If all religions are true it means they're all false 100% sure absolutely and this wokeness has to end.

The disciples were the only eyewitness accounts ofJesus and his ministry.They lived with him and followed him daily. Except for Paul who had divine visit from Jesus himself.

I've now transcended smiling to a state of laughter.

I have this image of thirteen blokes traipsing around the semi-desert...The bloke in front jabbering and the rest eagerly scribbling.

And later on Jesus visits Paul and gives him some divine intervention...Pretty John must have had a headache.

Their efforts paid off. We now have the Bible and over 2 billion Christian followers

Yes, thanks to second millennium scribes and theo-political indoctrination humanity has become the divisive cesspool that it is today.

All thanks to mad Abe and his mountain madness.

And of course, not forgetting gay J and his band of merry-men.

Muhammad too...There's about 2 billion of them.

Elsewhere:

1.2 billion Hindus...Sikhs 30 million

Oh, Buddhists fourth at half a billion.

2 billion non-religious...Half a billion atheist...Draw your own conclusions about these two statistics

Anyway that's about 5 billion or so non-Christians.

And interestingly only 16 million Judaists...And they are the ones responsible for most of the theo-cess we experience today.

Yep...Clever stupid...Stupid clever...You decide Debs.

The Jewish numbers fell drastically after they rejected Jesus as God. That issue has been settled.

Issues of religion will never be settled.

Well, perhaps one day a real AI will put us straight.

To be eyewitness accounts you had to be there. The disciples were with Jesus all the time during his ministry. The Gospels write about his ministry and are named after the disciple who wrote it.

The gospels were written later, generally by Mediterranean types and so could not have been "eyewitness accounts"...It's pretty simple Debby...You just need to remove your adopted Roman Catholic blinkers and stop being sucked in by much later theo-political propaganda.

The details of Jesus and his ministry could only be produced by eyewitness accounts. The 4 gospels corroborate each other.

For sure, the Gospels are corroborations, in so much as the authors corroborated...Christian corroborating was and is one reason why the business model has continued to be so successful...That and the human propensity for generational brainwashing.

Whereas eyewitness accounts are immediate processes and none were recorded...Hand me down folk tales are not eyewitness accounts.

The hand me downs were recorded as from the original eyewitness accounts and quotes as so with the authors name as in the Gospels.

Nope, the Gospels were attributed to...People who supposedly witnessed something.

Was it John who supposedly wrote his account when he was 80 years of age, some 50 years after Jesus's death?...Though whether or not it was even John the apostle, is widely disputed by "Christian scholars"...In fact, there is similar doubt concerning the integrity of all 4 gospels and their authorship, where much of the content is simply repetition of the same tales...Copied in other words...And named relative to necessity, rather than authenticity.

There are no recorded eyewitness accounts or quotes.

Debby wrote:

The Jewish numbers fell drastically after they rejected Jesus as God. That issue has been settled.

Don't forget, Jesus was Jewish and as a Jew, He was one of those who rejected that he was God.

We know Jesus was Jewish because he lived at home with his parents until he was 33, went into his father’s business, his mother thought he was God, and he thought his mother was a virgin.

Many claim the Holy Bible is infallible, but a complete read cover-to-cover finds many inconsistencies, gaps in chronology, lack of detail in some instances [such as, where is it written that Moses repented of murdering the Egyptian overseer to earn becoming a prophet? - the Quran does tell that story, but Moses, himself, ignores it, or his biblical words were not translated correctly or completely]. There are dropped characters in a critical moments. On the latter, consider that Mary, mother of Jesus, encounters him last at the cross. By the record as given, she does not meet him after his resurrection, in spite of his spending over a month with his devotees before his ascension. Where's Mom? The venerated Mother of Jesus is suddenly missing in action? I don't believe she was missing, but no one bothers to record such an event as a tender moment between mother and Child.

These inconsistencies do not mean the Bible is wrong, or worse, nonsense. It means that God, Himself, was not the Author; men were. All men make mistakes. Even in compiling the Bible record. But, there is a means to overcome these inconsistencies, and that method is clearly defined: ask God. He knows what is there, what isn't, and how to fill in the gaps we encounter, if it is necessary to know. But there can be no doubt that despite inconsistencies, the record is full of great and essential advice.

James 1: 5,6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

John’s gospel deviates from Mark, Luke and Matthew because it deals with the divinity of Jesus. But it complement the other gospels in other ways.

Sidewalker;

We know Jesus was Jewish because he lived at home with his parents until he was 33, went into his father’s business, his mother thought he was God, and he thought his mother was a virgin.

Wow, there's a lot there "we know," but how do "we" know? We have no original documents known to be written by the "authors." We have years of translation by characters whose motives are not completely understood. And the string of "We know he was Jewish..." is a string of conjecture. We do have testimony of the genealogy of Jesus to indicate he was of the House of Judah, through David, and the genealogies of Mary and Joseph, though Joseph was not Jesus' father by genetics, but by willing obligation as Mary's husband. He lived at home with Mary, but as for Joseph, depending on the record as given alone, Joseph is not mentioned again after Mary and Joseph return to Jerusalem to find Jesus in the temple with the elders when he was 12. Joseph is not mentioned again in the record after that event. That Jesus was a carpenter, like Joseph, is recorded, but that is not a uniquely Jewish profession. And other tribes of Israel, and outside that genealogy, also have children living with parents well into adulthood. Some do, today. They are not all Jewish, either. And where are we told that Jesus thought his mother remained a virgin?

