I'm reading about Jesus's apostles and there's some interesting stuff...

[BrianNole09]

First, Jesus's apostles died horrific deaths for their belief in Jesus and his resurrection. All they had to do was renounce him and they would have lived, in most cases.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/

This is in stark contrast to the founders of other religions, like Muhammad, who was very powerful and had 20 wives, Joseph Smith who had power and many wives and others like L. Ron Hubbard who became very rich.

The Apostles had none of this. They didn't benefit from the world from believing Jesus at all...they only received brutal deaths for it.

That being said, the Apostles could have been crazy or brainwashed. It seems a historical fact that they truly believed Jesus was risen from the dead and they were willing to die for that.

That's interesting, IMO.

CSB.

 

[lucas80]

Who is your favorite apostle?

 

[Lone Clone]

First, Jesus's apostles died horrific deaths for their belief in Jesus and his resurrection. All they had to do was renounce him and they would have lived, in most cases.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/

This is in stark contrast to the founders of other religions, like Muhammad, who was very powerful and had 20 wives, Joseph Smith who had power and many wives and others like L. Ron Hubbard who became very rich.

The Apostles had none of this. They didn't benefit from the world from believing Jesus at all...they only received brutal deaths for it.

That being said, the Apostles could have been crazy or brainwashed. It seems a historical fact that they truly believed Jesus was risen from the dead and they were willing to die for that.

That's interesting, IMO.

CSB.

Joseph Smith was assassinated, and quite a few of his followers were murdered.

 

[aflachawk]

First, Jesus's apostles died horrific deaths for their belief in Jesus and his resurrection. All they had to do was renounce him and they would have lived, in most cases.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/

This is in stark contrast to the founders of other religions, like Muhammad, who was very powerful and had 20 wives, Joseph Smith who had power and many wives and others like L. Ron Hubbard who became very rich.

The Apostles had none of this. They didn't benefit from the world from believing Jesus at all...they only received brutal deaths for it.

That being said, the Apostles could have been crazy or brainwashed. It seems a historical fact that they truly believed Jesus was risen from the dead and they were willing to die for that.

That's interesting, IMO.

CSB.

however, during most of his ministry on earth they did not get it.

 

[BelemNole]

This is new information to you? Did you even Sunday school?

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Who is your favorite apostle?

St.Ignatius the Tree Trimmer.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

First, Jesus's apostles died horrific deaths for their belief in Jesus and his resurrection. All they had to do was renounce him and they would have lived, in most cases.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/

This is in stark contrast to the founders of other religions, like Muhammad, who was very powerful and had 20 wives, Joseph Smith who had power and many wives and others like L. Ron Hubbard who became very rich.

The Apostles had none of this. They didn't benefit from the world from believing Jesus at all...they only received brutal deaths for it.

That being said, the Apostles could have been crazy or brainwashed. It seems a historical fact that they truly believed Jesus was risen from the dead and they were willing to die for that.

That's interesting, IMO.

CSB.

The Gospels are fascinating first-hand accounts and are a critical and very timely recording of the life of Christ and the resurrection. Their first-hand testimony is solid evidence for the life of Christ. The fact that it is recorded that Mary Magdalene and the other women witnessed the empty tomb is fascinating in and of itself. If the story was made up and the goal was to get the masses to believe it, they would not have stated women were the witnesses. It would have been men since a woman’s testimony back then would not have been credible.

Then the New Testament quickly becomes the most popular book written. The Story of Alexander the Great is taken as truth yet there is no first-hand written record and the number of copies made pales in comparison to the Gospels.

Lee Strobel’s story (now book and movie) is incredible. Great stuff if you can take a little time and read it.

There is so much hope out there for the world found in the Gospels. The Good News is the ultimate understatement.

 

[BrianNole09]

Who is your favorite apostle?

Peter

 

[BrianNole09]

This is new information to you? Did you even Sunday school?

I was an atheist existentialist for about a decade and I'm learning everything anew.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

Original fake news

 

[BrianNole09]

The Gospels are fascinating first-hand accounts and are a critical and very timely recording of the life of Christ and the resurrection. Their first-hand testimony is solid evidence for the life of Christ. The fact that it is recorded that Mary Magdalene and the other women witnessed the empty tomb is fascinating in and of itself. If the story was made up and the goal was to get the masses to believe it, they would not have stated women were the witnesses. It would have been men since a woman’s testimony back then would not have been credible.

Then the New Testament quickly becomes the most popular book written. The Story of Alexander the Great is taken as truth yet there is no first-hand written record and the number of copies made pales in comparison to the Gospels.

Lee Strobel’s story (now book and movie) is incredible. Great stuff if you can take a little time and read it.

