Thoughts about the Gospels

[Dida]

- The first three gospels were very, very similiar to one another, it almost looked like the authors copied off each other, or someone edited their works to make them look uniform. They were describing the life of the same person - Jesus, there is bound to be some overlap, however, the events picked by the authors to be written down were almost the same, which is odd. Jesus lived to his 30's, and yet four books about his life only recorded a handful of identical events? There is nothing else about the man's life that is worth recording? Even the words used by the authors to describe the events were identical, which is highly usual if the works were actually from independent sources.

- The Gospels gave 2 different family trees of Jesus. Mathew traced him back to Abraham, while Luke traced him back to Adams. The explanation is that Luke was targeted at general audience, and has to trace Jesus back to the ancestor of all man, to show his universal appeal. So they can just make up stuff to suit their propaganda needs?

- Countless other inconsistencies, such as giving 2 accounts of how Juda died, one said he hang himself, another, he fell on his belly and died.

- Juda really has no motive to betray Jesus. Betraying a teacher who has demonstrated to have great power, even capable of raising the dead for the reward of only 30 gold pieces, give me a break man. This is hardly make sense. Was Juda ******** or what? To make their lies sound more reasonable, Christians said Devil was working in Juda. Well, the whole point of Jesus was to be killed so that he can save mankind. If I were the Devil, I would protect Jesus, so that he will never got killed, thus preventing him from washing away the sin of man. The Devil shall not make Juda betray Jesus, that can only help God's cosmo plan. Only reasonable explanation??? God was working in Juda!?!

- Jesus claimed that he has been sent to die for the sin of others, and from the Gospels it appeared that he knew before hand about his inevitable death in Jerusalem. But he appeared to be really tense, he asked his pupils to buy knife; he prayed right before he got arrested, and was trembling and sweating. Well, that doesn't look very godly to me, and it doesn't look like a behavior of a man who knows and controls everything.

- About Jesus praying, who the hell does he pray to? I thought he is god. He is at least equal with his so call 'father'. It made no sense for him to pray.

- Both Mathews and Lukes were said to be based on Mark, who has been said to be a pupil of St. Peter and has never personally been studying under Jesus.

- Jesus gave strikingly different opinion in Mathews and Luke, such as in Methew, he told his pupils not to go into the town of Gentiles or Samaritans, but only to the house of Isareal. In Luke, he told his pupils specifically to go to everyone including Gentiles and Samaritans, Jesus even talked to a Samaritan woman and cured her himself. Clearly, Mathew was targeting Jewish audience, while Luke has a wider general audience. Meaning, the authors of the Gospels made up stuff to suit their own needs. Jesus could not possible hold two opposing views.

- One of the funnies things is when Jesus went up a tree to find fruits, and yet the tree bears no fruit. So he cursed the tree and caused it to wither. Was it the crime of the tree for not having fruits????? He could have just use his magic and make fruits for himself, or make the tree instantly grow fruits. Does he care about growing things?

- Mark, the earliest Gospel never talked about virgin birth, and yet, in Mathew and Luke both talked about Angels and virgin birth and all that magical stuff. Sounds like fabrication huh? you bet. Mathew even said that the fact that Mary was a virgin fulfilled an OT prophecy.. Sounds like he created stuff out of the blue just to fix the prophecies.

- Luke talked a great deal about Jesus's youth. and yet he has never met Jesus. Sounds like outright lies? You bet.

- Jesus was not well-received in his hometown, even his family members, his mother, brothers didn't believe him and thinks he is crazy. Why? Because people who is closest to him knows him best, and they obviously observed nothing special about Jesus, and were wondering why everyone think he is so great.

- Now, the biggest flop of all time? Jesus himself suggested his 2nd coming will not be long after his own death: (Mathew 16:28) "Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Mark 13:30) "This generation will certainly not have passed away before all these things have happened." Well, 2 thousand years has passed, all those Jesus spoke to are long dead. Where is the son of god?

- Paul wrote half of the new testament himself, and inspired large portion of the rest. Luke for example, was an associate of Paul. We have to ask whether this version of Xian was really the teaching of Jesus or the teaching of Paul, a man who has never met Jesus.

- In many point, Jesus's position as son of David was stressed, making him the heir of the Isareali throne. I think he was the leader of a group of rebels against Roman occupation, and worked for an indepdent Isareal. Claiming he is decendent of an ancient hebrew king, gives him an edge. That's the only reasonable explanation why the Romans would want to kill him.

- The bible suggested that the Roman governor didn't want to kill Jesus, it was the priests who forced it upon him. Well, back in the days of the Romans, I don't see how a group of priests can force a decision upon a governor. This was done, obviously, after christianity saw the need to convert the romans and started shifting blame to the Jews.