No, none of these things proves Jesus was a Jew. That he was, I do not contest, but not for any of those reasons you claim. The Romans claimed he was by notice on his cross. During his lifetime, with only a couple of noted exceptions, his dealings were with Jews, only.

According to Luke 2:21 Jesus was circumcised. That proves Jesus was a Jew.

fauxlaw wrote:

Sidewalker;

We know Jesus was Jewish because he lived at home with his parents until he was 33, went into his father’s business, his mother thought he was God, and he thought his mother was a virgin.

Wow, there's a lot there "we know," but how do "we" know? We have no original documents known to be written by the "authors." We have years of translation by characters whose motives are not completely understood. And the string of "We know he was Jewish..." is a string of conjecture. We do have testimony of the genealogy of Jesus to indicate he was of the House of Judah, through David, and the genealogies of Mary and Joseph, though Joseph was not Jesus' father by genetics, but by willing obligation as Mary's husband. He lived at home with Mary, but as for Joseph, depending on the record as given alone, Joseph is not mentioned again after Mary and Joseph return to Jerusalem to find Jesus in the temple with the elders when he was 12. Joseph is not mentioned again in the record after that event. That Jesus was a carpenter, like Joseph, is recorded, but that is not a uniquely Jewish profession. And other tribes of Israel, and outside that genealogy, also have children living with parents well into adulthood. Some do, today. They are not all Jewish, either. And where are we told that Jesus thought his mother remained a virgin?

No, none of these things proves Jesus was a Jew. That he was, I do not contest, but not for any of those reasons you claim. The Romans claimed he was by notice on his cross. During his lifetime, with only a couple of noted exceptions, his dealings were with Jews, only.

Regarding my comments about how we know Jesus was Jewish, I was just telling an old joke, I rarely take Debby seriously.

But my prior comment was serious:

Don't forget, Jesus was Jewish and as a Jew, He was one of those who rejected that he was God.

Jesus never explicitly claimed divinity, and he pretty explicitly denied it multiple times (My “Father is greater than I” and "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone" are just two examples). He referred to himself as the "Son of Man" and the "Messiah," which within His Jewish culture, both terms were referential to human beings, they were agent roles "serving God", rather than God.

It is certainly not my intent to contend that what was implicit in His life and was made explicit through theological discourse four hundred years later is not an image of truth, I do believe it is, but the philosophical concept of the Incarnation developed over hundreds of years and long after His death. The religion of Jesus was not a religion "about" Jesus.

There is no way to know with any certainty what Jesus' true nature was, or whether or not he physically resurrected after death, my terribly unpopular opinion on the matter is that it just doesn't matter to me. It is simply enough for me to know that the things He did and said caused His contemporaries to think of Him in completely new dimensions and that there was something to this man's life that caused those who knew it best to reach the conclusion that it was divine in nature. The divisive contentions about whether or not he actually rose from the grave in bodily form just do not matter to me. It is enough for me to know that his spirit jumped dramatically to life after his death, and that because of this, he gave millions and millions of people hope that they would never have had if He hadn't lived and died the way He did.

To the folks that will find my position on the matter offensive, sorry, but I have read and know the Bible well, and one thing is clear to me, Jesus was a man who rarely spoke of himself, and who never spoke about the detached metaphysical constructs so many focus on; apparently those kinds of intellectual disputes just weren't important to him and I choose to believe this was because He understood how these matters could digress into divisive contrasts and disunity.

His words, his actions, and his life had nothing whatsoever to do with divisiveness and disunity, and the Bible tells us that those who do engage in divisiveness and disunity in His name are "crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace" - Hebrews 6:6

You should get a copy of the red letter Bible which highlights only the spoken words of Jesus from what was said about him.

The spoken words of Jesus from what was said about him...Is a contradiction.

Jesus is quoted and his words highlighted.

Jesus said can I have a Big Mac and fries.

So get the highlighting pen out Debs.

The authors of the Gospels in the New Testament are Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. They were also the disciples of Jesus.

Nope, there is no evidence to say that they authored anything...Most evidence points to much later scribes jotting down second-hand information, probably in Greek.

So somehow the information was compiled from eyewitness accounts which were from the disciples.

Yep, that's the best you have...Which isn't very convincing.

If they were eyewitness accounts originally, that means they have been authenticated.

Of course it doesn't.

There are always eyewitness accounts to be had, and they would be original...This is a truism.

But this doesn't mean that they are unquestionably authenticated by later hand me down theo-political folk tales.

Theo-political propaganda was/is specifically design to fool people like you Debs and also to keep RC Inc's coffers overflowing.

Remember the Bible has stood the test of time. There was plenty of time to refute the eyewitness accounts of Jesus but it never was refuted.

"Woke" "Truth".

I believe the woke mind virus to be a true thing.. I have noticed of late that many of those left wing retards that suffered this incapacitating mind virus appear to be recovering and are able to think freely for themselves, and are regretting that they suffered from it........ they have simply grown out of the stupidity.

As shown here> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=I+am+sorry+to+maga

Not sure that I can say the same for so called religious people.