Vanderhoven said: "How do you know for certain that Matthew and Mark (apostles of the Lamb) and Luke the doctor, friend of both Paul and Theophilus, were not the authors of the gospels attributed to them?"
The following question is not rhetorical: How do YOU know that any of the people who authored those 'gospels' were even named Matthew, Mark or Luke, let alone loyal apostles or followers of a literal miracle-working Jesus Christ? Seriously, how?
There is no clear evidence that they were anything other than anonymous writers who wrote hearsay about a man called Jesus (who they don't even claim to have met personally and may have been 100% fictional), years after the time he was meant to have been alive anyway.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp3-m2n56yA&fulldescription=1&hl=en&gl=US&client=mv-google
and
http://www.atheistguidebook.org/kapyong/whometjesus.html
...
Vanderhoven also said:
"Phizzy, So you have concluded that the authors made up the gospels. For what reason/s? I have concluded that they are authentic. Why do you think most of the apostles went to their death preaching a lie they concocted?"
It would seem to me that without any evidence of these 'apostles of Jesus' having written the story originally (rather than the anonymous author simply copying and passing on stories that others had made up), and without any evidence that the unnamed authors of these writings later died because of believing in the story, your reasoning seems circular and fallacious.
Jesus was a false prophet?
by opusdei1972 78 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
defender of truth
-
BackseatDevil
Vanderhoven,
The easy answer to your questions is simply that there are no names written on the original manuscripts. In later manuscripts scribes (slaves) would have attributed whatever gospel account to people who they felt were in close proximity to Jesus, perhaps based off stories said to originate with the apostles, but later in the century. Paul had already written Galatians and 1&2 Thessalonians + before Mark was written, so that gives you the time line where those close to Jesus would have been of considerable age or dead. As most people were not literate (especially in formal Greek), these stories remained word-of-mouth for many years. Matthew and Luke use Mark as one of their sources. NONE of these were eyewitness accounts. AND whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts quite possibly as one book.
But with manuscripts of the time, many books did not have names. Paul's letters have specific congretations but books not written by Paul like Ephesians do not have "Ephesians" in the title. It says "Letter to the ____." Some manuscripts have another name written in. This meant it was a circulated letter, not something Paul did. Same with the gospels, they were nameless and circulated.
The gospels were not "made up." There were many miracle workers at the time... that was not odd. There were many apocalyptic prophets... also not new. But Jesus was popular as he lead his group and the group of his predecessor, John. So books can be written about miracle workers... no big deal. However, those that believed the Christ was the Messiah ran into a problem... he DIED. Now this goes into the whole concept of Jews and the resurrection that I will skip and say people told stories based off what they thought they saw at that time. It isn't made up... it's just not necessarly REAL.
People today can apply the stories however they want. Just because it's inspiring literature doesn't mean it's LITERAL literature. This somewhat Protestant approach of asking over-simplistic questions as if in disbelief does not favor LEARNING. The bible is a dense subject and there is A LOT of criss-cross information to come to just one conclusion. But if even the most common of knowledge is foreign to you, you might consider putting in some effort of your own and taking a (secular) class on the subject rather than rattling hard-earned knowledge out of others.
There is WAY too much about the fundamentals of bible history you do not know to answer the questions you are asking.
-
Apognophos
Why do you think most of the apostles went to their death preaching a lie they concocted?
I'd like to give some attention to this, because it's a common response, and when I was a believer I thought it was a really good point.
It's important to keep in mind that even the early Church fathers were largely in the dark about who wrote the gospels (all of them, not just the four that were canonized). It's hard to say what fate befell most of the apostles because even in Acts and Romans not a peep is heard from most of Jesus' faithful 11 apostles.
Even if it's true that some, like Peter, were executed, that doesn't mean that they wanted to be martyred for their beliefs. For all we know, they died crying, "No, wait, let's talk about this!" Furthermore, some people are just delusional. They would die for their beliefs even if those beliefs came to them in a hallucination. That doesn't make them a role model, it just makes them crazy.
But I think the killer blow to this line of reasoning is that true believers TODAY would die for their beliefs. None of us have seen Jesus in the flesh, performing miracles, and few claim to have seen a vision of him. Yet there have been martyrs throughout the centuries; Witnesses died in concentration camps rather than renounce their religion. Clearly this kind of conviction does not have to come from seeing personal evidence as an eyewitness.
So we cannot rely on the (nebulous, poorly-documented) example of the apostles as evidence that the stories of Jesus were real.
-
Viviane
Actually every last prediction (all these things) happened to Christ's own generation. Here is one specific item to consider:
"...for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations..."
