NationStates Jolt Archive

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2578/38863453pleasedonotfeedthetrol.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2578/38863453pleasedonotfeedthetrol.jpgTho I may not agree with you on alot of things, I do agree with you on this one.

thanks, I almost fed it.

Most ammusing ... but it is really a point im trying to make

The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.

The hell are you talking about? Genesis was written about 1500 years before Jesus was born.

the Dead Sea Scrolls and other old testiment books were most definently not written 200 years after Christ was born, and that's more than half the Bible right there. As to the New Testiment, Carbon dating or whatever the copies of the original manuscripts does not tell you when it was first written down or who wrote it, that's like saying every time an author re-publishes a book that history was re-written and the new publish becomes the first time ever the book was produced, and that because it was re-published, the Author could not of written the book, no matter how many millions of fans of this author attest otherwise. And finally, my answer is that im not playing a game, this is real life, (Sort of, it's kind of on the internet, but we're real people posting on it and all)I don't see why I should be playing games the whole time.

Most ammusing ... but it is really a point im trying to make

Well, if it is truly something you are trying to discuss, could you clarify what you mean by the "200 years?" The canon itself was not really closed until the 4th century, much longer than 200 years. However, the indiviual books, even taking some liberal dates, all date within the 2nd century.

1) Thou Shalt Not Concern Thyself with God. He probably doesn't care about whether he exists or not and if he does he certainly wouldn't come here to read about it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464525)

Observe thy Commandments!

the Dead Sea Scrolls and other old testiment books were most definently not written 200 years after Christ was born, and that's more than half the Bible right there. As to the New Testiment, Carbon dating or whatever the copies of the original manuscripts does not tell you when it was first written down or who wrote it, that's like saying every time an author re-publishes a book that history was re-written and the new publish becomes the first time ever the book was produced, and that because it was re-published, the Author could not of written the book, no matter how many millions of fans of this author attest otherwise. And finally, my answer is that im not playing a game, this is real life, (Sort of, it's kind of on the internet, but we're real people posting on it and all)I don't see why I should be playing games the whole time.

I do apologise, it wasnt Written it was Edited.

Observe thy Commandments!
something wrong with that commandmant.

It is not a lie if the person writing it believed it, or (believing it was false) did not intend to convince others it was true.
Fairy tales and delusions aren't lies.
Which however must not be read to imply the bible is either a fairy tale, a delusion, or a lie. It's a mix of many things, and a work by many writers.

It is not a lie if the person writing it believed it, or (believing it was false) did not intend to convince others it was true.
Fairy tales and delusions aren't lies.
Which however must not be read to imply the bible is either a fairy tale, a delusion, or a lie. It's a mix of many things, and a work by many writers.

Accepted. But then the bible is False at the least.

Nothing like the subtle approach! Given the human tendency to go on the defensive when criticized so strongly, I don't think any christians will have their minds' changed by this thread!

Accepted. But then the bible is False at the least.

I'll need to see some proof of that allegation, please.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!
Congratulations for talking crap.
http://www.ripplesstmarysswim.com.au/images/seal_clapping.gif

If this thread has served any purpose it has given me some ammusing links...

Accepted. But then the bible is False at the least.In part. But not all of it makes claims to truth. A lot of it is more inspirational tales then anything else. And large parts at the start are embellished history, not exactly true and not exactly false.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.

Thus the reason I don't accept Jesus as my Messiah and am a Jew.

The hell are you talking about? Genesis was written about 1500 years before Jesus was born.
Keruvalia i'd hate to be the one to break this to you but Jews don't exist they never did the New Testament is the only Bible ever ever ever nothing else and only Christians have read this book that doesn't exist in fact they only called it the New Testament so people would stop reading Rand McNally Maps .

Sorry to have disappointed you.

Keruvalia i'd hate to be the one to break this to you but Jews don't exist they never did the New Testament is the only Bible ever ever ever nothing else and only Christians have read this book that doesn't exist in fact they only called it the New Testament so people would stop reading Rand McNally Maps .

wow, try typing sentences. it may make your comments understandable to someone other than you.

No, the earliest Christian writings date from the years 30-40 AD, while still considerably long after the death of Jesus (although we don't know for certain what existed before that), its still a lot earlier than 200 AD.

Plus, there are literally thousands of other writings that wern't considered "canon" and were stricken from what would eventually become the New Testament.

wow, try typing sentences. it may make your comments understandable to someone other than you.

Hesright,co'sthatsjustannoyingdoingstufflikethat!>"vtecmminists

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!
Some proof of this would be nice, don't you think? :)

Some proof of this would be nice, don't you think? :)

Emperor Constantinus. Eastern Rome. Rewrote bible. Pagan, Arianism.

Emperor Constantinus. Eastern Rome. Rewrote bible. Pagan, Arianism.
And your source?

wow, try typing sentences. it may make your comments understandable to someone other than you.
It is poor form to be coherent when one is ranting, if you stick around long enough you will understand and learn from this.

dooouuuuuuuuchhheee
bag

No, the earliest Christian writings date from the years 30-40 AD, while still considerably long after the death of Jesus (although we don't know for certain what existed before that), its still a lot earlier than 200 AD.

i could be wrong, but wasn't jesus born approximately 6 AD and live for 36 years or something? that would put his death right in the 30-40 AD range you specified.

and yes, proof of the 200 AD thing would be 100% totally awesome.

Emperor Constantinus. Eastern Rome. Rewrote bible. Pagan, Arianism.

He did call the Council of Nicaea, which was partially intended to curb Arianism. However, the idea of the Virgin Birth was already well established for a century and a half before the council.

Emperor Constantinus. Eastern Rome. Rewrote bible. Pagan, Arianism.
So what makes you think the bible is a lie because of something an Eastern Roman Empire Emperor said?
Especially when Rome was the Capital of Christendom(apart from Jerusalem*shifty eyes*) and was so until the Protestant 'Revolution' and even then what would the capital be?-Rome?

I have to congratulate you guys. You've taken a thread that was hostile and at great potential to become a flamewar, and turned it into a decent disscussion.

dooouuuuuuuuchhheee
bag
dooouuuuuuuuchhheee bag do you really think that of me.:(

Thus the reason I don't accept Jesus as my Messiah and am a Jew.

Well now we know that the Jewish faith is sometimes a little off key with reality, cheers, anyhow 200 years is a weird date. Where did you get that date most people who disagree with the Bible use something... Else.... Besides with other historic dates the Bible goes along rasonably well. Now with an Pagan writing the Bible is actually the Apocrapha (an Egyptian wrote it).

i could be wrong, but wasn't jesus born approximately 6 AD and live for 36 years or something? that would put his death right in the 30-40 AD range you specified. and yes, proof of the 200 AD thing would be 100% totally awesome.

It appears to be around 30 AD that he died, which means that some (not necessarily canonical) written texts appeared almost right after his death, if not while he was still alive. So, it's a pretty strong argument that the material in the NT is valid at least in a historical sense.

However, the Gospels were written later than the epistles and other parts of the NT; I believe in the years 60-70 AD and as late as 110 AD. This is still far earlier than the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, when the "canon" was established.

dooouuuuuuuuchhheee bag do you really think that of me.:(

no! not you, the thread start. god! anyhow I go to work now.


hi ho! hi ho! its off to work we go! with hand grenades and tim mcvay! hi ho! hi ho!

Well now we know that the Jewish faith is sometimes a little off key with reality, cheers, anyhow 200 years is a weird date. Where did you get that date most people who disagree with the Bible use something... Else.... Besides with other historic dates the Bible goes along rasonably well. Now with an Pagan writing the Bible is actually the Apocrapha (an Egyptian wrote it).

That's some of the controversy over them; especially within Ecclesiasticus, there are statements that totally contradict the teachings of Jesus and even other parts of the Old Testament.

I fail to see how the Bible was "written" by pagan authors, it was penend by semitic authors in the Old Testament, and contemporaries of Jesus, Jews/ Christians, in the New Testament, however it was compiled by Constantine and an essentially pagan council after Nicaea, and accordingly reflects his perceptions and intentions for Jesus Christ, in place of those portrayed in other gospels, notably the Gnostic gospels.

Keruvalia i'd hate to be the one to break this to you but Jews don't exist they never did

But what about Space Jews?

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!
Well, who know religion is funny, the bible is BS, quran is BS Tore is BS, I mean they all are most likley...

BUT WHAT IF THEY ARE TRUE:eek:

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

I would say that they are not playing at anything that is different from any other religion on the planet. Religious writings are not meant to be historical records as much as backgrounds on which to hang morals and principles.

