proudfootz wrote:[
Owdhat was claiming the christian cults were 'special' out of billions of religions. There's no way around that. Now which figure is particular to christianity? Is it , maybe... Jesus?

Owdhat wrote:[
I have?
I thought I said that a backwoods preacher became special to his followers . I doubt any one else was interested until Paul started on his marketing campaign.

iskander wrote:In Mark 8:11, Jesus is seen by the opposition as a pretty ordinary guy. Jesus responds to the request for a sign as an ordinary guy would be forced to do.
The Gospel was " manipulated" , but this is could be accepted as being the cause of the legend .

The Demand for a Sign. Mark 8;11-13
11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side.

IanS wrote:

iskander wrote:In Mark 8:11, Jesus is seen by the opposition as a pretty ordinary guy. Jesus responds to the request for a sign as an ordinary guy would be forced to do.
The Gospel was " manipulated" , but this is could be accepted as being the cause of the legend .

The Demand for a Sign. Mark 8;11-13
11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side.

So you are telling me there are no miracles in g-Mark? Yes or No?

iskander wrote:

IanS wrote:

iskander wrote:In Mark 8:11, Jesus is seen by the opposition as a pretty ordinary guy. Jesus responds to the request for a sign as an ordinary guy would be forced to do.
The Gospel was " manipulated" , but this is could be accepted as being the cause of the legend .

The Demand for a Sign. Mark 8;11-13
11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side.

So you are telling me there are no miracles in g-Mark? Yes or No?

I don't care about miracles . The miracles were added by people responding to the challenge of the Pharisees.

IanS wrote:

iskander wrote:

IanS wrote:

iskander wrote:In Mark 8:11, Jesus is seen by the opposition as a pretty ordinary guy. Jesus responds to the request for a sign as an ordinary guy would be forced to do.
The Gospel was " manipulated" , but this is could be accepted as being the cause of the legend .

The Demand for a Sign. Mark 8;11-13
11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side.

So you are telling me there are no miracles in g-Mark? Yes or No?

I don't care about miracles . The miracles were added by people responding to the challenge of the Pharisees.

What? You don't care!?

And you are claiming that when g-Mark was first written you know it contained no miracles, and you know they were all added later by other unnamed people, is that what you are claiming?

OK, so where is your evidence that g-Mark was first written without any miracles?

Please produce the version of g-Mark that had no miracles.

And where is your evidence that "other people" added all the numerous miracles?

Who were these "other people" and when did they add the miracles please?

Can you show the evidence of them adding the miracles please?

iskander wrote:

IanS wrote:

iskander wrote:

IanS wrote:


So you are telling me there are no miracles in g-Mark? Yes or No?

I don't care about miracles . The miracles were added by people responding to the challenge of the Pharisees.

What? You don't care!?

And you are claiming that when g-Mark was first written you know it contained no miracles, and you know they were all added later by other unnamed people, is that what you are claiming?

OK, so where is your evidence that g-Mark was first written without any miracles?

Please produce the version of g-Mark that had no miracles.

And where is your evidence that "other people" added all the numerous miracles?

Who were these "other people" and when did they add the miracles please?

Can you show the evidence of them adding the miracles please?

I don't care about miracles because I am not a religious person . There are no miracles. If miracles are not possible , then someone added these to the story.

I am not claiming anything. I am doing a post-mortem examination on a body long deceased, I eliminate devils and gods as a possible cause of death.

While today almost all Christians believe in a concept called the Trinity, this was not always the case. The Trinity is a belief that God has three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is depicted as being the Son of God, and thus part of God himself. This belief began to emerge during the time of Paul, a missionary who introduced the idea to make Christianity more popular among the polytheistic Roman Empire in the 40s-60s AD.

This new innovation in beliefs was highly disturbing to many who followed Jesus’s true message of monotheism and devotion to God. There soon emerged two groups in the early Christian Church – those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God (the Trinitarians), and those who simply accepted him as a prophet (the Unitarians).