- Jesus looked completely human in the bible. Well, if you really can make youself believe this, he actually healed desease and raised some dead. That is probably made up anyways. His behavior does not fit in which a god.

- Talking about healing, I notice large number of people during the days of Jesus were possessed by demom. About half of all illlness that he cured were related to demom possession. Looked like demoms were a lot more active in the days of Jesus than the modern era. Ancient people had the tendency to associate unknown desease to demoms. What is interesting is Jesus actually drives demom out of these people by yelling things like 'come out of her' or 'leave her'. Sounds like Benny Hinn? You bet.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Half garbage, half more or less intelligent points.

Atheism, the wonders thereof.

 

[Princeps]

Ignorant atheism....

 

[Hotpoint]

Ignorant atheism....

Whilst I find Dida to be overly forthright perhaps , could you detail which points you dismiss factually though?

 

[storealex]

The continued use of "you bet" as if clearly this is the truth, after what is nothing but an assumption, makes you guilty of the exact same thing that you so often accuse Christians of...

We all know that you for some reason find pleasure in hating on Christianity, but if you want to sound convincing, it would really help you if you at least tried to be objective and disguised your hate.

 

[Dida]

The continued use of "you bet" as if clearly this is the truth, after what is nothing but an assumption, makes you guilty of the exact same thing that you so often accuse Christians of...

We all know that you for some reason find pleasure in hating on Christianity, but if you want to sound convincing, it would really help you if you at least tried to be objective and disguised your hate.

You made a fundamental mistake here. The first post I titled as 'my thoughts on the gospels'. They can be fact or fiction, the only thing I am claiming is that they are what I was thinking when I read the gospels. Christians do not state that their religious belief is what they think is right, they think it is definitely the truth.

I have not know that I hate christianity. I thank you for letting me know a little more about myself.

Then again, the only thing I did was posting what I was thinking while reading the gospels, and immidately I have a zealot here accusing me of hate crime against his religion. Christians are easily offended, I can see that.

If you tell them their god doesn't exist, they will get offended, and yet they are offending others by saying their god don't exist and YHWH is the only god. (I heard one is not supposed to write out that 'holy' name, I guess I just offended large number of YHWH fans, or worse, even 'YHWH' himself.) Or if someone did an extensive research on why Jesus never existed, they will think he hates christianity. Or when schools are not allowed to spend public money on religious services, christians will feel they are being oppressed.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Hello Dida. The Bible is sometimes complicated, thus easily missinterpretated. I've done it myself countless times, but I'll try to help you here if I can.

- The Gospels gave 2 different family trees of Jesus. Mathew traced him back to Abraham, while Luke traced him back to Adams. The explanation is that Luke was targeted at general audience, and has to trace Jesus back to the ancestor of all man, to show his universal appeal. So they can just make up stuff to suit their propaganda needs?

Mathew show his father's line, the regal legal line, while Luke accounts Mary's line fulfilling from "the seed of the Woman" in Genesis.

- Countless other inconsistencies, such as giving 2 accounts of how Juda died, one said he hang himself, another, he fell on his belly and died.

These seem to contradict because they state 2 different things, simply. However he could have hung himself from a ledge, amongst other interpretations.

- Juda really has no motive to betray Jesus. Betraying a teacher who has demonstrated to have great power, even capable of raising the dead for the reward of only 30 gold pieces, give me a break man. This is hardly make sense. Was Juda ******** or what? To make their lies sound more reasonable, Christians said Devil was working in Juda. Well, the whole point of Jesus was to be killed so that he can save mankind. If I were the Devil, I would protect Jesus, so that he will never got killed, thus preventing him from washing away the sin of man. The Devil shall not make Juda betray Jesus, that can only help God's cosmo plan. Only reasonable explanation??? God was working in Juda!?!

Judah saw many miracles and chose not to believe as did countless others, pharisees, etc. There are many paradox's in the Bible, where here it is his choice, and yet it is something someone has to do.

- Jesus claimed that he has been sent to die for the sin of others, and from the Gospels it appeared that he knew before hand about his inevitable death in Jerusalem. But he appeared to be really tense, he asked his pupils to buy knife; he prayed right before he got arrested, and was trembling and sweating. Well, that doesn't look very godly to me, and it doesn't look like a behavior of a man who knows and controls everything.

Asked them to buy a knife ? He was very aware of the suffering He was soon to be facing, as well as the spiritual affliction of bearing the burden of our sin. Jesus was both man and the son of God, so he still experienced emotion.

