Did Moses, and the people of Israel, kill the paschal lambs on the afternoon of the 14th day?

I set out to answer this days ago. I apologize for the delay. And I'm sorry to have to break this into two parts, since this is a Jewish forum. Maybe this area of debate can be enlightening...otherwise these posts can be ignored.
:)

The evidence accumulated over decades before it became critical mass. It would be impossible for me to sum everything up in one post. However, let's see if I can reply to your points up next.

The gospels are not eye witness accounts. They are collections of legends that accumulated in the decades following Jesus death.
This is a false claim that most critics have stopped making. The context belies the claim clearly, and in the case of Luke and John, the claim would insist that Luke and John, the authors are liars, and therefore their work fiction.
They were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
Again, a dubious claim at best. The internal evidence and the external evidence lead to the opposite conclusion, especially in the case of John and Luke, least in the case of Matthew, because external evidence suggests that Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic, making the Syriac version of Matthew a wonder to observe.

In each case, the writings of more than one author are spliced together to form a more complete text. For example, John has three authors. The original text was something that scholars call the Book of Signs.
John does not have three authors...nor is the claim sustainable. Exegetes have ascribed three sections to John: The "Book of Signs" follows the "Hymn to the Word" and precedes what is called the Book of Glory. Wikipedia says it is named for seven notable events, often called "signs" or "miracles", that it records. John's authorship is not questioned, but the Greek of the gospel is far superior to the Greek of the book of Revelation, and to his three epistles, suggesting that John dictated the gospel in his native Aramaic and friends better versed in Greek translated masterfully.

The fact that a religion spreads is not indicative of it being true. Heck, Islam spread like wildfire.
By the sword, as a religious tyranny. The primitive church, in contrast, was threatened with death for three centuries, and, undaunted, continued to do the works of Christ in the face of that threat. Constantine did not impose Christianity as a tyranny until the dawn of the fourth century.

While legends can have a bit of history, there is so much fiction added onto the account, that it becomes impossible to know for sure where the history ends and the fiction begins. The only thing you can do when reading the gospels is try to use common sense to way the probability that a given event or saying is historically accurate. What are the odds that a virgin birth happened? Zero. What are the odds that Jesus instructed his followers to obey the commandments? Pretty high.
Twenty-first century "common sense" will belie miracles based on the critic's personal lack of experience and, if Western, based on a dogged dedication to a naturalistic view and a mindless faith in evolution as it was imagined in the nineteenth century, and despite modern science that has debunked the theory.

What archeological record do you think we have that proves Jesus did miracles or rose from the dead or was God?
The gospel record is the eyewitness record of the miracles, and the extent of miracles throughout the history of the Christian church buttress the account and the expectation. The shroud is absolute proof of the resurrection...and so is the response of eleven rubes from the Galilee region that transformed the Empire without ever lifting the sword, and not one of which ever renounced his testimony, even under threat of imminent execution.

Radiometric dating has confirmed that the Shroud is a fraud.
You've said this before and I've shown you that this claim is not false, it's fraudulent. The "radiometric dating" that was perpetrated was deliberately taken from a patch on the cloth whose known date was the thirteenth century. The "dating" was done in two separate labs, and the data was withheld from other scientists until they were forced to produce it in the last two or three years. Other methods, more precise and eminently more scientific than the fraud, have conclusively dated both the shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo to the first century. The blood on both artifacts match, by type and by stain and saturation. Both matching cloths bear blood that was subjected to severe trauma, and the resulting blood serum, invisible to the naked eye but visible when placed under ultraviolet light, suggest the violence that no forger from the first century to the fourteenth could possibly fake.
It's still highly fascinating, because there is this great mystery about how it was done. But no, it's not the real deal.
You have divorced yourself from common sense. The perfectly formed, anatomically accurate to every detail photo-negative image of a Jew, tortured and crucified in the Roman manner exactly as the gospels describe it, on the fabric of the shroud is found ONLY on the topmost fibrils of the threads of the cloth. The color is uniform throughout, and was produced by instant aging of the impacted fibrils, leaving the rest of the fabric unscathed. Only intense radiation could produce the discoloration, which variants of intensity is produces as if pixelated...not by deeper shades, but by the proximity of one fibril to another. Where it is darker, more fibrils were aged. Where it is lighter, fewer were aged.

There is no technology today that can forge the image...and the data in the image that can produce a 3-d copy of the image beggars any known technology. As I've said, and will continue to say with as much proof as you need: It's a selfie of Jesus.
 
Part two of two...with apologies to friends who might not be interested in the history of the Christian church
Like I said, FAR too much to cover in a single post. But I will refer you to a thread I began called Why Jews will Never Accept Jesus, which explores at least some of my main objections. If you can read the opening post, and reply on that thread, it would be ideal! :)
I contributed to that thread. Remember? I believe it was our first encounter.

It was a very painful thing to go through. I did meet others in my conversion classes who had had similar experiences. Not everyone was the same of course, but I talked to people who just cried their eyes out and mourned for many months when they realized Jesus wasn't real.
Experience is never authoritative...or final. You have learned much in your journey, and you are clearly a very good student.

My parents were fundamentalists.
I'm sorry to hear that...The label does not invoke warmth or an openness to Pentecost and the Holy Spirit. I taught in a fundamentalist school, as I've related on CARM often. These were forewarned of my ilk before I arrived, and their expectations of a Charismatic in their midst set them on their guard. It's hard to be an "ilk." But as I've also related, I made friends there, and I lasted two fantastic years, and went from there overseas as a missionary, destined to meet my future bride and bring life back to my home in New Hampshire. Things work out.