In order to refute the Bible, one would have to address the moral principles involed and prove them as false rather than attack the historical accuracy of it.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!
I think it was more like 300 years after. Infact I beleive no mention of the devil even comes into play untill 'chronicles' which was written 500 years after.

Anyways, most of the stuff that pisses me off about chritians isn't in the bible. Its that they still enforce medival politics with moral authority stolen from Jesus Christ. Not that Im saying what Jesus says is right, jsut that the Catholic church had no right to go and say abortion, homosexuality stc are wrong.

There is a reason why the New Testament was first written down a few decades after Jesus' death.

After Jesus died, his followers thought he would be back within their lifetimes. When a few decades had passed, the disciples were dying, and Jesus had NOT returned, they decided to write everything down before it was forgotten.

I may not have this story right, I am a Jew, but this is what I have heard.

Interestingly enough, there is one date (not in the Bible, but in Jewish tradition) that does NOT jive with archaeology - the dates for the destruction of the First Temple are over 100 years apart!

That's some of the controversy over them; especially within Ecclesiasticus, there are statements that totally contradict the teachings of Jesus and even other parts of the Old Testament.

Could you post which statements from Ecclesiasticus you believe contradict Jesus?

I do apologise, it wasnt Written it was Edited.

Ok then, but even the Dead Sea scrolls couldn't of been edited to fit with the rest of the Bible, as they were buried and protected pretty well in these tomb-things, and the first people who found them were archaeologists and those types, I don't see why those kinds of people would edit the Bible so that it looks better or whatever. Plus, the scrolls supposedly mostly affirmed that the old testiment we had before that was pretty much accurate, (im guessing there were some grammatical differences or something) so even without the dead sea scrolls, it seems nothing was really edited out or in anyway.

I would say that they are not playing at anything that is different from any other religion on the planet. Religious writings are not meant to be historical records as much as backgrounds on which to hang morals and principles.

In order to refute the Bible, one would have to address the moral principles involed and prove them as false rather than attack the historical accuracy of it.
exactly

is it false to say that one should love ones neighbor as oneself?

the truth of the bible doesnt lie in "jesus was born in a manger in bethlehem" but in the eternal truth of his teachings.

I fail to see how the Bible was "written" by pagan authors, it was penend by semitic authors in the Old Testament, and contemporaries of Jesus, Jews/ Christians, in the New Testament, however it was compiled by Constantine and an essentially pagan council after Nicaea, and accordingly reflects his perceptions and intentions for Jesus Christ, in place of those portrayed in other gospels, notably the Gnostic gospels.

Looking at the many local canons before official canon, one can make two interesting observations: there was no OT canon listed, and the NT lists were much the same. The early Christians' common use of the Septuagint explains the missing OT lists, and so couldn't reflect the Christians' views in the manner you propose. On the matter of the NT lists, as I mentioned, even before Nicea all the lists were fundamentally similar. Even the common books that didn't make it in the canon (Hermas, for example) were not Gnostic. Granted, there were Gnostic gospels circulating in some areas, but never are they seen to represent the actual majority of Christianity. This, combined with the fact that we have records of what went on at Nicea and other early councils from primary sources, it's seems incredible to say that Christianity was suddenly "changed" as soon as Constantine ended the persecutions. What happened at the councils was not any person's attemt to mold Christianity to their ideas, but to preserve what had been taught from the beginning.

Could you post which statements from Ecclesiasticus you believe contradict Jesus?

I made an error previously. I meant the book of Wisdom, not Ecclesiasticus. If you want, I could show you those.

I made an error previously. I meant the book of Wisdom, not Ecclesiasticus. If you want, I could show you those.

Sure, I'll be happy to take a look at them!

I'll need to see some proof of that allegation, please.

Hmmm, the bible is a collection of books. The oldest were passed on by rote for at least 2000 years. Some of the early stories have similarities to non Israeli soures. Eg versions of the the Great Flood are in other cultural memories.

A lot is history which has been verified. Eg there was a historical Jesus. Whether he can be proved to be the son of God is a matter of beleaf/faith.

Before saying it is nonsense, how about getting to grips with the various messages.

The N T letters were written but in at least one case, an addition was made by a subsequent writer.

http://www.crisscross.com/jp/forum/upfiles/27318/8B9030D3DD5A4A64BE72C8CC266514F6.jpg

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

I am an athiest, but I am offended at your sloppy allegations.

If this "is actually true but no one bothers to read up on it," be more specific and provide some evidence.

Otherwise you are just making yourself look silly.

I am an athiest, but I am offended at your sloppy allegations.

If this "is actually true but no one bothers to read up on it," be more specific and provide some evidence.

Otherwise you are just making yourself look silly.
I agree.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

Lol. Yes of course. Do you perhaps have some proof or articles supporting you. Because I can actually provide a reasonable arguement that the Bible was written before 70AD. Seriously I saw the "Why doesnt Europe unite" thread. Are you a 12 year old with no idea about politics or religion?

Option 1: (Some) People actual believe the bible, and society is a much better and safer place for it

Option 2: Smartasses question and demean the bible, and everything is chaotic.

your choice.

I agree.
How'd you get those cool little pics under you name?

I do the simple write off when it comes to the Bible. The claim is too big therefore it didn't happen it isn't true end of evaluation.

How'd you get those cool little pics under you name?
MSN or AIM addresses.

Why is this blatent piece of copy/paste-trolling still deserving attention? Let it die.

Eh, it's impossible to prove or disprove what's in the Bible, but given that a lot of it is the basis for pretty much all civilized law, I think it's reaching a bit to say that it's just a load of BS.

I thought about flaming this stupid thread, but it's not worth it.

Then I thought about finding a flame graphic, but I'm just too lazy to bother.

Why don't you just go take a long walk off a short pier and get back to us when you've dried off.

Come on Qwystyria, it's fun to waste time on these pointless threads!

Come on Qwystyria, it's fun to waste time on these pointless threads!

OK already, I'm on, I'm on... oh wait, that's not what you meant, is it? yeah, well I read it and posted, didn't I? Wait, what were we talking about again?

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

Go away, you silly little person.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!
The Bible contains history and metaphor. It is not a lie.

I've got to say, this was the first almost-offensive anti-religious type of thread I've ever seen. Usually it's the pro-religion folks who act offensive.

I've got to say, this was the first almost-offensive anti-religious type of thread I've ever seen. Usually it's the pro-religion folks who act offensive.
Actually, I see it come from both sides. About equally.

Edit: Oh, I didn't notice this thread is about a half an hour old. Oh well.

Option 1: (Some) People actual believe the bible, and society is a much better and safer place for it

Option 2: Smartasses question and demean the bible, and everything is chaotic.

your choice.

False dichotomy.

Apparently you didn't choose logic.

exactly

is it false to say that one should love ones neighbor as oneself?

One could argue so, yes. One could also argue that having *some* "good" points doesn't make *all* things the Biblical morals prescribe "good".

Eh, it's impossible to prove or disprove what's in the Bible, but given that a lot of it is the basis for pretty much all civilized law, I think it's reaching a bit to say that it's just a load of BS.

Which law do you refer?

The facts of the Bible are wrong. But that doesn't mean that the advice in there isn't wrong.

The facts of the Bible are wrong. But that doesn't mean that the advice in there isn't wrong.
A lot of the advice is very wrong by modern civilized standards. But even if it was all good, why not take the advice, put it into clear modern language and context, and throw all the non-factual hogwash away?

Option 1: (Some) People actual believe the bible, and society is a much better and safer place for it

Option 2: Smartasses question and demean the bible, and everything is chaotic.

your choice.
This is utter nonsense. "Smartasses" who have questioned the Bible and had the good sense to look for real answers, instead of accepting Iron Age myths, are the people who have given us most of the benefits of health, security, knowledge and prosperity which we enjoy today.

For all our current problems, we (in the west at least) live in a far less brutal and cruel world than our religion-dominated ancestors. Religious belief is still the major source of conflict and violence in the modern world.

A lot of the advice is very wrong by modern civilized standards. But even if it was all good, why not take the advice, put it into clear modern language and context, and throw all the non-factual hogwash away?


Because when you strip away all the dogmatic bullshit, endlessly boring "begats", and so on, what you have is one basic message:

"Love one another. Be a good person."

Thats IT.
Thats as hard as Christianity has to be.

However, Christians, becuase they are humans, cant simply accept thier religion, for what it it supposed to be.
They cannot believe that "Thats all there is to it".
So they must add issues and angles that dont need to be there, to make everything more dynamic, and important, and ultimately....circular.

Dont blame them.

See, thier faiths, are so important to them, that they have to believe that God is more complex than one simple message.
They have to believe that Jesus' sacrifce, meant more, than just "Be good to one another...ALWAYS."
So, they subconciously attach more behind the message.

This is in essence, how such a simple message, got misinterpereted, centuries ago, and has been still misinterpereted today.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2578/38863453pleasedonotfeedthetrol.jpg
Thirded, I think.

A lot of the advice is very wrong by modern civilized standards. But even if it was all good, why not take the advice, put it into clear modern language and context, and throw all the non-factual hogwash away?
what advice would be wrong by today's standards? oh and carefull... alot of "advice" in there are actually rituals.

as for Hiding the Advice? perhaps God is testing those to see who would find the advice and who would take the Bible literally. ;)

"Love one another. Be a good person."
Thats IT.
Thats as hard as Christianity has to be.

and you miss so many other lessions.

Accept God into your heart and HE will watch over you.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do not commit Murder
Always take a day of rest.
Honor your parents (you don't have to like them, but honor them)
Help those that need help... even if they be your enemy.
Strive to do your best, even against insurmountable odds.
Don't worry, be happy.
Be polite.
Do not commit Adultry
Do not let Desires control your life.
Do not let Hatred control your life.
Do not seek Revenge.
Keep yourself physically fit.
Forgive others of their wrong doing as God forgives you of your sins.
Do your best and always strive to improve yourself.
Always keep your word.
Respect your elders. (doesn't mean you have to obey them, just respect them.)
by working together great things can happen.

and the list goes on.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!


Get your facts right. Time magazine 18, 1995 cover story notes what evolutional and creational scientists agree is factually correct with the bible.

The fact that everything from King David onwards (except for the miracles of Christ, any supernatural things, and King Solomon) has been proven as correct is irrefutable.

To deny such things means to deny the existence of the Persian empire, the city states of Greece, Paul's trip to the city of Corinth (as he notes in his letters to the Corinthians) which history, secular history, denotes as being correct. Such arguments are pure blindness to factual information that already exists.

I am not claiming in my post that all in the bible is correct in its entirety, nor am I claiming that all in the bible is not correct in its entirety, I am just pointing out that numerous parts of the bible have been scientifically proven as fact and whether you believe in creationism or otherwise you would acknowledge such things if you knew your secular history.

what advice would be wrong by today's standards? oh and carefull... alot of "advice" in there are actually rituals.

as for Hiding the Advice? perhaps God is testing those to see who would find the advice and who would take the Bible literally. ;)


and you miss so many other lessions.

Accept God into your heart and HE will watch over you.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do not commit Murder
Always take a day of rest.
Honor your parents (you don't have to like them, but honor them)
Help those that need help... even if they be your enemy.
Strive to do your best, even against insurmountable odds.
Don't worry, be happy.
Be polite.
Do not commit Adultry
Do not let Desires control your life.
Do not let Hatred control your life.
Do not seek Revenge.
Keep yourself physically fit.
Forgive others of their wrong doing as God forgives you of your sins.
Do your best and always strive to improve yourself.
Always keep your word.
Respect your elders. (doesn't mean you have to obey them, just respect them.)
by working together great things can happen.

and the list goes on.

Bah.

These are secondary.

Hell, some of these arent even in the Ten Commandments.

These are things wich parents teach thier children.

The core..is as simple as what I have already mentioned.

Ok then, but even the Dead Sea scrolls couldn't of been edited to fit with the rest of the Bible, as they were buried and protected pretty well in these tomb-things, and the first people who found them were archaeologists and those types, I don't see why those kinds of people would edit the Bible so that it looks better or whatever. Plus, the scrolls supposedly mostly affirmed that the old testiment we had before that was pretty much accurate, (im guessing there were some grammatical differences or something) so even without the dead sea scrolls, it seems nothing was really edited out or in anyway.
Actually, the Dead Sea scrolls were found in earthen jars by a goatherder who was disappointed there was no gold nor any artifacts in the jars, just some old scraps of parchment.

Get your facts right. Time magazine 18, 1995 cover story notes what evolutional and creational scientists agree is factually correct with the bible.

The fact that everything from King David onwards (except for the miracles of Christ, any supernatural things, and King Solomon) has been proven as correct is irrefutable.

To deny such things means to deny the existence of the Persian empire, the city states of Greece, Paul's trip to the city of Corinth (as he notes in his letters to the Corinthians) which history, secular history, denotes as being correct. Such arguments are pure blindness to factual information that already exists.

I am not claiming in my post that all in the bible is correct in its entirety, nor am I claiming that all in the bible is not correct in its entirety, I am just pointing out that numerous parts of the bible have been scientifically proven as fact and whether you believe in creationism or otherwise you would acknowledge such things if you knew your secular history.

Thats not true at all.

There is still much debate about nearly everything.

In fact, The Hebrews may not have ever been slaves, but actualy mercenaries, under Pharoah's employ.
Moses, for instance, may actually have been a Military general, as well as a spirtual leader.
This would account for why they were allowed to simple leave Egypt, at all, before Pharoah changed his mind, and persued them.

Go away, you silly little person.
ROFLMAO!!! Tsk! :D

A lot of the advice is very wrong by modern civilized standards. But even if it was all good, why not take the advice, put it into clear modern language and context, and throw all the non-factual hogwash away?
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=45#books&version=45;

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

Do you know what the Synoptic Problem is?

Do you know what the Synoptic Problem is?
Probably not, based on his posts, but I do! Does that count? :D

Probably not, based on his posts, but I do! Does that count? :D
Its a start. Perhaps I'm arrogant, but I resent people telling me to read up on the Bible when they are so obviously ignorant of modern Biblical criticism.

Ooh, a good old-fashioned flame war! I'm almost surprised that anyone bothered replying.

Get your facts right. Time magazine 18, 1995 cover story notes what evolutional and creational scientists agree is factually correct with the bible.
There's no such things as a "creational scientist", because Creationism isn't science, as any mainstream scientist and the US Supreme Court will tell you. There's also virtually nothing in the Bible which agrees with the theory of evolution. All Christians either have to deny evolution or accept that the Biblical account of the creation of the world and mankind is allegorical and symbolic, i.e. not actually true.

The fact that everything from King David onwards (except for the miracles of Christ, any supernatural things, and King Solomon) has been proven as correct is irrefutable.
Funny how so much from King David onwards is still be refuted and debated over, then! There is plenty in the old and new testaments which is refutable, either by science or history and archaeology. There's plenty more where a passing similarily between something real (e.g. a place in Palestine) and a Biblical reference leads people to assume that the real thing is what was being referred to in the Bible, even though there is insufficient evidence to support the claim.

To deny such things means to deny the existence of the Persian empire, the city states of Greece, Paul's trip to the city of Corinth (as he notes in his letters to the Corinthians) which history, secular history, denotes as being correct. Such arguments are pure blindness to factual information that already exists.
Not so - it is not necessary to deny the existence of the Persian Empire etc in order to deny the Christian stories which refer to them, any more than it's necessary to deny the existence of Victorian London in order to deny the truth of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Fiction doesn't become fact simply because it's set in a factual location.

I am not claiming in my post that all in the bible is correct in its entirety, nor am I claiming that all in the bible is not correct in its entirety, I am just pointing out that numerous parts of the bible have been scientifically proven as fact and whether you believe in creationism or otherwise you would acknowledge such things if you knew your secular history.
It would be utterly extraordinary if the Bible made no references to real, verifiable, history, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that, because of that, the many many unverified things in the Bible are true. For example, the existence of the Roman Empire is undeniable, and referred to in the Bible, but the Roman census as described in Luke is almost certainly a fiction.

Its a start. Perhaps I'm arrogant, but I resent people telling me to read up on the Bible when they are so obviously ignorant of modern Biblical criticism.
So what do you think? Was there ( is there ) a "Q Document?"

what advice would be wrong by today's standards? oh and carefull... alot of "advice" in there are actually rituals.
I see! So genocide, rape and enslavement are OK because they're rituals? Women submitting to their husbands' instruction and not speaking up publically with their own opinions and questions is a ritual?

as for Hiding the Advice? perhaps God is testing those to see who would find the advice and who would take the Bible literally. ;)
And perhaps the advanced aliens who created the Earth for fun in their lunchbreak are checking to see who has the sense and intelligence to question the silly myths they spread! :)

Both scenarios are equally possible, and equally unsupported by a shred of evidence.