- Both Mathews and Lukes were said to be based on Mark, who has been said to be a pupil of St. Peter and has never personally been studying under Jesus.

Heresay. They were all followers and had firsthand knowledge, in addition to be aided by the Holy Spirit in recollection..

- Jesus gave strikingly different opinion in Mathews and Luke, such as in Methew, he told his pupils not to go into the town of Gentiles or Samaritans, but only to the house of Isareal. In Luke, he told his pupils specifically to go to everyone including Gentiles and Samaritans, Jesus even talked to a Samaritan woman and cured her himself. Clearly, Mathew was targeting Jewish audience, while Luke has a wider general audience. Meaning, the authors of the Gospels made up stuff to suit their own needs. Jesus could not possible hold two opposing views.

Mathew was definitely written with the Jews in mind.

- One of the funnies things is when Jesus went up a tree to find fruits, and yet the tree bears no fruit. So he cursed the tree and caused it to wither. Was it the crime of the tree for not having fruits????? He could have just use his magic and make fruits for himself, or make the tree instantly grow fruits. Does he care about growing things?

I found this humerous as well. There are actually funny parts found throughout the Bible. The point was is that the fig was not producing so it is worthless. The message is to Christians who bear no fruit. They become cut off.

- Mark, the earliest Gospel never talked about virgin birth, and yet, in Mathew and Luke both talked about Angels and virgin birth and all that magical stuff. Sounds like fabrication huh? you bet. Mathew even said that the fact that Mary was a virgin fulfilled an OT prophecy.. Sounds like he created stuff out of the blue just to fix the prophecies.

Mark does not even include the nativity or anything about Jesus' birth. It starts off with His ministry which was ~30 years after His birth. I don't see why it *would* mention this.

- Luke talked a great deal about Jesus's youth. and yet he has never met Jesus. Sounds like outright lies? You bet.

They travelled together for over 3 years. If he didn't hear directly from Jesus, he heard from another follower.

- Jesus was not well-received in his hometown, even his family members, his mother, brothers didn't believe him and thinks he is crazy. Why? Because people who is closest to him knows him best, and they obviously observed nothing special about Jesus, and were wondering why everyone think he is so great.

This is wrong. His mother did believe in him and his half-brother James was one of the main leaders in the new church in Jerusalem.

- Now, the biggest flop of all time? Jesus himself suggested his 2nd coming will not be long after his own death: (Mathew 16:28) "Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Mark 13:30) "This generation will certainly not have passed away before all these things have happened." Well, 2 thousand years has passed, all those Jesus spoke to are long dead. Where is the son of god?

The verse in Matthew refers to His transfiguration which is written in the next paragraph. The verse in Luke, when it says, "this generation," is referring to a generation (possibly Israel) in the future, which is implied by another fig leaf example (representing Israel) in the preceding verses.

- Paul wrote half of the new testament himself, and inspired large portion of the rest. Luke for example, was an associate of Paul. We have to ask whether this version of Xian was really the teaching of Jesus or the teaching of Paul, a man who has never met Jesus.

Paul was chosen directly by Jesus in a vision.

- In many point, Jesus's position as son of David was stressed, making him the heir of the Isareali throne. I think he was the leader of a group of rebels against Roman occupation, and worked for an indepdent Isareal. Claiming he is decendent of an ancient hebrew king, gives him an edge. That's the only reasonable explanation why the Romans would want to kill him.

Many of the Jewish people at the time believed this, but when it became apparent that this was not His purpose, they turned on Him (triumphal entry into Jerusalem a week later becomes a mob demanding His execution). When Jesus Christ comes back, this will be when He will rule.

- The bible suggested that the Roman governor didn't want to kill Jesus, it was the priests who forced it upon him. Well, back in the days of the Romans, I don't see how a group of priests can force a decision upon a governor. This was done, obviously, after christianity saw the need to convert the romans and started shifting blame to the Jews.

The Romans had MP (military police, to use a civ term ) stationed throughout their empire. If this huge mob that wanted Jesus' death, was not allowed their wish, there would likely be riots throughout the city. The legionaries stationed there would not be allowed to contain it, and Pilate would look very bad letting a riot break out in his province. He could be killed or certainly demoted.

 

[Dida]

There are explanations for all the logic holes in the bible. The chuch has beeen trying to do that for the past 2k years, and they are exceedingly good at it. Still, no explanation can possibly cover up the fact that the bible contains lots of conflicts are many part of it is fictional.

 

[storealex]

You made a fundamental mistake here. The first post I titled as 'my thoughts on the gospels'. They can be fact or fiction, the only thing I am claiming is that they are what I was thinking when I read the gospels.
Dosn't make it any less biased.

