Mr_Anony:

Please dude, read me carefully before replying, and also read the links I sent you carefully as well. I am not saying that Jesus was born in 3BC or any date in particular (frankly the exact date of Jesus' birth does not affect my faith in any way).
All I have tried to do is show you possibilities that Luke could have been referring to about 14 years before 6 AD. This would tally with the time when he was with Varus. The census Luke referred to could have taken place in 7 BC and this would tally with Matthew.

The truth of these matters is that Jesus was never a political leader so it is quite possible that historians would miss him, however this does not automatically mean that he never existed. In fact there is stronger evidence for Jesus existing than there is for his non-existence, and if Jesus did indeed exist, then he must have been born at a particular date and died at a particular date. Squabbles over exact dates does not do anything to disprove His life.

Now the thing about history, is that history can sometimes be vague but if there is a possibility, then it shouldn't just be discarded unless it can be proven beyond doubt to be absolutely impossible.

first,here's the original greek text from luke
The passage says hautê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou , or with interlinear translation, hautê (this) apographê (census) prôtê [the] (first) egeneto (happened to be) hêgemoneuontos [while] (governing) tês Syrias (Syria) Kyrêniou [was] (Quirinius). The correctword order, in English, is "this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is very straightforward
Greek ensure that there is simply no way this can mean "before" Quirinius in this construction. What is usually argued is that prôtê can sometimes mean "before," even though it is actually the superlative of "before" ( proteros ), just as "most" is the superlative of "more." Of course, if "before" were really meant, Luke would have used the correct adjective (such as proterê or prin ), as Sherwin-White implies, since we have no precedent in Luke for sucha use. Instead, Luke uses prin (Luke 2:26, 22:61; Acts 2:20, 7:2, 25:16), so he would surely have used the same idiom here, had thatbeen his intended meaning. But there is a deeper issue involved. The word prôtê can only be rendered as "before" in English when"first" would have the same meaning--in other words, the context must require such a meaning. For in reality the word never really means "before" in Greek. It always means "first," but sometimes in English (just as in Greek) the words "first" and "before" are interchangeable, when "before" means the same thing as "first." Forexample, "in the first books" can mean the same thing as "in the previous books" (Aristotle, Physics 263.a.11; so also Acts 1:1). Likewise, "the earth came first in relation to the sea" can mean the same thing as "the earth came before the sea" (Heraclitus 31).[ 10.3 ]
Nevertheless, what is usually offered in support of a"reinterpretation" of the word is the fact that when prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in the genitive (the genitive of comparison), and in this passage the entire clause hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou is in the genitive. But this does not work grammatically. The word hêgemoneuontos is not a noun, but a present participle (e.g. "jogging," "saying," "filing," hence"ruling" in the genitive case with a subject ( Kyrêniou ) also in the genitive. Whenever we see that we know that it is a construction called a "genitive absolute," and thus it doesn't make sense to regard it as a genitive connected to the "census" clause. In fact, thatis ruled out immediately by the fact that the verb ( egeneto ) stands between the census clause and the ruling clause--in order for the ruling clause to be in comparison with the census clause, it would have to immediately follow or precede the adjective "first," but sinceit doesn't, and the entire clause is separated from the rest of the sentence, it can only be an absolute construction. A genitive absolute does have many possible renderings, e.g. it can mean"while" or "although" or "after" or "because" or "since," but none allow the desired reinterpretation here.[ 10.4 ]
John 1:15 and 1:30 are a case in point: the context is clearly established by the point of contrast being made, "he who comes after me [ opisô mou ] is ahead of me [ emprosthen mou ] because he was before me [ prôtê mou ]." Again, the meaning is "because hewas first [in relation] to me," especially since the subject is Jesus, who was just described as the first of all creation (1:1-14). So here we have an example of when prôtos means "before," yet all the grammatical requirements are met for such a meaning, which are not met in Luke 2:2: the genitive here is not a participle with subject, but a lone pronoun (thus in the genitive of comparison); the genitive follows immediately after the adjective; and the earlier prepositions ( opisô and emprosthen ) establish the required context.Since this is clearly not the same construction as appears in Luke 2:2, it provides no analogy.[ 10.5 ] And this is in John. Luke never uses prôtos as "before" in such a chronological sense.

you get one thing wrong,there is more evidence that jesus didnt exist.infact the first historical refernce to jesus came from josephus flavius in 90AD.the only evidence that jesus existed lies in the Biblle.
you say Jesus wasnt a "political figure" so historians could have missed him,however the bible accounts that thousands listened to his sermons.he fed thousand on 2 occasions.he even became a target for the high priest to the extent of getting tried by roman officials for claiming to be the "king of the jews".
it is therefore impossible to expect that notable jewish historians of the time like pliny and seneca wouldnt have even mentioned him.the entire reference to jesus by josephus was less that 10 sentences and it could be seen that it was based on hearsay because josephus lived more than 60 years after jesus was supposedly crucified.
squabbles over dates do a lot to prove he existed.of all the books of the new teatament,only mathew,mark luke and john record events of jesus life in the narrative.adherents of christianity view those books as having been written by people who witnessed them.it then becomes a problem when those books are contradictory on something as phenomenal as when he was born.it casts doubts on the authenticity of the Bible and gives room to believe theologians who believe the new testament was composed rather than compiled.it has long been believed that at the council of nicea,constantine wanted a holy book and according to history,the book of mark was the first written in around 70AD.it is believed that Mark was embellished into mathew and luke under the supervision of eusebius who constantine put in charge of the project.it is also believed that mark 16:9-20 was added many centuries later as it is not included in the original text of the accounts of mark.of recent,some versions of the Biblenotably the NIV have stopped adding those verses to their translation

