The name of God

[Jimmy the Pro]

Simply this,

I would like to know what those on the forum call Jesus Christ, head of the Christian Church.

This thread is not only for Christains and other religious denominations who recognize Jesus as the Son of God, in fact, I would like to hear the take of Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, and others out there.

Let me give you an example of what I am looking for:

Person 1: I think Jesus was the Son of God (reasons why)

Person 2: I think Jesus was a lunatic/fraud (again reasons why)

Person 3: I think Jesus was a great prophet (reasons why)

And so on....

Please do not take this thread as an oppertunity to bash on Jesus or to start a religious war over the web, I simply would like to know what you think. (The why is not so much as important but I would greatly accept it.)

And reply.

[Jack]

If there ever was a man named Jesus who did all he is supposed to have done in the bible, I would consider him a good man, a true role model, up there with Buddha, MLK, Mother Teresa and Ghandi. There are several, though not many, people who have tried to show that living with love for others and in peace are not impossible. He'd be one of those.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Isherwood If there ever was a man named Jesus who did all he is supposed to have done in the bible, I would consider him a good man, a true role model, up there with Buddha, MLK, Mother Teresa and Ghandi. There are several, though not many, people who have tried to show that living with love for others and in peace are not impossible. He'd be one of those.

So a good man.

Here let me ask another question for you

Was he devinly inspired by a God?

(such as a prophet?)

[kellbing]

I don't believe he ever existed. I think it is just a story adapted from older religions.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: kellbing I don't believe he ever existed. I think it is just a story adapted from older religions.

Very well, so when I went off of the premise there was a man named Jesus you decided to???

Reply :rolleyes:

[Lullaby Chainer]

"Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much to talk about. If he did, he called himself Lord. This means that either:

He was Lord,
He was a liar, or
He was a lunatic.
It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals as described in the Bible, and his behavior doesn't sound like that of a lunatic. So surely we must conclude that he was Lord?"

Firstly, note that this argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus did in fact exist. This is at least debatable.

Secondly, the argument attempts a logical fallacy which we might call "trifurcation", by analogy with "bifurcation". That is, the argument attempts to restrict us to three possibilities, when in fact there are many more.

Two of the more likely alternatives are:

He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord.

The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early Christians.

Note that in the New Testament Jesus does not say that he is God, although John 10:30 claims that he said "I and my father are one". The claim that Jesus was God was first made after the death of Jesus and his twelve disciples.

Finally, note that the possibility that he was a "lunatic" is not easily discountable. Even today in the western world there are numerous people who have managed to convince hundreds or thousands of followers that they are the Lord or his One True Prophet. People like L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones and David Koresh continue to peddle their divinity. In more superstitious countries, there are literally hundreds of present-day messiahs.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer "Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much to talk about. If he did, he called himself Lord. This means that either: He was Lord, He was a liar, or He was a lunatic. It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals as described in the Bible, and his behavior doesn't sound like that of a lunatic. So surely we must conclude that he was Lord?" Firstly, note that this argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus did in fact exist. This is at least debatable. Secondly, the argument attempts a logical fallacy which we might call "trifurcation", by analogy with "bifurcation". That is, the argument attempts to restrict us to three possibilities, when in fact there are many more. Two of the more likely alternatives are: He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord. The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early Christians.

actually, considering that John was written in response to the mythology that was creeping into the early church ("this I write that ye might know Him"), it is unlikely that the writers were embroidering it. and the fact that the epistles already written before the first gospel was written (the gospel being Mark and the epistles being Galatians, Ephesians, Philipians, and Collosians) already taught the basics and were written in places the disciples did not go until much later (being based mostly in Jerusalem and the surrounding area of Judaea), and having no copies sent to them, there is little evidence that the gospels misquoted Jesus, especially considering that one of the farther out disciples (not of the best-known twelve, but a disciple nonetheless) was one of Paul's best friends (that being John-Mark, who was a certain young man that ran off from the Garden of Gesthemene and agreed to house the disciples), it is even more unlikely that it changed over time, especially considering that the epistles written within five years of Jesus's ascension already affirmed what the gospels said. no mythology here either. this argument is used in the Da Vinci Code, but fails to support its connected argument that the deuterocanonical gospels (also referred to as the Apocrypha) should be allowed. we Christians deny the apocrypha for three reasons:

falsified authorship: the earliest known non-canonical gospel was written in 160-180 AD. someone tell me, was Mary alive in that time period? the gospel of Thomas even has a note in the beginning saying that the book was written in 250 AD! most certainly he was dead then.

late date: not a single one of these gospels were written within even 100 years of Jesus's ascension. that is more than five generations!!!

contradict the other gospels: some of the things said in the apocrypha range from misguided to just plain silly. here are some of the quotes from the best known non-canonical gospel, the gospel of Thomas:

2 Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

[actual quote in the gospel from someone who spoke to Jesus: ask and it shall be given unto you, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you.]

7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

[huh? and you expect me to avoid a lion if I am in an area where a lion lives? wierd.]

14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them.

After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

[wait a minute, didn't Jesus command us to pray in the gospels? where did you get this one?]

15 Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."

[what!?!?!?! what will you be born as if it is vile to be born of an animal?]

16 Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to casy peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.

[John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.]

this next one is real wierd, I am still trying to figure it out:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

[ :eek: :faints: ]

Note that in the New Testament Jesus does not say that he is God, although John 10:30 claims that he said "I and my father are one". The claim that Jesus was God was first made after the death of Jesus and his twelve disciples.

"before Abraham was, I Am [literally, YHWH, using the name of God in DIRECT reference to Himself]"
'nuff said.

Finally, note that the possibility that he was a "lunatic" is not easily discountable. Even today in the western world there are numerous people who have managed to convince hundreds or thousands of followers that they are the Lord or his One True Prophet. People like L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones and David Koresh continue to peddle their divinity. In more superstitious countries, there are literally hundreds of present-day messiahs.

how many people do you know who knew as much about people as He spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount? or as much about Jewish religion that He could answer every question and then respond with a question that utterly confounded the "experts"? anyone who could do that is definitely not crazy, the only possible mental illness that might have afflicted him is autism, and we can discount that by his amazing knowledge at the young age of twelve years old. going by His actions, we can definitely deduce that He was not crazy. unless you have another reliable source from the time.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer "Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much to talk about. If he did, he called himself Lord. This means that either: He was Lord, He was a liar, or He was a lunatic. It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals as described in the Bible, and his behavior doesn't sound like that of a lunatic. So surely we must conclude that he was Lord?" Firstly, note that this argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus did in fact exist. This is at least debatable. Secondly, the argument attempts a logical fallacy which we might call "trifurcation", by analogy with "bifurcation". That is, the argument attempts to restrict us to three possibilities, when in fact there are many more. Two of the more likely alternatives are: He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord. The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early Christians. Note that in the New Testament Jesus does not say that he is God, although John 10:30 claims that he said "I and my father are one". The claim that Jesus was God was first made after the death of Jesus and his twelve disciples. Finally, note that the possibility that he was a "lunatic" is not easily discountable. Even today in the western world there are numerous people who have managed to convince hundreds or thousands of followers that they are the Lord or his One True Prophet. People like L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones and David Koresh continue to peddle their divinity. In more superstitious countries, there are literally hundreds of present-day messiahs.

So chainer, do you wish to give your own reply or babble of nothing?

Now to analyze your nothing.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer "Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much to talk about. If he did, he called himself Lord. This means that either: He was Lord, He was a liar, or He was a lunatic. It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals as described in the Bible, and his behavior doesn't sound like that of a lunatic. So surely we must conclude that he was Lord?" Firstly, note that this argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus did in fact exist. This is at least debatable.

Yes there are many more things we describe Him as, however these are three main ideas of what he was.

I may have only three idea's of what a car is: A van, a truck, or an SUV, but that certainly does not limit myself to only those three choices, however, when I say car, those are the main three that come to mind.

Next let us go to your first point doubting the existance of Jesus. Let me aquaint you with the premise in my original post that implies while we debate we debate in terms of Jesus existing. Otherwise this becomes a debate of His own existence and we would not want to have this thread go awry.

Quote by: chainer Secondly, the argument attempts a logical fallacy which we might call "trifurcation", by analogy with "bifurcation". That is, the argument attempts to restrict us to three possibilities, when in fact there are many more.

That is not a fallacy of logic, rather a restriction of such. (logic)

And as I have pointed above even if it does, those are just three main arguements. Of course there are more.

Quote by: chainer Two of the more likely alternatives are: He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord. The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early Christians. Note that in the New Testament Jesus does not say that he is God, although John 10:30 claims that he said "I and my father are one". The claim that Jesus was God was first made after the death of Jesus and his twelve disciples.

Chainer, how is Jesus misquoted when he is quote thousands of times. And not just by a group of close friends, but by the many many people who have written in the New Testament.

Second, this claim is no ordinary statement. In fact I think that you will find this point erronius if you look at the reason why Jesus died. Because He was charged with Blasphemy! Now that charge brought upon Him shows that he indeed claim to be the Lord. If He did die on the cross, then His crime was blasphemy, which meant He to claim to be God.

A point of the stories being made up.

Women were looked down upon in those days.

Why then, are women presented as those who find Jesus, showing women to have an important role in delivering the Good News to the desciples if the story was made up for people to believe?

If Jesus resurrected, why then did He not stay full time, or why did He never stay?

This is a curious point. If the desciples are trying to get people to believe they would have done 1 of 2 things. A: made Him come back so the people would have a Savior to look up to, and then find an imposter to fit the role. or B: Never had him come back at all so that they could claim Him alive and in heaven.

It makes no sense for Him to be here for 40 days and then leave. Just when He has come to free the people He leaves? There is no sense in that.

There are indeed certain qualities to this story in the Bible that seem stupid to say if you are trying to make a credible story.

Note that there are over 100,000 versions of the Bible and just because you say that one version you have randomly picked out doesn't say it means you make the claim he never said it. There is a logical fallacy. Just because one says so, does not mean all affirm that point.

Quote by: chainer Finally, note that the possibility that he was a "lunatic" is not easily discountable. Even today in the western world there are numerous people who have managed to convince hundreds or thousands of followers that they are the Lord or his One True Prophet. People like L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones and David Koresh continue to peddle their divinity. In more superstitious countries, there are literally hundreds of present-day messiahs.

Learn to note that nothing is easily discountable as long as people become skepticle and that it is not easy to discount the possiblity of Him being God either. The rest of this post is irrelevant and serves to affirm people have different mindsets, not that one idea does not exist. :rolleyes:

[Lullaby Chainer]

lol.. you guys can get really annoyed sometimes : )

I'll reply in detail later

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer lol.. you guys can get really annoyed sometimes : ) I'll reply in detail later

I'll wait, actually this is fun for me.

Please do not think i actually hate you Chainer, though your comments do seems weird or odd to me I do not "take them home" with me. (take them personally), rather I just argue what I think.

You actually do make rather good points.

[Jack]

Here let me ask another question for you Was he devinly inspired by a God? (such as a prophet?)

I'm not sure why you're asking me such a question. Have the links in my signature escaped your notice? :)
No, if he existed and if he was as good a man as he is depicted being, I do not believe he was divinely inspired, as I don't accept the supernatural concept of divinity. Perhaps he was inspired by the faith of his people. I don't know what his motivations may have been. But I do believe they were his motivations, not his Dad's somehow beamed into his head.
Before you ask, I also don't believe the other theists I mentioned were inspired, just unusually decent people.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Isherwood If there ever was a man named Jesus who did all he is supposed to have done in the bible, I would consider him a good man, a true role model, up there with Buddha, MLK, Mother Teresa and Ghandi. There are several, though not many, people who have tried to show that living with love for others and in peace are not impossible. He'd be one of those.

Without a word, I am seconding Isherwood!!

No, if he existed and if he was as good a man as he is depicted being, I do not believe he was divinely inspired, as I don't accept the supernatural concept of divinity. Perhaps he was inspired by the faith of his people. I don't know what his motivations may have been. But I do believe they were his motivations, not his Dad's somehow beamed into his head. Before you ask, I also don't believe the other theists I mentioned were inspired, just unusually decent people.

Here I want to differ with Isher!! I would ask him, why it was only Jesus that inspired others? Naturally, as you said it he was a good man. Sir, good people get good thoughts. In fact thought's origin is devine only even in case of ordinary persons, what to speak of whom you agreed to call GOOD. Good means pure and purity is devine, which is unexplainable so it is termed as super-natural.

If it is not so, can Isher tell what is the orgin of thought. It appears to start from neurons due to electrical impulse in the brain. But then who starts the whole activity??? :eek:

[Lullaby Chainer]

So chainer, do you wish to give your own reply or babble of nothing? Now to analyze your nothing. Yes there are many more things we describe Him as, however these are three main ideas of what he was. I may have only three idea's of what a car is: A van, a truck, or an SUV, but that certainly does not limit myself to only those three choices, however, when I say car, those are the main three that come to mind. Next let us go to your first point doubting the existance of Jesus. Let me aquaint you with the premise in my original post that implies while we debate we debate in terms of Jesus existing. Otherwise this becomes a debate of His own existence and we would not want to have this thread go awry.

Ah, my apologize for pointing out my own opinion. Very sorry. Next time I will think to myself, "hmm.. I wonder if Idmaniac will approve"

Seriously, you needn't get so defensive. I was just pointing something out.

That is not a fallacy of logic, rather a restriction of such. (logic) And as I have pointed above even if it does, those are just three main arguements. Of course there are more.

Actually, it is a fallacy. And it deals with logic. Restrictions of "such" is a fallacy nonethless. ^^

Chainer, how is Jesus misquoted when he is quote thousands of times. And not just by a group of close friends, but by the many many people who have written in the New Testament.

Well, couldn't they be quoting one tainted source?

Second, this claim is no ordinary statement. In fact I think that you will find this point erronius if you look at the reason why Jesus died. Because He was charged with Blasphemy! Now that charge brought upon Him shows that he indeed claim to be the Lord. If He did die on the cross, then His crime was blasphemy, which meant He to claim to be God.

Ah, yes. I know very well what the sources say. Your point? I could come up with the grandest of claims, but that doesn't automatically make my claims true, now does it?

A point of the stories being made up. Women were looked down upon in those days. Why then, are women presented as those who find Jesus, showing women to have an important role in delivering the Good News to the desciples if the story was made up for people to believe?

How do you know everyone hated women? ^^ I think people abuse that argument way too far. You can't honestly defend such a thing by saying men wouldn't allow women to have a role in their story. They'd be just as likely take that part out in replace of a man whether the stories are true or not. Afterall, most of them wouldn't have known if what they're hearing is bullcrap or not, and most likely they thought it was true, so naturally if a woman has a role in the story, it wouldn't have mattered whether the story was true or not, so, your argument is pointless. ^^

If Jesus resurrected, why then did He not stay full time, or why did He never stay?

I don't don't understand what you're saying. Please elaborate.

This is a curious point. If the desciples are trying to get people to believe they would have done 1 of 2 things. A: made Him come back so the people would have a Savior to look up to, and then find an imposter to fit the role. or B: Never had him come back at all so that they could claim Him alive and in heaven. It makes no sense for Him to be here for 40 days and then leave. Just when He has come to free the people He leaves? There is no sense in that.

I don't see why that wouldn't make sense. Stories and real life don't always make sense anyway. Hardly a worthy defense though.

"Why would super ducky go to the grocery store if he already had 5 boxes of pudding? Obviously, that doesn't make sense so.."

There are indeed certain qualities to this story in the Bible that seem stupid to say if you are trying to make a credible story.

Aha... very true.

