Looking For Answers.................

[mp15]

OK, I'm posting this here because I do not want a debate about it but rather different points of view from the most knowledgeable of you. If anyone would like to address each point that is stated, I would be much obliged. Remember, this is not a debate. I'm looking for scholarly answers to this article not heated opinions. If you feel a need to attack me then take it elsewere.

Most people have been taught to believe that the Gosepls are four eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus. Well, let's see how they stand up . . .

First of all, historically speaking, the earliest writing is considered to be the Gospel of Mark, located at about 70 a.d. However, even this was not used by the founding church fathers. Paul himself never once mentions any of the four gospels in his epistles.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the book of luke was not written for nearly two hundread years after the event. Theophilus, to whom Luke addressed the book, was bishop of Antioch from 169 to 177 a.d. Even early Popes, such as Clement I, 97 a.d. never quoted from any gospel. Nor any Pope for about a century later. The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that early Christian writers were rampant forgerers -- so we're led to believe these words as honest historical perspectives?

" . . . no written Gospel existed until shortly before 185 a.d., when Irenaeus wrote; they are first mentioned in Chapter XVI of his book II." - Wheless

Even Justin Martyr, circa 140 a.d., never quoted from them. And it is also widely known that the Gospels we have today are certainly not the originals. There were several different versions floating around -- so what is the Gospel truth?

The Gospel of Luke was preceded by another called Ur-Markus, a part of the Logia, or occult cosmology, the present one being but this older one distorted into history. The book of Matthew is an outgrowth of a prior book known as the Logia of Matthew. Jerome said the canonical version was a rewrite of the Hebrew text by a disciple of Manichaeus name Seleucus. These revisionists were literal-minded religionists and they inserted much extraneous matter, even, according to some authorities, whole chapters."

-- Lloyd Graham "Deceptions and Myths of the Bible," 1993 Carol Publishing

But don't take my word for any of this. Just look at the Gospels themselves. You will find many differences in each which, if they were subjected to a court of honest inquiry and peers instead of religionists, would be found guilty of fraud.

First of all after his birth, Jesus is taken out of Bethlehem and into Egypt to escape the reign of terror by Herod, according to Matthew. Different story altogether in Luke. After Jesus is born, Joseph and Mary take him to Jerusalem for the census initiated by Cyrenius (which doesn't fall into the time frame for the actual historical Christ, but we won't get into that here). Now I ask you, if Herod had demanded the deaths of all the first born children, then why take Jesus in for the census? You might as well be fulfilling his death warrant. In fact, Luke mentions nothing of Herod's decree whatsoever. And to my knowledge, neither does any other history book. How's that for Gospel truth? Mark, considered the first written Gospel, doesn't even mention the Virgin Birth, nor does John. How could they miss such an amesome event in history as that if it actually occurred?

And there are others, the most poignant being the resurrection story itself. None of the four gospels coincide or match. They do not agree as to what order things occured in, what was said and witnessed, etc. And these are all eyewitness accounts? And we are expected to believe this as TRUTH?

For those who still cling to the hope that such a figure existed, then the question must be asked, Is he really the son of God? Does he really deserve that title?

Look at the evidence. Jesus is contradictory, and ignorant. In Matt 15:4, Jesus said to "honor thy father and mother.", yet in Luke 14:26 we have this: "If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother . . . he cannot be my disciple." -- Is this the wisdom of a God-savior?

How about these:

"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out." -- People did back in the Dark Ages!

"If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." -- They did that, too!

"Resist not evil." -- What kind of spiritual nonsense is this?

"Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" Matt 5:39 -- then five passages later "Love thy enemy" -- Excuse me?

"Do not pray in vain repitition as the heathens do" (Matt 6:7), then in 6:9 -- "Repeat this at every prayer: Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name . . ." Repeat or not repeat, that is the question.

"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink." -- Okay, I won't worry about heart disease or drinking acid.