Because when you strip away all the dogmatic bullshit, endlessly boring "begats", and so on, what you have is one basic message:

"Love one another. Be a good person."

Thats IT.
Thats as hard as Christianity has to be.

However, Christians, becuase they are humans, cant simply accept thier religion, for what it it supposed to be.
They cannot believe that "Thats all there is to it".
So they must add issues and angles that dont need to be there, to make everything more dynamic, and important, and ultimately....circular.

Dont blame them.

See, thier faiths, are so important to them, that they have to believe that God is more complex than one simple message.
They have to believe that Jesus' sacrifce, meant more, than just "Be good to one another...ALWAYS."
So, they subconciously attach more behind the message.

This is in essence, how such a simple message, got misinterpereted, centuries ago, and has been still misinterpereted today.

I agree with BackwoodsSquatches, the Bible is more of a book of morals centering on that ONE core moral than a history book. Anyone who treats it as otherwise is making a mistake.


Except for... Genesis, isn't it? Genesis, documenting creation and all that, was written much like ancient greek myths, to try to explain why things are the way they are. They have about as much factual bearing as the theory that the sun revolves around the earth.

I agree with BackwoodsSquatches, the Bible is more of a book of morals centering on that ONE core moral than a history book. Anyone who treats it as otherwise is making a mistake.
It's neither a history book nor a book centering on any core moral, and one has to be blind to large sections of the Bible in order to reach that conclusion.

If the Bible has a core message, it is about god : a being whom people must recognize, accept and worship without any serious evidence for his existence, or face eternal damnation and torment. The morality stuff is secondary.

I see! So genocide, rape and enslavement are OK because they're rituals? Women submitting to their husbands' instruction and not speaking up publically with their own opinions and questions is a ritual?Rituals are not Advice but a glimpse as to the Way of Life was at that time. you claimed that...
A lot of the advice is very wrong by modern civilized standards. But even if it was all good, why not take the advice, put it into clear modern language and context, and throw all the non-factual hogwash away?Emphasis mine. not rituals, advice.

Sure we don't offer burnt offerings to God. But then again, after the Crucifixtion, they weren't offered then either. so, again, what advice from the New Testament is wrong by todays standards?

It's neither a history book nor a book centering on any core moral, and one has to be blind to large sections of the Bible in order to reach that conclusion.

If the Bible has a core message, it is about god : a being whom people must recognize, accept and worship without any serious evidence for his existence, or face eternal damnation and torment. The morality stuff is secondary.


No, it really isnt.

Jesus was the Son of God...correct?

Jesus says no man shall enter Heaven, but through him, yes?

What did Jesus preach?
What was the most important message?

Thats right....Love thy neighbor.

So, in essence, Jesus is telling us that that no man shall enter Heaven, unless he have such love in his heart, and thus......truly know God.
The rest..is dogma.

If an athiest can tell you this..how hard can this be to understand?

Thats not true at all.

There is still much debate about nearly everything.

In fact, The Hebrews may not have ever been slaves, but actualy mercenaries, under Pharoah's employ.
Moses, for instance, may actually have been a Military general, as well as a spirtual leader.
This would account for why they were allowed to simple leave Egypt, at all, before Pharoah changed his mind, and persued them.

That is not chronologically correct. If you want to debunk his point you must mention something that occurred after David, the Egyptian slavery was centuries before.

It would be utterly extraordinary if the Bible made no references to real, verifiable, history, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that, because of that, the many many unverified things in the Bible are true. For example, the existence of the Roman Empire is undeniable, and referred to in the Bible, but the Roman census as described in Luke is almost certainly a fiction.

So Josephus was writing the same fiction as Luke? Absolutely fascinating, I would never have thought those two were in league. In several places Josephus refers to what appears to be a census one around 6BCE and one around 1BCE/CE. Since he also claims that Herod the Great died around 4BCE it means that Luke was probably referring to that census.

It ain't perfect, but it's a source. (http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html)

For those of you who don't want to click the link, Josephus was a Jewish scholar who considered working with the Romans the way forward. He chronicled history up through the destruction of the temple.

No, it really isnt.

Jesus was the Son of God...correct?

Jesus says no man shall enter Heaven, but through him, yes?

What did Jesus preach?
What was the most important message?

Thats right....Love thy neighbor.

So, in essence, Jesus is telling us that that no man shall enter Heaven, unless he have such love in his heart, and thus......truly know God.
The rest..is dogma.

If an athiest can tell you this..how hard can this be to understand?

Oo! I like!

Only problem I see is that Jesus' main message was love God and love your neighbor, but then again he also expressed that by loving your neighbor you were also loving God so this view works for me.

Rituals are not Advice but a glimpse as to the Way of Life was at that time. you claimed that...
Emphasis mine. not rituals, advice.
The genocide, rape and enslavement was not a ritual and not, according to the Bible, merely "a way of life" : it was a course of action commanded by God, and with no suggestion that such courses of action were wrong or shouldn't be used against God's enemies in future.

Sure we don't offer burnt offerings to God. But then again, after the Crucifixtion, they weren't offered then either. so, again, what advice from the New Testament is wrong by todays standards?
For one, the submission of women to their husbands (see 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter). These passages are not descriptive of a way of life, they are in the imperative : instructions, guidance.

Their justification, according to Paul, is not that they were the ways of the times, but that a man "is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man". Factually speaking, this is baloney.

the Dead Sea Scrolls and other old testiment books were most definently not written 200 years after Christ was born, and that's more than half the Bible right there. As to the New Testiment, Carbon dating or whatever the copies of the original manuscripts does not tell you when it was first written down or who wrote it, that's like saying every time an author re-publishes a book that history was re-written and the new publish becomes the first time ever the book was produced, and that because it was re-published, the Author could not of written the book, no matter how many millions of fans of this author attest otherwise. And finally, my answer is that im not playing a game, this is real life, (Sort of, it's kind of on the internet, but we're real people posting on it and all)I don't see why I should be playing games the whole time.
Honestly, to me it doesn't matter weither or not the bible it true or not. I can't trust it because it has been changed soooo many times and translated into different languages(one after the other, therefor changing the true meaning*which is different for everyone and should be*) that it really shouldn't be trusted 100%. Too many men with agendas have gotten their dirty little hands on it to be trusted. Who knows what has been changed, removed, or added for the agendas?
Not all holy men are honest...

Bah.

These are secondary.

Hell, some of these arent even in the Ten Commandments.

These are things wich parents teach thier children.

The core..is as simple as what I have already mentioned.and that shows everyone you did not read the Bible. "Hell, some of these arent even in the Ten Commandments." right... :rolleyes:

Accept God into your heart and HE will watch over you. ( 7 "You shall have no other gods before me. Deuteronomy 5:7 (New International Version))

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Do not commit Murder (17 "You shall not murder (Deuteronomy 5:17 (New International Version))

Always take a day of rest. (13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. (Deuteronomy 5:13 - 14 (New International Version))

Honor your parents (you don't have to like them, but honor them) (16 "Honor your father and your mother (Deuteronomy 5:16 (New International Version))

Help those that need help... even if they be your enemy.

Strive to do your best, even against insurmountable odds.

Don't worry, be happy.

Be polite.

Do not commit Adultry (18 "You shall not commit adultery. (Deuteronomy 5:18 (New International Version))

Do not let Desires control your life. (21 "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." (Deuteronomy 5:21 (New International Version)) and also by inflection... 19 "You shall not steal. (Deuteronomy 5:21 (New International Version))

Do not let Hatred control your life.

Do not seek Revenge.

Keep yourself physically fit.

Forgive others of their wrong doing as God forgives you of your sins.

Do your best and always strive to improve yourself.

Always keep your word.

Respect your elders. (doesn't mean you have to obey them, just respect them.)

by working together great things can happen.

and the list goes on.

they may be things taught by parents to their children... but that doesn't make them valuable advice to follow from the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter.)

The Bible isn't a "lie," any more than The Hobbit is a "lie." They're simply fiction. A person who believes the Bible to be "real" is not "falling for a lie," they're simply confusing fiction with non-fiction. I've made the same mistake myself, and I had to learn the hard way that putting a hat on a cat does not automatically lead to rhyming hijinks.

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man". Factually speaking, this is baloney.
Particularly since, in biological terms, man comes from woman...all human fetuses begin their existence as female.