Delafruita:
first,here's the original greek text from luke
The passage says hautê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou , or with interlinear translation, hautê (this) apographê (census) prôtê [the] (first) egeneto (happened to be) hêgemoneuontos [while] (governing) tês Syrias (Syria) Kyrêniou [was] (Quirinius). The correctword order, in English, is "this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is very straightforward
Greek ensure that there is simply no way this can mean "before" Quirinius in this construction. What is usually argued is that prôtê can sometimes mean "before," even though it is actually the superlative of "before" ( proteros ), just as "most" is the superlative of "more." Of course, if "before" were really meant, Luke would have used the correct adjective (such as proterê or prin ), as Sherwin-White implies, since we have no precedent in Luke for sucha use. Instead, Luke uses prin (Luke 2:26, 22:61; Acts 2:20, 7:2, 25:16), so he would surely have used the same idiom here, had thatbeen his intended meaning. But there is a deeper issue involved. The word prôtê can only be rendered as "before" in English when"first" would have the same meaning--in other words, the context must require such a meaning. For in reality the word never really means "before" in Greek. It always means "first," but sometimes in English (just as in Greek) the words "first" and "before" are interchangeable, when "before" means the same thing as "first." Forexample, "in the first books" can mean the same thing as "in the previous books" (Aristotle, Physics 263.a.11; so also Acts 1:1). Likewise, "the earth came first in relation to the sea" can mean the same thing as "the earth came before the sea" (Heraclitus 31).[ 10.3 ]
Nevertheless, what is usually offered in support of a"reinterpretation" of the word is the fact that when prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in the genitive (the genitive of comparison), and in this passage the entire clause hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou is in the genitive. But this does not work grammatically. The word hêgemoneuontos is not a noun, but a present participle (e.g. "jogging," "saying," "filing," hence"ruling" in the genitive case with a subject ( Kyrêniou ) also in the genitive. Whenever we see that we know that it is a construction called a "genitive absolute," and thus it doesn't make sense to regard it as a genitive connected to the "census" clause. In fact, thatis ruled out immediately by the fact that the verb ( egeneto ) stands between the census clause and the ruling clause--in order for the ruling clause to be in comparison with the census clause, it would have to immediately follow or precede the adjective "first," but sinceit doesn't, and the entire clause is separated from the rest of the sentence, it can only be an absolute construction. A genitive absolute does have many possible renderings, e.g. it can mean"while" or "although" or "after" or "because" or "since," but none allow the desired reinterpretation here.[ 10.4 ]
John 1:15 and 1:30 are a case in point: the context is clearly established by the point of contrast being made, "he who comes after me [ opisô mou ] is ahead of me [ emprosthen mou ] because he was before me [ prôtê mou ]." Again, the meaning is "because hewas first [in relation] to me," especially since the subject is Jesus, who was just described as the first of all creation (1:1-14). So here we have an example of when prôtos means "before," yet all the grammatical requirements are met for such a meaning, which are not met in Luke 2:2: the genitive here is not a participle with subject, but a lone pronoun (thus in the genitive of comparison); the genitive follows immediately after the adjective; and the earlier prepositions ( opisô and emprosthen ) establish the required context.Since this is clearly not the same construction as appears in Luke 2:2, it provides no analogy.[ 10.5 ] And this is in John. Luke never uses prôtos as "before" in such a chronological sense.

I am sorry but on this I can argue no further because I don't think I am qualified to argue the peculiarities of the Greek language especially since I am not a native speaker myself.

Delafruita: you get one thing wrong,there is more evidence that jesus didnt exist.infact the first historical refernce to jesus came from josephus flavius in 90AD.the only evidence that jesus existed lies in the Biblle.
you say Jesus wasnt a "political figure" so historians could have missed him,however the bible accounts that thousands listened to his sermons.he fed thousand on 2 occasions.he even became a target for the high priest to the extent of getting tried by roman officials for claiming to be the "king of the jews".
it is therefore impossible to expect that notable jewish historians of the time like pliny and seneca wouldnt have even mentioned him.the entire reference to jesus by josephus was less that 10 sentences and it could be seen that it was based on hearsay because josephus lived more than 60 years after jesus was supposedly crucified.
squabbles over dates do a lot to prove he existed.of all the books of the new teatament,only mathew,mark luke and john record events of jesus life in the narrative.adherents of christianity view those books as having been written by people who witnessed them.it then becomes a problem when those books are contradictory on something as phenomenal as when he was born.it casts doubts on the authenticity of the Bible and gives room to believe theologians who believe the new testament was composed rather than compiled.it has long been believed that at the council of nicea,constantine wanted a holy book and according to history,the book of mark was the first written in around 70AD.it is believed that Mark was embellished into mathew and luke under the supervision of eusebius who constantine put in charge of the project.it is also believed that mark 16:9-20 was added many centuries later as it is not included in the original text of the accounts of mark.of recent,some versions of the Biblenotably the NIV have stopped adding those verses to their translation

It would interest you to know that the bible is not a book by one author but by multiple authors yet it stays in line. The life of Jesus was so profound that many people wrote about it, not limited to the 4 canonical gospels. That Seneca and Pliny did not write about it isn't proof of anything.
It would also interest you to know that Pilate himself wasn't familiar with who Jesus was and had probably never heard of him before His trial (perhaps as far as Pilate was concerned, Jesus was just another Jewish criminal only that this one claimed to be a king). If even Pilate as unaware of Christ, how much more Seneca and Pliny who were not particularly known to be in the habit of following "minor jewish events"?
You have not been able to show any definite proof of major contradictions other than the opinions of some theologians.