"I came not to send peace, but a sword." -- Well, history can agree, his sword wielding has caused PLENTY of death and destruction through Holy Wars and Inquisitions, bigotry and racial hatred.

Jesus says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Yet Jesus himself judges throughout the whole gospel, calling people evil, Satan, how their "reward in heaven is going to be" etc. For a "god" that cannot even follow his own advice, and contradicts himself on a number of occasions, his divinity and wisdom is not valid enough to be in the position the church has placed him in. So why should we believe this character and follow him had he actually existed?

And the ultimate proof of Jesus's ignorance . . . His parables themselves. If God so truly loved the world, why didn't he send someone who could speak to each person clearly and concisely, instead of with parables that are misleading, confusing and can be misinterpreted? The Bible claims God is not the author of confusion, yet it is this same God that created the tower of Babel so that people could not communicate. If God so loved the world, why be so beaver dam contradictory throughout the whole "inspired" book by such nonsense as "Bear ye one another's burdens," Galatians 6:2, then in 6:5 say "For every man shall bear his own burden"? Again, only man could be so foolish, and so many have been so foolish as to believe in it as authentic words from a being separate from themselves, who creates everything like toys for amusement, and needing worship because of sad self-esteem (something I would think God would have no problem with).

These are not the words nor behavior of a true savior of men sent from God -- these are the actions and beliefs of ignornant biblical writers trying to propogate a new socio-political structure onto society, using mankind's view of God and soul as the vehicle.

Again, this man Jesus (who never existed according to archeology and historical records) simply doesn't have the mind and knowledge of spirituality to be anyone's savior. In fact, he even spoke of Jonah and the Whale (or big fish, what-have-you) in a parable, as if that whole story were true . . . Since most everyone can agree that story is a fable -- If Jesus believed it was true, how should we gauge his "knowledge" of heaven and God?

I could go at length here, but suffice it to say, when one reads the Bible and the Gospels objectively, without the tinted glasses of religious zealotry, this figure Jesus is not capable, mentally nor spiritually, to be the Son of God and savior of man (nor is the Bible Itself). Jesus cannot follow his own doctrine, he contradicts himself, and he even loses his FAITH on the cross "God why have you forsaken me?" Gee, isn't this God in the flesh? And if he was, why ask the question? And why be dying for man's sins which HE created in the first place, by being so ignorant for making the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil and throwing it in the Garden? What kind of parent was God for doing that? And don't tell me God didn't know what was going to happen -- this God, remember? Knows all, sees all . . . If God didn't know Adam and Eve were going to "sin," how should we feel about the "knowledge" given in Revelations?

Heck, according to Deuteronomy 24:16 we are not even subject to Adam's sins -- "The children shall not be punished for the sins of the fathers." -- Gee, I think the biblical authors and priesthood really screwed up there. What was Jesus dying for? We're not sinners, according to Deuteronomy -- and Reality itself, as I explain further in this website. Especially if the tale in Genesis is just a tale, and not an historical fact -- What sin WAS Jesus dying for?

[mp15]

Anyone............................ <_<

[cmotherofpirl]

Where did you get this stuff from?

[Lil Red]

where did you get this article from?

[mp15]

The web

[cmotherofpirl]

Whatever you are quoting from is a lie.

let ME quote the catholic encyclopedia on Luke and the Gospel:

It is according to most ancient and constant tradition that after Matthew, Mark wrote his Gospel second and Luke third; though it may be held that the second and third Gospels were composed before the Greek version of the first Gospel. It is not lawful to put the date of the Gospels of Mark and Luke as late as the destruction of Jerusalem or after the siege had begun. The Gospel of Luke preceded his Acts of the Apostles, and was therefore composed before the end of the Roman imprisonment, when the Acts was finished (Acts, xxviii, 30-31). In view of Tradition and of internal evidence it cannot be doubted that Mark wrote according to the preaching of Peter, and Luke according to that of Paul, and that both had at their disposal other trustworthy sources, oral or written.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

Edited November 3, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[Lil Red]

Luke 14:25-33. Great crowds were traveling with him, and he turned and addressed them, "If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying down the foundaiton and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, 'This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.' Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delgation to ask for peace terms. In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple."