Christians do not state that their religious belief is what they think is right, they think it is definitely the truth.

Wrong. Christians claim they believe it is the truth. Not that they know it for certain. For if they knew it as a fact, then it wouldn't be matter of faith anymore, would it?

I have not know that I hate christianity. I thank you for letting me know a little more about myself.

So the whole "I think there is only one major difference between Jesus and Osama Bin Laden" just came out of the blue, eh? As did the "Xians" and "Gawd" thing you had going on?

And to the whole:

"All I did was posting my innocent little thoughs, and suddenly this evil crusader attacks me for no reason. Typical of those Christians who are so easily offended"

Dude, I am history and history is me. Therefore altering of history greatly annoys me. It's not only when it comes to Christianity. When I watch these so called "historical" movies, who reinvent history to fit Hollywood, it irritates me a lot.
Now I don't mind historically objective criticism of my religion. On the contary, we need to get those skeletons out of the closet. What I choose to strike upon however, is when people like you change the truth or jump to fragile conclusions to fit your own personal agenda or urge for amusement. Many Christians do the same thing to protect their religion, and don't think I don't strike on them too.

Countless of atrocities was commited in the name of Christianity. It's easy to criticise the hell out of my religion, and still sound objective and unbiased. Still you don't, and I really don't understand why...

 

[Dida]

Hello Dida. The Bible is sometimes complicated, thus easily missinterpretated. I've done it myself countless times, but I'll try to help you here if I can.

well, thank you.



Mathew show his father's line, the regal legal line, while Luke accounts Mary's line fulfilling from "the seed of the Woman" in Genesis.

[/quote]These seem to contradict because they state 2 different things, simply. However he could have hung himself from a ledge, amongst other interpretations.[/quote]

Well, one explanation is he hung himself, but did not die (magically), and then he fell and died. If you use your brain, you can come up with an explanation for everything, including why the world is flat.

Judah saw many miracles and chose not to believe as did countless others, pharisees, etc. There are many paradox's in the Bible, where here it is his choice, and yet it is something someone has to do.

This doesn't explain why he would betray Jesus. What is his motive.

Asked them to buy a knife ? He was very aware of the suffering He was soon to be facing, as well as the spiritual affliction of bearing the burden of our sin. Jesus was both man and the son of God, so he still experienced emotion.

Buying life was in Luke, but the other gospel didn't talk about this. I realize Jesus does experience emotion, but for him to act this way, it is very earthly and does deminish his godly image. I don't know why the early church leader didn't edit this out as they did to countless other early gospels.

Heresay. They were all followers and had firsthand knowledge, in addition to be aided by the Holy Spirit in recollection..

Aided by the 'holy spirit'? that's your explanation?
Mathew, if he actually wrote the Gospel of Mathew was a pupil of Jesus. There is no reason to believe Mark, Luke has met Jesus. And they certainly do not have firsthanded info. Not sure who wrote John.

I found this humerous as well. There are actually funny parts found throughout the Bible. The point was is that the fig was not producing so it is worthless. The message is to Christians who bear no fruit. They become cut off.

I don't know if you realize that this made Jesus looked like a tyrant. He is probably no better Stalin if he had the power.

Mark does not even include the nativity or anything about Jesus' birth. It starts off with His ministry which was ~30 years after His birth. I don't see why it *would* mention this.

Understandably, as later church wants to make Jesus a god, they had to include some magical stuff in his early life, and virgin birth seem to a good tool to use.

They travelled together for over 3 years. If he didn't hear directly from Jesus, he heard from another follower.

Luke travelled with Paul, there is no reason to believe he travelled with Jesus.

This is wrong. His mother did believe in him and his half-brother James was one of the main leaders in the new church in Jerusalem.

Well, Mark said his family did not believe him, and ask whether he is insane.

The verse in Matthew refers to His transfiguration which is written in the next paragraph. The verse in Luke, when it says, "this generation," is referring to a generation (possibly Israel) in the future, which is implied by another fig leaf example (representing Israel) in the preceding verses.

As I said, you can explaint everything if you try hard enough. From what I read, and I am sure I am intelligent enough to understand what he said, he meant he will come back very soon.

Paul was chosen directly by Jesus in a vision.

If you were Paul, and you are trying to take over the power of the church, woudn't you make up exactly the same lie to give yourself authority? So much for choosen in a vision.

Many of the Jewish people at the time believed this, but when it became apparent that this was not His purpose, they turned on Him (triumphal entry into Jerusalem a week later becomes a mob demanding His execution). When Jesus Christ comes back, this will be when He will rule.

