Bible question. Where to research?

Let's start from the top.
If you are going to respond to me than respond to the points I actually make not those which I do not.
1) I did not say that if something is stated somewhere other than the NT it must be true. I said the motif of the resurrected saviour is present in other religions/mythologies, in about a dozen or so, in fact. Further, if we are going to believe in the Christian edition of the resurrection theme then we are going to have to believe in the other ones are we not? If not, why not? Which criteria are you prepared to use to disprove the other resurrection stories? Then tell me why we can not apply the same criteria to the Christian version. I say the same thing about those who accurately predict the future, a criterion which you cite as proof of Jesus' divinity.
2)The virgin birth is stated in Matt. 1:18 for starters. KP, I know where the virgin birth is in the modern NT. My point was that nowhere in the Syriacus Sinaiticus does it say Jesus was born of a virgin. That virgin birth story is an add-on that came later in an effort to make the Jesus story more palpable to pagans.
3) As for your explanation for John 7:38, let's begin by clarifying your semantics. You state "the scholars respond with". Let's be clear here KP "the" scholars do not respond. What you want to say is "a couple of Christian scholars respond with". As for their response, it is one of the most convoluted and strained attempts at apologetics I think I have seen. Surely it ranks up there with the old Song of Solomon line that the Song of Solomon is not a series of homoerotic professions but rather an expression of Jesus' love for his bride, the Church.
What part of John 7:38 do you find so shrouded in hidden meaning? It's clear Jesus is making reference to a part of the OT that simply does not exist. This "explanation" is a typical example of Christian apologists reaching for some way of making an unworkable part of the bible fit in to the bible. I am surprised you have recourse to imperfect originally flawed humans when discussing the "word of god".
It also argues for the existence of other texts that the church either managed to burn or hide e.g. those at Nag Hammadi
3) It is obvious Jesus says he is working in violation of the Sabbath John 5:17.He is breaking his own law. Remember the "jot and tittle verse"? Worse in other places he gets someone to break the Sabbath law.
Administering medical treatment on the Sabbath is proscribed unless the treatment is life saving. I do not know whether this is stated in the OT somewhere. Then there's Mathew 5:19.Who said the scribes and Pharisees had the law wrong?
4)"Words of demons" Compare John 2:4 with Mathew 8:29, Mark 5:7, Luke 4:34 and Luke 8:28 in literal translation.
5) The word "yet" is not present in the earliest extant manuscripts. The New American Standard Bible does not insert the word "yet" into the text. He did not tell his brothers that "he could not go openly as they did". Furthermore there is no intimation in the text that he went up to the feast "when the time was right" or "when his time had come"
6) Jesus did not have to speak in mysterious unsolvable parables to the relatively uneducated people of his day. The point would have required no subtlety at all. The concept of god(s) walking on earth in some form or another was old news to these people. Remember this is the land of EL and co.
7) If the daughter was asleep why did her father and co. say she was in desperate need of Jesus' services? Was the ruler too benighted to see the difference between sleep and death? Luke 8:42: She lay a dying. It's obvious Jesus changed her state from dead to sleeping.
Matthew says nothing about "salvation by faith," but simply says that God will be merciful to the merciful, that he will forgive the forgiving, and says not one word about the necessity of believing anything?
9) No I have not concluded that Jesus was an evil man. I know you are trying to herd me into C.S. Lewis' and McDowell's "Trilemma". However, that tired old stratagem will not work. I am suggesting that there are many reasons to consider Jesus differently than you say we should.
10)Finally, one more reason why Jesus was a false prophet: He said Moses wrote the Pentateuch. This as most people know is false.

Best,

your points in mind. Otherwise, you won't be able to understand an answer. For example, you said;

'The Syriacus Sinaiticus say quite plainly that Jesus was the begotten son of Joseph'

to establish that Jesus want not the product of the virgin birth. I responded that you seem to think that, if a text other than the NT says something, that other text must be true. I then cited a typical verse that says that Mary was a virgin when pregnant with Jesus. Now, you confuse that whole discussion with your point 1. Like I said, you've got to keep a firm grasp of your own arguments. As for your argument in point 1, here is what some of the scholars say:

Genealogy of Jesus Christ

1. Text of Matt 1:16: The first part of this question may be most directly approached by a brief consideration of the text of Matt 1:16. The text upon which the Revised Version (British and American) is based reads: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Beside this there are two readings, one contained in the so-called Ferrar group of MSS, and the other in the Sinaitic which, differing among themselves, unite in ascribing the parentage of Jesus to Joseph. This has been seized upon by negative critics (see for list and discussion Machen, Princeton Review, January, 1906, 63; compare Bacon, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), article "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," Am. Jour. Theol., January, 1911, who long ago gave in his advocacy to the supposition that the evangelists could easily reconcile the supernatural birth with the actual paternity of Joseph) to support the idea of a primitive Christian tradition that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Of this contention Zahn leaves nothing, and concludes his argument with this statement: "The hope of finding indications in old manuscripts and versions that the authors of lost Gospels or brief writings which may have been worked over in our Mt and Lk regarded Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, should at last be dismissed. An author who knew how to make even the dry material of a genealogy to its least detail contribute to the purpose of his thought concerning the slandered miracle of the Messiah's birth, cannot at the same time have taken over statements from a genealogy of Joseph or Jesus used by him which directly contradicted his conception of this fact. Any text of Mt which contained such statements would be condemned in advance as one altered against the author's interest" (op. cit., 567). It is interesting to note that Allen (International Critical Commentary, "Matthew," , starting from the extreme position that the Sinaitic form of statement, of all extant texts, most nearly represents the original, reaches the same conclusion as Zahn, that Matthew's Gospel from the beginning taught the virgin birth .
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)

You are unresponsive on point 3. An OT teaching that healing is prohibited on the sabbath may be obvious to you, but it was not to Jesus and it is not to me. The commandment, as I recall, is 'Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy'. Jesus did not violate this command. If it's not in the OT, it's clearly not a violation of the command, so you don't know.

Point 4. 'Why do you involve me?' bears no similarity to;

Matt 8:29 "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" NIV

Being drawn into a situation is not the same as being the center of a situation. Are you trying to argue something based on English words? You should know better.

Point 5. Answered.

Point 6. I think Jesus is the best judge of how He needed to speak. There were many attempts to kill Him before one succeeded.

Point 7. You either missed or ignored what I said.

Point 8. Answered. It is there for all to see.

Point 9. You could fool me. You call Him a liar and false prophet. That means He deliberately mislead people, and led them on the path to hell. Yet, you still try to maintain that you are not calling Him an evil man? Time to be honest.

Point 10. Most? It sounds like you and a few liberals believe that. The translators of the New American Standard Version, for one, ascribe Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch. They provide an extensive discussion and many reasons for doing so.

His mind's made up, don't bother her with facts.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

I thought you were actually responding to my introductory remarks when in fact you were not and still have not.
Let us for the sake of simplicity put the other points on hold and begin at the beginning.
I stated JC was a false prophet.You stated:
That would be quite true except for two things:

Jesus was not a false prophet although that IS close to the reason the Jews gave for killing Him. Actually, the charge was that He claimed to be God or equal to God. In that, they showed they understood what Jesus had been saying.

However, Jesus correctly prophesied His own death. Also, many of the prophets of God were killed by an unrepentant Israel.

Second, Jesus correctly prophesied His resurrection, and He did rise from the dead. That would hardly qualify as the punishment of God on a false prophet.

To which I responded:

Are you aware that resurrection of saviour stories are present in at least a dozen other religions/mythologies? Are you aware of the many holes in the resurrection stories? Shall I furnish you a list of both?

By the way, just because someone accurately predicts their death or another event does not make them divine.In fact, it makes them rather commonplace. Many others have accurately predicted future events. Are you prepared on that basis to call them god? If you are going to refute them as inaccurate or false prophets/messiahs/saviours, tell me which criteria you are using to do so. Then tell me why the same criteria can not be applied to the christian prophets/saviour/messisah.

Let's take it from there shall we?

of the city, and what a scam the 'money people' had going. They were suggesting Jesus was seen as a threat to their gravy train.

know that there are. In my experience, the only claim like this which is taken seriously by modern, educated people is Christ's. CS Lewis relates in his autobiography how he realized one day that one of these claims might actually be true. He was an atheist at the time, and realized that Jesus might actually have risen.

No, I'm not prepared to say someone's claims are real just because they made them. There has to be substantial evidence, and there is for the resurrection of Christ. I could try to recap that evidence, but it is far more effective to point you to the excellent book "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison. You're probably familiar with this book, but Morison was a skeptic and a lawyer who set out to disprove Christ's resurrection. He wound up writing a book explaining why he now thinks that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. This would make His prophetic credentials unique and unimpeachable.

who are you referring to? The only modern educated people who agree with the historicity of the resurrection are, for the most part,Christians.I suggest you canvass the literature in this area. Most of it, non-Christian that is, does not accept the historicity of the resurection, at least not in large measure.
The book you name looks interesting and I will enjoy taking a look at it. This field is genuinely interesting.I may read some reviews of it from a number of angles and then get back to you about it.
Just a couple of questions:

1)Does proof that the resurrection is historical fact discount the possibility that the other resurrection stories did not happen at all? In other words are you prepared to accept another resurrection story as authentic if evidence of it similar to or better than that of the Christian resurrection story can be adduced?
2)Would you agree that more than one contradiction and/or falsehhod in the Christan resurrection tale, that is the Gospels, makes that tale suspect?

resurrection really happened, then they are likely to be a Christian. That does not mean that they believe the resurrection really happened because they are Christians. I am refeering to people like CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, Dorothy Sayers, John Stott, RC Sproul, JI Packer, and many others.

1. 'Evidence similar to'. I don't know what that means. If the evidence was as compelling as the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then I would seriously consider accepting it.

2. I do not know of any contradictions or falsehoods in the story of the resurrection. You'll have to be more specific.

Remember our little exchange regarding words said vs. words actually said. I said who are you referring to because you did not qualify your reference to "modern educated people" to include only Christians. I did not know you meant only Christians because you did not say only Christians. A little care/clarity on your part would obviate such difficulties.
By 'Evidence similar to' I am asking what proof you require to establish the veracity of the Christ resurrection story. My guess is that you will only be able to adduce scripture in support of the resurrection story. I then will say to you that I can introduce "scripture" that supports other resurection stories. At that point you will have to tell me why you choose the Christian story and not the other stories. Agreed?
I will answer your point 2) but let us first adress this issue.
Of course you do not have to answer to anyone for your choice of the Christian story, and on that basis I will, if you wish, abandon this line of inquiry.

The only documents that I am aware of that talk about the resurrection are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. By 'talk about', I mean that they purport to tell us what happened, and that the narratives do give the basic facts of the story. I would not include the resurrection itself as one of those 'facts'. At one point, I did look for other contemporary historians of that period, but found very little discussion of Jesus, so I am not sure what other documents can be looked at to find any information about the story. Other accounts must do more than tell us something happened. They must provide convincing evidence.

the difference. I believe I've already pointed you to the book 'Who Moved the Stone?'. Read it. Then we will have a basis for discussion.

The historical evidence for the existence of Horus, Crishna, etc. is....? There is no question about the historicity of the life of Jesus. While you may not believe the claims of miracles, there is no question that Jesus lived, taught, and made claims about himself.

in it with that angle.

was a very bad man. That doesn't need proving, you are free to believe anything you want about a man long dead (IYO). Others- some of them considered thoughtful people- disagree with you, using the same evidence.

You might be interested in this, though:
?He that puts faith in me, just as the Scripture has said, ?Out from his [that man's] inmost part streams of living water will flow.?? (Joh 7:3
"The words of a man?s mouth are deep waters. The well of wisdom is a torrent bubbling forth.? (Pr 18:4)

Jesus takes an "OT" statement and applies it to himself. The application is a good one if the teachings of Jesus are wise. Ghandi and others thought so; you do not.

"He delibrately obscures the gospel by speaking in parables ... Mr 4:11,12"

You make a common error: You focus on the verses which seem to agree with your position. But the previous verse shows he did explain to those who bothered to ask him.
?. . .Now when he got to be alone, those around him with the twelve began questioning him on the illustrations. And he proceeded to say to them: ?To YOU the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things occur in illustrations, in order that, though looking, they may look and yet not see, and, though hearing, they may hear and yet not get the sense of it, nor ever turn back and forgiveness be given them.? Further, he said to them: ?YOU do not know this illustration, and so how will YOU understand all the other illustrations?? (Mr 4:10-13)

If you read the rest of the Gospels you'll find that Jesus' disciples didn't understand many things, and made human errors. That's why he taught patiently and often. That's why full understanding of many topics didn't overtake them until they received the gift of Jehovah's holy spirit at Pentecost. Even then some things were obscured until time to reveal them, even down to this day. In the meantime, Jehovah continues to give spiritual food at the proper time to those who bother to ask, like Jesus' disciples. (Mt 24:45)

"when he says the ruler's daughter was dead"
Death is like sleep, as careful reading of the bible tells us. It is an error of pre-Christian philosophers that we have an "immortal soul" that lives on after death. Death is death. Daniel was told the same thing by an angel:
?. . .And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence.? (Da 12:2)
You'll agree, I hope, that Daniel and later prophets are dead, not asleep, at this late date.

