Print

[LessGovernment]

Mark and Matthew are the two earliest gospels, according to Christian and non-Christian scholars.

Anonymous assumption and conjecture...and...a big SO WHAT?  Oh, you're laying the groudwork for your big HOME RUN!

In these two gospels you find Jesus speaking of a literal coming of the Son of Man, in the clouds, in power, and with the holy angels.

Matthew 24:30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64  Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26  And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Mark 14:62  And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Ok ... Did Jesus ever ACTUALLY speak these things?  Were YOU, or any of your scholars THERE?  No, you weren't ... so ...

Let's look at the scriptures. Jesus is very clear the Son of Man is coming to earth soon, and some alive will see him with their own eyes.

ONLY if you accept Jesus was a REAL HISTORICAL PERSON who said these things: do you accept or deny?

Matthew 10:23 - When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Can we put it in CONTEXT?

Matthew 10:16  Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Mat 10:17  But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
Mat 10:18  And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mat 10:19  But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
Mat 10:20  For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
Mat 10:21  And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Mat 10:22  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mat 10:23  But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Sounds like Jesus is giving instructions/forewarning to a SPECIFIC AUDIENCE regarding how THEY(His followers/apostles whom He is SENDING FORTH) will be accepted/received by those that have never heard, unbelieving people, and those who have heard yet CHOOSE to reject.

In Matthew 10:17, the word "beware" is the Greek word  "prosechō"  which means "to attend to one's self, i.e. to give heed to one's self - give attention to, take heed"  and WHO are they to beware of?  "men" who will "deliver you up" to UNBELIEVING government and religious leaders also because of their UNBELIEF ...(kinda fits the WHOLE motive/GOAL of Xerxes' kind and what they are doing here - his esteemed authors/scholars who are all modern day mockers who hate Christians, Christianity, and the very IDEA that a Supreme Being/righteous judge sits in AUTHORITY over His whole creation - doesn't it!!!) - Boom!!!  HOME RUN for Less!!!

In Mark 8-9, these two verses are side by side, and remember, there were no chapter and verse to divide these in the original, so they flow into each other, in reality, and are not divided by the chapter number.

For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”

Mark 8:38  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Mark 9:1  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Here is what Jesus says to the Jewish leaders in Mark 14:

But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 14:61  But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
Mark  14:62  And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

In the earliest gospel, Jesus flat out tells the Jewish leaders THEY will see him coming with the clouds of heaven. BUT after all those men died, and it did NOT happen, Luke, who may have used Mark as a source of his copying, CHANGED this. Many scholars believe Mark was a source used for copying, used by the author of Matthew and Luke.

OK, so Jesus says here that they(specifically the Jewish leaders here) would see Him sitting at the right hand of power also, and first even ... so, I would ask WHERE is this "right hand of power" where He would be sitting?(on Earth???)  Where would this audience of the Jewish leaders "physically" or "bodily" have to be in order to see Him where He says He will be, or, doing what He will be doing("coming in the clouds of heaven")?

Does not the Bible teach that the body and spirit will be reunited BEFORE the second and FINAL judgement?  Remember that whole "second death" it teaches about? - Oh, that's right - there is only one life, one death - and no soul/spirit that enters or leaves the/any body, and no Creator/author of such a spirit; am I dead right in stating your POSITION/bias there?
 
Same passage in Luke 22:

“If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will by no means believe. And if I also ask you,you will by no means answer Me or let Me go. Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.” Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.”

Luke 22:67  Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
Luke 22:68  And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
Luke 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Luke 22:70  Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

What!? Now the Jewish leaders are not going to see him coming in the clouds? It was changed to cover up the fact these men died and never saw him coming in the clouds.

OH PLEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEE!!!!!  What a stupid and totally disconnected assumption, and LAME attempt at disproving Christ's existence/deity/prophecy/legitimacy/truthfulness, or the SPIRITUAL reality of the authentic/true make up of HUMAN BEINGS(body/soul/spirit), the way things will be/end in the future(in body/soul/spirit).

From where Luke supposedly borrowed/stole/forged/imagined/made up his Gospel account from, to where the Jewish leaders were supposed to LITERALLY see Him sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds WHILE alive and on Earth, you've got NOTHING, and NO PROOF these things will not come to pass ... absolutely NOTHING but a selfish rejection of the Bible and Christianity!

Maybe I'll have more later....but I have to go to work right now...

