Without the Lord there would be no science

The video itself has no outside evidence

 

Well, first of all there needs to be actual evidence that supports the stories you cite. I mean, if I fail to prove your stories false it does not mean your stories are true. It just means I didn't prove them false. If you want them to be considered to be true, you have to show why by providing evidence.

Plus it's more complex than that. There is no reason to suggest that stuff in the bible (or any other religious work) doesn't have some sort of meaning. It contains some history and culture. It contains some allegory contributing some philosophy. It contains ancient law. All that is of interest at some level.

The bridge too far is that of deciding it is proof that there is a real live god. It just isn't proof of that.

 

Not all are false, some were also copied from the epic of Gilgamesh.

 

I am not sure why you posted this link as it does not address any of my points.

I did not say that the author of Mark added anything ? What I said was that Mark does not contain a Physical Resurrection story (Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death)

That neither Mark or Paul know anything about "Zombie Jesus" tells us something.

1) The Christian Church - up until at least around 80 AD after the destruction of the Temple, were not aware of stories relating to Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death.

2) That Clement 1 (Pope - leader of the Church around 95AD) does not know this story tells shows that ignorance of the Physical Resurrection story continued until much later and tells us something about the Gospel of Matt.


Either
1) Clement had never read Matt
2) Matt was not yet written (which argues for adoption of later dating (closer to 100AD rather than 80 AD)
3) Clement was aware the Gospel of Matt but, it did not yet contain the story of Zombie Jesus.

We know that the author of Matt (or some later scribe) added the Physical Resurrection story, Virgin Birth, Genealogy back to David (regardless of whether these stories are true or false) because these things did not exist in Mark.

Obviously the Author of Matt (writing from 80-100 AD) used the Gospel of Mark as a source document.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

From this we know that the Author of Matt was not above a little "Pious Fraud". He was trying (through omission) to change the nature of Christ to better fit in with the dogma that he wanted to expound.

What we do not have here is "Inspired writing" (unless you think it was God that told Matt to commit pious fraud). We have a budding movement (Christianity), a movement whose doctrine/dogma is just taking shape and going through many changes. There are numerous groups producing stories and "Gospels" about Jesus. Part of being a Gnostic initiate was to write your own Gospel.

The Author of Matt was one of many who wanted to influence Christian dogma. The story that Matt is writing is motivated by having Jesus better fit into the Jewish Messianic Tradition that existed at the time. That much is clear. That he was not above taking a little artistic license is clear.

What is not so clear is what parts of the story that author of Matt gives us are true. We do not know where this authors information comes from (other than the parts that are taken from Mark) - there were many stories about Jesus circulating and there had been 5-7 decades for these stories to "grow".

We do know that Matt's telling of the story conflicts with Mark (leaving out the Jesus getting angry parts). Jesus being deified at Birth - instead of at Baptism as is the story in Mark - is another instance. We know that "story/tales" tend to grow with time. Why would we expect the stories of Jesus to be any different. The stories of Jesus come from "oral tradition" and nothing that we was written about his life prior to Mark (around 65 AD at the earliest)

That the "divinity" of Jesus gets bigger with time - divine at baptism to "virgin birth" fits in well with what we expect to happen with such stories.

By the time we get to John (100-120 AD) ... the story of Jesus grows even more. Instead Jesus coming into existence at birth "immaculate conception" Jesus is shown as being "pre-existent" with God. The debate over the pre-existence of Jesus/nature of Christs divinity raged for centuries in the early Church. It is not like early Church leaders and scholars did not recognize these differences.

200 years later the divinity of Jesus grows even more. By decree of Emperor Constantine Jesus actually becomes God (God the Father, God of Abraham).

This is something no one in the early Church (prior to 200 AD) believed. When Tertullian did come up with this idea around 200 AD (That Jesus and God were one) the Church declared this to be heretical. Jesus was the "Son" ... and that Son, while divine, was subordinate to the Father.