My father had been an ordained Methodist minister, but it was a match made in hell -- the denomination hated him because he was a fundamentalist during an era when Methodism was controlled by Social Gospel. The churches we attended after he burned out were all evangelical churches: Church of God (Indiana), First Church of the Nazarene, Evangelical Free, and Friends (the evangelical wing). As a young adult, my hubby and I attended a string of evangelical churches: Calvary Chapel, North American Baptist, and others.
Yep...these are all familiar names, and I've found myself working with each.

(There were three "Evangelical" churches in Nazareth, Israel, where I lived: A Nazarene church, a Baptist church (that had the Jordan river painted on the wall behind the baptismal tub...and the choir had American choir robes and sang American hymns translated into Arabic)...and the Brethren church I attended that set women on the right side and men on the left, and women kept silent in the church. These three churches never communicated with one another in any way...and each welcomed me and my team as if we had been friends for life.) My own testimony includes these inexplicable anomalies. The church does not hold a monopoly on madness...but they're very jealous to guard it as their own.

However, after studying Church history, it became clear to me that Evangelicalism had no ties to the early church.
Apart from the scripture, this is true...which is why I thank God for my experience in the Charismatic movement in the church. Where I traveled early in my experience, I saw the church of Corinth as Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 14....and I was seen by all, known by all and I could not deny that God was among them. That experience sustained me from that point on, and I was aware that the gift I had received was not to raise me to the level of the gifted...but to permit me to pass the gift on to those whom God had ever design to gift. I get to carry His blessings wherever I go, and give them for free to any who would receive it, as much or as little as they are willing to receive.

Evangelical churches were different from the early church not only in terms of doctrines, but also practices and worship style. The only two branches of Christianity that had a direct and unbroken line back to the Apostles were Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Catholic church.
No...this is sadly false. The RC church and the Orthodox churches split over whether or not we bow down to statues or painted icons.

Peter's toes in Notre Dame in Paris were so worn to the bare base of his statue from "pilgrims" rubbing the feet of the statue over the centuries since 1100 that they had to remove "Peter" to repair his toes. Since the fire, I do not even know if he will be returned. In Athens, I witnessed worshipers crawling under a "portrait" of "Mary" and kissing the painting in worship.

Nothing was further than what Paul preached and practiced as his account in Corinthians makes it clear. Ritual and rite are not Christian, and sometimes they are really bad and ancient habit.

The history of statues in the church is somewhere around a fourth century thing, in the days of the iconoclasts...who swore there would NEVER be a statue depicting God or any saint to be worshiped and adored...and forty years later, with another pope, the worship of statues was described and established as THE practice of the---now apostate---church.
This is meant to be informative only. I'm not encouraging a debate, since these are Christian issues, and this is the Judaism forum.
Your posts are, and i appreciate this.
 
No...It's really an issue of claiming to know what I've seen...

I have seen Jesus twice, and once was in the selfie we will continue to discuss here. It's common sense to testify to what I've seen. The selfie is not only confirmed as a 1st century photo-negative, the details in the data lend themselves to photoshop. It is possible to look at a photograph of Jesus, bruised as He was.
Okay, maybe it's best if we not talk about this. My guess (I have not followed your conversation with Jewy) is that you may be making a reference to the shroud of Turin. I'm not going to discuss the Shroud with you. Radiometric dating has confirmed that it is a medieval forgery. For me, that ends the argument.
 
This is a false claim that most critics have stopped making.
In what universe?
The context belies the claim clearly, and in the case of Luke and John, the claim would insist that Luke and John, the authors are liars, and therefore their work fiction.
It is largely fiction (it is a genre that we might call historical fiction, such as someone making up a tale about George Washington during his school years, set in the 1700s) but that is not because anyone has lied. Rather, the concept of history as we know it today didn't exist back then. The authors of the gospels simply collected the known legends, and included them all. There was no effort on their part to try to determine which of these legends were historical. There was no awareness yet of the techniques of historians.
Again, a dubious claim at best. The internal evidence and the external evidence lead to the opposite conclusion, especially in the case of John and Luke, least in the case of Matthew, because external evidence suggests that Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic, making the Syriac version of Matthew a wonder to observe.
I don't think you've even ever examined the evidence that historians have that show their conclusions. I think you have an extreme form of confirmation bias, which means that you try to only read sources that confirm your already held view, and when confronted with any evidence against, you simply discount it.

Matthew was NOT originally written in Aramaic. It was Greek from its inception. THAT is the consensus of scholars.
John does not have three authors...nor is the claim sustainable. Exegetes have ascribed three sections to John: The "Book of Signs" follows the "Hymn to the Word" and precedes what is called the Book of Glory. Wikipedia says it is named for seven notable events, often called "signs" or "miracles", that it records. John's authorship is not questioned, but the Greek of the gospel is far superior to the Greek of the book of Revelation, and to his three epistles, suggesting that John dictated the gospel in his native Aramaic and friends better versed in Greek translated masterfully.
The Greek of the gospel of John is different from Revelation because they were written by different people.

You have ZERO evidence that John was dictated in Aramaic.

As to the multiple authorships of John and the synoptic gospels, here is an actual valid Christian historian:


By the sword, as a religious tyranny.
It doesn't matter if it was by the sword, via persuasion, of a combination. The point is that it spread tremendously fast, and is the second largest religion today, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the fact that it spread is NO indication that it is true.
Twenty-first century "common sense" will belie miracles based on the critic's personal lack of experience and, if Western, based on a dogged dedication to a naturalistic view and a mindless faith in evolution as it was imagined in the nineteenth century, and despite modern science that has debunked the theory.
Look, if you want to believe in miracles, God bless you. MY definition of a miracle is any extraordinary, rare, wonderful event for which science does NOT YET know the reason. Miracles exist in every religion. They even happen to people who are not religious at all. THEY DO NOT INDICATE THE TRUTH OF ANY IDEOLOGY OR RELIGION.
The gospel record is the eyewitness record of the miracles,
Yawn. You are repeating yourself. I prefer not to repeat myself, as I've already shown this to be inaccurate. Moving on.
The shroud
Same here.
You've said this before and I've shown you that this claim is not false, it's fraudulent. The "radiometric dating" that was perpetrated was deliberately taken from a patch on the cloth whose known date was the thirteenth century.
I am quite familiar with this claim. It seems obvious to me that it is an act of desperation.

I'm not going to discuss the shroud with you. If you want to believe in it, that's your right. There are people who believe they have seen wood from the cross, nails, lance, sponge, reed, crown of thorns, shroud, and the sandals. I dispute the authenticity of all these relics, but you know, people are going to believe anyhow.
 
In what universe?
Clearly not your universe of historic fiction.
It is largely fiction (it is a genre that we might call historical fiction, such as someone making up a tale about George Washington during his school years, set in the 1700s) but that is not because anyone has lied. Rather, the concept of history as we know it today didn't exist back then. The authors of the gospels simply collected the known legends, and included them all. There was no effort on their part to try to determine which of these legends were historical. There was no awareness yet of the techniques of historians.
If this is your view, I see how it is possible to justify anything and declare your own claim valid. The chronicles of history in the days of Tacitus, Herodotus and Pline both elder and younger...even Josephus belie your claim, and beggar your own view of history.
I don't think you've even ever examined the evidence that historians have that show their conclusions. I think you have an extreme form of confirmation bias, which means that you try to only read sources that confirm your already held view, and when confronted with any evidence against, you simply discount it.
As a psychoanalyst, you might consider that basing hour analysis on your own feelings, without considering my own fifty years of study, a trifle biased.
Matthew was NOT originally written in Aramaic. It was Greek from its inception. THAT is the consensus of scholars.
List the scholars. In seminary, that was not the consensus...and the discussions of "Q" came up often concerning Mark and Matthew.

I'm skeptical of your own claims of "scholarship."

The Greek of the gospel of John is different from Revelation because they were written by different people.
Translated by different people. John, along with the other apostles, was not a Greek speaker. Peter's Greek is said to be execrable.

You have ZERO evidence that John was dictated in Aramaic.
You have zero evidence that John wrote fiction, yet you make the claim. You have zero evidence that John knew Greek...and I have the internal evidence that John's gospel was written by John.
As to the multiple authorships of John and the synoptic gospels, here is an actual valid Christian historian:

This was funny. A lecture called "a lecture" by an anonymous lecturer is supposed to be accepted as an "actual valid 'Christian' historian." He has no name. He has no credentials...He doesn't believe the text he is criticizing...and he is fabricating his claims out of whole cloth without a shred of documentation.

This is your source? There is nothing there. He's making unsubstantiated claims. Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict does much better than this, and his work comes with the necessary footnotes and bibliography so you can check his scholarship independently. How credulous are you? He is not a Christian who does not even believe.

It doesn't matter if it was by the sword, via persuasion, of a combination. The point is that it spread tremendously fast, and is the second largest religion today, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the fact that it spread is NO indication that it is true.
The Banu Quraya, the Jewish tribe slaughtered by Muhammed might think otherwise, had they been given the chance to think.

Look, if you want to believe in miracles, God bless you. MY definition of a miracle is any extraordinary, rare, wonderful event for which science does NOT YET know the reason. Miracles exist in every religion. They even happen to people who are not religious at all. THEY DO NOT INDICATE THE TRUTH OF ANY IDEOLOGY OR RELIGION.

Yawn. You are repeating yourself. I prefer not to repeat myself, as I've already shown this to be inaccurate. Moving on.

Same here.
If you do not want to believe in anything, and satisfy yourself with your own chosen version of historic fiction, you're not really moving on, are you? You're leaving the realm of common sense that you claimed to be attached to.

I am quite familiar with this claim. It seems obvious to me that it is an act of desperation.
Clinging to fraud is an act of desperation. Following the science, especially following an egregious act of fraud...such as pilt-down man or the melting glaciers of the Himalayas...is being true to facts and current information. You believe in a fraud...like our friend believes in the Talpiot hoax. It's your choice, but your own believes are based on fraud. So be it.

I'm not going to discuss the shroud with you. If you want to believe in it, that's your right. There are people who believe they have seen wood from the cross, nails, lance, sponge, reed, crown of thorns, shroud, and the sandals. I dispute the authenticity of all these relics, but you know, people are going to believe anyhow.
If you want to ignore the evidence, that's likewise your right. When you make the specious claim that "...there is no evidence of the resurrection..." the current science and the shroud will continue to belie your claim, and I will continue to point it out every time you repeat the false claim. Simple as that. Jesus left us a selfie of his resurrection so that your claim has no basis but your preference to deny history and all evidence.

If that satisfies you, it still merits a response for those who are actually interested in the truth that history reveals.
 
Okay, maybe it's best if we not talk about this. My guess (I have not followed your conversation with Jewy) is that you may be making a reference to the shroud of Turin.
The shroud of Turin is the selfie that matches the vision of the Man I saw another time.

I'm not going to discuss the Shroud with you. Radiometric dating has confirmed that it is a medieval forgery. For me, that ends the argument.
Here's one of the many articles refuting your claim: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.12467

From the abstract: "In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered."

You notice, that the fraudulent readings were done in 1989, and the data were retained and not released until twenty-eight years later...when actual scientists discovered the lack of homogeneity...You are comforted by fraud, but not informed.
 
Clearly not your universe of historic fiction.
If this is your view, I see how it is possible to justify anything and declare your own claim valid. The chronicles of history in the days of Tacitus, Herodotus and Pline both elder and younger...even Josephus belie your claim, and beggar your own view of history.
I have no idea what you are talking about. There is nothing written by any of these historians that indicates who the authors of the gospels are or how historical the stories are.
As a psychoanalyst,
Stop right there! ;) I am NOT a psychoanalyst. I DO have certification as an Alcohol and Drug Counselor, which is a very different thing. I certainly don't accept the teachings of Freud, with the exception of the existence of the unconscious mind.

As to your extreme confirmation bias, it is right there in all your posts for anyone to observe. I'm simply pointing it out.
I'm skeptical of your own claims of "scholarship."
Stop right there! I do not claim to be a scholar. A scholar has a higher level degree, and I assure you, I have no masters or PhD in ANY field. A scholar who can appropriately comment on our topic would be someone with an advanced degree in a field such as Early Western History or Early Christian texts. I am no scholar, no expert, and neither are you. We are just two random people in an internet forum sharing our thoughts.
This was funny. A lecture called "a lecture" by an anonymous lecturer is supposed to be accepted as an "actual valid 'Christian' historian."
Although the video does not introduce him, he is John Hamer, a historian and author. He received his masters from the University of Michigan. So yeah, he is an actual scholar and expert. And for whatever its worth, he was raised in the Mormon church, and is now involved in the Community of Christ, which is the church that produces those videos.
Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict
I read this and laughed. Even when I was 16, I could see all the holes in his reasoning, and that was back in the days when I was a believing Evangelical Christian. It would have been nice if there had actually been "evidence that demands a verdict," but the truth is these things are simply beliefs, things we take on faith. Nothing wrong with that. But lets not pretend it is something it's not.
If you do not want to believe in anything,
I'm not sure why you think I believe in nothing. For starters, I believe in God. But I don't confuse beliefs with knowledge.
 
Here's another study: https://philpapers.org/archive/CASTRD-3.pdf

...and here's their conclusion: The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not pos- sible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.
 
Here's another study: https://philpapers.org/archive/CASTRD-3.pdf

...and here's their conclusion: The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not pos- sible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.
What part of "I am not going to discuss the shroud with you" do you not understand? Please stop directing shroud posts to me.

There are just some things I will not engage in conversation over, like alien abductions, Democrat pedophile rings working out of pizza parlors, 9-11 being a Jewish plot, and the like.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about. There is nothing written by any of these historians that indicates who the authors of the gospels are or how historical the stories are.
That wasn't the point. I have said, "The gospels are eye witness accounts." Your claim is that they are not...and you went on to say, "There was no awareness yet of the techniques of historians." Luke begins his gospel like this: "1Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught...." making your claim an outrageous absurdity. Luke was aware of the need for an orderly, accurate account drawn from research. In Acts, his intent is just as clear, "1In my first book, O Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach, 2until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen."
Stop right there! ;) I am NOT a psychoanalyst. I DO have certification as an Alcohol and Drug Counselor, which is a very different thing. I certainly don't accept the teachings of Freud, with the exception of the existence of the unconscious mind.
Explain how you find license to make this claim, then, "I don't think you've even ever examined the evidence that historians have that show their conclusions. I think you have an extreme form of confirmation bias, which means that you try to only read sources that confirm your already held view, and when confronted with any evidence against, you simply discount it." It's a pretty heady claim that seeks to minimize fifty years of dogged research. You, on the other hand...like Jewjitzu...fixate on any shred of hoax or fraud to buttress your drive to deny history, science and reality.

As to your extreme confirmation bias, it is right there in all your posts for anyone to observe. I'm simply pointing it out.
I'm sure you're comforted in your analysis...but you are not licensed to make the claim. It just seems right in your own eyes, and that is the crux of your religious practice. It's funny when you insist on using falsified data as evidence, or Jewjitzu on a hoax, I'm the one with "confirmation bias."

Stop right there! I do not claim to be a scholar. A scholar has a higher level degree, and I assure you, I have no masters or PhD in ANY field. A scholar who can appropriately comment on our topic would be someone with an advanced degree in a field such as Early Western History or Early Christian texts. I am no scholar, no expert, and neither are you. We are just two random people in an internet forum sharing our thoughts.
Are you saying your beliefs are fabricated then? You make outrageous claims to debunk the science for which I've quoted the sources.

Although the video does not introduce him, he is John Hamer, a historian and author. He received his masters from the University of Michigan. So yeah, he is an actual scholar and expert. And for whatever its worth, he was raised in the Mormon church, and is now involved in the Community of Christ, which is the church that produces those videos.
You presented him as a "Christian historian." Here's the skinny from Wikipedia: "John C. Hamer (born 1970) is an American-Canadian historian and mapmaker. His research has focused primarily on the history of the Latter Day Saint movement, authoring several books on the topic. Hamer is a leading expert on various schisms within especially non- far-Western (U.S.) portions of the Latter Day Saint "Restoration" movement. Raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), Hamer left the religion before joining Community of Christ in 2010 and now serves as Pastor of its Toronto Congregation.[7]" He was raised as a latter day saint, got a masters in Michigan...but it doesn't say in what. And he's "married" to a guy named Mike.

He's not a Christian historian, and has nothing to offer but conjecture and historic fiction...but that's the basis of your faith anyway, isn't it. Is he where you got the fabricated claims as to the gospels from?

Because the research I had to do in seminary went way beyond his claims...and the "fiction" of the Torah produced hundreds of Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea and a Mountain with a smoky black top whose surface alone is singed, but the rest is the colors of the surrounding mountains. The Torah is no more fiction than the Gospels.

I read this and laughed. Even when I was 16, I could see all the holes in his reasoning, and that was back in the days when I was a believing Evangelical Christian. It would have been nice if there had actually been "evidence that demands a verdict," but the truth is these things are simply beliefs, things we take on faith. Nothing wrong with that. But lets not pretend it is something it's not.
That was your verdict, then. I read this and I'm saddened. McDowell compiled evidence to be considered...with references for you to examine. That's called scholarship in contrast to your John guy who creates fiction, and you give him credit for being specious. You've not grown more discerning since your were 16...
I'm not sure why you think I believe in nothing. For starters, I believe in God. But I don't confuse beliefs with knowledge.
The god you've created has no credentials. It's all based on fiction...and what seems right in your own eyes...but you believe your invention fervently and it matches the fervor of the Jewish invention that they had to invent after rejecting Messiah and being spewed from the land as foretold.
 
That wasn't the point. I have said, "The gospels are eye witness accounts." Your claim is that they are not...and you went on to say, "There was no awareness yet of the techniques of historians." Luke begins his gospel like this: "1Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught...." making your claim an outrageous absurdity. Luke was aware of the need for an orderly, accurate account drawn from research. In Acts, his intent is just as clear, "1In my first book, O Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach, 2until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen."
None of this makes your case that they are eyewitness accounts. In fact, it shows the very oppposite, with the person penning that opening stating up front that his writing stems from "having carefully investigated everything from the beginning,"
Explain how you find license to make this claim, then, "I don't think you've even ever examined the evidence that historians have that show their conclusions. I think you have an extreme form of confirmation bias, which means that you try to only read sources that confirm your already held view, and when confronted with any evidence against, you simply discount it." It's a pretty heady claim that seeks to minimize fifty years of dogged research. You, on the other hand...like Jewjitzu...fixate on any shred of hoax or fraud to buttress your drive to deny history, science and reality.
You don't have to have a degree in psychology to being to spot confirmation bias. In your case, it is quite obvious, and anyone lurking in the forum will see it.
You presented him as a "Christian historian." Here's the skinny from Wikipedia: "John C. Hamer (born 1970) is an American-Canadian historian and mapmaker. His research has focused primarily on the history of the Latter Day Saint movement, authoring several books on the topic. Hamer is a leading expert on various schisms within especially non- far-Western (U.S.) portions of the Latter Day Saint "Restoration" movement. Raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), Hamer left the religion before joining Community of Christ in 2010 and now serves as Pastor of its Toronto Congregation.[7]" He was raised as a latter day saint, got a masters in Michigan...but it doesn't say in what. And he's "married" to a guy named Mike.
Your own source identifies him as a historian, and gives the University where he got his masters. While it doesn't specifically mention what his masters is in, the fact that it identifies him as a historian would necessitate his Masters being in some historical field.
He's not a Christian historian, and has nothing to offer but conjecture and historic fiction...but that's the basis of your faith anyway, isn't it. Is he where you got the fabricated claims as to the gospels from?

The Church he pastors, according to your own source, is the Community of Christ, which is a Christian church. It seems rather silly to me that you would claim he is not a Christian.
 
None of this makes your case that they are eyewitness accounts. In fact, it shows the very oppposite, with the person penning that opening stating up front that his writing stems from "having carefully investigated everything from the beginning,"
If I transcribe your eyewitness account, I've written the eyewitness account from its primary source. If I'm a fellow traveler and I witness firsthand what you do...as in the book of Acts...where "we traveled" is found regularly, it is the first hand, primary source.

You don't have to have a degree in psychology to being to spot confirmation bias. In your case, it is quite obvious, and anyone lurking in the forum will see it.
🤣 Looks like neither of us is qualified to make the call, then. We're going to have to relegate the task of judgment to the lurker, then. What do you think?

I take your claims at face value, and see desperation in your evoking fraud as proof as I see it in Jewjitzu's dogged return to an obvious hoax. I don't try to analyze your desperation, because when your cherished choices are so easily belied by science...it still takes courage to change them. Dumbledore said, "It's easier to forgive someone for being wrong than it is to forgive them for being right all along."

No deep psychoanalysis is called for. It's human nature, from which we all suffer equally.
Your own source identifies him as a historian, and gives the University where he got his masters. While it doesn't specifically mention what his masters is in, the fact that it identifies him as a historian would necessitate his Masters being in some historical field.
No...clearly not necessarily at all. Creativity, as exhibited in his "lecture," is no qualification to add the moniker. His claims are shockingly specious...and removed from the actual record.

The Church he pastors, according to your own source, is the Community of Christ, which is a Christian church. It seems rather silly to me that you would claim he is not a Christian.
It is a "Christian" church. The man he "married" belies his claim. It is no "Christian" church that ignores the Bible, the basis of Christianity.

You won't understand this, because the invention you call "Judaism" ignores the Torah concerning homosexuality...and forces you to call the Torah itself "historic fiction."
 
If I transcribe your eyewitness account, I've written the eyewitness account from its primary source. If I'm a fellow traveler and I witness firsthand what you do...as in the book of Acts...where "we traveled" is found regularly, it is the first hand, primary source.

🤣 Looks like neither of us is qualified to make the call, then. We're going to have to relegate the task of judgment to the lurker, then. What do you think?

I take your claims at face value, and see desperation in your evoking fraud as proof as I see it in Jewjitzu's dogged return to an obvious hoax. I don't try to analyze your desperation, because when your cherished choices are so easily belied by science...it still takes courage to change them. Dumbledore said, "It's easier to forgive someone for being wrong than it is to forgive them for being right all along."

No deep psychoanalysis is called for. It's human nature, from which we all suffer equally.
No...clearly not necessarily at all. Creativity, as exhibited in his "lecture," is no qualification to add the moniker. His claims are shockingly specious...and removed from the actual record.

It is a "Christian" church. The man he "married" belies his claim. It is no "Christian" church that ignores the Bible, the basis of Christianity.

You won't understand this, because the invention you call "Judaism" ignores the Torah concerning homosexuality...and forces you to call the Torah itself "historic fiction."
When cBSCNNBCFakesNews brings on an "expert" to deceive their thralls, the chiron reads "expert", but the actor who claims the title is seated in front of a green screen and a background slide displays bookshelves with hundreds of volumes of unread books behind him. Do you know why?

He's no expert. Not even the books are real.
 
If I transcribe your eyewitness account, I've written the eyewitness account from its primary source.
I agree. But that point is worthless to you, since that is NOT what happened. Again, these are NOT eyewitness accounts in any way, shape, size or form.
Looks like neither of us is qualified to make the call, then. We're going to have to relegate the task of judgment to the lurker, then. What do you think?
What do I think? I think you didn't read what I wrote.
I take your claims at face value, and see desperation in your evoking fraud as proof as I see it in Jewjitzu's dogged return to an obvious hoax.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I am not Jewy, nor do I have any clue what this fraud/hoax is. Whatever it is you are saying to Jewy, please be aware that generally speaking I don't follow your discussions with him, and won't understand any references you make to those conversations.
No...clearly not necessarily at all.
Yes, necessarily. A person cannot be identified as a historian unless they have an advanced degree in some historical field.
It is a "Christian" church.
Exactly. And quotes are unecessary.
The man he "married" belies his claim. It is no "Christian" church that ignores the Bible, the basis of Christianity.
As angry as it may make you, there are in fact Christian churches that tolerate homosexuality, and gays that are Christian. You can argue that they are wrong. That's fine. What you can't argue is that they don't exist.
You won't understand this, because the invention you call "Judaism" ignores the Torah concerning homosexuality...and forces you to call the Torah itself "historic fiction."
Why do you think that? It is almost always a mistake to assume that Jews are monolithic, that we have only one take on a subject. Two Jews, three opinions. Reform Judaism accepts gays, Orthodoxy does not.

Part of the difficulty you have with Judaism is that it is not "sola scriptura" like you. Our sacred texts include not only the Tanakh, but also the Oral Torah (Talmud) and the writings of the sages. Furthermore, while Orthodoxy maintains that Jewish law is carved in stone, the Conservative and Reform movements note that Jewish law has ALWAYS been flexible and evolves.

As for me personally? I have a highly traditional morality: sex only between the married man and woman. I am divorced, so I haven't had sex in 24 years. But the thing is, beachhead, I am perfectly cognizant that others do not see things the same way I do, and I do not impose my conclusions on them. I always have in the back of my mind a red flag up to remind me that I may be wrong, and therefore need to be tolerant of others who hold different opinions.
 
I agree. But that point is worthless to you, since that is NOT what happened. Again, these are NOT eyewitness accounts in any way, shape, size or form.
The problem with the claim is that your basis has been proven specious. Your "historian" has no credentials and zero credibility, having chosen to ignore the scriptures that he self-qualified to critique.

Luke, on the other hand, a contemporary with the apostles, and a traveling companion of Paul, a doctor/physician proven adequate in his ability to do orderly and satisfactory research, forces you to make a specious claim to buttress your preferred unbelief. It only makes sense when you choose only that idea that satisfies the need to have your own opinion approved. What did you call that trait again?

What do I think? I think you didn't read what I wrote.
Really...what makes you think you're qualified to make the call beyond your own feelings?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I am not Jewy, nor do I have any clue what this fraud/hoax is. Whatever it is you are saying to Jewy, please be aware that generally speaking I don't follow your discussions with him, and won't understand any references you make to those conversations.
You lean on the fraudulent carbon dating from the seventies...he leans on the Talpiot hoax, the tomb that had a guy named "Jesus" inscribed...twenty miles from Jerusalem...and he insists that the tomb inhabited with bones was the actual empty tomb. Hoax is the foundation of his unbelief like fraud is the basis of yours, because what you find must buttress your opinion or you reject it.

Yes, necessarily. A person cannot be identified as a historian unless they have an advanced degree in some historical field.
Knowledge helps. Knowledge helps a lot.

Exactly. And quotes are unecessary.
A "church" pastored by a man married to a man is a "Christian" church. It is not a Christian church that rebels against the clear teachings of the Bible it purports to defend.

Anyone can claim to be "Christian." You've seen that, too.
As angry as it may make you, there are in fact Christian churches that tolerate homosexuality, and gays that are Christian. You can argue that they are wrong. That's fine. What you can't argue is that they don't exist.
Why would that make me angry. Counterfeits abound and are either fraudulent or mistaken.

An homosexual Christian exists as a Christian addicted to porn exists. When either defends his own sin as "acceptable religious practice, sanctioned by God," this is only evidence that his mind has been given over to depravity as Paul explained in Romans 1. One who declares himself a leader who does not avoid what is clearly sexual immorality like the plague is at least disobedient if not outright rebellious. He is not qualified to lead anyone.

No Christian church can be pastored by a male married to a male...any more than a Christian church can be pastored by an adulterer or a child molester. If the "church" accepts an adulterer as its pastor, the church has abrogated any claim to the title "Christian." They have accepted depravity as "Christian" doctrine, and they're acting like the Jews who do what seems right in their own eyes.

Why do you think that?
You have said, "It is historic fiction." That leaves me with the impression that you think this.

It is almost always a mistake to assume that Jews are monolithic, that we have only one take on a subject. Two Jews, three opinions. Reform Judaism accepts gays, Orthodoxy does not.
Each does what seems right in his own eyes...It's invention and mostly according to what is convenience, and the degree to which one is willing to defend convenient doctrine, and leave off the inconvenient according to the culture of the day, and the latest fad in the press.

I've never even suggested that you have only one take on any subject, except this: Practice trumps Torah, and what seems right in your own eyes is the only rule and standard established clearly in the Book of Judges.

Somewhere it's written, and maybe you've seen this: "Do what thou wilt. That is the whole extent of the Law." It's not Judeo-Christian doctrine. But it is the ruling factor in our gay friend's "church" and your own theology
Part of the difficulty you have with Judaism is that it is not "sola scriptura" like you.
Sola scriptura is NT claim. It would include the inerrant NT as well as the inerrant OT. Part of the difficulty you have with my claim is that I recognize "Judaism" as a second century invention imposed on the religion when the Temple was destroyed.
Our sacred texts include not only the Tanakh, but also the Oral Torah (Talmud) and the writings of the sages. Furthermore, while Orthodoxy maintains that Jewish law is carved in stone, the Conservative and Reform movements note that Jewish law has ALWAYS been flexible and evolves.
I know this...Part of the difficulty you have with my assessment is that you are unwilling to recognize that what you call "Oral Tradition" is the ancient workaround you were forced to come up with when today's Jewish forefathers rejected and betrayed their Messiah. It's nothing more but the necessary invention brought on by the elimination of ark, temple and priest from practice.

As for me personally? I have a highly traditional morality: sex only between the married man and woman. I am divorced, so I haven't had sex in 24 years. But the thing is, beachhead, I am perfectly cognizant that others do not see things the same way I do, and I do not impose my conclusions on them. I always have in the back of my mind a red flag up to remind me that I may be wrong, and therefore need to be tolerant of others who hold different opinions.
Thank you for your willing transparency. I am honored...and I hope you see that you are likewise willing to allow anyone to claim any title if it seems right in their own eyes.

Invention would demand this of its devotees.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the claim is that your basis has been proven specious. Your "historian" has no credentials and zero credibility, having chosen to ignore the scriptures that he self-qualified to critique.
Sorry, dude, but he is a legitimate historian, which makes his words carry infinitely more weight than yours or mine.
Really...what makes you think you're qualified to make the call beyond your own feelings?
You need better discernment which things require expertise, and which are commonly know. You do not need to be an expert to know that someone is being manipulative, or rationalizing, or in denial. Such things are evident to ordinary people.
You lean on the fraudulent carbon dating from the seventies...he leans on the Talpiot hoax, the tomb that had a guy named "Jesus" inscribed...twenty miles from Jerusalem...and he insists that the tomb inhabited with bones was the actual empty tomb. Hoax is the foundation of his unbelief like fraud is the basis of yours, because what you find must buttress your opinion or you reject it.
Please don't bring up your discussions with Jewy with me. If I wanted to follow them, I would. But I don't.
Knowledge helps. Knowledge helps a lot.

A "church" pastored by a man married to a man is a "Christian" church. It is not a Christian church that rebels against the clear teachings of the Bible it purports to defend.
Classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Moving on...
An homosexual Christian exists as a Christian addicted to porn exists.
Porn compulsions can exist regardless of sexual orientation. They are wrong no matter who is involved. But I would NOT say that someone is not a Christian simply because he has a porn compulsion.

Basically, beachhead, Christians do sin. You cannot say someone is not a Christian solely on the basis that they sin.
Sola scriptura is NT claim.
It's not. It is a PROTESTANT claim. MOST Christians do not agree with it. But this is a topic that you are better off arguing on the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox boards, not here.
 
You could say the same thing about the Book of Mormon or the Quran. Every text is unique in its own way.
Inasmuch as every author is unique, this is a safe statement. The Book of the Mormon was written by friends of Joe Smith, and one of the many wives saw what her husband was doing and burnt the last two chapters...lost forever. The claim that it was translated by Urim and Thummim proves Joe Smith's own ignorance as to how the priest cast lots to receive God's answers. You don't cast lots to translate mystery text that turned out to be an invoice written in Hieroglyphics...as it turned out, once the Rosetta stone was discovered. The Quran, as it turns out, is the transcription of what was supposed to be oral tradition, first memorized by Mohammed who was told to memorize what Gabriel dictated to him, purportedly read from heavenly tablets of stone written in god's own hand. To pass on the "oral tradition," folks wrote them down. The problem with that was, a couple hundred years in, like playing telephone, you had six hundred different versions of the oral tradition, so they gathered them all together, burned five hundred ninety-nine and wound up with one. Unlike these religious texts, eace unique in its way, the Bible's inerrant accuracy is attested to by virtue of its variants...with the book of Isaiah a monumental testimony to Jewish methodology in transmitting scripture through the centuries when a copy was found in Qumran predating the Masoretic textual standard by one thousand years...and matching it letter for letter up to 99% of the time. The Bible sets the standard for accuracy as it sets the standard for bearing both historic record and sacred principles.

Well, I'm not seriously going to try to talk you out of this -- this sounds like and idea you are deeply devoted to, so i don't think anything I'll say will make a difference to you. But just FWIW, I simply don't agree.
That's just common sense. You cannot "talk someone out of" proven history...and you're allowed to disagree with history for whatever you think that's worth.

Truth never needs defense. It's indelible. If you don't agree, the truth won't change...any more than it will be marred by your unbelief. Unbelief impacts the unbeliever and those he seeks to lead astray. In your case, you are not seeking to lead anyone astray.
Not only is much of the bible not historical (and that's fine, btw) but even in those books that are much more historically reliable, there are still mistakes. And while the bible has existed in its present for for a good while, now, originally it was a cut and paste job of many different documents. Whether you are talking about the Exodus or the Gospel of John, so many of these books actually have many authors whose writings have been spliced together, and not always very comfortably. One of the most obvious problems when you have umpteen authors, is that they simply don't always agree.
You keep making these statements as if from authority...Multiple authors in the Bible, unlike the Quran's creator who invented history, and the Book of the Mormon's who lost two chapters in the fire, all agree, and scholarship testifies to their agreement over thousands of years, and agree with my own fifty years of experience reading the wonder over and over again...now at least seven times each year.

But, as any scholar will know, there are those who study, and those who pretend. Pretense is not a healthy source for any field. Your claims are not supported by any actual biblical scholarship...as the source you linked to proves. His own claims are less than specious. They are ludicrous.

Yes. When it comes to pedophilia, society has become more moral. We no longer tell kids they are lying, or to shut up.
Not even when they are lying or should shut up. We do not even address couth.
We no longer minimize how damaging we see it. We have developed laws requiring reporting that have made it easier to suss out predators.
Do you believe this?

We are still protecting predators until their usefulness has expired. No Clinton has seen jail time.
Probably no one got beaten up more badly than the Catholic Church for the sex scandal and cover up.
They were not beaten up. Just exposed so we can talk openly and acknowledge the effective nature of the coverup.

Yet the CC has put into place a lot of fail safes, such as requiring all employees (even volunteers) to complete classes in how to spot and report abuse. Today, the Catholic Church is probably one of the safest places for a kid to be. So, we are moving forward as a society on this, thank goodness.
You're dreaming. More comes out every day.

Yeah, I remember being 11, and my teacher was arrested for getting an older girl at the school pregnant.
After I left my school on the North Coast, the gym teacher got the head cheerleader pregnant, and the band director was caught throwing a keg party for his band...Those years I ate lunch alone in my classroom due to the toxic nature of the conversation in the teachers' room. I was 24. They were all veteran teachers.
I'm very much enjoying our chat, btw. Hope you had a pleasant and restful Sunday.
Thank you...I continue to enjoy them.
 
The selfie, with photo shop judiciously applied, says otherwise. Folks who accept the science know what the photo-negative reveals...in unprecedented detail unable to be forged.
No selfie as no one knows what Jesus looked like. No Jew is buried with tefillin. The shroud is a forgery.

Any bones found in the hoax tomb, bereft of the Roman torture seen by witnesses and attested to by history, would only confirm the egregious vapidness of the hoax's claim. Why you do not know this is baffling but for your own perfectly understandable desperateness. Your fathers betrayed Messiah.
Jesus' bones, his wife, son, and James his brother where found there.

And as to the tefillin, the 1st century selfie on 1st century fabric, seen in the instant aging of the cloth, belies your claim.
Actually, it shows that it's a forgery. We aren't buried with tefillin. ;)

Wrong answer. He said, "I never knew you," because the miracles benefitted the recipients...not the performers bereft of the knowledge of God.
Many folks think they've done miracles only to fool themselves. Luke your speaking in tongues.

You have license to re-write the narrative. Your religion is based on your invention. We do not have that license.
[quoe]You've not only lied here but previously with me. It isn't new to you.
Another lie from you.

BTW, you screwed up again with the embedded characters. I'm going to correct your mistakes again.
 
No...It's really an issue of claiming to know what I've seen...
Active imagination.

I have seen Jesus twice, and once was in the selfie we will continue to discuss here.
Which did you see first? The shroud image or Jesus actually standing before you?

Tell us what he looked like and how long did you see him for? Did you take a picture of him? Did it match the shroud image?

It's common sense to testify to what I've seen. The selfie is not only confirmed as a 1st century photo-negative, the details in the data lend themselves to photoshop. It is possible to look at a photograph of Jesus, bruised as He was.
BTW, why would Jesus not be resurrected with the tefillin he had on from his burial?
 
Active imagination.
Unqualified to judge...

You're stuck with your own desperately indomitable prejudice.

Which did you see first? The shroud image or Jesus actually standing before you?
He wasn't standing, but that is another story...and that happened around 1976. I had only seen the shroud as a curiosity when the Time magazine article came out, whenever that was. Then it was a passing curiosity. When the fraudulent carbon dating was trumpeted around the world, I began to watch for articles on the actual data, because it did not seem right, and as more articles and pictures came out the fraud became as clear as your Talpiot hoax. Then, in the last decade, the research on the actual image sealed the case for authenticity. It is impossible to age the topmost fibrils of linen by a thousand years, uniformly in color, but only on the top 2.5 microns of fiber, and without further damaging any of the cloth with any technology we have today.

And it's impossible to have forged the blood evidence with the serum visible only under ultra-violet radiation at any time from the first to the nineteenth century.
Tell us what he looked like and how long did you see him for? Did you take a picture of him? Did it match the shroud image?
I appreciate this question and your tone very much. Understand my reticence here: I didn't have a camera with me, and the story would be meaningless to you with your inherent skepticism. If you insist in your next post, I'll relate the experience...but I'd rather not give you another gratuitous opportunity to insult my intelligence. It was a single, unforgettable experience, admittedly entirely unprovable to your satisfaction, but shared by thousands who went to the same place and saw as well what I saw. Even with the accounts on the web, the case for the shroud is far more credible.

BTW, why would Jesus not be resurrected with the tefillin he had on from his burial?
This is an excellent question as well, and I am forced to accept your view of Jewish traditions. The mounting evidence of the tefillin is becoming incontrovertible. It shows in the selfie. My best guess is that the Jews have never had a written tradition surrounding the betrayal and rejection of Messiah...and so, given the singular nature of the event in all of history, perhaps the two pharisees from the Sanhedrin who claimed His body, Joseph and Nicodemus, decided to make a statement. What strikes me as odd is that no depiction ever shows Jesus wearing tefillin...The blond haired, blue eyed skinny guy hanging by his hands from middle age paintings looks as goyish as my own Norman ancestors.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top