Now as to why Jesus must have existed,
To say that He didn't would mean that you will have to question the existence of his disciples and that of Paul and consequently tracing down the history of the church would be a futile attempt.
Alternatively, you can say that Jesus; His life, death and resurrection were made up stories by some 11 fishermen and quite a number of other people. The problem now arises because these first disciples were tortured and killed for their story but even as absurd and unbelievable as it sounded, they were willing to be die for it not one of them recanting their stance.
It is highly unlikely that their story is untrue. It is unlikely that a group of people will allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a story that they made up. Unless of course they all believe it to be true beyond doubt.
As for your issue with the Gospel of Mark, even if as you claim, the resurrection wasn't originally in it and it was written in 70AD. You would find it hard to explain away multiple references to the resurrection in Paul's letters. These will tell you that The resurrection of Jesus Christ was common knowledge amongst the first Christians.

Mr_Anony: . . . . Now as to why Jesus must have existed,
To say that He didn't would mean that you will have to question the existence of his disciples and that of Paul and consequently tracing down the history of the church would be a futile attempt.. . . . .

Per Pliny the Younger as Governor writing and reporting to his Emperor -

They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.

Mr_Anony:
I am sorry but on this I can argue no further because I don't think I am qualified to argue the peculiarities of the Greek language especially since I am not a native speaker myself.


It would interest you to know that the bible is not a book by one author but by multiple authors yet it stays in line. The life of Jesus was so profound that many people wrote about it, not limited to the 4 canonical gospels. That Seneca and Pliny did not write about it isn't proof of anything.
It would also interest you to know that Pilate himself wasn't familiar with who Jesus was and had probably never heard of him before His trial (perhaps as far as Pilate was concerned, Jesus was just another Jewish criminal only that this one claimed to be a king). If even Pilate as unaware of Christ, how much more Seneca and Pliny who were not particularly known to be in the habit of following "minor jewish events"?
You have not been able to show any definite proof of major contradictions other than the opinions of some theologians.

Now as to why Jesus must have existed,
To say that He didn't would mean that you will have to question the existence of his disciples and that of Paul and consequently tracing down the history of the church would be a futile attempt.
Alternatively, you can say that Jesus; His life, death and resurrection were made up stories by some 11 fishermen and quite a number of other people. The problem now arises because these first disciples were tortured and killed for their story but even as absurd and unbelievable as it sounded, they were willing to be die for it not one of them recanting their stance.
It is highly unlikely that their story is untrue. It is unlikely that a group of people will allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a story that they made up. Unless of course they all believe it to be true beyond doubt.
As for your issue with the Gospel of Mark, even if as you claim, the resurrection wasn't originally in it and it was written in 70AD. You would find it hard to explain away multiple references to the resurrection in Paul's letters. These will tell you that The resurrection of Jesus Christ was common knowledge amongst the first Christians.

i know you dont speak greek.thats why the text was embedded with the english translation.its very self explanatory
historians agree that paul indeed lived.some even argue that jesus did exist but that he was just another member of the pharisee sect.most however have found no single evidence that he existed.there is the believe that the story of mithra(which is very similar to christianity with its virgin birth,12 disciples,death and ressurection after 3 days and promise of return to take the faithfuls) was copied and made to fit the profile of jesus.there is no evidence that any of his disciples existed.even barabbas who mark claimed was in prison for attempting to overthrow the roman governor is not recorded anywhere in history.its also implausible the pilate will release a man charged with a serious crime and execute the one he admitted didnt commit any crime.historians are also in agreement that the custom of releasing a prisoner every year is not recorded in any part of roman history.only the gospel according to mark makes that assertion.
as for the disciples been killed for their faith,only the Bible records those facts.no other independent source records their killings.besides,all religions had their disciples or apostles killed so it wasnt a seal on the authenticity of christianity that its disciples died.even in this age,people die for their believes e.g. buddhist monks in burma,suicide bombers,buddhists etc

Enigma:


Per Pliny the Younger as Governor writing and reporting to his Emperor -

my reference to pliny was intended to mean pliny the elder who was born in 23AD.pliny the younger was a nephew of pliny the elder and was born in 61AD and could only have heard about jesus from hearsay because jesus is believed to have been crucified around 30-31AD.

Delafruita:
i know you dont speak greek.thats why the text was embedded with the english translation.its very self explanatory
historians agree that paul indeed lived.some even argue that jesus did exist but that he was just another member of the pharisee sect.most however have found no single evidence that he existed.there is the believe that the story of mithra(which is very similar to christianity with its virgin birth,12 disciples,death and ressurection after 3 days and promise of return to take the faithfuls) was copied and made to fit the profile of jesus.there is no evidence that any of his disciples existed.even barabbas who mark claimed was in prison for attempting to overthrow the roman governor is not recorded anywhere in history.its also implausible the pilate will release a man charged with a serious crime and execute the one he admitted didnt commit any crime.historians are also in agreement that the custom of releasing a prisoner every year is not recorded in any part of roman history.only the gospel according to mark makes that assertion.
as for the disciples been killed for their faith,only the Bible records those facts.no other independent source records their killings.besides,all religions had their disciples or apostles killed so it wasnt a seal on the authenticity of christianity that its disciples died.even in this age,people die for their believes e.g. buddhist monks in burma,suicide bombers,buddhists etc

My friend, I don't speak Greek and there are multiple ways of translating that text to English so since I cannot possibly ascertain the authenticity of your translation, I refuse to accept it.
The Mithra myth really does not hold water and you know it.