To the Roman government, the distinction between the two groups was not important. Both the Trinitarians and the Unitarians were oppressed in the early decades of the AD era. That all changed in the late 200s and early 300s, AD. During this time, a Unitarian preacher, Arius, began to accumulate a large following among people in North Africa. He preached the Oneness of God, and the fact that Jesus was a prophet of God, not His son. As such, he was fiercely opposed by the proponents of the Trinity, who attacked and tried to marginalize him as a crazed madman. Despite their opposition, his beliefs took hold in his native Libya, and across North Africa.

[king ] Leogivild... sought to impose Arianism –a variant of Christianity the Visigoths brought with them to Hispania-- on his subjects. As Arians, the Visigoths did not believe in the Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; for them, Christ was a great prophet.

IanS wrote:

iskander wrote:

IanS wrote:

iskander wrote:In Mark 8:11, Jesus is seen by the opposition as a pretty ordinary guy. Jesus responds to the request for a sign as an ordinary guy would be forced to do.
The Gospel was " manipulated" , but this is could be accepted as being the cause of the legend .

The Demand for a Sign. Mark 8;11-13
11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side.

So you are telling me there are no miracles in g-Mark? Yes or No?

I don't care about miracles . The miracles were added by people responding to the challenge of the Pharisees.

What? You don't care!?

And you are claiming that when g-Mark was first written you know it contained no miracles, and you know they were all added later by other unnamed people, is that what you are claiming?

OK, so where is your evidence that g-Mark was first written without any miracles?

Please produce the version of g-Mark that had no miracles.

And where is your evidence that "other people" added all the numerous miracles?

Who were these "other people" and when did they add the miracles please?

Can you show the evidence of them adding the miracles please?

iskander wrote:
There are many versions about the founder of that religion, and one of the many versions include the one in which he is a mere man, as dejuror has written in this forum.

Another version is this one:

While today almost all Christians believe in a concept called the Trinity, this was not always the case. The Trinity is a belief that God has three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is depicted as being the Son of God, and thus part of God himself. This belief began to emerge during the time of Paul, a missionary who introduced the idea to make Christianity more popular among the polytheistic Roman Empire in the 40s-60s AD.

This new innovation in beliefs was highly disturbing to many who followed Jesus’s true message of monotheism and devotion to God. There soon emerged two groups in the early Christian Church – those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God (the Trinitarians), and those who simply accepted him as a prophet (the Unitarians).

To the Roman government, the distinction between the two groups was not important. Both the Trinitarians and the Unitarians were oppressed in the early decades of the AD era. That all changed in the late 200s and early 300s, AD. During this time, a Unitarian preacher, Arius, began to accumulate a large following among people in North Africa. He preached the Oneness of God, and the fact that Jesus was a prophet of God, not His son. As such, he was fiercely opposed by the proponents of the Trinity, who attacked and tried to marginalize him as a crazed madman. Despite their opposition, his beliefs took hold in his native Libya, and across North Africa.

http://lostislamichistory.com/christian ... -of-spain/

Apology to Autolycus. Book II. Chap. XV. --Of the Fourth Day.

On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again,, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets, they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.

"The Arian controversy arose in Alexandria when the newly reinstated presbyter Arius[34] began to spread doctrinal views that were contrary to those of his bishop, St. Alexander of Alexandria. The disputed issues centered on the natures and relationship of God (the Father) and the Son of God (Jesus). The disagreements sprang from different ideas about the God-head and what it meant for Jesus to be his son. Alexander maintained that the Son was divine in just the same sense that the Father is, co-eternal with the Father, else he could not be a true Son. Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is almighty and infinite, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, and that he possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures."[11][35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea


The Council of Nicea " .. affirmed the prevailing view that Jesus, the Son, was equal to the Father, one with the Father, and of the same substance (homoousios in Greek)". "The council condemned the teachings of the heterodox theologian Arius: that "the Son was a created being and inferior to God the Father". Despite the council's ruling, controversy continued. By the time of Theodosius' accession, there were still several different Church factions that promoted alternative Christology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius ... e_religion

Was there any discussion or conclusion that Jesus had a beginning, beyond the rejected Arian argument?