[MonroeMonkey]

Mark and Matthew are the two earliest gospels, according to Christian and non-Christian scholars.

Anonymous assumption and conjecture...and...a big SO WHAT?  Oh, you're laying the groudwork for your big HOME RUN!

So, you're discrediting all scholars and saying scholarship doesn't matter? Do you realize how stupid that is? You're going to accept something when you don't even know the original history of how it came into being, when it came into being, etc.?

Can we put it in CONTEXT?

That's exactly what's been done. The context of 1st century Palestine was an apocalyptic movement that believed in a *literal* coming of the Son of Man, who would rule on this Earth, not in some cosmic unseen kingdom.

In Matthew 10, Jesus is very clear they would not make it throughout all the cities of Israel and the Son of Man would return. Who? The Son of Man. According to the apocalypticists the Son of Man was coming and soon. Note he is COMING. He is not there yet, according to Jesus. He is COMING. And what will happen at this coming of the Son of Man?

Sounds like Jesus is giving instructions/forewarning to a SPECIFIC AUDIENCE regarding how THEY(His followers/apostles whom He is SENDING FORTH) will be accepted/received by those that have never heard, unbelieving people, and those who have heard yet CHOOSE to reject.

In Matthew 10:17, the word "beware" is the Greek word  "prosechō"  which means "to attend to one's self, i.e. to give heed to one's self - give attention to, take heed"  and WHO are they to beware of?  "men" who will "deliver you up" to UNBELIEVING government and religious leaders also because of their UNBELIEF ...(kinda fits the WHOLE motive/GOAL of Xerxes' kind and what they are doing here - his esteemed authors/scholars who are all modern day mockers who hate Christians, Christianity, and the very IDEA that a Supreme Being/righteous judge sits in AUTHORITY over His whole creation - doesn't it!!!) - Boom!!!  HOME RUN for Less!!!

Yes. Jesus is warning them of persecutions that will come *after* he says, "For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." 10:15.

Explain what that means in the context of the time. What does Jesus mean by this coming of the Son of Man? You failed to explain.

OK, so Jesus says here that they(specifically the Jewish leaders here) would see Him sitting at the right hand of power also, and first even ... so, I would ask WHERE is this "right hand of power" where He would be sitting?(on Earth???)  Where would this audience of the Jewish leaders "physically" or "bodily" have to be in order to see Him where He says He will be, or, doing what He will be doing("coming in the clouds of heaven")?

Does not the Bible teach that the body and spirit will be reunited BEFORE the second and FINAL judgement?  Remember that whole "second death" it teaches about? - Oh, that's right - there is only one life, one death - and no soul/spirit that enters or leaves the/any body, and no Creator/author of such a spirit; am I dead right in stating your POSITION/bias there?

So, the Jewish leaders will see Jesus coming in the clouds when they die? Again, you've ignored the context of who the Son of Man is and what was his role to come.

OH PLEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEE!!!!!  What a stupid and totally disconnected assumption, and LAME attempt at disproving Christ's existence/deity/prophecy/legitimacy/truthfulness, or the SPIRITUAL reality of the authentic/true make up of HUMAN BEINGS(body/soul/spirit), the way things will be/end in the future(in body/soul/spirit).

What's disconnected is your knowledge of the times, which leaves you in the dark on contextual credibility.

From where Luke supposedly borrowed/stole/forged/imagined/made up his Gospel account from, to where the Jewish leaders were supposed to LITERALLY see Him sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds WHILE alive and on Earth, you've got NOTHING, and NO PROOF these things will not come to pass ... absolutely NOTHING but a selfish rejection of the Bible and Christianity!

Again, Luke and John leave out this *coming in the clouds*. How interesting that in the later gospels there's no mention of this apocalyptic Son of Man and his soon return, but it's all throughout the earliest. When that generation had passed and there was no return, the soon return was done away with. Some scholars believe it most probable that Luke copied Mark, so why does Luke leave out this coming in the clouds? Perhaps because that generation passed away and it didn't come to pass?


Less, learn these three major criteria for the historical method:


1. Criterion of independent attestation - the more sources that mention an event, the more likely it is to be historically accurate. Multiple witnesses are better than one witness. This is akin to corroborating evidence in modern trials. It is worth noting here that since Matthew and Luke took many stories from Mark, those instances cannot be considered independently attested. It is also worth noting that just because an event or saying is found only in one source, that alone is not evidence that it is historically inaccurate. This criterion will, however, assist in determining where the information is on a spectrum of more or less likely to be authentic.

