If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

But he SAID HE WAS DIVINE, so that's how he's a liar.

 

Then those people are lying to their children by giving them a book from "god" and not saying that Genesis is wrong. Which of course opens a can of worms: "Which OTHER chapters are wrong, mommy?"....
If the book is provably wrong, then LEAVE the belief system.

 

Sure you did.

 

I have read the Bible more times that I can count and quote from it frequently. Clearly you have not done the same.

Are you seriously claiming that Luke was not a student of Paul ? So Luke never learned from the teachings of Paul and Luke was not a follower of Paul according to you.

 

Actually let's take this apart.
Evolution can be real and Adam and Eve can be allegory (not a lie)
Jesus taught from tradition but you don't know what the man Jesus believed. Chances are that he had the same kind of debates over the meaning of the text. That was common in the ancient world and moving forward. The Torah at the time of Jesus was being parsed for meaning and the idea of taking it all literally was coming into question.

Jesus' divinity is not really provable in this context because you don't make an argument. I don't think Jesus was part of a Godhead.
Original sin was an explanation for the Jesus after the fact and has nothing to do with Jesus as a person.

.

Creation is a Jewish sacred myth. Adopted by Christians and Muslims.

Your logic is flawed.

 

Read the Bible??? or read "FROM" the Bible??

 

Just like Jesus magically returning back to earth someday and seeing that decent moral non-believers get tortured forever can be allegory (not a lie [, but not actually going to happen.]).

 

Jesus didn't say anything. He was reported to have said.


Lying is the act of telling untruths. But what is an untruth.

If Jesus believed he was divine saying so would not be a lie as far as he was concerned. Take the man or woman who go around saying my father is ........, only to find later in life that he/she was adopted. Or never knowing they were adopted. Were they lying?

I don't believe RABBI Jesus ever considered himself divine. His disciples perhaps wanted him to be, and interpreted his words to that effect.

 

Too bad he does give a rat's arse about his "children", or he'd of course have communicated better and/or do something about it today, from his invisible lair in the sky today.

 

Margot is right. The Catholic church comes through Paul and his teachings. Peter is claimed by the Catholic Church, but what do we know of Peter after he virtually disappears when Paul 'arrives'. Paul converts his understanding of Jesus to include Judaism to some degree and comes up with the 'Christian Faith'. Jesus never intended to form a church but to bring the Jews back to their God.

Jesus didn't believe in original sin. This doctrine appeared about 2 centuries after his death. He believed in Adam and Eve because he was a Jew - through and through. He had been taught the Tanakh and knew it by heart. If the Tanakh said it was true, it was true. Original sin explains the crucifixion of Jesus, etc. for the Christian church. We know better now about the ancient world. Knowledge not available to those of Jesus time. Even in our day we have people who, despite our knowledge, take the Bible literally.

Jews reject Jesus for several reasons. One is this original sin. In their belief man is born innocent and becomes responsible for his own sins. God forgives those who sincerely repent and ask forgiveness, so why the need for the sacrifice.

Paul and his Christianity has taken the Tanakh and adapted it, as I have said before. Like the JW's, Mormons and others.

 

Read the Book of Acts chapter 22.. Paul was told to preach to the gentiles.

Both Peter and Paul were murdered in Rome by Nero sometime between 64-68 AD.

 

Mathew and John were names of disciples but they were not the authors of the gospels Mathew and John.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

The author of Matthew used Mark as a source document. Same with John.

Jude is pseudepigrapha. "James the Just" is reputed to be the brother of Jesus and the leader of the Church of Jerusalem.

II Peter

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

I Peter

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch17.html

So as you can see ... we have no accounts from actual eyewitnesses.

The original disciples passed on the message of Jesus through oral tradition.

The Authors of the various books you have cited were not eyewitnesses.

 

Read the Bible. Cover to cover, at least 2 or 3 times and most parts 6 or 7 times.

Did you have a question ?

 

You didn't read his post or his urls. If you had you would know that
I did.

 

Now you're attempting to change the subject. No, Luke wasn't a student of
Paul. If somebody learns from someone it doesn't make them a student
any more than an non believer who learns something from Jesus is a student
of Jesus. Learning something and studying something are two completely
subjects.

It's obvious you didn't read the links. You really should.

 

The Catholic church calls Peter the first pope.

This is totally incorrect. Not a bit of truth is in this statement. Paul
adapted nothing. Jesus is the subject of his writings. The Tanakh
has very little to do with Christianity in that Jesus fulfilled the law and
we are no longer under it. Paul shows that to be true many times in
his writings.

 

True. And Paul had nothing to do with "developing" Christianity. He preached Jesus
to the Jews first then the Gentiles because Jesus was Christianity and there was
nothing to develop.

Jesus is Christianity.

 

I am not changing the subject at all ? Luke was a follower of Paul .. a student of Paul. He both followed Paul, as well as heard and believed in Paul's teachings. This makes him a student of Paul.

The only thing obvious is that you are trying to derail the topic with semantics.

 

NO evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how the fact likely works.

Not sure what you mean here.

Ture, and the theory of evolution may be replaced by another theory that explains evolution. But evolution is a fact.

That is not how evolution works. Sorry maybe you should stop before you sound too foolish.

whoops too late.

that would not have anything to do with evolution.

sure why not.

 

Not true. The New Advent said nothing of the kind. The Early Church
link is very questionable.

 

I disagree with you whole heartedly. A traveling companion, yes, but not a
student. Timothy was a student, but not Luke.

Are you going to read the links provided by Jonsa or not?

 

ROFL The quotes I gave you were from the New Advent link (which is why I posted it) aka Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Early Christian Writings website gives the opinions of numerous respected religious scholars and these scholars give the reasoning behind their opinion ?

On what basis do you find the link "Questionable" ?

Do you not have anything other than ad hominem ?

 

What does the status of Luke "Companion, Student, Physician" whatever have to do with the glaring fact that Luke was not an eyewitness to the life of Christ ?

Once again you do nothing but try and derail the topic over semantics.

 

Exactly. It said nothing of the kind. Please read the links you provide before
posting.

It's a generic site. The "so called" scholars aren't. In fact those that support
Gnosticism are far from reasonable.

Ad hominem? You're the one providing questionable information. Not I.

 

I cut the quotes given you from the link ? You need help with your reading comprehension

You have not pointed out one scholar that isn't.

Claims without support are not worth much and this is all you seem capable of.

It is not surprising that you have no clue what meaning of Ad Hominem is. It does not mean "questionable information"

Look Prune ... if you have nothing to contribute then don't.