The Bible is a Book of Fairy Tales

When considered rationally, the idea that we are to believe so much on essentially no evidence is not reasonable. Josephus is dubious at best and in no way near provides suitable evidence to support the extraordinary claims of the NT. Again, you would never accept this level of information to substantiate any other religious claim of another God.

 

There is a fragment from the Gospel of Mark which has been dated to the 1st century AD, but final confirmation is ongoing.

Other than that part of Mark, the earliest copies are from the 2nd century AD, the originals were written in the 1st century between about 48 AD to 100 AD. A lot changed in the Middle East during that period, the various books of the New Testament can be dated based on wording, references to events, and references to each other.

 

That was not the point of my post. Oral tradition is often as reliable as written tradition.

 

You do not know this. We have no idea what, if anything, was actually written by the apostles.

 

Of course we do. At a minimum, we have the tradition from the various churches which housed the documents. We know the early church was alive and growing from the 1st century onwards and from the early 2nd century it follows a consistent documented path of theology. Is your claim that in the 2nd century the church suddenly just appeared, that documents which contradict the 1st century (and those witnesses which spanned the 1st and 2nd century) were made up and usurped Christianity?

Whats your explanation for the early church?

And if the fragment of the Gospel of Mark is verified to be from the 1st century, your entire argument is destroyed.

 

Without contempary unbiased sources we have idea what the movement was based on. Jesus easily could have been a David Keresh or Jim Jones, just some charismatic speaker. He could also just be a fictional character.

A gospel of Mark is meaningless. At best, he is a biased contributor and any writings contributed to him are second hand. Again, would you accept this as evidence of a god from any other religion? I'm sure the Koran makes simular claims that cannot be verified, yet it is a huge religion. How do you explain the followings of Islam and Hinduism? Why is it reasonable to discard these religions, yet you believe Christianity is well founded?

 

You're late to the discussion and obviously your mind is made up. The scripture is about the testimony of Jesus's disciples as well as followers that the Gospel is true. The Bible is still the #1 world best seller. You would have better luck attacking Shakespeare.

 

The argument in this thread is that there are no 1st century New Testament documents and nothing of the apostles is known with any degree of confidence, if Mark is dated to the 1st century then that claim is eliminated.

You also have the problem of which came first - Mark, Matthew, or Luke. That argument fluctuates, some say Mark was first, some Matthew, some say Luke is in the middle. If you believe Matthew was first and Mark is dated to the 1st century, then Matthew dates to even earlier in the 1st century. If Luke predates Mark, then it is earlier in the 1st century.

So if Mark is 1st century, you have a real problem with your argument (as in, you don't have an argument).

This dating has nothing to do with the issue of the truthfulness of the religion, its the same process used to date any ancient literature.

 

None of those religions make the claims Christianity has. None of them describe how God came down to our level to show us the Way so we can fellowship with Him. Mohammed was a warrior who killed men, died and decayed. Hinduism has a belief in many many Gods. Secular Humanism is a worship of self. You must choose and I believe you have.

 

It is thought that none of the NT was written by his apostles or followers but by later people. How much of it is true is not known. One would think that at least his teachings were remembered and passed on orally until finally written down. But at some point a decision was made to turn him into a jewish sacrifice, and his teachings then became moot. Even the way the books in the NT were chosen had behind it the goal of making it fit with a religion used by the roman empire. Afterall, it could not be in incoherence with the empire, right? Or it could not be used. IMO, this is when Christianity was corrupted and its original flavor lost, as well as the role of Christ in man's salvation. I gotta feeling that the original followers and apostles were more gnostic than orthodox, but the belief in an inner kingdom which requires the effort of seeking and meditation in repose, by the followers would have not had a place for the heiarchy of men, Pope, bishops, priests, etc, cutting out those positions enjoyed by the jewish priests, their authority etc.

Most Christians have no idea about who and why the NT was put together, and how many books were left out, and later destroyed by the RCC. So to do away with competition. LOL

Truth is, the early actual history of what the earliest Christians believed and taught is lost to time and the early organized church of am empire. That the church which did come to exist under the empire could commit such unchristlike acts for the next 2000 years looks to me like it was not a church Christ would have had anything to do with. That is, if you are familiar with what Christ did say and teach not only in the canonical gospels but in those that have been found 2000 years later, buried, hidden, as to escape the destruction of the RCC. Heretics to the official orthodoxy were many times murdered. By religious people who professed a belief in Christ. LOL

I seriously think the old satan was fully present when this religion was organized. He had the last laugh, and the history of the church looks more like the works of satan than the god Christ taught about, equating him to a father who loves his children, except much much more than any human father could love.