On 27 February 380, together with Gratian and Valentinian II, Theodosius issued the decree "Cunctos populos", the so-called "Edict of Thessalonica", recorded in the Codex Theodosianus xvi.1.2. This declared the Nicene Trinitarian Christianity to be the only legitimate Imperial religion and the only one entitled to call itself Catholic. Other Christians he described as "foolish madmen".[15] He also ended official state support for the traditional Polytheism religions and customs.[16]

On 26 November 380, two days after he had arrived in Constantinople, Theodosius expelled the non-Nicene bishop, Demophilus of Constantinople, and appointed Meletius patriarch of Antioch, and Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian Fathers from Antioch (today in Turkey), patriarch of Constantinople. Theodosius had just been baptized, by bishop Acholius of Thessalonica, during a severe illness, as was common in the early Christian world.

In May 381, Theodosius summoned a [2nd] ecumenical council at Constantinople (the First Council of Constantinople) to repair the schism between East and West on the basis of Nicean orthodoxy.[17] "The council went on to define orthodoxy, including the mysterious Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, who, though equal to the Father, 'proceeded' from Him, whereas the Son was 'begotten' of Him."[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius ... ian_creeds

A new fossil showing affinities with extant Laemanctus offers the first clear evidence for a casquehead lizard (Corytophanidae) from the Eocene of North America. Along with Geiseltaliellus from roughly coeval rocks in central Europe, the new find further documents the tropical fauna present during greenhouse conditions in the northern mid-latitudes approximately 50 million years ago (Ma). Modern Corytophanidae is a neotropical clade of iguanian lizards ranging from southern Mexico to northern South America.

Newly discovered 48-million-year-old lizard walked on water in Wyoming
Earliest known member of 'Jesus' lizard group may have flourished in once-tropical habitat

Date:
July 1, 2015
Source:
PLOS

FULL STORY
Photographs (A-C) and line drawings (D-F) of the skulls of selected corytophanid species in left lateral view. (A) Corytophanes cristatus (AMNH R 16390), (B) Laemanctus serratus (photograph; AMNH R 44982), (C) Basiliscus vittatus (AMNH R 147832), (D) Laemanctus serratus (line drawing), (E) Geiseltaliellus maarius, and (F) Babibasiliscus alxi taxon nov. (UWBM 89090). Note that it is unclear whether Babibasiliscus alxi taxon nov. had a parietal crest. Reconstructed areas are represented as semi-opaque areas and/or dotted lines. Scale bars equal 10mm.
Credit: Conrad JL.; PLoS ONE, 2015 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127900

A newly-discovered, 48-million-year-old fossil, known as a "Jesus lizard" for its ability to walk on water, may provide insight into how climate change may affect tropical species, according to a study published July 1 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Jack Conrad from American Museum of Natural History.

Modern relatives of the Jesus lizard live in an area stretching from central Mexico to northern Colombia, flourishing in the higher temperatures found at the equator. Members of various animal, plant, fungal, and other clades currently confined to the tropics or subtropical areas are often found in fossil records at mid-to-high latitudes from warm periods in Earth history.

The 48-million-year-old fossil, recovered from the Bridger Formation in Wyoming, is the first description of a new species, named Babibasiliscus alxi by the author, and may represent the earliest clear member of the Jesus lizard group, Corytophanidae. This group, which includes iguanas and chameleons, remains poorly understood, due to the small number of fossils available for study.

The author suggests Babibasilscus alxi was likely active during the day and spent a lot of time in trees. A ridge of bone on the skull gave it an angry look while providing shade for its eyes. Each small tooth had three points suitable for eating snakes, lizards, fish, insects and plants, but with a fairly large cheekbone, the lizard may have enjoyed larger prey items as well.

The author suggests that the two-foot long casquehead lizard Babibasiliscus alxi, may have skimmed the surfaces of lush, watery habitats in Wyoming, which at the time probably had a climate matching today's tropics.

"Given our current period of global climate fluctuation, looking to the fossil record offers an important opportunity to observe what is possible," said Jack Conrad, "and may give us an idea of what to expect from our dynamic Earth."

iskander wrote:The miracles are an invention, but without them there is no religion and religion can be good business.

Someone made a religion and that is clearly so from the existing official documents . In Matthew , GOD!!! is made to say that he abdicates and appoints one man to do his job on earth as well as in heaven. ( I don't want to look it up)

There are many versions about the founder of that religion, and one of the many versions include the one in which he is a mere man, as dejuror has written in this forum.