Your article asks if the bolded part are words of a God-savior. What a classic case of taking the Bible out of context. Jesus is saying, in this bolded passage, that the disciple's family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus. The whole passage I've quoted here focuses on the total dedication necessary for the disciple of Jesus. No attachment to family or to possessions can stand in the way of the total commitment demanded of the disciple. Also, acceptance of the call to be a disciple demands readiness to accept persecution and suffering (vs 27) and a realistic assessment of the hardships and costs (vs 28-32)

[mp15]

Cmom, what I'm looking for here is proof. Not from a Catholic source but from a source that has no ties to Christianity. If there is proof it is out there beyond what Rome says. Also, I would like all points of the article addressed if possible.

Edited November 3, 2003 by mp15

[Lil Red]

The web

sources?

If we provide our sources, you provide yours.

Is this from those scientists that picked apart the New Testament to disprove that Jesus even existed?

[cmotherofpirl]

Luke, Gospel according to Saint

Luke, Gospel according to Saint, third book of the New Testament. It was composed in the second half of the 1st cent. Since the 2d cent. it and the Acts of the Apostles have been ascribed to St. Luke; Acts is sometimes considered a sequel to the Gospel. Apparent sources for the Gospel are the Gospel of St. Mark and a hypothetical source containing material on which the Gospel of St. Matthew also drew. Traditions peculiar to Luke would account for the Gospel's infancy narrative and several parables–of the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, the unjust judge, and the rich man and Lazarus. Luke emphasizes that the era of the church makes Christian salvation available to all, Jews and Gentiles alike. The Gospel might be divided into the following sections: prologue addressed to one Theophilus; infancy and life of Jesus before his public career; his ministry in Galilee; travel narrative; ministry in Jerusalem; Christ's passion and resurrection.

See studies by N. Geldenhuys (1988) and C. A. Evans (1990).

So is the ENCYCLOPEDIA GOOD ENOUGH?

[hyperdulia again]

:( Lord have mercy on the author of that trash.

[Jake Huether]

Well, if one were to prove the Bible wrong, they would in effect prove the Catholic Church wrong. All 2000 years of it's recorded existence.

With all due respect, if it hasn't been done in 2000 years (or at the very least- th 500 years of printed Bibles) I don't think it can be done. That is to say, for at least 500 years scholars and theologians have had Bibles in their hands to study and compare to history. Some of the smartest people to ever exist have no doubt road out the 19 and 20th centuries. Yet, no one has been able to prove that Christ isn't the Christ.

What's more, you'd have to discount all the physical miracles which have occured through the Name of Jesus!

Well, those are just my two pennies.

[mp15]

sources?

If we provide our sources, you provide yours.

Is this from those scientists that picked apart the New Testament to disprove that Jesus even existed?

I don't know.

It is an article I found. I pulled this section out of it to find out what some here might have to say. I'm not trying to proove anything to you guys. I'm asking that you proove it to me. Can it be done without having to go to a Catholic or Christian resource? That's all I ask.

[Lil Red]

And there are others, the most poignant being the resurrection story itself. None of the four gospels coincide or match. They do not agree as to what order things occured in, what was said and witnessed, etc. And these are all eyewitness accounts? And we are expected to believe this as TRUTH?

Wouldn't you be more suspicious if all Gospels matched each other exactly? That there wasn't one difference? If they did, then you'd be saying that all of them are false because it was just one person copying something else four times.

[mp15]

Yet, no one has been able to prove that Christ isn't the Christ.

Exactly!!

Which is the same as nobody being able to proven that he is. That's what I'm after. Convince me that he is.