That something is implausible doesn't mean it is impossible, again you are committing the historian's fallacy by judging past events from today's standards and also arguing from silence. That no one else recorded it, doesn't mean it didn't exist. I am quite convinced that if the book of Mark was not in the bible but was an independent book, you would be here telling me that Jesus was crucified because it was Roman custom and not because it was a sacrifice. You will even be citing the book of Mark as "objective evidence".

The mistake you are making about the disciple's deaths is this. You are assuming that Christianity was their religion. No it was not. They were Jewish (at least they considered themselves Jews), they came in contact with Jesus. They died for what they they saw and not what someone told them. They even went against their religion of birth. It was this firm believe that made christianity to spread.
Early christianity was not spread by warriors on horses but by humble fishermen telling people about a carpenter they knew.

Delafruita:
enlighten me

you have to subject yourself to the lord first. you have to ask for forgiveness of your sins and then start reading the bible and observing the laws in it. no more stealing killing adultery fornication etc etc. then we can talk. anything short of that means you want information so you can scoff at.

Mr_Anony:

My friend, I don't speak Greek and there are multiple ways of translating that text to English so since I cannot possibly ascertain the authenticity of your translation, I refuse to accept it.
The Mithra myth really does not hold water and you know it.

That something is implausible doesn't mean it is impossible, again you are committing the historian's fallacy by judging past events from today's standards and also arguing from silence. That no one else recorded it, doesn't mean it didn't exist. I am quite convinced that if the book of Mark was not in the bible but was an independent book, you would be here telling me that Jesus was crucified because it was Roman custom and not because it was a sacrifice. You will even be citing the book of Mark as "objective evidence".

The mistake you are making about the disciple's deaths is this. You are assuming that Christianity was their religion. No it was not. They were Jewish (at least they considered themselves Jews), they came in contact with Jesus. They died for what they they saw and not what someone told them. They even went against their religion of birth. It was this firm believe that made christianity to spread.
Early christianity was not spread by warriors on horses but by humble fishermen telling people about a carpenter they knew.

do you even know the story of mithra and its relationship to xtianity?
lets get back to the basics.
1.when was the bible compiled?every account confirms that the bible was compiled at the first council of nicea that began in 325AD.consttantine had been converted to christianity by pauline christians.according to history,many doctrines(over 200) exxisted most notably the pauline and arian doctrines.this had led to religious riots and clashes between different sects.constantine then gathers 318 bishps,rabbis,mithraist etc to nicea with a mission to resolve all issues and issue a creed that will define the future of the religion.it was at this council that the trinity doctrine was formulated and it was agreed upon that a holy book should be made.eusebius was at the time personal philosopher to the emperor and sat beside him at the council meetings and he was placed in charge of compilation of the bible.take into account the fact that mithraism had been the religion far before jesus's alleged birth.even constantine was a mithran and december 25 was mithra's birthday.mithra was born by a virgin and has 12 disciples.he was executed and woke up on the 3rd day and ascended to heaven with a promise to return for the faithfuls(notice the similarity to the story of jesus).
i said earlier that constantine was converted to pauline xtianity and so in the compilation of the book he gave preference to pauline doctrines.other doctrines such as
gospel according to mary magdalene
gospel according to thomas
gospel according to barnabas etc
were excluded.
all other doctrines had their books burnt and their adherrents were either exiled or executed.
it is believed that paul's letters were interpolated while the books of luke mattew and john were developed from the book of mark to support the divine status constantine wanted to give his new religion.after the nicene council,he proclaimed xtianity the state religion of rome and thus the spread of christianity began to increase at a fast pace.
here's the issue,its really not a big deal that the book was composed.but when attempts are then made to claim the book had a divine origin and that the principal actor,jesus was a part of a divine triumvate,then it becomes an issue.the reality is christianity as we know it was created by the romans.

Delafruita:
do you even know the story of mithra and its relationship to xtianity?
lets get back to the basics.
1.when was the bible compiled?every account confirms that the bible was compiled at the first council of nicea that began in 325AD.consttantine had been converted to christianity by pauline christians.according to history,many doctrines(over 200) exxisted most notably the pauline and arian doctrines.this had led to religious riots and clashes between different sects.constantine then gathers 318 bishps,rabbis,mithraist etc to nicea with a mission to resolve all issues and issue a creed that will define the future of the religion.it was at this council that the trinity doctrine was formulated and it was agreed upon that a holy book should be made.eusebius was at the time personal philosopher to the emperor and sat beside him at the council meetings and he was placed in charge of compilation of the bible.take into account the fact that mithraism had been the religion far before jesus's alleged birth.even constantine was a mithran and december 25 was mithra's birthday.mithra was born by a virgin and has 12 disciples.he was executed and woke up on the 3rd day and ascended to heaven with a promise to return for the faithfuls(notice the similarity to the story of jesus).
i said earlier that constantine was converted to pauline xtianity and so in the compilation of the book he gave preference to pauline doctrines.other doctrines such as
gospel according to mary magdalene
gospel according to thomas
gospel according to barnabas etc
were excluded.
all other doctrines had their books burnt and their adherrents were either exiled or executed.
it is believed that paul's letters were interpolated while the books of luke mattew and john were developed from the book of mark to support the divine status constantine wanted to give his new religion.after the nicene council,he proclaimed xtianity the state religion of rome and thus the spread of christianity began to increase at a fast pace.
here's the issue,its really not a big deal that the book was composed.but when attempts are then made to claim the book had a divine origin and that the principal actor,jesus was a part of a divine triumvate,then it becomes an issue.the reality is christianity as we know it was created by the romans.

