidence, because, as the video above proves, some people are trying to claim that the gospel is not original to Christianity, and that it was borrowed from pagan religions, which is untrue. These kinds of objections have to be addressed, but in love.
+Keisha Hawkins I love all my fellow humans too. You can have no idea how much I do. But that does not make my opinions correct. I want to save them from credulity, belief, superstition, fear, oppression and want them to be educated and have self-worth (not to believe that they are sinners from birth and can only be redeemed by the vicarious sacrifice of another human being). This sacrifice not only abdicates responsibility (as Hitchen's points out) but also demeans our basic being. By the way on the topic of scholarship, modern archaeology has the majority of scholars taking the position that Moses, the exodus, the wandering, in fact all of the new testament as a myth. If that is true (which it is) then the Fall is just a mythical story (created to explain how we got here just as Joseph Campbell and other comparative religion scholars since have said), and since the Fall is a creation story, redemption through jesus is not required.
@17022dn: Just because the Archbishop and the Pope accept evolution doesn't make it true. If there was so much evidence for it, then why did Dr. Gary Parker, who was an evolutionist, become a creationist? As I said before, there is much information out there to prove the authenticity not only the OT, but the Bible as a whole. It is just that people don't care to look for it.
What kind of Christian are you not to accept their authority? Aren't Christian women supposed to shut up and blindly follow the men?
@antihero gnome: Yet again, in Daniel Wallace's book, he quotes directly from Clement, as well as Papias. According to him and other scholars, the reason why the Gospels were accepted early on was because the early church fathers quoted from them, which means there were quotations of these works before Ireneaus, because by the time of Ireneaus' writings, the church had already canonized most of the NT books. They only accepted those that were considered authentic, and they had to have been quoted from early on, not in the late second century.
+Keisha Hawkins
The evidence for Clement is by no means conclusive. In two places the writer repeats the words of Jesus which are similar to those in the Gospels, but not quotations. He never refers to Gospel stories or sayings even though they would have supported his argument, instead referring to the Old Testament:
In chapters 3-6 he lists Abel, Joseph, Moses, and David as people who suffered through jealousy, but doesn't mention Jesus (as in Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10).
Likewise, in chapters 7 and 8 he uses Ezekiel and Isaiah as examples of people preaching repentance, but not Jesus (as in Matthew 18:3 or Luke 13:3).
In chapters 9-12 he uses only the Old Testament for examples of faith.
In chapter 16 he refers to Jesus' humility but does not refer to his humble birth in a barn (instead quoting the Old Testament).
In chapter 17 he talks about people dressed in animal skins who announce the coming of Christ, but omits John the Baptist from the list of prophets.
In chapter 46 he brings together statements from Mark and seems to be quoting sayings that had been circulating but never refers to the writings of Mark directly.
Papias quotes from Mark and Matthew but none of what he quotes are actually found in Mark and Matthew, so which Mark and Matthew is Papias quoting from?
they used hellenistic philosophical categories to explain to pagans the gospel mesage but the root of the message is firmly planted in Judaism, even John 1 which uses hellenistic language yet the author poured the Jewish meanings into the words but i definitely dont think they used pagan myths to create a Jesus story, it seems very unlikely don't you think?
Not at all. Every religion has borrowed something from someone. Islam borrowed the idea of spreading faith by the sword from Christianity, for example.
@Agimaso Schinder: My point is not that the Bible is true simply because it says it is. It's true because the evidence backs it up. Of course, what the Bible says doesn't mean anything to you. Comparing your statement to the word of God does not work. What makes the Bible authoritative is that it claims to be inspired by God. If it was just the words of man, it probably wouldn't have any more merit than anyone else's words. But because it claims to be inspired by God, that is what gives it its authority.
Keisha Hawkins
There is not a shred of worthwhile evidence that backs up the bible apart from... the bible. Circular arguing I am afraid.
17022dn: Actually, I personally looked up modern versions to see if the word unicorn occurred in them; they do not. As I mentioned before, they use the term wild ox. Also, the reason why people all over the world know about the flood is because, as I said before, after people were scattered all over the world, hey kept the stories if not only the flood, but also creation all the way to the Tower of Babel. Plus, the Bible says clearly in Psalm 104:8 that the mountains were raised after the flood; therefore, the mountains were not at their height now. People assume that the mountains were always at their height, but the Bible says otherwise.
Gee, someone never heard of geology, did she?
@Agimaso Schandir: There is only one God, as the Bible claims time and again. Besides, in the book "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson includes stories from people all over the world, from ancient times until now, have continued to worship this one particular deity, even when surrounded by pagan neighbors. These people had no Bible to tell them about God prior to the arrival of missionaries; they relied on information given to them generation to generation.