There is so much hope out there for the world found in the Gospels. The Good News is the ultimate understatement.

Which new book is that?

I read "The Case for Christ" in college and saw the movie last year.

 

[BrianNole09]

Original fake news

Thank you, Richard Dawkins!

 

[Bulldogs1974]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693

 

[h-hawk]

When I was at Iowa in the 70s there was a debate in the DI on whether there was any evidence that Jesus even existed. The believers cited other members of the cult and the disbelievers said that no independent record existed. They meant Roman or local documentation. I suppose this debate will go on forever.

 

[LBoogie28]

Who is your favorite apostle?

Most will say either John or Paul, but I have been a George guy from the start. Ringo can go eff himself.

 

[strummingram]

St. Paul was a homosexual and hated himself for it. That was a shame.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693

These small contradictions are actually better evidence for the validity of the Gospels.

True testimony from various witnesses should have some differentiation between them. If multiple witnesses all say exactly the same thing, then the validity is in question as how can multiple brains record events identical (unless intended). Why should Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John remember events exactly the same way?

In modern day, if multiple witnesses all said the exact same thing, investigators are trained to identify this as witness tampering (coaching).

 

[Bulldogs1974]

Imagine what stories of Joseph Smith or David Koresh would have sounded like after word of mouth and a few generations.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Imagine what stories of Joseph Smith or David Koresh would have sounded like after word of mouth and a few generations.

Except the Gospels are first hand accounts written while many other eyewitnesses were still around to dispute it.

 

[BrianNole09]

Imagine what stories of Joseph Smith or David Koresh would have sounded like after word of mouth and a few generations.

They would have been quickly forgotten by history.

Jesus had documented healings and exorcisms and also convinced many people that he rose from the dead.

There's a reason Jesus is the most important person in the history of the world. It's because He is the One.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693

The fact that the synoptic Gospels differ from John is not a new or radical idea. Anybody can see it from first reading.

If you are truly interested in the subject I’d be happy to engage in a discussion. My faith came from an attitude like those in the article, but the more I studied (religion minor in college) the more convinced I was that the Gospels were true.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

When I was at Iowa in the 70s there was a debate in the DI on whether there was any evidence that Jesus even existed. The believers cited other members of the cult and the disbelievers said that no independent record existed. They meant Roman or local documentation. I suppose this debate will go on forever.

The most reliable historian in Roman Judea at the time was Josephus and he mentions Christ as a historical figure.

 

[torbee]

The Gospels are fascinating first-hand accounts and are a critical and very timely recording of the life of Christ and the resurrection. Their first-hand testimony is solid evidence for the life of Christ. The fact that it is recorded that Mary Magdalene and the other women witnessed the empty tomb is fascinating in and of itself. If the story was made up and the goal was to get the masses to believe it, they would not have stated women were the witnesses. It would have been men since a woman’s testimony back then would not have been credible.

Then the New Testament quickly becomes the most popular book written. The Story of Alexander the Great is taken as truth yet there is no first-hand written record and the number of copies made pales in comparison to the Gospels.

Lee Strobel’s story (now book and movie) is incredible. Great stuff if you can take a little time and read it.

There is so much hope out there for the world found in the Gospels. The Good News is the ultimate understatement.

The only thing wrong with Christianity Is the asshats who run Christian churches.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

The only thing wrong with Christianity Is the asshats who run Christian churches.

There is some truth to this, but there is also much more wonderful work being done in the name of Jesus than you may realize if you can get past the Christians.

 

[BrianNole09]

There is some truth to this, but there is also much more wonderful work being done in the name of Jesus than you may realize if you can get past the Christians.

Some Christians are bad and some Christians are good; just like every other group.

Christianity and Christians only get judged by their faults in our country.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

I'm not talking about the gospels differing. You may want to dig into the fact that it is unknown who wrote them and when they were written. Not to mention those items destroyed after the fact.
The reference to joe smith and koresh simply illustrates the absurdity of taking the word of "true believers" . People would have and did die for joe smith and he was a known con man. How many adults would have written about the miracles of david koresh.
There is no doubt koresh and smith lived, as with jesus. The divinity part is the real catch.

 

[BrianNole09]

I'm not talking about the gospels differing. You may want to dig into the fact that it is unknown who wrote them and when they were written. Not to mention those items destroyed after the fact.
The reference to joe smith and koresh simply illustrates the absurdity of taking the word of "true believers" . People would have and did die for joe smith and he was a known con man. How many adults would have written about the miracles of david koresh.
There is no doubt koresh and smith lived, as with jesus. The divinity part is the real catch.

Precisely

 

[naturalmwa]

This is new information to you? Did you even Sunday school?