Now here comes the "pauline christianity" angle. I was wondering when it will show up.
About Mithra, I head he was born in a cave and he fought with the sun, killed a bull and ascended to heaven. He was even worshipped in constructed caves. Sorry your mithra looks nothing like my Jesus.

You have no proof that the bible was composed rather than compiled at the time of Constantine. It is at best a "probably". You can't provide absolute proof that the bible is not God's word. So far you have not. Your compilation of maybes and maybe nots simply doesn't cut it.

The stuff you are claiming as true events here, you can't back up with any concrete proof. For instance if I asked you how you know for sure that that Paul's letters were interpolated and that the other gospels were written in 325AD using Mark as a referrence, you will immediately start appealing to authority and telling me that some experts think so.

I am getting weary of dancing round circles with you. It is either you have proof of your claims or you don't.

Mr_Anony: . . . .

You have no proof that the bible was composed rather than compiled at the time of Constantine. .. . . .

The claim is rubbish as usual (whether of 'composed' or even of "compiled" ).

Old Testament canon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

New Testament canon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

Mr_Anony:

Now here comes the "pauline christianity" angle. I was wondering when it will show up.
About Mithra, I head he was born in a cave and he fought with the sun, killed a bull and ascended to heaven. He was even worshipped in constructed caves. Sorry your mithra looks nothing like my Jesus.

You have no proof that the bible was composed rather than compiled at the time of Constantine. It is at best a "probably". You can't provide absolute proof that the bible is not God's word. So far you have not. Your compilation of maybes and maybe nots simply doesn't cut it.

The stuff you are claiming as true events here, you can't back up with any concrete proof. For instance if I asked you how you know for sure that that Paul's letters were interpolated and that the other gospels were written in 325AD using Mark as a referrence, you will immediately start appealing to authority and telling me that some experts think so.

I am getting weary of dancing round circles with you. It is either you have proof of your claims or you don't.

you are very funny.so when you were "hearing about mithra",you didnt hear that his mother was a virgin named anahita.you also didnt "hear" that mithra had 12 disciples.you also didnt "hear" that mithra was described as the way,the truth and the light.you also didnt hear that mithra died and arose after 3 days.you also didnt hear that mithra was betrayed by one of his disciples.you also didnt hear that mithra had a last supper with his disciples before his death.you also didnt hear that mithra ascended to heaven with a promise to return.you also didnt hear that temples were erected for mithraism.you also didnt hear that mithraism had elders,bishops and deacons.
if the Bible is indeed the words of an infallible Yahweh,there should be no errors as that of luke and matthew's accounts.thats a starting point.
of the 14 letters attributed to paul,he only wrote 8 of them

Delafruita:
you are very funny.so when you were "hearing about mithra",you didnt hear that his mother was a virgin named anahita.you also didnt "hear" that mithra had 12 disciples.you also didnt "hear" that mithra was described as the way,the truth and the light.you also didnt hear that mithra died and arose after 3 days.you also didnt hear that mithra was betrayed by one of his disciples.you also didnt hear that mithra had a last supper with his disciples before his death.you also didnt hear that mithra ascended to heaven with a promise to return.you also didnt hear that temples were erected for mithraism.you also didnt hear that mithraism had elders,bishops and deacons.

My guy, I didn't hear oh! I am a christian, I don't make it a habit to go out of my way to study about mithra
By the way, look what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

Delafruita: if the Bible is indeed the words of an infallible Yahweh,there should be no errors as that of luke and matthew's accounts.thats a starting point.
of the 14 letters attributed to paul,he only wrote 8 of them

You can claim errors until your face turns blue, it won't change anything until you can back up your claims with absolute proof

Mr_Anony:
My guy, I didn't hear oh! I am a christian, I don't make it a habit to go out of my way to study about mithra
By the way, look what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems


You can claim errors until your face turns blue, it won't change anything until you can back up your claims with absolute proof

you refuse to see the proofs

Delafruita:
you refuse to see the proofs

Lol, you have failed to provide proof. I am sorry I can't see what you can't show.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you have failed to provide proof. I am sorry I can't see what you can't show.

you dont have to agree with me.but take a critical look at luke and mattew's account on your own.the discrepancy isnt just with the time he was born.mattew claimed they fled to egypt while luke says they went back to nazareth.mattew says they stayed away from jerusalem for 12 years while luke says they visited jerusalem every year.

Delafruita:
you dont have to agree with me.but take a critical look at luke and mattew's account on your own.the discrepancy isnt just with the time he was born.mattew claimed they fled to egypt while luke says they went back to nazareth.mattew says they stayed away from jerusalem for 12 years while luke says they visited jerusalem every year.