2. Criterion of dissimilarity - the more a witness or source makes claims counter to their vested interests, the more that testimony is likely to be true. This criteria is the most controversial of the three, and sometimes does not always apply properly to ancient sources, but is valuable nonetheless as one of the tools to evaluate historical reliability. In short, if a supposed saying or deed of Jesus seems to go against or does not support the supposed agenda of its record's author, then it is considered more likely to be historically accurate.

3. Criterion of contextual credibility - states that "the sayings, deeds, and experiences of Jesus must be plausibly situated in the historical context of first-century Palestine to be trusted as reliable." Whereas the first two criteria serve to place a tradition on a spectrum or more or less historically reliable, this criteria is used exclusively to argue against the historicity of a tradition.

[LessGovernment]

Wait, the Gospel/bible can refuted by scholars, but only understood by the stupid?

And your scholars KNOW Luke wrote it, and they KNOW from where he wrote/copied it, and the KNOW he changed it from what was initially given him, and you guys KNOW he changed it to cover up/hide/manipulate/perpetuate a big LIE???

What kind of loser game is this you guys play?  Keep patting yourself on the back...and think your credible...anyone could be scholared in anything..it's always better when they get scholared in something that betters the least of humanity, not ridicules it...get a life, man....you apparently are only well schooled and experienced in being conceited, haughty, and condescending towards Christians...

[LessGovernment]

How is your "knowledge of the times" of a different credible source/origin than the Bible/Gospel accounts?

Wouldn't something have to have been preserved?  Like...people writing lengthy commentaries/diaries who were living in that day saying "most of the people here believe that a Savior is about to come" ... and now you guys have THOSE factual accounts about this apocalyptic age/time period and you bring those accounts together with the Bible/supposedly Jesus' actual words to conclude He was a fraud and a fake telling people what they wanted to hear because they were ripe for it in green over-anticipation(which is the same mental disease you assert Christians have today, that there is a Creator who created, judged the Earth by a flood, sent His Son who died and rose again, ascended, and promises to return in like manner at a future time UNKNOWN like a thief in the night?)

How many times in history have people been in an "apocalyptic" mood?  How about World War II?

What if Christians tried hard to live in strict obedience to the moral dictates of the Bible, in anticipation of His coming(or future judgment)?  Would that be a BAD thing?  Why don't you guys either encourage that, or, simply leave them alone instead of ridicule them for being naive and duped(and professing yourselves as SCHOLARLY)?

Look at your answer - "Less, get and education; learn what I have learned, or else you're stupid"; why?  Am I that much a drag on society for believing in Christ - and - lauding/teaching/pointing out the General Principles of Christianity to folks and taking God at His Word like most of our society/families did in our founders era, and for nearly two long centuries after that; and you and Bart once did?

I really don't think you have a good answer for what/WHY you do what you do here on this forum...but I'll butt heads with you for entertainment and the edification of other believers you want/hope to distract/derail.

[Collegekid]

If the bible is proof that god exists, then a Spider-Man comic is proof that he exists as well.

[BigMike]

If the bible is proof that god exists, then a Spider-Man comic is proof that he exists as well.

That literally makes no sense but I am hardly surprised...

[MonroeMonkey]

When I say Luke used Mark as a source of copying, I'm not talking about the man Luke. I'm talking about whoever wrote Luke. It could have been multiple people. This is the common and most accepted view among scholars. In the case of scholarship, it's safest to appeal to such, as scholarship provides the fullest picture we have when it comes to history.

And again, historians use the historical method to come up with *probabilities*. It can not be known for sure who the historical Jesus was. So, historians use the historical method to come up with the most probable historical Jesus. What do they have to shape this Jesus? The historical method and the gospels. The strongest point of the method is the contextual credibility of the time. Also, you compare the gospels and epistles and see where they agree or disagree.

Again, was there an apocalyptic movement in Jesus's day? Yes. Does this make sense of many of Jesus's earliest claims? Yes. The earliest Jesus we have record of makes the most sense in light of the apocalyptic movement. Where there other Jewish people of this belief? Yes. Were there others who believed themselves to be the Messiah? Yes. Were there others crucified in Jesus's day, for believing they were the Messiah? Yes.

Pilate dwelt in Caesarea, near the west coast of Israel, and came to Jerusalem every year at the Passover with his guard. Why did he do that? Context. In that time the Passover was the most tense time of the year, where many revolts took place. This was a time that symbolized the freedom of Israel from the oppression of Egypt, and now they are under the oppression of Rome. Pilate came with his guard to keep things in order, and to snuff out any possible revolts. We know from historical accounts that many were crucified by Rome at this time, for being a revolt threat. Pilate didn't play around with this, according to scholars, if there was a threat he had them killed.

Jesus goes into Jerusalem, when Pilate is there, at the most tense time of the year, and what does he do? He comes with a band of followers and flips tables! He speaks about the destruction of the temple. And he does this in front of the Sadducees, which had more political power than the Pharisees. What do you think Jesus was at that moment? He became a threat. So, from that moment, as it reads in the Bible, they sought to put him to death. And sure enough, they captured him, and like the scores before him, he was crucified by Pilate.

The earliest gospel gives the shortest account of this trial and death of Jesus. As time goes on it becomes more and more detailed. Isn't it strange you get the most detailed conversations of Jesus the further away from his death? Typical of an evolving legend.

So, looking at this, in light of the contextual credibility, what makes most sense? That Jesus was merely crucified as another revolt threat, under Pilate, and as time went by his disciples romanticized the account, and gave Jesus this wonderful trial with all sorts of Jewish symbols, like Barabbas as the scapegoat, etc.

I can go into more detail later.

[Collegekid]

That literally makes no sense but I am hardly surprised...

Let me spell it out for you then....

If a book written by some guy proves your fictional character exists, than a book written by "some guy" can prove that mine exists as well.

You see what it does is illustrate the point of the absurdity of god.

[MonroeMonkey]

College, while I see your point of circular reasoning, it's not a right comparison. As Bart D. Ehrman points out in his newest book "Did Jesus Exist?", virtually no New Testament scholar believes Jesus was purely fictional, even among atheists and agnostics. They hold to the existence of a historical Jesus, just not to the Jesus accepted by Christians, which is most probably an exaggerated legend.

If you want to know the most accepted Jesus among non-believing scholars, look to Albert Schweitzer's Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet, which, in my opinion, seems most plausible.

[BigMike]

Let me spell it out for you then....

If a book written by some guy proves your fictional character exists, than a book written by "some guy" can prove that mine exists as well.

You see what it does is illustrate the point of the absurdity of god.

Hmmm you must go to a college with low Michigan Academic standards as it still makes no sense.

[LessGovernment]

Excellent Xerxes! 

Your whole house of cards is built on "It could have been" and *probabilities* - and my belief(strong leaning towards - and AGAINST evolution theory) in the just the worldwide flood THEORY of Noah's day(found in the Bible, predicted by 2 Peter that people would be deny or be "willingly ignorant of" in the future - just like the cataclysm known as the CREATION) is based on little things like a "...discovery announced in Geology in 2004 of 346 whale fossils buried in diatomaceous earth(Obviously, [one] whale was rapidly and catastrophically buried in an approximately horizontal position;...as the whale was lying parallel to strata that had been tipped up 85° from the horizontal.)...[of course]...That discovery was published by creation geologists who believe a global flood was responsible for their burial…." so it must be totally less credible than everything you post here that Jesus was NOT God in the flesh, but just an apocalyptic guy taking advantage of gullible emotional people eagerly awaiting *some* Messiah.

Anyway; as I have dismissed all of your arguments before as nothing more than YOUR personal belief/bias that Jesus WAS NOT a deity, and the Creator based solely on your newfound scholarly sources after you too admit to having fallen for the ruse that professing Christians now "blindly" hold onto(and the wave of people now desiring to throw off God's moral absolutes such as the MINORITY of homosexuals who want to spoil our laws governing societal behavior to their favor) - I call it like I see it; you are but a carefree MOCKER hellbent on upsetting vulnerable Christians at a time when great hypocrisy and the promotion of so much "freewillism" is destroying this nation's moral underpinnings, and our fiscal house is collapsing because so many people(who profess to be Christians in politics, business, banking, education, and organized religion) simply serve mammon, not God - and need to be torn from power an place by the direct demand of the governed.

The Bible is NOT anyone's proof that God exists - our conscience and creation are direct REVELATION that He exists...and that common inherent belief in a Creator/Supreme Being resonates and is compatible with the knowledge/understanding most people would OBSERVE in relating to all sorts of people's in the most remote/underdeveloped/non-industrialized parts of the world.  Now you can assert as others have, that "human beings just need a crutch" because it is in their EVOLVED human makeup(modern psychology's approach, the competition for money between organized religion and them) - but - I find that also to be a statistical improbability that defies common sense(unless of course the GOVERNMENT used tax dollars to pay some university program/professor to travel the world for a decade or more and *prove* me wrong - and publish in our elementary school textbooks that "God doesn't exist").

And such is the destructive road to self-ruin; Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Trying to take others with you is why I bother to argue with you incessantly, BTW.

Do you have a statistical probability and "could have" explanation to dismiss this "prophetic" bit of a mirror image of yourself, or your famous authors who bash Christianity, Xerxes?

[Collegekid]

College, while I see your point of circular reasoning, it's not a right comparison. As Bart D. Ehrman points out in his newest book "Did Jesus Exist?", virtually no New Testament scholar believes Jesus was purely fictional, even among atheists and agnostics. They hold to the existence of a historical Jesus, just not to the Jesus accepted by Christians, which is most probably an exaggerated legend.

If you want to know the most accepted Jesus among non-believing scholars, look to Albert Schweitzer's Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet, which, in my opinion, seems most plausible.

I never mentioned Jesus, I was speaking strictly of god. I'm sure that someone, most likely a medicine man went and performed "miracles" to the uneducated masses. No one is denying that.

[Baggins]

That literally makes no sense but I am hardly surprised...

No, dip ****, it makes perfect sense to someone with a working brain...Go play with your football, it seems to be the only thing you can wrap your pea brain around...And even then I wonder...

[MonroeMonkey]

Less, I haven't heard of that whale. I have researched polystrate fossils, and they in no way support the flood. Another case of taking things out of their environmental *context*. But, anyways, this isn't a topic about evolution.


When it comes to Jesus, as I said, we cannot know. We can only use the historical method to assume as to what probably was the case. But we can know that the gospels do not line up. For example, in Matthew, Jesus's parents flee into Nazareth because an angel warns them not to return to Bethlehem; yet, in Luke Jesus's parents lived in Nazareth from the start and go to Bethlehem for a census. It's impossible for their to have been a flight into Egypt in Luke, etc. So, we see here that either one is right and other wrong, or both are fictional accounts created in an attempt to fulfill some prophesy, that was never really a prophesy, etc. What seems most probable in light of historical criteria?

The fact is, the accounts of Jesus and the Son of Man in Mark and Matthew are different to those found in Luke and John. You find in the gospels and epistles that the earliest are the most apocalyptic, whereas the later move away from this and even cover for the problems.

Paul tells the church of Thessalonica to watch, for Christ is coming like a thief in the night, and that THEY would be caught up in the clouds (1 Thess 4). 2 Thess comes later as a forgery to cover up Paul's false prophesies by saying, in essence, "Brothers, don't worry about the end. Many things have to happen first, like the Son of Perdition being manifested, the great falling away, etc., etc.." Why would 2 Thess cover up Paul's urgency of 1 Thess? For the same reason the later gospels cover up the soon coming of the Son of Man in the clouds and in power. Why do scholars think 2 Thess was a forgery? The styles are completely different writing styles and the opening of 1 Thess is used verbatim, which right away makes it shady, in a time where there were many forgeries.

Again, we cannot know for sure which Jesus was the true historical Jesus, but we can come up with probable models based on comparative texts in light of chronological order, contextual credibility, etc.

[LessGovernment]

this isn't a topic about evolution.

Wrong, pal!  It is a topic about whatsoever I choose because I started it ... and the way I see it ... chiefly you, and your recommended "scholars" MOCK ...

1) the creation
2) the flood
3) The Bible
4) our moral heritage, much of which is derived from the General Principles of Christianity

I obviously have ADHD, and, I am ever elusive - I just can't seem to "answer" or "debate" you DIRECTLY; so, I started my own thread - and then, I won't have to read your whiney complaints about me staying "on topic".  The topic here is your mockery...so keep mocking...and I will continue answering until I am too busy with other things and cannot check in so frequently anymore, or simply don't feel like it because it is no longer fun.

Once again, before we get to this repeated assertion, "the gospels do not line up" - I was hoping you might sense you should disprove the perceived reality that our human makeup contains a body, soul, and spirit.