Note that there are over 100,000 versions of the Bible and just because you say that one version you have randomly picked out doesn't say it means you make the claim he never said it. There is a logical fallacy. Just because one says so, does not mean all affirm that point.

Your sentences don't make any sense. " say that one version you have randomly picked out doesn't say it means you make the claim he never said it."

WTF? I think I understand what you're saying.. something bout you can't generalize and that just cause one book might be full of crap, doesn't mean all of them are full of crap. Now correct me if i'm wrong in that assumption.

But, the thing is, I never said that or tried to nullify all the books with just one.

(oh, and I'm not offended nor do I think you hate me. just amused. ^^)

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Ah, my apologize for pointing out my own opinion. Very sorry. Next time I will think to myself, "hmm.. I wonder if Idmaniac will approve" Seriously, you needn't get so defensive. I was just pointing something out. Actually, it is a fallacy. And it deals with logic. Restrictions of "such" is a fallacy nonethless. ^^

not compeletely true. If something does not give something it's full potential, that of course does not mean what it deals with is false, rather the idea just remains incomplete.

If I had a line but did not tell you how long or wide it was and gave no other description than it was a line that does not mean the line is not a true line, rather it just means you cannot know what the line looks like.

Just because all descriptions of something are not given to you that does not make the credibility any less false, thus making it not a fallacy.

Quote by: chainer Well, couldn't they be quoting one tainted source?

If that is true then couldn't everyone be misquoted? Could all scources be misquoted some way or another? let me explain that we believe what is true because we accept basic Truths. Of course it is possible that Jesus was misquoted on some things, but let us look at basic truth.

1. Jesus claimed to be God. Not only is this shown in the Bible, but when History books give credit to Jesus' death it is for the reason of blasphemy. And I am pretty sure there are accounts in Roman records somewhere. This crime is charged for one who claims to be God. So not only does the Bible affirm it but Historians as well

2. Jesus Ressurected. This is a mystery so we do not fully understand it because it is not fully revealed to us yet

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: ldmaniac Jesus Ressurected. This is a mystery so we do not fully understand it because it is not fully revealed to us yet

Jesus Ressurected! My english is weak. Will you please tell me what it exactly mean??
As I understand from general knowledge Jesus had come back to life after three days. Detail however I am not aware. Being a party to the debate I would know about it soon. In the mean time if you could tell me, it is fine.

Back to what I understood from Ressurrection, it means becoming alive after declaring dead.(period of time may be three days only). I never think Ressurection is mystry since it has happened. The way it happens is definitely a mystry. This is because there is another story only 500 years old about Guru Nanak, who also had dip in water pond and again reappeared after exactly three days. Note number of days are same as were in the case of Jesus. In these two cases ressurection is well known. But then we have also lot of stories as Near Death Experiences (NDE) by hundreds of people. What has happend before public, how it can be called a mystry. So I conclude, Ressurection is not mystry but how and why it happens in some cases only, is definitely mystry. :confused: ???

To my mind, Ressurection is re-entering of Self ( you may it call Soul) into existing body, While; Reincarnationis re-entering into different and yet to develop body through the womb of another lady. I have discussed this on a different thread.

[Chilly]

Quote by: dthmstr254 late date: not a single one of these gospels were written within even 100 years of Jesus's ascension. that is more than five generations!!!

First, can you cite me the source for the date on Thomas' document?? I can't find it, but if you're familiar with it, this site will surely have it:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

Secondly, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were probably written before 70 AD. I say this because Acts was written by Luke, but he doesn't mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. AD. or the deaths of James in 62 AD. or of Paul in 64 AD. or of Peter who died in 65 AD. Acts is a historical document that deals with the church, and it would be unlikely that these important dates would be left out if the document was written after the events. And, since Acts 1:1-2 clearly states that it is the second of Luke's writings, it then means Luke's first work - the Gospel of Luke, was written earlier.

In addition, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple according to Luke 21:5-6; Matt. 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-4. If Matthew, Mark or Luke were written after the temple was destroyed, they would have included this fact, as it certainly fulfilled the prophecy of Jesus.

Chill

[Lullaby Chainer]

not compeletely true. If something does not give something it's full potential, that of course does not mean what it deals with is false, rather the idea just remains incomplete. If I had a line but did not tell you how long or wide it was and gave no other description than it was a line that does not mean the line is not a true line, rather it just means you cannot know what the line looks like. Just because all descriptions of something are not given to you that does not make the credibility any less false, thus making it not a fallacy.

It is a fallacy. I've studied logic. ^^

If that is true then couldn't everyone be misquoted? Could all scources be misquoted some way or another?

Sure! I don't see why not. Dthmstr254 misquotes me all the time. ^^

let me explain that we believe what is true because we accept basic Truths. Of course it is possible that Jesus was misquoted on some things, but let us look at basic truth. 1. Jesus claimed to be God. Not only is this shown in the Bible, but when History books give credit to Jesus' death it is for the reason of blasphemy. And I am pretty sure there are accounts in Roman records somewhere. This crime is charged for one who claims to be God. So not only does the Bible affirm it but Historians as well

How is that a basic "Truth"? Silly. That's very debatable, remember, many Atheists are skeptical as to if Jesus existed at all, let alone if the sources are correct. Rumor can spread quite quickley, who knows what really happened. So, not to discredit your "Truths" but, you haven't addressed anything important. Yes, I know what the sources say. What's your point?

2. Jesus Ressurected. This is a mystery so we do not fully understand it because it is not fully revealed to us yet

Ah yes, and Smith, the Lego Captain of the 8th Sea, was teleported to the moon and lived to tell everyone about it. But we don't know how he did that. Amen.

Seriosuly, what's your point? We already know what the Bible says and what some biased historians make of a few iffy sources.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Chilly First, can you cite me the source for the date on Thomas' document?? I can't find it, but if you're familiar with it, this site will surely have it: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

actually, I cite the only Christian denomination that holds the gospel of Thomas as reliable, which would be the Jesus Seminar. which holds in the beginning of the current copies that they shoot out that it was written in between 150 and 200 AD. well, what is even funnier is when the first catologued copy dates to:

Quote by: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Title/ThomasJesus/thomasjesus.html A masterfully drawn picture of the debate and controversy that has surrounded the Gospel of Thomas since its discovery in 1945.

the Westar Institute is one of the leaders in the Jesus Seminar, and holds that the first catologued copy is from 1945. well, considering they try to connect Thomas with the Essenes by saying the gospel was found in the same jars as the dead sea scrolls, we have a bit of a problem: why did Thomas not send the gospel to the church and how was he connected to the Essenes. it seems that we can go with the proposed date as given by the Jesus Seminar, or we can go with the date of discovery.

Secondly, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were probably written before 70 AD. I say this because Acts was written by Luke, but he doesn't mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. AD. or the deaths of James in 62 AD. or of Paul in 64 AD. or of Peter who died in 65 AD. Acts is a historical document that deals with the church, and it would be unlikely that these important dates would be left out if the document was written after the events. And, since Acts 1:1-2 clearly states that it is the second of Luke's writings, it then means Luke's first work - the Gospel of Luke, was written earlier.

correct, that is also what my teacher in New Testament Survey holds.

In addition, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple according to Luke 21:5-6; Matt. 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-4. If Matthew, Mark or Luke were written after the temple was destroyed, they would have included this fact, as it certainly fulfilled the prophecy of Jesus.

again, correct.

[Amuse]

Here is a question for you biblical scholars- We always celebrate Jesus's birth on Dec.25 no matter what day of the week it falls on but his death which is supposed to be Easter is always on Sunday??
Because I dought Jesus existed as a physical being I also question christianity as a whole. I think of Christ as a concept rather than a real person. There is no physical description of Jesus in the bible. Beyond the bible there are no records, sculptures, portraits or anything that were created during His supposed earthly existance that depict what he looked like which I find very odd for someone who was "so well known" and "seen by multitudes".