Particularly since, in biological terms, man comes from woman...all human fetuses begin their existence as female.
Yeah. Damn that pesky testosterone! :rolleyes:

Yeah. Damn that pesky testosterone! :rolleyes:
Actually, testosterone is not the trigger, but rather it is part of the response.

Forgive me, but I find the subject fascinating, particularly since I have been personally acquainted with a female who had XY chromosomes...the entire process of human sex determination is really cool!

I've made the same mistake myself, and I had to learn the hard way that putting a hat on a cat does not automatically lead to rhyming hijinks.but putting a hat on a cat can lead to Hijinks... maybe not the rhyming type but still hijinks. :D

The genocide, rape and enslavement was not a ritual and not, according to the Bible, merely "a way of life" : it was a course of action commanded by God, and with no suggestion that such courses of action were wrong or shouldn't be used against God's enemies in future.

For one, the submission of women to their husbands (see 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter). These passages are not descriptive of a way of life, they are in the imperative : instructions, guidance

Their justification, according to Paul, is not that they were the ways of the times, but that a man "is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man". Factually speaking, this is baloney. women back then were not equal to the males. even you have to admit that. A woman who spoke out, slept around, or even broke the laws were stoned to death. so what those are is a statement to the life of a woman back then.

but putting a hat on a cat can lead to Hijinks... maybe not the rhyming type but still hijinks. :D
Yeah, but the hijinks the ensue from hatting a cat quite often involve me getting scratched. Despite my best efforts, not one single cat-hatting attempt has lead to the animal talking, capering, or performing the slightest bit of magic.

Of course, not one of my many attempts at sinning has brought down a plague, a vengeful angel, or any lightning-bolt-related manefestation of God's wrath. It really is quite discouraging.

women back then were not equal to the males. even you have to admit that. A woman who spoke out, slept around, or even broke the laws were stoned to death. so what those are is a statement to the life of a woman back then.
I think his point was that the Bible wasn't just describing how life was, it was COMMANDING people to make sure that way of life continued. It's sort of a double-evil...women were treated like shit back then, and the Bible specifically orders people to continue treating women like shit today.

Virtually any other forum I'm on, the OP would be banned for posting something like that.

POINTLESS THREAD. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

Virtually any other forum I'm on, the OP would be banned for posting something like that.

Welcome to Nation States General. We like us some fierce, rough-and-tumble debates around here, particularly if they are rehashed arguments over the invalidity of the Christian religion.


POINTLESS THREAD. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
If you think THIS topic qualifies as trolling, then you probably should go back to one of your other forums. General Forum will not agree with you.

I think his point was that the Bible wasn't just describing how life was, it was COMMANDING people to make sure that way of life continued. It's sort of a double-evil...women were treated like shit back then, and the Bible specifically orders people to continue treating women like shit today.
again, to borrow a quote from the Muslims who were defending the Quoran. look at the time it was written.

two, it doesn't specificially order women to be treated like shit. only if you define those advices to mean to treat women like shit. It's thinking like that that give the Fundies so much power.

so you dis-agree with one advice, thus all the others are also stupid as well? Nice generalization there.

A lot of the advice is very wrong by modern civilized standards. But even if it was all good, why not take the advice, put it into clear modern language and context, and throw all the non-factual hogwash away?

Have you never heard of the so-called "Street Bible"? It's exactly what you've just described. And what advice is wrong in the Bible?

(I'm assuming you're not a literalist)

Yeah, but the hijinks the ensue from hatting a cat quite often involve me getting scratched. Despite my best efforts, not one single cat-hatting attempt has lead to the animal talking, capering, or performing the slightest bit of magic.

Of course, not one of my many attempts at sinning has brought down a plague, a vengeful angel, or any lightning-bolt-related manefestation of God's wrath. It really is quite discouraging.
Psst... can't speak for your cat, but for my cousin's cat... a little food bribery and he'll have a silly toy cowboy hat on while chewing. then when he realizes what he's wearing... :D the trick is not to have the hat sitting on the ears. behind or between, but not on. cats tend to be really ear shy.

My "landlord" was hilarious with a fluffy hat we kept in a container filled with fresh catnip.

the hat didn't survive long tho...

women back then were not equal to the males. even you have to admit that. A woman who spoke out, slept around, or even broke the laws were stoned to death. so what those are is a statement to the life of a woman back then.
In which case we can dismiss the entire Bible as a statement of how things were back then, and use our modern common sense to come up with a moral code which fits how things are now. And that is the point, surely : we, as individuals or groups, are capable of deciding what morals are appropriate for our time, so we don't need the Bible, except as a source of ideas (along with many others) which we can consider on their merits. The problem is that, having made their decisions, people then cite appropriate parts of the Bible (while ignoring the bits they don't agree with) as an absolute authority with which they can try and impose their decisions on others. Some of those people are nice and liberal, others are intolerant, mysoginist, homophobic, racist etc.

But in any case, Paul's justification for treating women as inferior was clearly not intended to be a statement for his time : he cites the supposed fundamental nature and origin of women, vis a vis god and men, which is obviously not limited to a particular era or society.

again, to borrow a quote from the Muslims who were defending the Quoran. look at the time it was written.

So? Isn't the Bible supposed to be the Word Of God? Why would you worship a God that was EVER okay with treating women in such a manner? If eating meat on a Friday was once a Hell-worthy offense, then why wouldn't dehumanizing 50% of the world's population qualify for at least a little smack on the wrist?


two, it doesn't specificially order women to be treated like shit. only if you define those advices to mean to treat women like shit. It's thinking like that that give the Fundies so much power.

Yes, it does specifically order that women be treated like shit. It repeatedly emphasizes that women must be submissive to male authority. That qualifies as treating women like shit, just like commanding all black people to submit to white authority would qualify as treating black people like shit.


so you dis-agree with one advice, thus all the others are also stupid as well? Nice generalization there.
Actually, I disagree with pretty much every piece of advice in the Bible, because all of it is centered on the notion that there is a magical Sky Daddy. But even if I agreed with most of the advice in the Bible, that wouldn't be any reason to overlook the disgusting parts. It certainly wouldn't be a good reason to decide to follow the good advice BECAUSE it is in the Bible...rather, it would be evidence that there can be good advice even in some bad books.

In other words, you shouldn't "follow the Bible's advice," you should recognize that it's got some good advice because you ALREADY know that you shouldn't kill, lie, steal, or hurt other people. If you need the Bible to tell you not to do that stuff then you have some pretty damn big personal problems.

I think that's how most Christians really work, and that's why you see so much "salad bar" Christianity. Christians, just like everybody else, already know what they believe is moral and not moral, so when they read the Bible they decide which parts of it they are going to follow and which parts they are not. They aren't "following" the Bible, they're following their own beliefs...they just feel the need (for some reason) to attribute their beliefs to the Bible.

In which case we can dismiss the entire Bible as a statement of how things were back then, and use our modern common sense to come up with a moral code which fits how things are now. And that is the point, surely : we, as individuals or groups, are capable of deciding what morals are appropriate for our time, so we don't need the Bible, except as a source of ideas (along with many others) which we can consider on their merits. The problem is that, having made their decisions, people then cite appropriate parts of the Bible (while ignoring the bits they don't agree with) as an absolute authority with which they can try and impose their decisions on others. Some of those people are nice and liberal, others are intolerant, mysoginist, homophobic, racist etc.

But in any case, Paul's justification for treating women as inferior was clearly not intended to be a statement for his time : he cites the supposed fundamental nature and origin of women, vis a vis god and men, which is obviously not limited to a particular era or society.and he also quotes that woman and man become one flesh in marrage, now that could mean that the woman looses her identity... or it can be an allusion that what God really wants is a joining of equals. but by wording it as such, the rules of marriage becomes more readily accepted because one would assume the definition supplied by society. read on how a woman of Faith should preach to her husband. most of you already agree that that is how the Faithful should be preaching to others. so many already agree with that advice without even reading the Bible.

Another thread complaining that god is/n't real....

I have a question though, where in the bible does it mention... Dinosaurs.

Some of those people are nice and liberal ...
Oh God! Not another one! [ has Excedrin headache number 13 ]

So? Isn't the Bible supposed to be the Word Of God? Why would you worship a God that was EVER okay with treating women in such a manner? If eating meat on a Friday was once a Hell-worthy offense, then why wouldn't dehumanizing 50% of the world's population qualify for at least a little smack on the wrist?it is if you're a bible literalist.