Your attitude, especially since you returned to SE, isn't conducive to reasonable discussion. I hope it changes, since you do ask good questions. In the meantime, keep an eye on the news, as the world comes closer to conditions long prophesied in the bible. When it gets uncomfortably close I may be able to help you learn the meaning of Ps 37:29.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

can be considered in many ways other than the traditional way. I am pressing the argument along a line that appears to make him into a devil only to make conceptual room for an alternative way of thinking about him. To this end I could just as easily develop another line of argument demonstrating his mythological origins. It is all a matter of how you organize and thematize the ideas and data. However, it is quite possible that Jesus was evil. Who knows? We have so little reliable info about him that it is difficult to try to really discuss the man.In fact,there is a body of thought which argues that JC did not exist at all, although I think that's a little extreme.
DR, this verses:
?He that puts faith in me, just as the Scripture has said, ?Out from his [that man's] inmost part streams of living water will flow.?? (Joh 7:3
"The words of a man?s mouth are deep waters. The well of wisdom is a torrent bubbling forth.? (Pr 18:4)

don't relate to each other. Pr 18:4 is a metaphor about the virtue of wisdom. It is not describing what will happen to you if you believe in JC. The verse is unforgivably vague if it is talking about Jesus. But since JC is the point of the bible/christianity you would expect to see his name somewhere in the verse. Remember JC says that the scripture is describing what will happen to you if you believe in him.
The other point here is that the OT treats wisdom so contemptfully that it is hard to associate wisdom with Jesus.

Have you ever noticed how a teenager knows everything and has all the answers. The wise people in the Bible feel the same way. The Bible is simply saying that some people feel like they have all the answers. It is very difficult to tell them anything (don't bother me with facts, my head's made up). God uses people that aren't puffed up with their own importance.

Remember Jesus was not impressed with the Pharasee that was glad that he wasn't a sinner like that tax collector and was impressed with the tax collector that was ashamed of being a sinner.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

I do think some of Jesus' teachings were wise. Some I do not. I think his treatment of family is terrible. His attitude toward his mother is reprehensible.
You focus on the verses which seem to agree with your position.
Dr, are you serious here? Respectfully DR, All you do is cite scripture Book/Chapter/verse which supports your position. Why is it so out of bounds when I cite scripture that supports my position? You sound as though the bible is the prerogative of Christians and Christians alone.
Regarding his encrypted teachings?. . .Now when he got to be alone, those around him with the twelve began questioning him on the illustrations. And he proceeded to say to them: ?To YOU the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things occur in illustrations, in order that, though looking, they may look and yet not see, and, though hearing, they may hear and yet not get the sense of it, nor ever turn back and forgiveness be given them.? Further, he said to them: ?YOU do not know this illustration, and so how will YOU understand all the other illustrations?? (Mr 4:10-13)
Gee?I?m sorry DR. How does this passage do anything other than show his deceitfulness, his deliberate obscuring of his message? Please help me understand your presentation of this passage.

If you read the rest of the Gospels you'll find that Jesus' disciples didn't understand many things, and made human errors. That's why he taught patiently and often. That's why full understanding of many topics didn't overtake them until they received the gift of Jehovah's holy spirit at Pentecost. Even then some things were obscured until time to reveal them, even down to this day. In the meantime, Jehovah continues to give spiritual food at the proper time to those who bother to ask, like Jesus' disciples. (Mt 24:45)
Yes that sounds nice DR. But in the other passages he makes clear his intention to confound people?s understanding of his word. This section does not undo the previous verses where he speaks in absolutes.He clearly states the timelessness of his concealing his message from the masses. He does make clear that everyone except his twelve were subject to the blackout. In fact he makes clear that the purpose of the riddles and blackout is to ensure that they, everyone except the twelve, never get forgiveness.Jesus was supposed to be Everyone?s saviour.
"when he says the ruler's daughter was dead"
Death is like sleep, as careful reading of the bible tells us. It is an error of pre-Christian philosophers that we have an "immortal soul" that lives on after death. Death is death. Daniel was told the same thing by an angel:
?. . .And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence.? (Da 12:2)
So what is being described in Mt.9:24 and in Lk. 8:52 for example, when he makes a distinction between sleep and death and in Lk. 8:42 when the daughter is described as dying? Why was the king so distraught about his daughter? What state was she in?It does not follow that sleep and death are the same or similar in this context. Lk 8:53 for example, the people laugh at JC because they still think she?s dead. There was a difference to them was there not? What then is the word used for sleep if death and sleep are interchangeable.How did they ever achieve a distinction if the two words were so similar? I don?t know. Maybe I?ve been up too long.