My friend, here we go again. First let me tell you what a contradiction is: An event that makes it impossible for another event to occur is a contradiction.
Matthew does not contradict Luke in this regard. I have not yet seen the part in Matthew that says that Jesus' family stayed away from Jerusalem and never went there for 12 years. Please if you would be so kind to show me to it.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, here we go again. First let me tell you what a contradiction is: An event that makes it impossible for another event to occur is a contradiction.
Matthew does not contradict Luke in this regard. I have not yet seen the part in Matthew that says that Jesus' family stayed away from Jerusalem and never went there for 12 years. Please if you would be so kind to show me to it.

mattew 2:14 and he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departted to egypt.
2:20 rise,take the child and his mother and go to the land of isreal for those who sought the child's life are dead
2:21 and he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of isreal
2:22 but when he heard that archelaus reigned over judea in place of his father herod,he was afraid to go there and been warned in a dream,he withdrew to the district of galilee

compare to luke

luke 2:4 and joseph also went up from galilee,from the city of nazareth to judea,to the city of david which is called bethlehem because he was of the lineage of david.(you can see from here that joseph came from galilee to bethlehem for the census)
2:22 and when the days of her purification according to the law of moses were accomplished,they brought him to jerusalem and presented him to the lord.
2:39 and when they had performed all things according to the law of the lord,they returned to galilee,to their own city of nazaretth
2:41 now his parents went up to jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover
you can see from luke's account that there was no mention of egypt or the shpherd's visiting herod.according to luke,after mary delivered,jesus was circumcised after 8 days,then the customary period for cleansing was allowed to pass then jesus was presented to the lord at the temple in jerusalem.would that have been possible with the knowledge that herod was after them?
according to mathew,they fled for egypt immediately after the medjai left.
i look forward to seeing how you will synchronise the two accounts

Mr_Anony:

Now as to why Jesus must have existed,
To say that He didn't would mean that you will have to question the existence of his disciples and that of Paul and consequently tracing down the history of the church would be a futile attempt.

Who exactly are his disciples? What do we know about them apart from what is written about them in the bible and church traditions?. . .The gospels were NOT written by the so called disciples of Jesus, they were written by very educated Greek speaking Christians long after Jesus and his alleged disciples all died. . .All the autors of the gospels were NOT eye witness to any of the things they reported in the gospels. . .There is a VERY big different btw the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus of Paul. Paul did not write about Jesus like some one that lived a few years ago. . .He did not write anything about him like his miracles, etc. . .The funny thing is that Paul's letters all predate the gospels. . .

Alternatively, you can say that Jesus; His life, death and resurrection were made up stories by some 11 fishermen and quite a number of other people. The problem now arises because these first disciples were tortured and killed for their story but even as absurd and unbelievable as it sounded, they were willing to be die for it not one of them recanting their stance.

The story that the disciples of Jesus were tourtured is a church tradition that have no evidence to back it up any where. . .It was made up to strengthen the belief of new converts. . .Again the story of Jesus as we know it was NOT written down by any of his disciples, NON of the gospels was written down by any body who has ever meet Jesus. . . .Gospels were written 50-70 years after the alleged events by educated greek speaking christians not the aramiac disciples of Jesus who were already dead by that time. . .

It is highly unlikely that their story is untrue. It is unlikely that a group of people will allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a story that they made up. Unless of course they all believe it to be true beyond doubt.

The disciples of Jesus being torturted itself is another story. . .The excuse is a very tenous one, because many people allow themselves to be tourtured and killed over lies. . .

As for your issue with the Gospel of Mark, even if as you claim, the resurrection wasn't originally in it and it was written in 70AD. You would find it hard to explain away multiple references to the resurrection in Paul's letters. These will tell you that The resurrection of Jesus Christ was common knowledge amongst the first Christians.

Paul talks about Jesus dying and resurrecting according to the scriptures, his account of who Jesus appeared to after his resurrection is completely diffrent from what is written in the gospels. . . .

Delafruita:
mattew 2:14 and he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departted to egypt.
2:20 rise,take the child and his mother and go to the land of isreal for those who sought the child's life are dead
2:21 and he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of isreal
2:22 but when he heard that archelaus reigned over judea in place of his father herod,he was afraid to go there and been warned in a dream,he withdrew to the district of galilee

compare to luke

luke 2:4 and joseph also went up from galilee,from the city of nazareth to judea,to the city of david which is called bethlehem because he was of the lineage of david.(you can see from here that joseph came from galilee to bethlehem for the census)
2:22 and when the days of her purification according to the law of moses were accomplished,they brought him to jerusalem and presented him to the lord.
2:39 and when they had performed all things according to the law of the lord,they returned to galilee,to their own city of nazaretth
2:41 now his parents went up to jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover
you can see from luke's account that there was no mention of egypt or the shpherd's visiting herod.according to luke,after mary delivered,jesus was circumcised after 8 days,then the customary period for cleansing was allowed to pass then jesus was presented to the lord at the temple in jerusalem.would that have been possible with the knowledge that herod was after them?
according to mathew,they fled for egypt immediately after the medjai left.
i look forward to seeing how you will synchronise the two accounts

@Delafruita, a contradiction is when A makes it impossible for B to take place. Silence is NOT contradiction...
Matthew does not make it impossible for Luke to occur. Now the days of purification are 40 days after birth. This will allow for Shepherds to visit Him in a manger in Bethelhem.
It will interest you that Herod kills Children 2 years and below, judging from when the Magi said the star first appeared. It can be argued that Jesus was already about 2 yrs old when this incident happened. Matthew is silent over where the Magi found Jesus but we know it is not a manger in Bethelhem as Matt 2:11 says they found Him in a house.
Besides if Jesus was born in 7BC and Herod died in 4BC then it can be argued that they didn't stay in Egypt for that long.

Now the part about going to Jerusalem every year is a preceding statement opening the story of 12 year old Jesus in the temple. It is not a statement bound by strict fact following the baby's first temple visit as you are trying to make it sound like "......every year from the time they took the baby to Jerusalem....."

mazaje:

Who exactly are his disciples? What do we know about them apart from what is written about them in the bible and church traditions?. . .The gospels were NOT written by the so called disciples of Jesus, they were written by very educated Greek speaking Christians long after Jesus and his alleged disciples all died. . .All the autors of the gospels were NOT eye witness to any of the things they reported in the gospels. . .There is a VERY big different btw the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus of Paul. Paul did not write about Jesus like some one that lived a few years ago. . .He did not write anything about him like his miracles, etc. . .The funny thing is that Paul's letters all predate the gospels. . .

Really? please do tell what is this VERY BIG difference between Jesus of the gospels and Jesus of Paul?

The story that the disciples of Jesus were tourtured is a church tradition that have no evidence to back it up any where. . .It was made up to strengthen the belief of new converts. . .Again the story of Jesus as we know it was NOT written down by any of his disciples, NON of the gospels was written down by any body who has ever meet Jesus. . . .Gospels were written 50-70 years after the alleged events by educated greek speaking christians not the aramiac disciples of Jesus who were already dead by that time. . .

Please show absolute proof that church tradition was made up.

The disciples of Jesus being torturted itself is another story. . .The excuse is a very tenous one, because many people allow themselves to be tourtured and killed over lies. . .

My friend, don't contradict yourself, it is either you are saying the apostles existed or didn't exist. You can't have it both ways by saying they didn't exist and then arguing about why they were tortured.

Paul talks about Jesus dying and resurrecting according to the scriptures, his account of who Jesus appeared to after his resurrection is completely diffrent from what is written in the gospels. . . .

Please point us to these claims.

Mr_Anony:

@Delafruita, a contradiction is when A makes it impossible for B to take place. Silence is NOT contradiction...
Matthew does not make it impossible for Luke to occur. Now the days of purification are 40 days after birth. This will allow for Shepherds to visit Him in a manger in Bethelhem.
It will interest you that Herod kills Children 2 years and below, judging from when the Magi said the star first appeared. It can be argued that Jesus was already about 2 yrs old when this incident happened. Matthew is silent over where the Magi found Jesus but we know it is not a manger in Bethelhem as Matt 2:11 says they found Him in a house.
Besides if Jesus was born in 7BC and Herod died in 4BC then it can be argued that they didn't stay in Egypt for that long.

Now the part about going to Jerusalem every year is a preceding statement opening the story of 12 year old Jesus in the temple. It is not a statement bound by strict fact following the baby's first temple visit as you are trying to make it sound like "......every year from the time they took the baby to Jerusalem....."

there's a difference between a contradiction and a discrepancy.i chose my words carefully.a discrepancy is when accounts of an occurence differ when told by different authors.the authors agree the event happen,but recount it differently.
i suspected you would spin the 40day story which was why i deliberately didnt mention it.
luke explicitly states that the maji came to jesus in the manger.if mattew doesnt corroborate that,then thats another discrepancy.however if we assume mattew coroborates luke,that would mean the medjai met jesus in a manger,gave him the stuff and didnt go back to herod.luke also accounts that the medjai left before jesus was circumcised.
matthew accounts that the angel appeared to joseph immediately after the medjai left.according to matthew,they couldnt have waited for the 40day cleansing period because they had to escape to egypt.unless mattew intends to say the wise men came 2 years after jesus was born whereas luke says they came less than 8days after he was born.
on a side note,i must confess you have tried your best in to correlate both accounts,its just not possible to accomplish that.if these scrutinies had begun in the 1st millenium,its likely the verses could have been changed but as it is,bible scholars have looked for ways to rewite these accounts to correlate.unfortunately there's too many details that differ in both accounts

Delafruita:
there's a difference between a contradiction and a discrepancy.i chose my words carefully.a discrepancy is when accounts of an occurence differ when told by different authors.the authors agree the event happen,but recount it differently.
i suspected you would spin the 40day story which was why i deliberately didnt mention it.
luke explicitly states that the maji came to jesus in the manger.if mattew doesnt corroborate that,then thats another discrepancy.however if we assume mattew coroborates luke,that would mean the medjai met jesus in a manger,gave him the stuff and didnt go back to herod.luke also accounts that the medjai left before jesus was circumcised.
matthew accounts that the angel appeared to joseph immediately after the medjai left.according to matthew,they couldnt have waited for the 40day cleansing period because they had to escape to egypt.unless mattew intends to say the wise men came 2 years after jesus was born whereas luke says they came less than 8days after he was born.
on a side note,i must confess you have tried your best in to correlate both accounts,its just not possible to accomplish that.if these scrutinies had begun in the 1st millenium,its likely the verses could have been changed but as it is,bible scholars have looked for ways to rewite these accounts to correlate.unfortunately there's too many details that differ in both accounts

Ok just to state things more clearly:
If by discrepancy, you don't really mean contradiction, then there is no point debating as a "discrepancy" here does not negate the truth but shows it from two view points.
By magi, I mean wise men from the East and not shepherds. I also hold that there is nothing stopping wise men from the East from visiting Christ as well as shepherds also visiting baby Jesus.
I do not hold that the shepherds are the same people being referred to as wise men. That is your own interpretation.