In what way is that a prophecy? That is literally what was happening right before is eyes. It was an observations, not a prediction of a specific event that it took knowledge of the future to foretell. It's roughly along the lines of me claiming it's a prophecy to foretell that someone in New Zealand will take a nap.
Name one specific thing he foretold that he couldn't have predicted without prophetic knowledge of the future AND that was proven to be written before it happened.
-
Viviane
Those are the Gospels we now have. Scholars for three hundred years and more have studied them in minute detail, and one of the assured results of this intensive investigation is the certainty that the Gospels have numerous discrepancies, contradictions, and historical problems. Why would that be? It would be better to ask, “How could that not be?” Of course , the Gospels contain nonhistorical information and stories that have been modified and exaggerated and embellished. These books do not contain the words of someone who was sitting at Jesus’s feet taking notes. They are nothing like that. They are books that are intending to tell the “good news” of Jesus (the word gospel means “good news”). That is, their authors had avested interest both in what they were telling and in how they were telling it. They wanted to preach Jesus. They were not trying to give biographical information that would pass muster among critical historians living two thousand years later who have developed significantly different standards of writing history, or historiography. They were writing for their own day and were trying to convince people about the truth— as they saw it— about Jesus. They were basing their stories on what they had heard and read. What they had read was based on what the authors of these other writings had heard. It all goes back to oral tradition.
Some people today claim that cultures rooted in oral tradition are far more careful to make certain that traditions that are told and retold are not changed significantly. This turns out to be a modern myth, however. Anthropologists who have studied oral cultures show that just the opposite is the case. Only literary cultures have a concern for exact replication of the facts “as they really are.” And this is because in literary cultures, it is possible to check the sources to see whether someone has changed a story. In oral cultures, it is widely expected that stories will indeed change— they change anytime a storyteller is telling a story in a new context. New contexts require new ways of telling stories. Thus, oral cultures historically have seen no problem with altering accounts as they were told and retold.
So of course there are discrepancies, embellishments, made-up stories, and historical problems in the Gospels. And this means that they cannot be taken at face value as giving us historically accurate accounts of what really happened. Does this mean that the Gospels are useless as historical sources? No, it means that we need to have rigorous historical methods to help us examine books that were written for one purpose —to proclaim the “good news” of Jesus— to achieve a different purpose: to know what Jesus really said and did.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (p. 92). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. -
Apognophos
I would just like to point out that Wikipedia's featured article today is Marshall Applewhite. Let the reader have discernment.
-
givemejustalittlemoretime
He is not a false prophet becasue all things have been fulfilled 2000 years ago
-
rjharris
I am an ex-JW and I understand what you are going with those three scriptures.
Recall Jesus conversation with the Pharisee Nicodemus concerning being born again at John 3:1-8. He made referencing to "seeing" the kingdom of God. Nicodemus (like so many today) did not understand that "born-again" meant being born-again from the dead; in other words, being resurrected to life again. Jesus was saying that unless a person dies FIRST and is brought back to life AGAIN, he will not be able to "see" the kingdom of God. Jesus did not say that "unless one is born again, he cannot "BE" in the kingdom of God. There is a difference between "seeing" the kingdom of God and "being" in the kingdom of God. Jesus was explaining that a resurrection from teh dead back to life is a requirement before one can see teh kingdom of God coming. This seeing is a "perception." During his 1000 year paradise on earth, all of the dead will eventually be resurrected from the dead. Christ will teach all of mankind to "see" Gods king coming from that vantage point forward. No one today can "see" God's kingdom and since they cannot see it, there is no way they can enter into it. (None among mankind has died and been resurrected back to life again in order to "see" and "enter" Gods kingdom except one: Jesus Christ. (John 3:13) We are all today "blind" and cannot see God's kingdom. Any who say they have, are lying.
At Mark 9:1, Jesus was not referring to the death we all will experience - a first death.
Note: All of mankind has a first birth (are born) and a first death. We are born, grow old, get sick and die.
The death Jesus was referring to was the second death. If there is a "second death" there MUST be a "second birth." The second birth all of mankind will have is the resurrection resurrection from the dead.
When all of mankind is born, what to we "see" in front of us as an eventuality? Death. We know that we will die. (Eccl 9:5,10)
When ALL of mankind are resurrected from the dead, behind them is their first births and first deaths. Upon being resurrected, a diferent type of life and death stands in front of them: Eternal Life and The Second Death.
It from this point forward that Jesus was telling his disciples that they will not taste death (the second death) before they see the kingdom of God.
Our being born (first birth) and dying is "definite." In other words, we live to a certain age and we die. It is different with the PAIR second birth (resurrection) and second death. These create a situation of "eternal life" or "eternal death." Eternal death is the Second Death or Lake of Fire. (simply non-existence).
So Jesus was tell those persons at Mark 9:1 that they will be resurrected inteh distant future to life again. From that future time period going forward they will NOT tast the "second death" (go into nonexistence) before they see the kingdom of God come with power.
In other words, they will be resurrected to life again and will "see" God's kingdom coming from the vantage point of being in Christs 1000 year kingdom over the earth.
Christ kingdom of 1000 years is a "definite" one and it MUST end. (Rev 20:7)
When it ends Satan must be released and he will establish a kingdom over the earth for an unspecified period of time. When Satan is released ALL of mankind will be able to "see" (perceive) Gods kingdom coming. Why? Because Christ will have open their eyes to see while ruling during those 1000 years.
It will be after Christs 1000 year kingdoms end and within Satan's Beastly throne, that there will be an eventual persecution of those who refuse to worship the Beast. This will be a time of endurance for them, a Great Tribulation. This tribulation will come at hands of their former brothers and sisters in Christ as all of them will have gone through Christs 1000 year kingdom. Upon Satan's releasing, he will mislead most of them.
Jesus warns at Mark 9:1 that a future time will come (after his 1000 year kingdom ends) that many who are standing here will prove unfaithful and not endure through those trying future times. But they will "see" Gods kingdom but not "enter" into it.
So no, Jesus was not a false Prophet, it is just today most of mankind is "blind" and they follow "blind" religious orgabization. The blind leading the blind.
Matthew 10:23-24 has application to what will occur after Christs 1000 year period ends because the Great Tribulation does not occur within our immediate time period today, but in a distant time period after Christs 1000 year kingdom ends and Satan supplants his kingdom on top of Christs 1000 paradise.
The same applies to Mark 13:24-27, 30. It does not have application to anything today, but in a future time period more than 1000 years way from us AFTER Christs 1000 year kingdom ends.
Many of you are not obeying what God commanded you at Luke 9:35 and that is to listen to his son. You are listening to religious organizations and you view them as an authority and this is what stumbles you to believe Jesus was a false prophet.
The false prophets are standing in front of you and you refuse to recognize them as such. They are religious organizations - ALL OF THEM - to incluse the WTBTS. They are all impostors who "truthfully" teach that Jesus is the Christ, but they mislead many. Matthew 24:4-5.
Do not seek understanding through and from men and their religious organizations, seek understanding, wisdom and knowledge from God through his Son.
How? By prayer. Is this not what Jesus told us to do?
R. Jerome Harris
e-Prophetic.com -
designs
rj- maybe Jesus lied, maybe Jesus said none of those things. Think about it.
-
Vanderhoven7
Maybe Jesus did say these things and the writers of the gospels reported it absolutely accurately before the events took place.
And maybe the great tribulation and Armageddon are unrepeatable events in history which have been thoroughly misrepresented by the non-appointed non-scholars in Brooklyn.
The synoptics support that the tribulation Jesus spoke about would be a local event that would take place before Jesus' own generation passed away.
Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.In the holy place.
Albert Barnes comments: "Standing in the holy place - Mark says, standing where it ought not,” meaning the same thing. All Jerusalem was esteemed “holy,” Mat_4:5. The meaning of this is, when you see the Roman armies standing in the holy city or encamped around the temple, or the Roman ensigns or standards in the temple."
Very little is ascribed the word holy in the gospels. God, Jesus, the city and it's temple uniquely qualify. God's holy presence in the temple remained until the death of Christ, when the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom (i.e. from above) exposing the fact that God's holy presence was removed and the temple desolate as Jesus ominous prophetic pronouncement indicated. (see Matthew 23:38)
This act of God symbolized the permanent removal of God's presence accompaning the nations rejection of their messiah; Israel's greatest loss made this the worst unrepeatabe disaster possible for Israel. The complete physical destruction of the holy temple (as a witness to the nations) ratified this divine rejection for the entire world to see for all time... to which the Dome of the Rock and the wailing wall continue to attest.
The great tribulation being a one-time,non-repeatable event in hisory; a fairly local event affecting the Jews in and around Jerusalem and leading to their death or dispersion among the nations.The Sign to Flee Jerusalem’s Tribulation & Destruction:
18 “When therefore you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not in the holy place (let him who reads understand), that is to say, when you see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.”
19 “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let him who is on the housetop not go down to take out things that are in his house, and let him who is in the field (countryside) not return back to take his cloak.”
20 “For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.”
21 “But woe to those who are with child and to those who are breast feeding in those days!”
22 And pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a Sabbath,”
23 “For then will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created, until now, no, nor ever shall be, for there will be great distress on the land, and wrath to this people.”
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: