Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sci-nerd

Did Jesus Exist?

3,841 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

jypsijemini
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

No. It backs up his point. It doesn't prove it. 

I know Bart's arguments, I agree with him. Yet it doesn't prove anything.

Jesus take the wheel.

Okay bruh, whatever you say. It "backs up his point but doesn't prove it."

Now can we continue with the discussion without you jumping down my throat constantly over word choice?

*repeatedly slapping own forehead*

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
23 minutes ago, jypsijemini said:

Jesus take the wheel.

Okay bruh, whatever you say. It "backs up his point but doesn't prove it."

Now can we continue with the discussion without you jumping down my throat constantly over word choice?

*repeatedly slapping own forehead*

Word choices are important. Particularly when we are discussing. Sorry you felt like I was 'jumping down your throat' I have wasn't. 

What's your take on the few primary sources of Jesus's existence?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

Not really proof by the definition of the word. As much as I love Bart his opinion isn't proof. 

I must have missed the memo. When did we start restricting the use of the word proof so severely around here?

While I can only agree that Bart's personal opinion isn't proof by any standard (umm, except in an American court of law, but I digress, since when do American lawyers speak English?), Bart's opinion accompanied by a recitation of the easily verifiable evidence upon which he relies and a sketch of how that evidence bears on the question at hand can reasonably be called proof. Or so it has always been around here that I can recall. This isn't a mathematics forum.

Colleague @Guyver raised a concern specifically about the Gospel according to John. Our new colleague @jypsijemini competently rebutted, quoting Ehrman appropriately and specifically about John. (A belated welcome aboard to her). The other three canonical Gospels have their own proofs, but all four of those proofs lead to similar conclusions: none of the canonical Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

Mark and Matthew do not address the issue, Luke offers a sketch of the author's research but without any claims of first-hand knowledge, and John claims there was an eyewitness account for two specific incidents. Further, we can trace the rise of the claims of apostolic sources for the canonical Gospels and show that the very idea comes much later than the gospels themselves. The more skeptical among us may also take note of the amazing coincidence that the apostolic credentials of the Fab Four emerge just when something needed to be done to distinguish them from the many other gospels expressing other views about Jesus and his career. Providential, eh?

Bart surely does have personal opinions about some issues, even personal opinions which he thinks are adequately backed by evidence, with which I strongly disagree. But on these matters, it isn't his personal opinion that carries the day. It's evidence and focused argument - what is fairly called proof wherever English is spoken except in math(s) class.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I must have missed the memo. When did we start restricting the use of the word proof so severely around here?

While I can only agree that Bart's personal opinion isn't proof by any standard (umm, except in an American court of law, but I digress, since when do American lawyers speak English?), Bart's opinion accompanied by a recitation of the easily verifiable evidence upon which he relies and a sketch of how that evidence bears on the question at hand can reasonably be called proof. Or so it has always been around here that I can recall. This isn't a mathematics forum.

Colleague @Guyver raised a concern specifically about the Gospel according to John. Our new colleague @jypsijemini competently rebutted, quoting Ehrman appropriately and specifically about John. (A belated welcome aboard to her). The other three canonical Gospels have their own proofs, but all four of those proofs lead to similar conclusions: none of the canonical Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

Mark and Matthew do not address the issue, Luke offers a sketch of the author's research but without any claims of first-hand knowledge, and John claims there was an eyewitness account for two specific incidents. Further, we can trace the rise of the claims of apostolic sources for the canonical Gospels and show that the very idea comes much later than the gospels themselves. The more skeptical among us may also take note of the amazing coincidence that the apostolic credentials of the Fab Four emerge just when something needed to be done to distinguish them from the many other gospels expressing other views about Jesus and his career. Providential, eh?

Bart surely does have personal opinions about some issues, even personal opinions which he thinks are adequately backed by evidence, with which I strongly disagree. But on these matters, it isn't his personal opinion that carries the day. It's evidence and focused argument - what is fairly called proof wherever English is spoken except in math(s) class.

 

I take your point......

We have quite a stringent conditions for what we call proof in my field. Should that be relaxed when discussing topics other than physics? I honestly don't know. My last trial had conditions of 4.5 sigma.

