Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 957539" data-attributes="member: 2189">First off, don&#039;t like the company sitting on your couch, don&#039;t open the door.As to the historicity of Jesus, you made a claim that IMO at best is questionable and some might make a case that is downright disingenuous and I challenged it from my POV.&nbsp; More and more scholarship is raising questions and serious doubts in regards to the literalness of the bible, the accepted historicity of Jesus and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants" target="_blank">with so many messiahs in Judea</a> during the period from 100 BCE to 100 CE and then beyond, the Jesus figure may prove to be varying combinations of these different messiahs.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even in the gospels you have differing geneologies, born in a house or born in a manger, flee to Egypt or go to the temple for circumsion, (Matt 2 conflicts with Luke 2)&nbsp; why do Mark and John differ on when Jesus was crucified (after Passover or Before).&nbsp; Even with Judas, in Matt. 27-3, he was stricken with remorse, returned the 30 pieces of silver and then went and hung himself but in Acts 1:18 Judas bought a field with his silver and then fell in the field and his stomach burst open and spilled out his guts. God&#039;s payback?&nbsp;&nbsp; So which was it or is this from 2 different traditions and 2 different Jesus?&nbsp; Just as the non-canonical gospels taught a different Jesus, the historicity of Jesus if one were to use the bible as literal historical text would be a serious difficulty IMO.&nbsp; Also raises questions as to the inerrant and infallible bible ideal.I do think some of the teachings in the gospels regardless of who or how has good value both in philosophical, moral and social values but beyond that they carry no extra merit and as history should be held with serious suspect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 957539, member: 2189"] First off, don't like the company sitting on your couch, don't open the door. As to the historicity of Jesus, you made a claim that IMO at best is questionable and some might make a case that is downright disingenuous and I challenged it from my POV. More and more scholarship is raising questions and serious doubts in regards to the literalness of the bible, the accepted historicity of Jesus and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants"][COLOR=#ff0000]with so many messiahs in Judea[/COLOR][/URL] during the period from 100 BCE to 100 CE and then beyond, the Jesus figure may prove to be varying combinations of these different messiahs. Even in the gospels you have differing geneologies, born in a house or born in a manger, flee to Egypt or go to the temple for circumsion, (Matt 2 conflicts with Luke 2) why do Mark and John differ on when Jesus was crucified (after Passover or Before). Even with Judas, in Matt. 27-3, he was stricken with remorse, returned the 30 pieces of silver and then went and hung himself but in Acts 1:18 Judas bought a field with his silver and then fell in the field and his stomach burst open and spilled out his guts. God's payback? So which was it or is this from 2 different traditions and 2 different Jesus? Just as the non-canonical gospels taught a different Jesus, the historicity of Jesus if one were to use the bible as literal historical text would be a serious difficulty IMO. Also raises questions as to the inerrant and infallible bible ideal. I do think some of the teachings in the gospels regardless of who or how has good value both in philosophical, moral and social values but beyond that they carry no extra merit and as history should be held with serious suspect. [/QUOTE]

Verification