Keisha Hawkins
No the bible claims three gods, Jesus Yahweh and a holy spirit.
@Agimaso Schinder: No one knows what two dogs were on the ark, but Noah only had to bring two, and from those two arose all of the variety of dogs we see today. The dog kind in the creationist view would include wolves. Answers in Genesis has an article on Dormaalocyon latouri on their website entitled "Extinct Carnivore Ancestor of Lions and Tigers and Bears?" People are free to believe what they want about the Bible, but a lot of people just want the Bible to be a fairy tale.
Keisha Hawkins
A lot of people want the bible to be true including for example the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope. Both now accept evolution and that large tracts of the Old Testament are not true.
@antihero gnome: There are accounts all over the world of the same ones found in Genesis, so it was not copied. Also, according to the book "In Defense of the Bible" by Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder, the writers give evidence that the Torah was written years earlier, and not during the Babylonian exile. They also deal with many of the issues you raised, so those issues have been already been answered.
Keisha Hawkins
Well of course you are citing evangelical scholars and I have check out "In Defense of the Bible’’ but as with most evangelical based scholarship I find their ‘’evidence’’ not very solid or convincing and their methodology which is based on a presupposition rather flawed. I know I studied in an evangelical biblical college.
This from the Ancient History Encyclopedia:’’ Most scholars think that the final major redactions took place after 539 BCE, when Cyrus the Great conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire.’’
You can argue that the writings are based on an older oral tradition but again these traditions would be of names or maybe some events. Of course there is pretty solid evidence that shows that the stories contained in Genesis were written much later. When you have the Patriarchs like Abraham riding camels when camels were not domesticated in the Levant until 900 BC. Shows that the authors of these stories were projecting event into the past.
@antihero gnome: Actually, I said late first century, not second century. Therefore, they were quoted from almost a century before 180 AD. The reason why the early church accepted the Gospels is because they were written early, they were eyewitness accounts, having either been written by an apostle or close associates of them, and the early church fathers quoted from them. Daniel Wallace quotes from several of the church fathers who quoted the NT well before Irenaeus.
+Keisha Hawkins That is incorrect the first one that seems to allude to the Gospels is Clement by they are not actual quotes, then Papias around 140AD quotes from Matthew and MArk but nothing he quotes is found in either MAtthew or MArk. THe first that mentions the GOspel authors by name is Ireaneus in180AD. there is no question about this
The Lord gives to each man justly according to his ways (Jeremiah 17:9-10). SO a guy like Sadaam Hussein has his own wickedness poured out upon him, and God is the bad guy... Atheism is HILARIOUS
Saddam Hussein is dead because he didn't want to do the CIA's bidding any more, same reason Noriega was locked up.
@agimaso Schandir: Creationists have already explained what a kind is, and yes it does exist, because it extends beyond the flood story. In fact, God mentions it first in Genesis 1 during creation. What it simply means is that people and animals will always produce what they are, whether a dog, cat, or human. And creationists have already explained how related wolves and dogs are, so wolves would be included in the dog kind. And creationists have already explained how animals have reproduced since the flood that does not contradict what the Bible states.
Prove it.
From what I've learned about Josephus he is actually a very important historian at the time, which is why many apologists grasp at straws when using his mentioning of Jesus in their religious apologetics. From what I know, he didn't write much about jesus and the parts he did were obviously tampered with, probably by the church or someone trying to give credence to Christ's divinity. I could be wrong but I'd like to see your sources anyways I am interested
He wrote nothing about Jesus. Later Christians added their own forged passages to create the illusion that Jesus was this famous beloved guy. If he was so famous, why didn't Tacitus or Pliny write about him?
@fukthegoog: And I have convincing evidence that He did exist, but of course, you ignored that post. I have provided the names and authors of several books that prove that Jesus actually did exist.
Prove it, Keisha. You make the claim, YOU have to prove it.
@antihero gnome: I am in reality. Again, it is just that some scholars are determined to believe that the Bible is mythical, and approach it as such. And there are others who believe it to be historical, and take things from there. This is why there are competing views as to whether or not the Exodus happened. But it doesn't change the fact that there are some scholars who believe the Exodus happened, and use archaeology to prove it.
+Keisha Hawkins
No one is saying the Old Testament is a complete fairy-tale. There is evidence for a Kingdom of David and Solomon although not the magnificent kingdoms as described in the Bible but we are pretty sure they existed. We are also pretty sure to have found the site of mount Sinai. But these findings in no way corroborate any of the supernatural claims of the Bible any more than Mount Olympus or the city of Troy which has also been found proves the existence of the Greek gods.