Mr_Anony:

Ok just to state things more clearly:
If by discrepancy, you don't really mean contradiction, then there is no point debating as a "discrepancy" here does not negate the truth but shows it from two view points.
By magi, I mean wise men from the East and not shepherds. I also hold that there is nothing stopping wise men from the East from visiting Christ as well as shepherds also visiting baby Jesus.
I do not hold that the shepherds are the same people being referred to as wise men. That is your own interpretation.

i think you really need to check your bible but before that check a dictionary.a discrepancy means the two stories are not the same.
matthew identified them as wise men,luke identified them as shepherds

Delafruita:
i think you really need to check your bible but before that check a dictionary.a discrepancy means the two stories are not the same.
matthew identified them as wise men,luke identified them as shepherds

cant shepherds be wise men ? i believe you are in the dangerous territory of occupational-prejudice. just cuz a man herds sheeps and goats and whatnot does not mean he is dumb

Mr_Anony:
Really? please do tell what is this VERY BIG difference between Jesus of the gospels and Jesus of Paul?

Paul spoke about a spiritual Jesus, he did not speak about Jesus like some one that lived few years ago. . .He never mentioned his miracles, never mentioned where he was from, he mostly spoke about Jesus in a spiritual form. . .His account of events contradict that of the gospel account example is the account of resurrection. . . .The main point I was trying to make was that the gospels were NOT written by people that had ever meet Jesus or were together with him, all the gospels were written very long after Jesus died by very educated greek speaking christians not the alleged disciples of Jesus, church tradition is what determined the names the gospels. . .The authors of the gospels remain UNKNOWN . . . .No body knows who wrote them. . .

Please show absolute proof that church tradition was made up.

We are talking about documents written by people whose identity is unknown, documents whose accounts are so contradictory that they cancel each other out, yet you are asking me to provide proof the tradition was made up. . . .Who is John te disciple of Jesus?. . Wat is is mother's name? Do you know who his father was?. . .Any evidence outside church tradition that he suffered a violent death?. . .All these are made up tales because the gospel of John was NOT written by John the alleged disciple of Jesus, the gospel was written very long after Jesus died 70-100 years and could not have been written by John who must have been dead by that time. . .

My friend, don't contradict yourself, it is either you are saying the apostles existed or didn't exist. You can't have it both ways by saying they didn't exist and then arguing about why they were tortured.

They might have existed but they have noting to do with what was written aboout them in the gospels. . .The gospels were NOT written by any body that as ever meet Jesus or was together with him at any time. . .

Please point us to these claims.

Here is Paul's account. . .

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4[b]that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures[/b], 5[b]and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles[/b],8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Compare this to the account in the gospels. . . .Where in the gospel does it say that Jesus first appeared to Peter then to the 12 and after to 500 nameless individuals?. . .

buzugee: cant shepherds be wise men ? i believe you are in the dangerous territory of occupational-prejudice. just cuz a man herds sheeps and goats and whatnot does not mean he is dumb

if the shepherds are same as the wise men,means mathew's account is totally different from luke's account,hence proving the inconsistency between the two,hence making a point for "composition" rather than "compilation" of the new testament

Delafruita:
if the shepherds are same as the wise men,means mathew's account is totally different from luke's account,hence proving the inconsistency between the two,hence making a point for "composition" rather than "compilation" of the new testament

ALL YOU ARE DOING HERE IS SPLITTING HAIRS. NO TWO PEOPLE SEE THINGS THE SAME WAY. may i ask you what version of bible you read ? do you read those newly revised ones ?

MATTA FACT YOU ARE GUILTY OF TWO OFFENCES HERE. THEY ARE SPLITTING HAIRS AND CHERRY PICKING

buzugee: ALL YOU ARE DOING HERE IS SPLITTING HAIRS. NO TWO PEOPLE SEE THINGS THE SAME WAY. may i ask you what version of bible you read ? do you read those newly revised ones ?

if you read the posts in the thread from the beginning,you'd understand why Mr_Anony has been trying so hard to reconcile matthew and luke.besides if it were him,he wont have said the shepherds and medjais are the same because he knows that destroys all his argument.he would probably have said the medjai and shepherds are different and that the shepherds lived closeby and so could get to the manger within 8days while the medjai came from the east and got there when Jesus was almost 2 years old.
the crux of our argument if mathew says jesus was born almost 12 years before luke says he was born.mathew says it was when herod was alive while luke sayd it was 10 years after herod died.now thats a big issue

buzugee: ALL YOU ARE DOING HERE IS SPLITTING HAIRS. NO TWO PEOPLE SEE THINGS THE SAME WAY. may i ask you what version of bible you read ? do you read those newly revised ones ?

king james

Delafruita:
if you read the posts in the thread from the beginning,you'd understand why Mr_Anony has been trying so hard to reconcile matthew and luke.besides if it were him,he wont have said the shepherds and medjais are the same because he knows that destroys all his argument.he would probably have said the medjai and shepherds are different and that the shepherds lived closeby and so could get to the manger within 8days while the medjai came from the east and got there when Jesus was almost 2 years old.
the crux of our argument if mathew says jesus was born almost 12 years before luke says he was born.mathew says it was when herod was alive while luke sayd it was 10 years after herod died.now thats a big issue

I WAS MAKING JEST WHEN I SAID A SHEPHERD COULD BE WISE. THAT WAS A JOKE. i repeat, what version of bible are you reading ? you do know that not all bibles are authentic right ? and you are getting these inconsistencys from king james bible ?

buzugee: I WAS MAKING JEST WHEN I SAID A SHEPHERD COULD BE WISE. THAT WAS A JOKE. i repeat, what version of bible are you reading ? you do know that not all bibles are authentic right ? and you are getting these inconsistencys from king james bible ?

these inconsistencies are in every version of the bible including king james.bible scholars have tried for many years to reconcile mathew and luke's account,but they're just too different to be reconciled