This made no sense.

The Romans had MP (military police, to use a civ term ) stationed throughout their empire. If this huge mob that wanted Jesus' death, was not allowed their wish, there would likely be riots throughout the city. The legionaries stationed there would not be allowed to contain it, and Pilate would look very bad letting a riot break out in his province. He could be killed or certainly demoted.

The romans are not known for being afraid of mass uprising. Least of all, for being democratic, and let the public override the will of the governor.

 

[Dida]

So saying 'Xian' and 'Gawd' is enough proof that I hate christianity? Give me a break man.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I will write a second response later, as I don't have time now. I don't understand why you believe some things in the Bible to be fact, and are asking how they make sense, and when I am giving some answers straight from the Bible you neglect it as false?

 

[storealex]

So saying 'Xian' and 'Gawd' is enough proof that I hate christianity? Give me a break man.

You have compared Jesus to both Osama Bin Laden and Stalin.

You constantly start threads with no other purpose than to attack Christianity. Some was closed by the mods for being troll threads, in other threads your posts were warned for trolling and bashing.

When ever you talk about Christianity and there can be several explanations for something, you automatically jump to the explanation portraying it in the worst light.

You constantly tries to ridicule Christianity. Be it with "funny" words or what ever.


And this is not hating?

 

[CruddyLeper]

I've always been puzzled what happened to the other Gospels. Did they get censored or were the other apostles illiiterate?

 

[Hotpoint]

I've always been puzzled what happened to the other Gospels. Did they get censored or were the other apostles illiiterate?

There is actually some doubt that any of the four Gospels was actually written by the Apostles. Biblical scholars today date them as being written between 65 and 90 AD.

As for other Gospels there actually are a few in existance but they were left out of the bible by the Council of Nicae. The Gospel of Thomas and the Infant Gospel of Thomas are worth reading, they show a very different slant to the story and may actually predate the four that are usually talked of.

 

[Dida]

You have compared Jesus to both Osama Bin Laden and Stalin.

You constantly start threads with no other purpose than to attack Christianity. Some was closed by the mods for being troll threads, in other threads your posts were warned for trolling and bashing.

When ever you talk about Christianity and there can be several explanations for something, you automatically jump to the explanation portraying it in the worst light.

You constantly tries to ridicule Christianity. Be it with "funny" words or what ever.


And this is not hating?

I do not deny that I dislike christianity as a religion. But 'hate' is a strong word and should not be used lightly. I know that you are pissed by the fact that I exposed some not so pleasant aspects of your religion. I am totally at peace with the fact that you disagree with me.
One thing I need to remind you, unlike many zealots out there, I love, I do not hate.

 

[cgannon64]

This'll be fun!

There is nothing else about the man's life that is worth recording?

Err, no.

Even the words used by the authors to describe the events were identical, which is highly usual if the works were actually from independent sources.

Its not exactly a controversial point to note that the Gospels are probably from one source.

So they can just make up stuff to suit their propaganda needs?

Well, see, Abraham also descended from Adam. He was simply pointing out that he isn't purely a Jew, he's also a human.

- Countless other inconsistencies, such as giving 2 accounts of how Juda died, one said he hang himself, another, he fell on his belly and died.

So? They disagree on a minor point. What's the problem?

Was Juda ******** or what?

No, he was just a dirty and low man. What more do you want?

To make their lies sound more reasonable, Christians said Devil was working in Juda. Well, the whole point of Jesus was to be killed so that he can save mankind. If I were the Devil, I would protect Jesus, so that he will never got killed, thus preventing him from washing away the sin of man. The Devil shall not make Juda betray Jesus, that can only help God's cosmo plan. Only reasonable explanation??? God was working in Juda!?!

You stumble across an actual good point. Many Christians forgive Judas. Not everyone says he's in the lowest circle of hell.

- Jesus claimed that he has been sent to die for the sin of others, and from the Gospels it appeared that he knew before hand about his inevitable death in Jerusalem. But he appeared to be really tense, he asked his pupils to buy knife; he prayed right before he got arrested, and was trembling and sweating. Well, that doesn't look very godly to me, and it doesn't look like a behavior of a man who knows and controls everything.

God-man. God-man.

It made no sense for him to pray.

He's God and a man. The amazing mind-bending mystery.

- Both Mathews and Lukes were said to be based on Mark, who has been said to be a pupil of St. Peter and has never personally been studying under Jesus.

Again, not a controversial point. None of the Gospel authors were truly Apostles. So?