Another version is this one:

While today almost all Christians believe in a concept called the Trinity, this was not always the case. The Trinity is a belief that God has three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is depicted as being the Son of God, and thus part of God himself. This belief began to emerge during the time of Paul, a missionary who introduced the idea to make Christianity more popular among the polytheistic Roman Empire in the 40s-60s AD.

This new innovation in beliefs was highly disturbing to many who followed Jesus’s true message of monotheism and devotion to God. There soon emerged two groups in the early Christian Church – those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God (the Trinitarians), and those who simply accepted him as a prophet (the Unitarians).

To the Roman government, the distinction between the two groups was not important. Both the Trinitarians and the Unitarians were oppressed in the early decades of the AD era. That all changed in the late 200s and early 300s, AD. During this time, a Unitarian preacher, Arius, began to accumulate a large following among people in North Africa. He preached the Oneness of God, and the fact that Jesus was a prophet of God, not His son. As such, he was fiercely opposed by the proponents of the Trinity, who attacked and tried to marginalize him as a crazed madman. Despite their opposition, his beliefs took hold in his native Libya, and across North Africa.

http://lostislamichistory.com/christian ... spain/Good night

But let’s enter into Bock’s game for a moment. Why do historians “believe” Plutarch? Here’s part of the reason, and a fairly major part, explained by the historian Richard Billows in his book Julius Caesar: Colossus of Rome:

Plutarch had access to and used an array of writings now lost to us – memoirs by Sulla, Rutilius Rufus and Lucullus; histories by the likes of Asinius Pollio, Ampius Balbus, Tanusius Geminus – who were contemporaries or near contemporaries of Caesar. In the late second and early third centuries two other Greeks wrote historical works that provide a great deal of information about our period. (p. xi)

And Suetonius?

Suetonius burrowed in archives and minutes: as a high member of the emperor’s secretariat he had access to the imperial archives, though it is unclear that he derived anything of value for this Life (as he did for Divus Augustus). But he shows knowledge of the pamphleteering exchanges of the last Republic, and can deploy the accusations launched by Tanusius Geminus, the elder Curio, Caesar’s fellow consul Bibulus, and M. Actorius Naso when paddling in the murky waters of the first Catilinarian conspiracy (Christopher Pelling, “First biographers” in A Companion to Julius Caesar, p. 253)

We know who Plutarch and Suetonius were. We can cross-check their accounts with earlier sources and with later ones. We trust them to the extent that they had access to sources contemporary with Caesar.

On the other hand, we have only hypothetical sources for the gospels (Q, oral tradition, special materials of Matthew and of Luke . . .). All of these are debatable. Many of us know of Mark Goodacre’s challenge to Q; and I have posted many times on various challenges to the arguments for oral tradition as a source. There have also been many publications (especially among mainstream scholars) establishing strong arguments for lesser or greater amounts of the gospels being adaptations of Old Testament narratives. Some have even seen gospel sources in classical Greek literature.

The point is that gospel sources are traditionally hypothetical; the sources used by the earliest biographers of Caesar are known to be contemporaneous with Caesar.

Further, we know the identities of the authors of our sources about Caesar. We know neither the authors nor the original audiences of the gospels. We don’t even really know when they were written. In other words, the provenance of the gospels is lost to us.

<full article at link below>

http://vridar.org/2015/07/01/comparing- ... and-jesus/

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote: ...

You seem to have missed this question: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2255721

MS2 wrote:@IanS
Let's say a historian found some 2000 year old scrolls in which the priests of a religion talked about their god living in the nearby mountain and breathing fire and smoke. Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. Would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he was relying on evidence from religious believers?

Well iirc, the above is not a valid analogy with what you have been saying.

In your above analogy the "historian" (in the case of these HJ discussions you are actually talking about biblical scholars, in fact talking overwhelmingly about Christian religious bible scholars afaik), is not claiming the god really did live in the mountains.

And you are also assuming that it is an evidential fact that the said mountain exists and that it was in fact an active volcano at the time in question. If that were true then it would be some sort of credible physical evidence at least of the fire and smoke appearing at the relavent time.

But your belief in Jesus ...

While today almost all Christians believe in a concept called the Trinity, this was not always the case. The Trinity is a belief that God has three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is depicted as being the Son of God, and thus part of God himself. This belief began to emerge during the time of Paul, a missionary who introduced the idea to make Christianity more popular among the polytheistic Roman Empire in the 40s-60s AD.

This new innovation in beliefs was highly disturbing to many who followed Jesus’s true message of monotheism and devotion to God. There soon emerged two groups in the early Christian Church – those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God (the Trinitarians), and those who simply accepted him as a prophet (the Unitarians).

To the Roman government, the distinction between the two groups was not important. Both the Trinitarians and the Unitarians were oppressed in the early decades of the AD era. That all changed in the late 200s and early 300s, AD. During this time, a Unitarian preacher, Arius, began to accumulate a large following among people in North Africa. He preached the Oneness of God, and the fact that Jesus was a prophet of God, not His son. As such, he was fiercely opposed by the proponents of the Trinity, who attacked and tried to marginalize him as a crazed madman. Despite their opposition, his beliefs took hold in his native Libya, and across North Africa.

[king ]Religion
Leogivild... sought to impose Arianism –a variant of Christianity the Visigoths brought with them to Hispania-- on his subjects. As Arians, the Visigoths did not believe in the Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; for them, Christ was a great prophet.

(8) As the Jews have added to their other crimes this that they endeavoured to overthrow the country and the people, they must be severely punished. They have done this after they had (in appearance) received baptism, which, however, by faithlessness they have again stained. They shall be deprived of their property for the benefit of the exchequer, and shall be made slaves forever. Those to whom the King sends them as slaves must watch that they may no longer practise Jewish usages, and their children must be separated from them, when they are seven years of age, and subsequently married with Christians.

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote: ...

You seem to have missed this question: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2255721

MS2 wrote:@IanS
Let's say a historian found some 2000 year old scrolls in which the priests of a religion talked about their god living in the nearby mountain and breathing fire and smoke. Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. Would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he was relying on evidence from religious believers?

Well iirc, the above is not a valid analogy with what you have been saying.

It's entirely valid.

In your above analogy the "historian" (in the case of these HJ discussions you are actually talking about biblical scholars, in fact talking overwhelmingly about Christian religious bible scholars afaik), is not claiming the god really did live in the mountains.

Indeed. The historian does not believe the religious assertions in his texts, exactly as I do not accept the religious assertions in the texts we are talking about. The historian reads the text against itself to find out what was really going on. Which is precisely what I aim to do.

So the question is why, when you would not do so of the historian, do you repeatedly accuse me and others of 'having faith'?

MS2 wrote:

And you are also assuming that it is an evidential fact that the said mountain exists and that it was in fact an active volcano at the time in question. If that were true then it would be some sort of credible physical evidence at least of the fire and smoke appearing at the relavent time.

We all know that if there is physical evidence that helps enormously, and we all know there is very little of it in the case of HJ. This makes things much less certain, and I have said this is the case many, many times. That doesn't alter the point I am making, that your accusations of me and others of 'having faith' are unjustified.

MS2 wrote:

But your belief in Jesus ...

There you go again. I don't 'believe in Jesus'!

iskander wrote:

IanS wrote:

iskander wrote:

IanS wrote:


So you are telling me there are no miracles in g-Mark? Yes or No?

I don't care about miracles . The miracles were added by people responding to the challenge of the Pharisees.

What? You don't care!?

And you are claiming that when g-Mark was first written you know it contained no miracles, and you know they were all added later by other unnamed people, is that what you are claiming?

OK, so where is your evidence that g-Mark was first written without any miracles?

Please produce the version of g-Mark that had no miracles.

And where is your evidence that "other people" added all the numerous miracles?

Who were these "other people" and when did they add the miracles please?

Can you show the evidence of them adding the miracles please?

I don't care about miracles because I am not a religious person . There are no miracles. If miracles are not possible , then someone added these to the story.

I am not claiming anything. I am doing a post-mortem examination on a body long deceased, I eliminate devils and gods as a possible cause of death.

dejuror wrote:The stories of Jesus of Nazareth are fiction in all existing manuscripts. Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence.