Greetings, What? The Gospels? They are MYTH. Not history. Can you produce ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus? Any at all? Iasion
Greetings, Rubbish. When the Gospels came to prominence in mid - late 2nd century, they were specifically crticised as fiction and myths : Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths : "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction" Celsus. late 2nd C. Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented : "... the evangelists were inventors – not historians” Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit : "why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice " Furthermore, many CHRISTIANS doubted and denied that Jesus ever came to earth : 2 John warns of those who don't "acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh". Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations. "...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" - The facts are the exact opposite of what IceAgeCivilizations claimed. In reality, many critics attacked the Gospels, and many early Christians denied Jesus ever came to earth physically. Some early Christians decsribe a Christianity which is completely without any historical Jesus at all - such as Athenagoras. Iasion
Greetings, They are characters in a story. There was no tomb. There was no Jesus. Just a MYTH. What 500 witnesses? What are there names? Where can I read the 500 different accounts? Hmm? In fact, what you have is a CLAIM in a STORY of 500 witnesses - tha's all. What about the witnesses to the miracles of KRISHNA in the Gita? Do you believe they prove Krishna was real? Hmm? Or do you only faithfully believe the faithful beliefs of your own faith? Hmmm? Iasion
Sure, and Canaan never existed, nor Kush, nor Ham, Moses, Joshua, Daniel, nor Jesus, it was all made up, you go boy.
I have a copy of the Oxford Revised Standard version of the Bible. It has commentary on the bottom of the page on different verses. The commentary states this specifically about verses 9-20 of the last chapter (chapter 16) in the Gospel of Mark: "Nothing is certainly known about the origin of verses 9-20 which cannot have been part of the original text of Mark." Verses 9-20 are the verses which are about the appearence of the resurrected Jesus to Mary M. and the apostles. Basically, someone wrote these verses up years after the original text of Mark was written and the verses were added to the original text of Mark much later. Mark 16: 9-20 9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. KJV It seems strange that these verses were just thrown on to original text by an anonymous writer years after the original Mark was written.
Wkipedia.com states the following scenarios of how verses 9-20 of the last chapter became a part of Mark below: Here is the address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 Quoted from Wikpedia.com: "Possible Scenarios 1. The original ending of Mark was lost, and somebody else at a very early date completed the gospel. C. H. Turner has suggested that the original version of the gospel may have been a codex and the last pages may have been lost. However, it seems unlikely that Christian use of the codex form stretched as far back as the proposed date for the writing of Mark, though there is evidence for its adoption in the second century; 2. The author of Mark intentionally ended the gospel at 16:8, and someone else at an early date completed the gospel; 3. More than one edition of Mark’s Gospel was made, so some Christian communities would have possessed the longer ending edition, and others would have possessed the edition that stopped at 16:8. 4. The original ending was inconvenient to the church, and it was replaced."
Wikipedia plus many other sources which I'm too lazy to look for right now. However, I've already given you a statement from the commentary included in the Oxford Revised Standard Bible. This Bible states that: "Nothing is certainly known about the origin of verses 9-20 which cannot have been part of the original text of Mark." So no, it's not just Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article simply acknowledges the above statement made by well-read scholars of the Bible, and presents some possible scenarios as to where verses 9-20 came from.
Greetings, What is your point? That because the Bible has some real places in it, that ALL it's stories are true? Well, according to YOUR argument, James Bond is real, because so much of James Bond stories are real places. We can all see you totally FAIL to EVER bring up any evidence for your claims, Ice. All you do is preach. Iasion
Greetings, They have. Many times. But apologists just keep on preaching. Yet you never provide any EVIDENCE for your religious beliefs. Iasion
The reasons can be found here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html and here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html When you have read the reasons, get back to us with your answer. Iasion
I did. Right here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1230999&postcount=12 @ Iasion I hope you don't mind my cheap tactic at luring you back. I was gambling that you had email notification when I moved some relevant posts to your thread. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
lack of evidence. as theres no evidence, it is wrong to push the idea. if I was indoctrinating your children, by professing the flying teapot was real, without any evidence to back me up, then that would be wrong, I'd be lying to your children. let them decide for themselves.