Jesus spoke in parables because that was a common teaching tool at the time. He would question questioners for the same reason. It was a teaching tool that made the listeners think.

The Good Samaritan story is an example. He was asked "Who is my neighbor?". He told the story about a hated people who helped and asked who was the neighbor. It was correctly answered that it was the one that did right even though it was a hated Samaritan.

As to his mother, he ignored her and his brothers at the time to teach another lesson that his family was the ones who followed and learned from him. Remember the biological family were there to take him away as crazy. His brother didn't believe he was the Messiah until after his resurrection. He did make sure his mother was taken care of by entrusting her care to John while on the cross.

I've often said that, if Jesus wasn't exactly who he said he was, he was the greatest con artist the world has ever known.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

MY point about the parables is that Jesus designed them deliberately to be unsolvable so that Everyone except the twelve would achieve grace forgiveness and salvation. He says so himself.
Whether parables were a common teaching tool at the time is something I do not know.If they were Jesus should not have made them so mysterious.
Regarding his mother, I was not talking about his ignoring her so much as how he spoke to her.
You said: I've often said that, if Jesus wasn't exactly who he said he was, he was the greatest con artist the world has ever known.
The same could be said for the Budddha, Mohammed, Vishnu or Confucius.

Best,

Correct me, if I'm wrong, Buddha and Confucius were philosophers and didn't claim to be from God or to be God. Mohammed said he was a prophet but not equal to God. Vishnu was never human.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

I would say the point is they through their teachings deeds and scriptures acquired followings of many many millions. Mohammed said his scriptures were dictated to him by the angel Gabriel. Those scriptures, as you know are taken as the living will and word of god by more than a billion muslims.All Hindu scriptures are said to be divinely inspired e.g.earlier Rig Veda, in some form or imparted by a deity to a human or received through meditations and mystic visions e.g. Upanishads. According to Hindu scripture Vishnu has been on earth in human form as Ram, Buddha and Krishna and there is one more incarnation to come, Kalki, who will at the end of the present "age of darkness", appear on a white horse, with a flaming sword in his hand. He will punish the wicked, reward the good and restore the Golden Age again. Sound familiar?
Establishing whether Jesus was or was not the biggest con in history is not very profitable. It seems to me, however, that it would not have been just Jesus that perpetrated the con, it would have been his followers who told people to believe in Jesus and so on.Perhaps.
There are many ways a group or religion can grow without it necessarily involving a con job.

perpetrated a massive con. Virtually all of them died horrible deaths which any one of them could have avoided by discrediting the story. That none did is a huge statement of credibility. They were also, for the most part, not educated people. It's hard to believe that they could fool too many people.

died horrible deaths? I mean apart from Christian sources.As far as I know all we have is a few fragmentary conflicting tales regarding one or two of the disciples'deaths. The best evidence we have for example regarding John indicates that John died in Ephesus of old age.
By the way it is possible to die for something without that something being true. For any number of reasons the disciples could have been mistaken.

29Then Jesus told him, ?Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.? [.b]

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

an earthshaking statement.

I always thought that Thomas got a bum rap. My engineer friend says that he was a realist. He was the one who said that they should go with Jesus to Jerusalem and die. He was probably gone the first time Jesus appeared buying food or making a living. Who knows? It's just fun speculating.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

asking for evidence. He simply offered the evidence that Thomas sought, and Thomas showed that his questions were genuine.

fabricating the story. This was my point. Justin's Book of Martyrs, and tradition are the main sources of information regarding how early Christians died that I know of. Why would you exclude Christian sources? Christians are the ones most likely to have known what happened, and most likely to preserve a memory or record of it. Who do you learn about Budhism from if you exclude Budhist sources?

more evidence than we have for Julius Ceasar. Did Ceasar write a book, or personally leave any evidence of his life on earth?

'Interesting isn't it that all of these people including contemporary historians failed to write about the apostlesn their acts and all the earthquakes and torrents of rain etc. that accompanied these events.'

I don't know where you are getting 'earthquakes and torrents of rain', but a lot of 'all of these people' were illiterate. They didn't know how to write. Those who did know how to write, the elite, were trying to suppress the new religion. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why they wouldn't write about the apostles and their acts.

I guess the whole tradition of oral history bears no weight with you. If that's true, how do we know anything about Buddha? Did he write down his teaching? How is the history of Horus or Vishnu documented? How much time elapsed between their 'lives' and the documents that we have describing them? Who wrote those documents?

BTW, Josephus mentions Jesus, His claims, and His miracles.