Anyways, why do you strongly disagree with Bart's opinion?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
41 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Anyways, why do you strongly disagree with Bart's opinion?

The matter I had in mind when I wrote that is the topic of the thread. Ehrman strongly believes that there was a historical Jesus. Further, interesting in light of what you and I were just saying about proof, Ehrman has characterized Jesus' historicity as a certainty. (In fairness, there are also places where he backed off of that assessment).

Of course, I don't know whether or not there really was a flesh-and-blood Jesus, and if there was, I don't know anything about him (no, not even that he was baptized and crucified, the two things most often mentioned as sure things). I do know that the matter is uncertain, and that the uncertainty exceeds the handy threshold proposed by Isaac Levi: it is not just logically possible, but seriously possible that no historical Jesus really existed.

While I have you on the line, let me take a whack at something you asked another poster:

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

What's your take on the few primary sources of Jesus's existence?

Primary source, like proof, has a discussable definition. If we went with what I think is a typical historian's usage for a text (something written by somebody alive at the time of the events described who would reasonably have had personal knowledge of them), there are only two widely accepted strictly primary sources I can think of, both of which support Jesus' existence through the author knowing or knowing of Jesus' "brother," James.

Paul is a would-be contemporary of Jesus and says he met James, the brother of the Lord, and also refers to brothers of the Lord, plural. Josephus isn't a contemporary of Jesus, but would likely have had first-hand knowledge of the trial of a man named James in the early 60's. In the received Antiquities, that James is described as the brother of Jesus called Christ.

The latter I believe to have been an innocent corruption of the text entirely explained by a lapse in Origen's memory and subsequent good-faith acceptance of what he misremembered. The former relies heavily on brother of the Lord not being a religious title. The evidence for that is thin: Paul's two uses are the only timely attested instances of the phrase, one of those looks a lot like a religious title, and there are many, many possibilities for what the title would mean.

On a point arising:

If I understand the OP article correctly, its author would deny that Josephus is a primary source for James' trial. The only basis for that I can think of is that around that time, Josephus went to Rome on an official mission. He may or may not have been present in Jerusalem for the trial itself. Fair enough. However, he did know the people who ran the trial, his coworkers and life-long associates, so I think he makes any reasonable cut for primacy.

Finally, also on the OP article. It's more than two decades old. As a personal deconversion narrative, it's great. However, nowadays, people who write seriously about this topic take care to distinguish between the "Jesus of faith" and the "historical Jesus." Not that that's a new idea. For example, Thomas Paine made a parallel distinction (Paine is cited in the OP article).

Not a big deal. I'd just be more comfortable if the distinction were maintained. Nobody walked on water. End of story. Some guy's best buddies, after a hard night's work and in the dim light before dawn, may have seen him doing so. Big difference, worth keeping straight.

 

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
20 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Nobody walked on water.

Phew, that's a relief, nothing to worry about then !

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

What's your take on the few primary sources of Jesus's existence?

Funnily enough, when I took Ancient History in senior year, I wrote a paper called "The Case for Christ" after the book by Lee Strobel. In it, I attempted to site all the evidence available that could help to validate my claim that Jesus was real and he existed, just the way the Bible said.

A dozen years later, here I am on a forum recanting the statements of my youth.

My belief is that a "Jesus" existed and lived in Jerusalem at a time when the Romans had taken over control of the beloved Promised Land, His teachings were radical, earning him a following. He performed "miracles" and healed the sick (dunno about resurrecting the dead though). He spoke of love, forgiveness, mercy, grace, divinity, helping the poor and loving your parents. Unlike the religious leaders, he focused his time and energy on the 'everyday' person rather than the 'holy', 'clean' and 'worthy'. He told stories to children. He ate and drank with fishermen. He washed feet. He even spoke to the scum of Jewish society: the tax collectors and the prostitutes. He healed the 'demon possessed'.

Meanwhile, Roman leadership were dealing with an uprising. The God-fearing Jews wanted them out of their city. They wanted to rule themselves. The Romans weren't just about to pack up and leave and tell Caesar, "Sorry, they kicked us out. Their God gave them Jerusalem so we let them have it back." They had to do SOMETHING. They were in control, and as such, they knew the goings-on - they had to, otherwise they'd be ill-prepared when faced with a revolution. They had to cut any uprising down right at the knees. There was a history with these people - they were deeply religious. The Jews believed their God had struck Egypt with almost a dozen plagues before the Pharaoh released them from slavery. He'd wiped them out in the Red Sea. And they'd been promised a Messiah to deliver them from all oppression, once and for all.

Militant force and violence wasn't going to cut it this time. The Romans had to come in from behind with a new strategy to quash this revolution.

I believe they hijacked this Jesus character once he'd left. He only had a few earnest, dedicated followers after all. And the layman's method of keeping history was oral storytelling. His teachings were submissive. The people absolutely loved him. They believed him. They followed him. So they began to spread the theory that maybe HE was the Messiah promised to them by the prophet Isaiah. They dwelt on fantastical stories such as "the virgin birth" and validated their claims by showing that Jesus was "the prince of peace". They even claimed that he'd died for their sins and been ridiculed as "King of the Jews" - all in line with Isaiah's prophesy. And in another show of his godlike glory and to fulfil the prophesies, he resurrected and ascended into Heaven.

In short, they took a peace-loving extroverted hippy and turned him into the Son of God. His teachings were exactly what they needed to re-establish Roman order in Jerusalem. "Jesus" called them to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and to "turn the other cheek" and "walk the extra mile" - to forgive not just seven times, but seventy times seven. Jesus probably was a real guy, and either died or went on to teach and learn in other lands - but he wasn't proclaiming to be the Son of God. And he wasn't crucified. And thus, didn't rise from the grave. His 'miracles' were probably no different to modern-day energy healings - and they weren't instant like people came to believe. But it gave the Roman version of Jesus more wow-factor to have him walking on water, turning water into wine and sticking people's ears back on.

Real Jesus was just an empathic, compassionate activist who hated the leaders of the Temple for their religious bigotry and for creating this hierarchy based on holiness. He believed that all people were lovable, worthy and unified in their own god-like qualities. He taught meditation over prayer. He preached human kindness rather than sinfulness. And this was something that could tear radical Judaism down from within, if used correctly.

Therefore, the Romans were able to infiltrate the beginnings of this new peace movement by documenting it in their own way and creating a new religious branch that connected itself to the old Judaic writings. They called him Christ, the son of God, the way, truth and life. They twisted beautiful theologies and philosophies on the nature of life, the way to live earnestly and the importance of truth. They used Paul most of all to get these teachings out to many of the earliest followers of Real Jesus' teachings.

In short, I believe "Jesus" was just a guy who had heard some of the Buddhist teachings and really resonated with them. He went around discussing them and teaching them and found that a lot of people really liked them. He moved around a lot, wasn't looking for fame or recognition - he just wanted to spread the philosophies that had changed his life. He passed through Jerusalem at a tumultuous time in history, changed the perceptions of people there too, and kept going, disappearing into anonymity. But the teachings and theories lingered long after he left, inspiring others to 'follow' his ways and spread the same message. It was all the Romans needed. If they brought down the Jewish religious belief system, they'd won. It wouldn't hurt to see this new submissive theology spread further into their Empire either. In fact, such teachings would establish incredible control over many, many people!

But they had to keep an eye on it. The people couldn't start to believe in their own divinity. They HAD to believe that God and Jesus existed. Therefore, they devised that the only way into Heaven would be belief. They continued the "everybody is inherently sinful" farce, requiring believers to latch onto belief in Christ if they wished to save their eternal souls. They saw this as a way to double taxes - don't just give to Caesar what is Caesar's! You should also tithe to the church! They had to start writing all this down, to ensure that the religion would stay within their control.

This is my theory on how the "Gospels" were formed. They knew that for their story to hold water, they had to cite some real instances and people who knew Jesus, heard his teachings and saw his 'miracles'. There were a few names that popped up a lot when they spoke to the key witnesses and those willing to divulge the most information. They created several separate accounts - probably for different areas and purposes as they had no way of knowing that it would all be compiled into one book.That's why only some mention that Jesus was God's son and others don't. Some give details of Jesus' birth and others don't. And some think it's important to mention Mary's virginity, and others don't - they were all meant to reach different audiences in different areas of the Empire, but to create the same submissive religion. Either that, or when all four were considered together, they proved that witness testimonies differ somewhat (as would naturally be the case), but that the general story remained mostly consistent on the more major themes.

Paul's writings then tied it all together in a neat little package, cutely complimented by the other letters that followed Acts, Romans, Corinthians etc. And to top it all off, they wanted Revelations to really bring it all home - to show The Lamb Of God seated at the right hand of the Father... A vision of what was to come that was so wonderful and powerful, giving a glimpse of the afterlife for anyone who dared to doubt it.

Once it had really taken off, it was realised that this religion had the power of going global. Almost everybody they had tested it out on had responded overwhelmingly to it. And so, it continued with the British Empire who waged wars, slaughtered indigenous peoples and burnt witches at the stake in the name of God. They kept the people under control by only allowing priests and holy men the right to read the scriptures, to own a Bible and to speak the word of God without being killed for blasphemy. They created the belief that royalty were appointed by God and had God's blessing in everything they chose to do during their rule. And right up to this very day, Christianity still has a powerful hold on people, keeping them in fear of death and eternal suffering if they were to ever stray away from their belief in Christ. They believe that he will return and end the suffering once everyone has heard about him - so they evangelise and translate the bible into every language known to man. They survey dense, unexplored territories looking for hidden tribes to bring the Good News to their huts.

But to wrap it up so I don't keep going off on mini-tangents - that is where I believe Christianity started, why it started and what my take is on the primary sources of Jesus.

(I really should have stayed in debate club a little longer to learn the beauty of concise, punchy speeches. Instead, I took more of a shine to creative and essay writing. Can you tell?)

Edited by jypsijemini
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djedi
12 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Suppose that a man named Jesus did something extraordinary.  The word got around and people admired him for it.  Then another person named Jesus did something else extraordinary.  Work got around that Jesus had done this other thing, too.  Then it happened again, and again.  Before long, Jesus was a miracle man.  And nobody remembered that there were really four people named Jesus.

Doug

Entirely possible, it can even go further than that; the people involved don't necessarily had to be named Jesus, the fact that they did something extraordinary (or claimed to have done something extraordinary, can be completely made up) can be enough to incorporate them in a new construct. An example are the healing miracles of Emperor Vespasian, he healed two blind men and a lame one in Alexandria; this is near identical to miracles performed by Jesus in the gospels. Of course no one nowerdays believes Vespasian performed miracles, it was made up, for propaganda purposes.

A lot of the supernatural elements connected with Jesus come originally from ancient mystery cults. Some Christians find this threatening to their beliefs and refuse to accept this, claim these cults 'stole' these ideas from Christianity, others don't see this at all as a threat to their beliefs and even write papers about it; such as Dr. Martin Luther King https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/influence-mystery-religions-christianity

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
10 hours ago, Guyver said:

Did you forget about the Apostle John?  He’s a bible author, or is believed to be, and he wrote a gospel, several epistles, and The Revelation.

I'll let a quote from the article answer that:

Quote

The gospel of John was compiled around the year 110 CE. If its author had been 10 years old at the time of Jesus’ crucifiction in the year 30 CE, he would have been 80 years old at the time of writing. Not only is it improbable that he would have lived so long, it is dangerous to pay much attention to the colorful “memories” recounted by a man in his “anecdotage.” Many of us who are far younger than this have had the unpleasant experience of discovering incontrovertible proof that what we thought were clear memories of some event were wildly incorrect. We also might wonder why an eye-witness of all the wonders claimed in a gospel would wait so long to write about them!

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I'll let a quote from the article answer that:

 

When he became an apostle, John was twenty-four years old and was the youngest of the twelve. He was unmarried and lived with his parents at Bethsaida; he was a fisherman and worked with his brother James in partnership with Andrew and Peter. Both before and after becoming an apostle, John functioned as the personal agent of Jesus in dealing with the Master’s family, and he continued to bear this responsibility as long as Mary the mother of Jesus lived.

139:4.2

Since John was the youngest of the twelve and so closely associated with Jesus in his family affairs, he was very dear to the Master, but it cannot be truthfully said that he was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” You would hardly suspect such a magnanimous personality as Jesus to be guilty of showing favoritism, of loving one of his apostles more than the others. The fact that John was one of the three personal aides of Jesus lent further color to this mistaken idea, not to mention that John, along with his brother James, had known Jesus longer than the others.

1,554

Source

Edited by Still Waters
Trimmed for length. The rest can be viewed in the source link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I'll let a quote from the article answer that:

 

I’m limited on time at the moment, but just to point out for the record, there’s much we don’t really know.  Christians suffered tremendous persecution under Nero and Diocletian and one of the things the Romans claim was being able to kill the Christian leaders and burn their “holy books.”  Considering how efficient the Romans were as killers at that time, it is likely that many or possibly even most of the “bible” in original form was destroyed and had to be rewritten by church elders.  This would explain variances with the gospel texts, among other things.

The Muratorian fragment shows that much of what we view as the Bible today was in fact used by the early Christian church.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Anyway, This discussion would be incomplete without touching on the works of Josephus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I'll let a quote from the article answer that:

 

There is some evidence that John may have been written about  180 AD.  The earliest known quote that may come from John dates from about that time.  Remember that the books of the Gospels were named after the Apostles, but were almost definitely not written by those men.  The Gospels, as we know them, are first mentioned by Iraeneus in Against Heresies, Book III, written about 183 AD.  Before that, there is no evidence that the Gospels existed; though, a scrap in Mark describing Jesus' hazing appears in the works of Philo of Alexandria (41 AD) in reference to a crowd hazing a mentally deficient man named Carabbas and placing a purple robe on him with a sign saying "King of the Jews."

Iraeneus was from Smyrna where he claimed to have heard Polycarp speak.  Polycarp was the last survivor who could have met the Apostles in person.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Does it even matter if an historical Jesus existed? Even "if" he did that doesn't mean that anything said about him must automatically be true, especially since we have no evidence that can be definitively attributed to him as to what he did, said, thought, believed, etc. And what we DO have doesn't appear until at least 30 years AFTER his alleged death so amounts to hear-say in any case. 

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Anyway, This discussion would be incomplete without touching on the works of Josephus.

Glad you brought that up.  Josephus "Brother James" entry is nothing more than a reference to two feuding Temple factions.  Interpreted that way, it fits right into the story line of the text.  Interpreted as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, it is jarring and out of place.

In reference to his "if it be proper" quote:  Josephus was a Pharisee,  He lived and died a Pharisee.  If he even had a hint that Jesus was the "Savior," he would have proclaimed it from the roof-tops., not hinted at it in an obscure text.

Josephus names four different people named "Jesus" that could serve as prototypes for at least part of the biblical story.

Josephus leaves quite a description of the Roman siege of the Temple and the civil war inside it that occurred during the siege.  There definitely were a bunch of different factions in the Temple.

Another thought on the Temple:  it covered maybe 40 acres and was staffed with over a thousand guards.  Jesus knocking over a money changer's table would have been a non-incident in that context.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
15 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Does it even matter if an historical Jesus existed? Even "if" he did that doesn't mean that anything said about him must automatically be true, especially since we have no evidence that can be definitively attributed to him as to what he did, said, thought, believed, etc. And what we DO have doesn't appear until at least 30 years AFTER his alleged death so amounts to hear-say in any case. 

cormac

Does it matter if there was a historical King Arthur?  Or if Queen Maeve had a real-life prototype?  It's part of our history and cultural heritage.  Thew story helps make us who we are.

If we are going to believe something, it ought at least to be physically possible.

Doug

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
7 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Does it matter if there was a historical King Arthur?  Or if Queen Maeve had a real-life prototype?  It's part of our history and cultural heritage.  The story helps make us who we are.

If we are going to believe something, it ought at least to be physically possible.