The evidence shows that Israel itself was under Egyptian rule at the time of the Exodus is supposed to have occurred. Egypt also reigned in the Sinai region. It sort of destroys the exodus as depicted in the Bible to have occurred as written because there is no evidence to support it historically. I can accept that places and names have historical meaning in the Old Testament but to take stories that go against everything that we know about the laws of nature and in fact that dismiss the rules of reality itself and imply the intervention of an exterior magical force that influenced people and events is a lot to accept without any evidence.
@antihero gnome: Ken Ham may not mean much to you, but what he says explains what we see happening not only in Christian schools, but in the country as a whole. You would think that a Christian school would be a tool to build up a person's belief in the Bible, and yet, all they do is tear it down. They are no better than their secular colleagues. But the Bible does say that in the last days, there would be a great apostasy from Christian beliefs.
Ken Ham doesn't even believe what he's spouting. This is a cash grab for him, nothing more. And you'll never see any of that cash, no matter what they've promised you.
@antihero gnome: As I have previously mentioned, the scholars in the book give evidence for the Exodus. Again, it is just that people do not want to believe that the Bible is true, so they willingly ignore evidence that is out there that proves otherwise.
+Keisha Hawkins
‘’As I have previously mentioned, the scholars in the book give evidence for the Exodus. Again, it is just that people do not want to believe that the Bible is true, so they willingly ignore evidence that is out there that proves otherwise.’’
Their evidence is weak and misleading and goes against the actual data. Even the most conservative scholars
argue that there was an Exodus but that it was only limited to a few families. Which could be possible but there is no evidence so it’s only speculation. First the bible states that 600,000 men (excluding women and children) who left Egypt. So that would add up to at least 1 maybe 2 million people. The total population of Egypt at that time was about 3 million. Don’t you think the departure of such an amount of people not to mention slave workers would have crippled Egypt? Yet Egypt remained an economic and military power for 1000 years after this even isalleged to have happened. Also you would think that a million people wandering the desert for 40 years (on a trip that only takes a few days by foot) would have left a trace of their passage. But there is not one piece of evidence that shows this happened. Third you would expect that a slave nation held captive for 400 years would show traces of this in their language by either adapting words or expressions from their captors. There is absolutely no Egyptian influence on the Hebrew language in fact Hebrew came from Proto-Phoenician which is a nation directly north of Canaan. Also it has been proven that workers who built the temples, pyramids and other works of architecture belonged to a privileged class of citizens in Egypt. They were treated like nobility. There is no evidence that shows Jewish slaves were present at any time in Egypt.
William G. Dever is the son of a fundamentalist preacher and now professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona he is not by any means a minimalist like Finkelstein or Herzog who find no historical basis for the Bible . In his book What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It he writes: ‘’ …the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness.’’
Even scholars that claim there is some truth to the Bible are honest enough to admit there is rather scanty evidence to support this.
What I don't get is that there really is no evidence that the gospel writers, and I don't just mean the ones we find in the Bible, are in fact influenced by all these parrables. I mean, with all the miracle stories of the world it is almost bound to happen that there are similarities. But similarities don't equal causation...
There also is no evidence that God inspired them in their writings.
vivahernando1 Good thing I don't claim such a thing then.
BecomingMike I would strongly suggest looking into the Roman Imperial cult bureaucracies. This is the method used to present a Caesar to the Senate as a Demigod destine for god hood . So that the Roman Senate, once presented with evidence, could Vote on Divinity of the Caesar.
Same method and tools were used to create a number of counter cult Messiahs by the Romans .
I Kat Goat You aren't seriouly suggesting Atwill's 'Caesar's Messiah' as a hypothesis right? Even Price thinks it is a bad concept and I think he gives good reasons.
Price sounds more and more like Joe Atwill these day's . and So what if i am ? and no i suggest the Roman Bureaucracies be looked at , After all Christianity was and is the state Religion of ancient Rome and the Holy Roman Empire .
They have a had a hand in shaping the stories in the Christian Canon .
Hell read about the Ecumenical gathering at Chalcedon 545 c.e./A/D/ , That was part of the Roman Imperial Bureaucracies. see if that will settle your stomach !
you do realize the Senate of Rome voted on the Caesars Divinity in the Julian / Claudian era , Not just Vespasian right?
@antihero gnome: As I have mentioned before, scholars have already answered the claims that the Bible copied from the code of Hammurabi, and that the God of the Bible is distinct from all others.
Keisha Hawkins
That is incorrect, the overwhelming majority OT scholars now recognise the Bible as a fictional account. It’s allegorical and was implemented as a moral code and of course in the Jewish tradition a means to give hope and meaning ‘’as God’s chosen people’’ to a nation that has been persecuted for a millennia.
@HBob59 You will not think so when you are burning in Hell.
Repent before is too late and accept Jesus as your personal savior.
Prove there's a "Hell." If you can't, then I expect an apology from you.