Yes, it does specifically order that women be treated like shit. It repeatedly emphasizes that women must be submissive to male authority. That qualifies as treating women like shit, just like commanding all black people to submit to white authority would qualify as treating black people like shit.only if you define it as such. open your mind to the possiblibity that what you believe is wrong, then there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. oh and before you reply that "well no one can convince you that God doesn't care, much less exist," I did loose my faith, I did wander away from the word. but God has shown me that he indeed is active in my life and has given me proof that he does exsist. I am only sorry that you do not open your eyes and your heart to that possibility.

end of discussion.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2578/38863453pleasedonotfeedthetrol.jpg
Indeed.

I have a question though, where in the bible does it mention... Dinosaurs.
It doesn't. The closest it comes is "Leviathan," which most biblical scholors believe referrs to hippopotimi. :)

Then how come it doesn't mention Dinosaurs in Genesis when it talks about the 7 days.

it is if you're a bible literalist.
Huh? The Bible states that God used to send plagues for all sorts of offenses that we would now consider "minor." Are you saying that those parts of the Bible are fictional? If so, how do you tell which parts are fiction and which parts are "real"?

only if you define it as such. open your mind to the possiblibity that what you believe is wrong, then there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise.

Well, I must admit that I am not at all open to the idea that being born with ovaries makes a human being inherently less worthy, less intelligent, less valuable, or less human. I don't think there's anything anybody could say that would convince me that female humans should always submit to male humans.


oh and before you reply that "well no one can convince you that God doesn't care, much less exist," I did loose my faith, I did wander away from the word. but God has shown me that he indeed is active in my life and has given me proof that he does exsist. I am only sorry that you do not open your eyes and your heart to that possibility.
Well, to be fair, you are a pretty big hypocrite if what you say is true. I mean, you insist that I cannot be convinced to see things your way, but then turn right around and assert that you cannot be convinced to see things my way.

Just because you "strayed" does not mean you've every given "my side" a fair hearing, because if you actually had done so then it never would have been possible for you to become re-convinced of the existence of "God." My view is far more than "straying" from god-belief, but I suppose that's a whole other topic...don't want to hijack this thread.


end of discussion.I guess it is the end, if you're already resorting to self-important pitying remarks about how sorry you are that I'm not agreeing with you. Such tactics are as transparent as they are disappointing. I was hoping for more.

Guys stop flaming... You might start a forum fire ;)

Have you never heard of the so-called "Street Bible"? It's exactly what you've just described. And what advice is wrong in the Bible?
What's wrong with it? It advises that women should submit to men, that homosexuality is wrong, that we should spend time worshipping a diety for which there is no evidence (thus underminding rational thought itself) etc etc.

(I'm assuming you're not a literalist)
I think most Christians read the Bible "non-literally", which really means with a view to interpretting it to mean what they want it to mean (e.g. "the attitude towards women was simply a reflection of the times", even though it was obviously intended by its authors to be universal). They could simply say what they think is right, and argue the case on its merits; but by citing holy scripture, they have a smokescreen behind which to hide their real motives (e.g. homophobia), and a stick with which to beat people into following their choices.

The honest way to read the Bible is literally, or at least with the meaning which was intended at the time it was written. If the resulting message isn't what modern people want to hear, then it's time to dump the Bible (or the offending parts) and stop pretending it didn't really mean that the World was created in six days, or that women should be subjugated to men etc etc.

I had forgotten about the Street Bible, I guess because no church that I know of has adopted it in place of the conventional one.

I guess it is the end, if you're already resorting to self-important pitying remarks about how sorry you are that I'm not agreeing with you. Such tactics are as transparent as they are disappointing. I was hoping for more.no, it's admitting that one cannot adequetly argue Biblical matters over the forum. in other words, to continue will be an exercise that will succeed in doing nothing but fustrating and angering both sides and that is something I don't want to do.

for when that occurs, What started as a possible flamebait that others turned into a discussion will devolve back into a flamewar.

so I am bowing out to prevent that. I do apologize if it was condensending.

... God has shown me that he indeed is active in my life and has given me proof that he does exsist.
Oh goody! Which peer-reviewed scientific journal is this proof going to appear in? I can't wait to read it! Or is your proof the same as a Muslim's proof that Allah exists, or a Hindu's proof that his multiple dieties exist - i.e., not objective proof at all, but a subjective (mis)interpretation of data?

Oh goody! Which peer-reviewed scientific journal is this proof going to appear in? I can't wait to read it! Or is your proof the same as a Muslim's proof that Allah exists, or a Hindu's proof that his multiple dieties exist - i.e., not objective proof at all, but a subjective (mis)interpretation of data?religion is a personal thing. one can only give personal accounts. which is why I really don't expect it to sway you unless you open your heart and mind to the possiblity.

And if what happened to me, were to happen to you, you to would find yourself knocked on your ass laughing hysterically. (which is what I found myself doing... long and short of it, bruised butt and all.)

Oh goody! Which peer-reviewed scientific journal is this proof going to appear in? I can't wait to read it! Or is your proof the same as a Muslim's proof that Allah exists, or a Hindu's proof that his multiple dieties exist - i.e., not objective proof at all, but a subjective (mis)interpretation of data?
OH! You forgot the Christian god too...wait...that's what we're waiting to hear the proof on... *Waiting along side Calendar*...

Yay for a forum fire evaded.

Good day to you all.
So, we have come to this. You request objective knowledge of a deity's existance. Fair enough, I will give it to you. First, however, I ask you provide me with objective evidence of something simple: prove to me that the sky is blue, objectively of course.

On the ideas of Biblical legitmacy, I would like to throw some information out there to enlighten all sides. The original Biblical texts were estimated to have been written between 50 and 200 A.D. Now, to be fair this is a long time period after the supposed resurrection. The earliest recorded works are actually the Epistles of Paul, specifically 1 Corinthians, Galations, Romans, and the non-Pauline work James. Following these the Gospels came around. Interestingly, the infamous Gospel of Thomas is estimated to have been written previous to almost all of these works, well before the canonical gospels. These are just some facts to throw out there for purposes of understanding.

I am not here for a fight. If I wanted that I could walk down the street and punch someone. I am here for a discussion on the Bible, and what appears to be a discussion on truth. May I have one?
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

religion is a personal thing. one can only give personal accounts. which is why I really don't expect it to sway you unless you open your heart and mind to the possiblity.
"Religion is a personal thing" is a cop-out. The way in which the universe was created, in which man came into being, the nature of feelings and consciousness, the existence of beings outside of the natural universe etc etc are not personal choices : they are questions of facts - facts which exist or don't exist regardless of what any individual personally chooses to believe, or whether or not that individual even exists.
Perhaps you think that whether or not the Earth circles the Sun is a "personal thing" - after all, it was once a religious question.

And if what happened to me, were to happen to you, you to would find yourself knocked on your ass laughing hysterically. (which is what I found myself doing... long and short of it, bruised butt and all.)
Difficult to say, since I don't know what happened to you, but you might be right - I would be laughing hysterically, thinkings "Oh! So that's how people manage to delude themselves about these things!" :)

My mind is open to evidence, for god or anything else. But it is also equipped with a modicum of knowledge of history, science, psychology, logic etc, which I hope would allow it to apply some intelligent analysis to any extraordinary phenomenum which I experience. Open-mindedness requires intelligent scepticism as well as receptiveness, otherwise it has no way to distinguish sense from nonsense or subjective information from objective information.

Good day to you all.
So, we have come to this. You request objective knowledge of a deity's existance. Fair enough, I will give it to you. First, however, I ask you provide me with objective evidence of something simple: prove to me that the sky is blue, objectively of course.

On the ideas of Biblical legitmacy, I would like to throw some information out there to enlighten all sides. The original Biblical texts were estimated to have been written between 50 and 200 A.D. Now, to be fair this is a long time period after the supposed resurrection. The earliest recorded works are actually the Epistles of Paul, specifically 1 Corinthians, Galations, Romans, and the non-Pauline work James. Following these the Gospels came around. Interestingly, the infamous Gospel of Thomas is estimated to have been written previous to almost all of these works, well before the canonical gospels. These are just some facts to throw out there for purposes of understanding.

I am not here for a fight. If I wanted that I could walk down the street and punch someone. I am here for a discussion on the Bible, and what appears to be a discussion on truth. May I have one?
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

Funny about the Gospel of Thomas...

Some scholars think it was written about 20 years before Luke etc...

The funny thing is, that its merely a collection of sayings from Jesus. (114 of em), and no mention of miracles, crucifictions, or even Jesus reffering to himself as "messiah".

Hes called "Rabbi", in it.