Doug

Apples and oranges, neither of the above inspired the most prevalent religion in modern history. As to the historicity of Jesus I'll answer my own question, yes it DOES matter, if for no other reason than for religio-historical accuracy. And as to being part of our history and heritage so are stories of Thor, Zeus, Ra-Horakhty, Manannan Mac Lir, Shiva, etc. Should we then be crediting them with REAL existence and godly powers based solely on millenia old hear-say as well? And yes, the story DOES help make us who we are, and who we are is a species willing to lie to itself in order to make existence more palatable to its understanding and its place, whatever that may ultimately be, in the grand scheme of things. 

Like it says under my profile location:  Many prefer a reassuring lie over an inconvenient truth

cormac

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
57 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

 

Like it says under my profile location:  Many prefer a reassuring lie over an inconvenient truth

cormac

Well, over two thousand years of a religion's existence versus a couple of hundred years of scattered scholastic investigation and speculative determination it's cornerstone of worship did not exist. Since religion is a "Belief" of course most of it's followers dismiss mere speculation, however eruditely presented. Apples and oranges, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
36 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well, over two thousand years of a religion's existence versus a couple of hundred years of scattered scholastic investigation and speculative determination it's cornerstone of worship did not exist. Since religion is a "Belief" of course most of it's followers dismiss mere speculation, however eruditely presented. Apples and oranges, indeed.

I see religious "Belief" as nothing more that "mere speculation" prettied up for the masses. But whatever. 

cormac

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I see religious "Belief" as nothing more that "mere speculation" prettied up for the masses. But whatever. 

cormac

Parsing word is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything. Since Belief is predicated on lack of evidence, most believers won't be swayed by lack of evidence. To them, the intellectual elite and their sycophants might as well be banging a gong in deaf ears. 

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Parsing word is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything. Since Belief is predicated on lack of evidence, most believers won't be swayed by lack of evidence. To them, the intellectual elite and their sycophants might as well be banging a gong in deaf ears. 

You're the one who implied that mere speculation was different than belief, it's not. Both are essentially predicated on lack of evidence. Your problem not mine. Moving on. 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
31 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

You're the one who implied that mere speculation was different than belief, it's not. Both are essentially predicated on lack of evidence. Your problem not mine. Moving on. 

cormac


No, I was implying they were both one and the same and thus only have merit for those who favor one or the other. Sorry if that was too deep for you--but that's your personal problem. Moving on

Hammerclaw

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
18 hours ago, jypsijemini said:

And to top it all off, they wanted Revelations to really bring it all home - to show The Lamb Of God seated at the right hand of the Father... A vision of what was to come that was so wonderful and powerful, giving a glimpse of the afterlife for anyone who dared to doubt it.

Actually, the inclusion of Revelations was hotly debated and most rather reluctantly acquiesced to it's presence in the Gospels.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb5d.htm

 

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini
5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Actually, the inclusion of Revelations was hotly debated and most rather reluctantly acquiesced to it's presence in the Gospels.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb5d.htm

Very eye-opening information, thank you for the link!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini
20 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

When he became an apostle, John was twenty-four years old and was the youngest of the twelve. He was unmarried and lived with his parents at Bethsaida; he was a fisherman and worked with his brother James in partnership with Andrew and Peter. Both before and after becoming an apostle, John functioned as the personal agent of Jesus in dealing with the Master’s family, and he continued to bear this responsibility as long as Mary the mother of Jesus lived.

139:4.2

Since John was the youngest of the twelve and so closely associated with Jesus in his family affairs, he was very dear to the Master, but it cannot be truthfully said that he was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” You would hardly suspect such a magnanimous personality as Jesus to be guilty of showing favoritism, of loving one of his apostles more than the others. The fact that John was one of the three personal aides of Jesus lent further color to this mistaken idea, not to mention that John, along with his brother James, had known Jesus longer than the others.

1,554

Source

Honest question - why is ANYONE quoting the Urantia Book when it supposedly originated in Chicago between 1924 -1955 and no one really knows who wrote it?

Where are the sources for such claims?

And why is this book being used as supplementary evidence for the BIble?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.