Clearly, Mathew was targeting Jewish audience, while Luke has a wider general audience. Meaning, the authors of the Gospels made up stuff to suit their own needs. Jesus could not possible hold two opposing views.

Why do you keep on repeating this point? Why is it hypocritical for one author to focus on everyone, and for another to focus on one group of people? See, one group is contained within everyone. Its not as if in one Gospel Jesus hates a certain group and in the other he loves them.

- One of the funnies things is when Jesus went up a tree to find fruits, and yet the tree bears no fruit. So he cursed the tree and caused it to wither. Was it the crime of the tree for not having fruits????? He could have just use his magic and make fruits for himself, or make the tree instantly grow fruits. Does he care about growing things?

Erm, when did this happen?

- Mark, the earliest Gospel never talked about virgin birth, and yet, in Mathew and Luke both talked about Angels and virgin birth and all that magical stuff. Sounds like fabrication huh? you bet. Mathew even said that the fact that Mary was a virgin fulfilled an OT prophecy.. Sounds like he created stuff out of the blue just to fix the prophecies.

So its impossible for things to differ between multiple accounts?

- Luke talked a great deal about Jesus's youth. and yet he has never met Jesus. Sounds like outright lies? You bet.

Because people are completely unqualified to write about people they have not met. I suppose most biographys are 'outright lies' then.

- Jesus was not well-received in his hometown, even his family members, his mother, brothers didn't believe him and thinks he is crazy. Why? Because people who is closest to him knows him best, and they obviously observed nothing special about Jesus, and were wondering why everyone think he is so great.

His brothers thought he was crazy? He had brothers?

- Now, the biggest flop of all time? Jesus himself suggested his 2nd coming will not be long after his own death: (Mathew 16:28) "Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Mark 13:30) "This generation will certainly not have passed away before all these things have happened." Well, 2 thousand years has passed, all those Jesus spoke to are long dead. Where is the son of god?

When Jesus tells people that he will conquer death, he isn't referring to your heart stopping.

- Paul wrote half of the new testament himself, and inspired large portion of the rest. Luke for example, was an associate of Paul. We have to ask whether this version of Xian was really the teaching of Jesus or the teaching of Paul, a man who has never met Jesus.

Again, why is so important to have met the guy?

I think he was the leader of a group of rebels against Roman occupation,

A common claim of revisionism supported nowhere in the New Testament. Unless, of course, you're 'reading between the lines'. And how would that make you any different from the Christians you hate?

Well, back in the days of the Romans, I don't see how a group of priests can force a decision upon a governor. This was done, obviously, after christianity saw the need to convert the romans and started shifting blame to the Jews.

OK, so you're the governor of a very dangerous province with a history of violence. You can feel the seething rebellious tensions. The highest council of the native religion asks you to kill someone. Are you going to agree to their will, to keep peace and order, or are you going to go against them and risk getting killed and losing the territory?

That is probably made up anyways.

A convincing point.

His behavior does not fit in which a god.

Man-God, God-man...

- Talking about healing, I notice large number of people during the days of Jesus were possessed by demom. About half of all illlness that he cured were related to demom possession. Looked like demoms were a lot more active in the days of Jesus than the modern era. Ancient people had the tendency to associate unknown desease to demoms. What is interesting is Jesus actually drives demom out of these people by yelling things like 'come out of her' or 'leave her'. Sounds like Benny Hinn? You bet.

So, maybe some of the people weren't really possessed. Maybe they had seizures. So, instead of Jesus exorcising a demon, he cured epilepsy, or schizophrenia. Is this any strike against him? Oh, wait, it was probably all made up...

 

[Quasar1011]

Even the words used by the authors to describe the events were identical, which is highly usual if the works were actually from independent sources.

Ever check into why that is, instead of dismissing it out of hand?

- Countless other inconsistencies, such as giving 2 accounts of how Juda died, one said he hang himself, another, he fell on his belly and died.

Where does it say he fell on his belly and died? Surely you are referring to Acts 1:18-19, where Peter is speaking:

With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.

So let's look at this for a minute. Judas died before Jesus did. Christ's death was probably accompanied by a storm, and definitely by an earthquake. Today there are many dead and dry trees at the site where Judas died. This site is on the edge of a canyon, so one strong gust of wind, or the earthquake, would have caused the branch to break, sending the body careening into the chasm below. This could easily have resulted in "his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out"- even after Judas' death. Thus, the 2 accounts do not contradict each other at all.

I might add that you chastise the gospel writers for not giving independent information, and then when they do, you criticize it! Open your mind, Dida, and let the truth in!

- The Gospels gave 2 different family trees of Jesus. Mathew traced him back to Abraham, while Luke traced him back to Adams. The explanation is that Luke was targeted at general audience, and has to trace Jesus back to the ancestor of all man, to show his universal appeal. So they can just make up stuff to suit their propaganda needs?

Well, why give 2 accounts of a family tree, if the accounts are the same?
The key figures in Jesus' lineage, were David and Abraham. That there are a few places where the lists diverge, would be expected, given that the time frame is hundreds to thousands of years.

- Juda really has no motive to betray Jesus. Betraying a teacher who has demonstrated to have great power, even capable of raising the dead for the reward of only 30 gold pieces, give me a break man. This is hardly make sense. Was Juda ******** or what? To make their lies sound more reasonable, Christians said Devil was working in Juda. Well, the whole point of Jesus was to be killed so that he can save mankind. If I were the Devil, I would protect Jesus, so that he will never got killed, thus preventing him from washing away the sin of man. The Devil shall not make Juda betray Jesus, that can only help God's cosmo plan. Only reasonable explanation??? God was working in Juda!?!

Judas did not betray Jesus for gold, but for silver. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the accounts, get your facts straight, and re-think your position.

- Jesus claimed that he has been sent to die for the sin of others, and from the Gospels it appeared that he knew before hand about his inevitable death in Jerusalem. But he appeared to be really tense, he asked his pupils to buy knife; he prayed right before he got arrested, and was trembling and sweating. Well, that doesn't look very godly to me, and it doesn't look like a behavior of a man who knows and controls everything.

Now you are just rambling. When Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of a servant, Jesus healed the man's ear. This was right as the Roman soldiers came to arrest him. Also, when the Roman soldiers asked which man was Jesus, and Jesus said "I am!", the soldiers fell backwards. Sounds to me like Jesus was cool as a cucumber, and the Romans were tense.

- About Jesus praying, who the hell does he pray to? I thought he is god. He is at least equal with his so call 'father'. It made no sense for him to pray.

Ever been in the military? A general and colonel are both high ranking officers. But the general issues the orders, and the colonel carries them out. So it is with God. The Father and the Son are equal in their divine nature; but the Father "outranks" the Son within the godhead. One would expect God to be a God or order, and He is.

Both Mathews and Lukes were said to be based on Mark, who has been said to be a pupil of St. Peter and has never personally been studying under Jesus.

Quite irrelevant. Jesus Himself never "studied under" another rabbi.

John 7:14-15
Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach. The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having studied?"

- Jesus gave strikingly different opinion in Mathews and Luke, such as in Methew, he told his pupils not to go into the town of Gentiles or Samaritans, but only to the house of Isareal. In Luke, he told his pupils specifically to go to everyone including Gentiles and Samaritans, Jesus even talked to a Samaritan woman and cured her himself. Clearly, Mathew was targeting Jewish audience, while Luke has a wider general audience. Meaning, the authors of the Gospels made up stuff to suit their own needs. Jesus could not possible hold two opposing views.

He didn't. He was sent to the House of Israel. However, when Gentiles or Samaritans expressed faith in Him, Jesus welcomed them. He is one such account, from Matthew 15:22-28.

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

The wider audience you speak of, Dida, is the Gentile world. God's intention was always to save the world through the Jews.

- One of the funnies things is when Jesus went up a tree to find fruits, and yet the tree bears no fruit. So he cursed the tree and caused it to wither. Was it the crime of the tree for not having fruits????? He could have just use his magic and make fruits for himself, or make the tree instantly grow fruits. Does he care about growing things?

Rather than mere fruits, he cares about humans. He cursed the fig tree to shwo what would happen to Israel should they reject Him. Many things that Jesus did, had symbolic meanings for later generations, and this was one such case.

- Mark, the earliest Gospel never talked about virgin birth, and yet, in Mathew and Luke both talked about Angels and virgin birth and all that magical stuff. Sounds like fabrication huh? you bet. Mathew even said that the fact that Mary was a virgin fulfilled an OT prophecy.. Sounds like he created stuff out of the blue just to fix the prophecies.

Once again, you are trying to have things both ways, Dida. Mark was very succinct in his writing style. His gospel left out many details, that the others included. His gospel is only 16 chapters in length, compared with 28 for Matthew, 24 for Luke, and 21 chapters for John. So Mark's style was somewhat abbreviated, compared to the others. This shows that the same person did not write all 3 synoptic gospels.

And the prophet Isaiah did predict a virgin birth for the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14). Please tell me how you can "fix" a virgin birth?

- Luke talked a great deal about Jesus's youth. and yet he has never met Jesus. Sounds like outright lies? You bet.

Well, Peter met Jesus. Was one of His best friends, even, Here's what Peter had to say:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't matter whether Luke had met Jesus or not. God Himself guided Luke as he wrote out his gospel. That's how the entire Bible was written- by men, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was not well-received in his hometown, even his family members, his mother, brothers didn't believe him and thinks he is crazy. Why? Because people who is closest to him knows him best, and they obviously observed nothing special about Jesus, and were wondering why everyone think he is so great.

Before he began His ministry, Jesus probably didn't do anything noteworthy. But once He began His ministry, His brothers did come to believe in Him. One of his brothers- James- went on to pastor the first church in Jerusalem, even writing one of the Books of the Bible. And there is no doubt that Mary is revered today.

Speaking of which, Mary did know Jesus was special. After all, the angel Gabriel told her so!

- Now, the biggest flop of all time? Jesus himself suggested his 2nd coming will not be long after his own death: (Mathew 16:28) "Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

You forgot about the Apostle John. John did see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom, before his death. No error there.

(Mark 13:30) "This generation will certainly not have passed away before all these things have happened." Well, 2 thousand years has passed, all those Jesus spoke to are long dead.

I addressed this on another thread. The Greek word for "this", could just as easily have been rendered "that". The generation that heard Jesus speaking, did not see "all these things happen", so they could not have been the generation Jesus was talking about. Rather, this generation- yes, this one alive right now in 2005- has seen many of these things happen. When Christ comes, remember these words, please.

Where is the son of god?

He is seated at the right hand of the Father!

Paul wrote half of the new testament himself, and inspired large portion of the rest. Luke for example, was an associate of Paul. We have to ask whether this version of Xian was really the teaching of Jesus or the teaching of Paul, a man who has never met Jesus.

Paul never met Jesus??? Do I really need to quote the entire conversation between Paul and Jesus, in Acts chapter 9?

- In many point, Jesus's position as son of David was stressed, making him the heir of the Isareali throne. I think he was the leader of a group of rebels against Roman occupation, and worked for an indepdent Isareal. Claiming he is decendent of an ancient hebrew king, gives him an edge. That's the only reasonable explanation why the Romans would want to kill him.

But the Romans didn't want to kill him. Pontius Pilate tried to set Jesus free. The Jews wanted to kill Jesus, but under Roman occupation, they did not have the right to capital punishment.

The bible suggested that the Roman governor didn't want to kill Jesus, it was the priests who forced it upon him. Well, back in the days of the Romans, I don't see how a group of priests can force a decision upon a governor. This was done, obviously, after christianity saw the need to convert the romans and started shifting blame to the Jews.

I do. It's called avoiding a riot/uprising.

Regardless, Jesus laid down His life of His own accord. No man took it from Him.

- Jesus looked completely human in the bible. Well, if you really can make youself believe this, he actually healed desease and raised some dead. That is probably made up anyways. His behavior does not fit in which a god.

What would be godly behaviour, then? Raising people from the dead? Instantly healing their diseases? What man can do this, Dida?

- Talking about healing, I notice large number of people during the days of Jesus were possessed by demom. About half of all illlness that he cured were related to demom possession. Looked like demoms were a lot more active in the days of Jesus than the modern era. Ancient people had the tendency to associate unknown desease to demoms. What is interesting is Jesus actually drives demom out of these people by yelling things like 'come out of her' or 'leave her'. Sounds like Benny Hinn? You bet.

Since demons cannot die*, they are no more busy now than they were then. And Benny Hinn doesn't drive out demons. He does it in Jesus' name. So when Jesus addressed demons, He didn't have to use His own name. The demons knew who He is:

Matthew 8:28-29
When he (Jesus) arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

 

[CruddyLeper]

I believe in driving out demons by the old fashioned method.

Hit someone around the head with a stick. It brings them to their senses very fast.

Largely a ceremonial procedure in Japan, but the old fashioned method is in use by police forces all over the world.

 

[Dida]

I should just post one thought at a time. Because, otherwise, the posts just geting too long and replying would be too time consuming. Then again, explain to me why so many man in Jesus' time was being possessed by demom whereas no one is being possossed today? (give me one real example where people were REALLY possessed?) Clearly, authors of the bible was primative people with no medical or scientific knowledge. They write about what is known to them. Their 'world' means the world that they know, namely, Europe, Asia Minor, some Northern Africa. How come no one in the bible mentioned Japan, or China, a great empire in the East? The reason? because they don't know it exists. Jesus did not know it existed. He was a man, not a god.
There were mistakes in the bible? cus they were written by men.