"Religion is a personal thing" is a cop-out. alright then, You asked for it.
:D

what advice would be wrong by today's standards? oh and carefull... alot of "advice" in there are actually rituals.

as for Hiding the Advice? perhaps God is testing those to see who would find the advice and who would take the Bible literally. ;)


and you miss so many other lessions.

Accept God into your heart and HE will watch over you.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do not commit Murder
Always take a day of rest.
Honor your parents (you don't have to like them, but honor them)
Help those that need help... even if they be your enemy.
Strive to do your best, even against insurmountable odds.
Don't worry, be happy.
Be polite.
Do not commit Adultry
Do not let Desires control your life.
Do not let Hatred control your life.
Do not seek Revenge.
Keep yourself physically fit.
Forgive others of their wrong doing as God forgives you of your sins.
Do your best and always strive to improve yourself.
Always keep your word.
Respect your elders. (doesn't mean you have to obey them, just respect them.)
by working together great things can happen.

and the list goes on.

The list goes on... but there is precious little that cannot be simplified down to "love one another, be a good person...."

The list goes on... but there is precious little that cannot be simplified down to "love one another, be a good person...."


Thank you.

The list goes on... but there is precious little that cannot be simplified down to "love one another, be a good person...."
*while working on a response to Candelar*
everything can be simplified down to Love One Another, be a good person... even the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

that don't make it correct. nor does it make it the only thing to listen to.

Good day to you all.
So, we have come to this. You request objective knowledge of a deity's existance. Fair enough, I will give it to you. First, however, I ask you provide me with objective evidence of something simple: prove to me that the sky is blue, objectively of course.

On the ideas of Biblical legitmacy, I would like to throw some information out there to enlighten all sides. The original Biblical texts were estimated to have been written between 50 and 200 A.D. Now, to be fair this is a long time period after the supposed resurrection. The earliest recorded works are actually the Epistles of Paul, specifically 1 Corinthians, Galations, Romans, and the non-Pauline work James. Following these the Gospels came around. Interestingly, the infamous Gospel of Thomas is estimated to have been written previous to almost all of these works, well before the canonical gospels. These are just some facts to throw out there for purposes of understanding.

I am not here for a fight. If I wanted that I could walk down the street and punch someone. I am here for a discussion on the Bible, and what appears to be a discussion on truth. May I have one?
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan
Good luck with that. :)

Why is the Gospel of Thomas "infamous?"

*while working on a response to Candelar*
everything can be simplified down to Love One Another, be a good person... even the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

that don't make it correct. nor does it make it the only thing to listen to.


Umm no they cant.

Theres no law in the Constution that says Im legally obligated to love my neighbor.

I just cant kill him.

Youre one of the ones who cannot accept the simplistic message.
It HAS to be more complicated than that for you, becuase you feel that if God is so exspansive...so surely is his message.

That aint the case.

Good luck with that. :)

Why is the Gospel of Thomas "infamous?"


No miracles.

No hocus-pocus.

No mention of divinty at all.

Predates other texts.

Gnostic text.

The list goes on... but there is precious little that cannot be simplified down to "love one another, be a good person...."

ROFL! "Be excellent to each other.... and... PARTY ON, DUDES!!!"

Elevated sentiments, to be sure, but hardly a reliable basis for social and ethical stability. People are sometimes less than excellent.

No miracles.

No hocus-pocus.

No mention of divinty at all.

Predates other texts.

Gnostic text.
So it's "infamous" because it's "heretical?"

So it's "infamous" because it's "heretical?"


Its perusal was also outlawed by the Catholic Church, by some Conclave of Serious and Important Guys In Long Robes and Funny Hats, in the year ???? A.D, becuase it "didnt jive" with the image of Christ as the church wanted to portray him.
Seems it focuses on Jeus' message, instead of his birth, death,a nd ressurection.

Heretical....mmm..maybe.

Its really miore akin to Confucius.

"Jesus say: Dont be an asshole, bro."

Kinda like that.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

The reason people believe the Bible Is because of prophacy, the foretelling of future events. some have happened & we are waiting for others as the story unfolds. for instance... In about fifty places in the Bible it says that the jews would be scattered across the earth ( for disobeying God )



Ezekiel 36
19. And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them.

In 70 A.D. The Romans invaded Jerueselam and leveled it.
The jews were indeed scattered & the Nation of Israel ceased to exist.

I could list at least a hundred different places in the Bible that warn the Jews that they will be scattered, check out the words of Jesus :

Luke 13
34. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
35. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Now, the Nation of Israel ceased to exist from 70 A.D. until 1948 when It was declared a Nation Again.

Jeremiah 23
7. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
8. But, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.

Jerimiah 23 is hard to get around isnt it ???

After being scattered & left for dead for the better part of 2000 years the ancient Nation of Israel is back again. and where did they come from ???

"The north country and the Nations where I had driven them."

After WW2 the Remaining Jews from the Holacaust were sent by the plane load from Germany,Poland Russia, etc. (all Nations NORTH of Israel.)
Pretty good guess for a book written 2000 years ago.
( this is Old Testament writing ) Surely you would admit that the Bible was not written in 1949 , AFTER all these things came to pass ?




and finally,

Jeremiah 31
10. Listen to this message from the Lord, you nations of the world, and publish it abroad: The Lord who scattered his people will gather them back together again and watch over them as a shepherd does his flock.

Ezekiel 11
17. Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord God; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.

Ezekiel 28
24. No longer shall you and Israel's other neighbor nations prick and tear at Israel like thorns and briars, though they formerly despised her and treated her with great contempt.
25. ``The people of Israel will once more live in their own land, the land I gave their father Jacob. For I will gather them back again from distant lands where I have scattered them and I will show the nations of the world my holiness among my people.
26. They will live safely in Israel, and build their homes and plant their vineyards. When I punish all the bordering nations that treated them with such contempt, then they shall know I am the Lord their God.''


I have spent the better part of my 40 years not believing the Bible, Then I actually sat down and read it, anyone who knows anything about world history will find to many coincedences to ignore.

one final thought , the culmanation of all this, the end of the story is Arrmegeddon.
Which strangely enough is the Greek word for "the valley of Megiddo" ,a valley that exists right now in modern Israel,which is where at the end of the story all the nations of the earth turn against the tiny Nation of Israel.
Dosent it seem the least bit odd that a piece of real estate Smaller than the state of Maine would cause such a rukus ?
The word Jerusalem means " the city of peace "
but , The Bible says it will be anything but that , until the Messaih , Jesus Returns to rule as King.

Zechariah 12
3. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

You are seeing this in your lifetime and it will get worse before it gets better.


B.I.B.L.E Basic insructions before leaving Earth.

The reason people believe the Bible Is because of prophacy, the foretelling of future events. some have happened & we are waiting for others as the story unfolds. for instance... In about fifty places in the Bible it says that the jews would be scattered across the earth ( for disobeying God )



Ezekiel 36
19. And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them.

In 70 A.D. The Romans invaded Jerueselam and leveled it.
The jews were indeed scattered & the Nation of Israel ceased to exist.

I could list at least a hundred different places in the Bible that warn the Jews that they will be scattered, check out the words of Jesus :

Luke 13
34. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
35. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Now, the Nation of Israel ceased to exist from 70 A.D. until 1948 when It was declared a Nation Again.

Jeremiah 23
7. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
8. But, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.

Jerimiah 23 is hard to get around isnt it ???

After being scattered & left for dead for the better part of 2000 years the ancient Nation of Israel is back again. and where did they come from ???

"The north country and the Nations where I had driven them."

After WW2 the Remaining Jews from the Holacaust were sent by the plane load from Germany,Poland Russia, etc. Pretty good guess for a book written 2000 years ago ( this is Old Testament writing ) Surely you would admit that the Bible was not written in 1949 , AFTER all these things came to pass ?




and finally,

Jeremiah 31
10. Listen to this message from the Lord, you nations of the world, and publish it abroad: The Lord who scattered his people will gather them back together again and watch over them as a shepherd does his flock.

Ezekiel 11
17. Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord God; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.

Ezekiel 28
24. No longer shall you and Israel's other neighbor nations prick and tear at Israel like thorns and briars, though they formerly despised her and treated her with great contempt.
25. ``The people of Israel will once more live in their own land, the land I gave their father Jacob. For I will gather them back again from distant lands where I have scattered them and I will show the nations of the world my holiness among my people.
26. They will live safely in Israel, and build their homes and plant their vineyards. When I punish all the bordering nations that treated them with such contempt, then they shall know I am the Lord their God.''