No, he’s a Catholic.

 

[BrianNole09]

No, he’s a Catholic.

I went to Catholic school for 12 years.

Our religion departments sucked

 

[naturalmwa]

The Gospels are fascinating first-hand accounts and are a critical and very timely recording of the life of Christ and the resurrection. Their first-hand testimony is solid evidence for the life of Christ. The fact that it is recorded that Mary Magdalene and the other women witnessed the empty tomb is fascinating in and of itself. If the story was made up and the goal was to get the masses to believe it, they would not have stated women were the witnesses. It would have been men since a woman’s testimony back then would not have been credible.

Then the New Testament quickly becomes the most popular book written. The Story of Alexander the Great is taken as truth yet there is no first-hand written record and the number of copies made pales in comparison to the Gospels.

Lee Strobel’s story (now book and movie) is incredible. Great stuff if you can take a little time and read it.

There is so much hope out there for the world found in the Gospels. The Good News is the ultimate understatement.

People don’t think Alexander was real because of a book. A book is all you have for Jesus. Not even a first hand account.

 

[naturalmwa]

Peter

Homo answer.

 

[naturalmwa]

These small contradictions are actually better evidence for the validity of the Gospels.

True testimony from various witnesses should have some differentiation between them. If multiple witnesses all say exactly the same thing, then the validity is in question as how can multiple brains record events identical (unless intended). Why should Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John remember events exactly the same way?

In modern day, if multiple witnesses all said the exact same thing, investigators are trained to identify this as witness tampering (coaching).

So they aren’t the inspired word of a god. Interesting.

 

[naturalmwa]

I went to Catholic school for 12 years.

Our religion departments sucked

That’s kind of typical for catholic. That religion never cared what’s was actually written in the Bible.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Luke and Mark are clearly written by Luke and Mark. There is little reason anyone would attribute to them otherwise (they were not important people otherwise). Luke is also the author of Acts, so he is pretty clearly who he identifies himself as.

John gives many clues throughout his Gospel that he is dictating to someone, and John is very likely the author of 1John 2John and 3 John, plus Revelation. Attributing the Gospel to him is based in large part on when you think it was written. If you believe like I do that the author of John would have mentioned the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD70 if it had happened before the book was written, then the Gospel of John easily could have been written during the lifetime of John the disciple. Most who give it a different author do so because they date it after John could have been alive, but I find the reasons for that dating less convincing.

Matthew is tougher but is quite certainly written by a Jew for Jewish audiences based on his concern for Jewish Law and scripture. He is familiar with the geography and politics. He also is the only one to identify Matthew as a tax collector which would have been a sign of humility on his part. Matthew was also copied more than an other book so we know 1st century audiences took it seriously.

 

[BrianNole09]

That’s kind of typical for catholic. That religion never cared what’s was actually written in the Bible.

Except that religion put the Bible together...

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

So they aren’t the inspired word of a god. Interesting.

The disagreement reinforces the reliability of the texts, so that those of us arguing about them on HROT later on could point to the evidence of their authenticity.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Except that religion put the Bible together...

Lol typical Catholic thing to say.

 

[naturalmwa]

The most reliable historian in Roman Judea at the time was Josephus and he mentions Christ as a historical figure.

No he didn’t, go research. He mentioned that there is a Christian religion. That is all

 

[BrianNole09]

Lol typical Catholic thing to say.

Well, it definitely wasn't the Protestants

 

[naturalmwa]

Luke and Mark are clearly written by Luke and Mark. There is little reason anyone would attribute to them otherwise (they were not important people otherwise). Luke is also the author of Acts, so he is pretty clearly who he identifies himself as.

John gives many clues throughout his Gospel that he is dictating to someone, and John is very likely the author of 1John 2John and 3 John, plus Revelation. Attributing the Gospel to him is based in large part on when you think it was written. If you believe like I do that the author of John would have mentioned the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD70 if it had happened before the book was written, then the Gospel of John easily could have been written during the lifetime of John the disciple. Most who give it a different author do so because they date it after John could have been alive, but I find the reasons for that dating less convincing.

Matthew is tougher but is quite certainly written by a Jew for Jewish audiences based on his concern for Jewish Law and scripture. He is familiar with the geography and politics. He also is the only one to identify Matthew as a tax collector which would have been a sign of humility on his part. Matthew was also copied more than an other book so we know 1st century audiences took it seriously.

Of course John is after the a Temple burned. It’s featured in Mark, the first account which is used in the other 3 as a source. Using a source shows they are not independent accounts. The whole point of the gospel led was to solve the temple crisis by making Jesus the eternal sacrifice for the Jews.