 

It doesn't matter what Christianity claims, it matters if it has verifiable proof, which it does not, anymore than any other religious claims.

 

Who died and made you the all knowing judge of that?

 

Without a need for Salvation or it's fulfillment....there is no Christianity. You've never read Isaiah or Zechariah? Your attempted destruction of my faith does not succeed.

 

So when do you start working to disclaim those other religions? That is your gig isn't it? Or do you just go after Christians? I bet there are tons of Muslims interested in what you have to say.

 

By your standards there is no real way to accept almost anything that occured before the invention of the printing press. Remember Christianity did not spread by military conquest. In fact the first self identified Christian Army does not occur prior to 900AD. That in and of itself is fairly miraculous.

 

Except that is not how they marched Good grief man it took them more than forty years to cover and area the size of the state of Alabama. The Chaldeans may well have been in existence as a people well prior to the Neo Babyonian empire. and probably were. Keep in mind the Bible haters believe Sargon was a fiction until relatively recently. There is a hell of a lot we simply do not know and some we may never know. And where do you thing the history came from other than scholars?

 

So with Flavius you have a Jew writing a fairy tale in support of another Jewish fairy tale. BTW, there was no guy named "Josephus" during that time period. By constantly using a bogus name it destroys the lie's credibility.

 

Wiki disagrees with you. So do most scholars. Josephus according to wiki was Born shortly after the the Crucifixion, and wrote several different works. a few of which have survived to the present day Neither Josephus himself nor Vespasian his Roman Patron, were in particular fond of Christians or Christianity. Meanwhile you and others arguing that one of the better known characters of the 1st century Roman empire did not exist just makes you look ignorant and foolish.

 

My mind is made up through study. I was brought up in a christian family, converted at 14, and later went on to become a local preacher and leader in a church. Taking 4 services a week meant a lot of study and gradually, studying the Bible, background, culture of Biblical times, I realised that the Bible was not all 2000 years of Christianity had taught it to be. Study the OT - which was written centuries before Christianity - and concentrate on the so-called prophecies of Jesus Nativity. None of the relate to Jesus in any way. Whoever wrote Matthews Gospel - and it was almost certainly not Matthew himself - simply took OT prophecies out of context to create the story. Jesus was never in Egypt. The Innocent Massacre never occurred. Bethlehem Ephratah has other connotations in the OT not to do with Jesus. 'Matthew' has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem. Bit of a commute when his business was 90 miles away in Nazareth. Luke muddles up Roman law and Jewish Law to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. And boy, David had 20 sons we know of, so if a 1000 years of descendants came to Bethlehem at the same time, Herod would certainly have wondered why. Even Jerusalem would have been inundated. And the trial and crucifixion stories conflict. None of it makes sense - unless you want to believe.

The Gospels tell us what they want us to believe. If you study them without Christian connotations we have Jesus living as a Jew, preaching Judaism, going through Judaistic practises - temptation, baptism for repentence, using the OT for many parables which his own people would understand - the Vine - the Good Shepherd etc.
The Gospel writers put into Jesus mouth things a Jew would never say.

I'm now agnostic.

The difference between the Gospels and Shakespeare is that one claims to be the truth. The other is purely entertainment.

 

Have you read the marching orders found in scripture? And the camping order?. Did they disobey Jahweh? The order of marching is ridiculous. The camping order impossible in terms of time.

All written by scribes who knew nothing of desert life. 2.5m - 3.5m wandering a desert that could hardly support a small tribe, and parts of the journey through land impossible for this great number to travel. And where is Sinai/Horeb? The journey is one dreamed up by the above scribes.

 

So Jesus never went into the temple and read from the scriptures because he was illiterate?

Obviously you don't even know your own bible!

 

Irony cubed!

 

Except when the tradition is superstition and/or fairy tales in which case reliability is utterly irrelevant as is the case with the bible.

 

BZZZT Wrong!

Unless it can be accurately dated to the specific 3 year period when Jesus is alleged to have said what was written on that scrap of parchment it is NOT contemporary.