I have spent the better part of my 40 years not believing the Bible, Then I actually sat down and read it, anyone who knows anything about world history will find to many coincedences to ignore.

one final thought , the culmanation of all this, the end of the story is Arrmegeddon.
Which strangely enough is the Greek word for "the valley of Megiddo" ,a valley that exists right now in modern Israel,which is where at the end of the story all the nations of the earth turn against the tiny Nation of Israel.
Dosent it seem the least bit odd that a piece of real estate Smaller than the state of Maine would cause such a rukus ?
The word Jerusalem means " the city of peace "
but , The Bible says it will be anything but that , until the Messaih , Jesus Returns to rule as King.

Zechariah 12
3. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

You are seeing this in your lifetime and it will get worse before it gets better.


B.I.B.L.E Basic insructions before leaving Earth.

Curiious that you reference the book of Jeremiah... when it is the book of Jeremiah that actually explains why Jesus was NOT Messiah...

A lot of the advice is very wrong by modern civilized standards. But even if it was all good, why not take the advice, put it into clear modern language and context, and throw all the non-factual hogwash away?

Well.. because the "non-factual hogwash" is just as much Gods word as the "good advice". If you personally start deciding which words of God have value and which not - you are in fact acting as if you know better than Him.

And if you know better than God.. why still hold on to His teachings at all ?

Its perusal was also outlawed by the Catholic Church, by some Conclave of Serious and Important Guys In Long Robes and Funny Hats, in the year ???? A.D, becuase it "didnt jive" with the image of Christ as the church wanted to portray him.
Seems it focuses on Jeus' message, instead of his birth, death,a nd ressurection.

Heretical....mmm..maybe.

Its really miore akin to Confucius.

"Jesus say: Dont be an asshole, bro."

Kinda like that.
How ... enlightening. :rolleyes:

Looking at the many local canons before official canon, one can make two interesting observations: there was no OT canon listed, and the NT lists were much the same. The early Christians' common use of the Septuagint explains the missing OT lists, and so couldn't reflect the Christians' views in the manner you propose. On the matter of the NT lists, as I mentioned, even before Nicea all the lists were fundamentally similar. Even the common books that didn't make it in the canon (Hermas, for example) were not Gnostic. Granted, there were Gnostic gospels circulating in some areas, but never are they seen to represent the actual majority of Christianity. This, combined with the fact that we have records of what went on at Nicea and other early councils from primary sources, it's seems incredible to say that Christianity was suddenly "changed" as soon as Constantine ended the persecutions. What happened at the councils was not any person's attemt to mold Christianity to their ideas, but to preserve what had been taught from the beginning.

Speculation, I'm afraid.

It seems most likely that most of the Gospel texts actually derived from earlier sources. "Q" is commonly cited as one such source.

There are also disagreements about which came first - the Divine Jesus, humanised, or the Human Jesus, made divine. Different Gospel texts lead us to conclude that each was a localised view for SOME 'christians' in some places, at some points after the alleged events.

But, we no longer have extant "Q" scripture. ALL we have, is the 'gospel' texts, and the other texts that followed or accompanied them.

We really have NO WAY of knowing, what was 'taught from the beginning'.

Hell, we don't even have independent and contemporary proof that this 'Jesus' fellow was even PRESENT at 'the beginning'...

How ... enlightening. :rolleyes:


Well, I was paraphrasing, and adding a touch of humor.

But essentially, everything I said is true.

Its a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Christ.

As I said, the Church frowns on it becuase of its lack of advocating Christs divinty.

Good day to you all.
prove to me that the sky is blue, objectively of course.
good day to you
i'm not really an expert but i think it could be done rather easily by measuring the wave length of the light.
just look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Color_and_wavelengths)

Well, I was paraphrasing, and adding a touch of humor.

But essentially, everything I said is true.

Its a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Christ.

As I said, the Church frowns on it becuase of its lack of advocating Christs divinty.
I know. I was just kinda messin' wid ya. What I was driving at was what exactly makes it "infamous," as opposed to being simply "frowned upon?"

good day to you
i'm not really an expert but i think it could be done rather easily by measuring the wave length of the light.
just look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Color_and_wavelengths)

No, it cannot. If you do that you will find that the sky is in fact all colours of the visible spectrum, but the violet end dominates. Cause of this is rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere (or critical opalescence if you prefer Einstein) -which scatters light ~ 1/ lambda^4.

Our eyes however are much more sensitive to blue than to violet - which is why we perceive it as blue.

i am an atheist and i see the bible as a method of control. Control over the weak and possibly the stupid. If i can give an example. Look at the irish and how they have not progressed that much socially. they are also heavilly religious. Personally i have found my life much more free, unimposed and meaningful without a religion. Is it not right that most wars fought recently have fought due to religion

Curiious that you reference the book of Jeremiah... when it is the book of Jeremiah that actually explains why Jesus was NOT Messiah...

Well, your mastery of debate is dually noted, instead of boring everyone with a line item dispute of the Truths I have listed, You instead Propose your statement and back it up with ?.....Nothing.
Obviously you have carefully considered each point in my argument.
The amazing mental energy you expended in this post is matched only by its Brevity.
Maybe you should write children's Books ?
In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
g'day.

There's no such things as a "creational scientist", because Creationism isn't science, as any mainstream scientist and the US Supreme Court will tell you. There's also virtually nothing in the Bible which agrees with the theory of evolution. All Christians either have to deny evolution or accept that the Biblical account of the creation of the world and mankind is allegorical and symbolic, i.e. not actually true.

-creationism is a theory like evolutionism, it is science as there are proofs such as evolution has
-just because a court judges something as such does not make it so...
-I never stated the Bible and that Darwin's theory of evolution were in anyway similar


Funny how so much from King David onwards is still be refuted and debated over, then! There is plenty in the old and new testaments which is refutable, either by science or history and archaeology. There's plenty more where a passing similarily between something real (e.g. a place in Palestine) and a Biblical reference leads people to assume that the real thing is what was being referred to in the Bible, even though there is insufficient evidence to support the claim.


-where is your information from? I provided you with mine which state clearly that the bible from King David onwards except for what I had already listed is factually correct. My question for you is where is your proof, or are you just talking opinion and not fact?


Not so - it is not necessary to deny the existence of the Persian Empire etc in order to deny the Christian stories which refer to them, any more than it's necessary to deny the existence of Victorian London in order to deny the truth of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Fiction doesn't become fact simply because it's set in a factual location.

-the statement was made that all in the bible was false, I stated the above to show that the statement was incorrect, thank you for reinterating my point.


It would be utterly extraordinary if the Bible made no references to real, verifiable, history, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that, because of that, the many many unverified things in the Bible are true. For example, the existence of the Roman Empire is undeniable, and referred to in the Bible, but the Roman census as described in Luke is almost certainly a fiction.

-again opinion with no fact. There is a historical record of a Jesus of Nazareth, I have already given you my source material, where is your source material? It is easy to state opinion with no true knowledge of a subject, however that is opinion. Not theory, and certainly not fact. :)

-creationism is a theory like evolutionism, it is science as there are proofs such as evolution has

Stop lying. Or actually provide that proof if you can. And no - bashing evolution is NOT proof of creationism or Intelligent Design. Arguing that something is wrong does not make your theory magically right.

So.. show the proof. Show the arguments in favour of creationism, without bashing evolution.

There is a historical record of a Jesus of Nazareth, I have already given you my source material, where is your source material? It is easy to state opinion with no true knowledge of a subject, however that is opinion. Not theory, and certainly not fact. :)

There is NO contemporary sourcematerial on Jesus except the gospels. Texts written at least 200 years after he supposedly died are not contemporary after all. Does not mean he did not exist, just that questioning his existence is legitimate.

I'll need to see some proof of that allegation, please.
Thats the reason why this argument is pointless. People have different beliefs, and there is no way to prove that the bible is true or false to everyone.

Not so - it is not necessary to deny the existence of the Persian Empire etc in order to deny the Christian stories which refer to them, any more than it's necessary to deny the existence of Victorian London in order to deny the truth of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Fiction doesn't become fact simply because it's set in a factual location.
I concur. Has anyone here every read The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova? It is a fictional story about Vlad Dracula. The fact that several of the places and events that are mentioned in the book are indeed true, doesnt make the whole book truth.

Sigh. :rolleyes: Yet another anti-Christian thread. I see them everyday. Most Christians don't follow you around and annoy you about their faith: then why are there so many anti-Christian threads? Specifically anti-Christian not too many are anti-other religions. Which leads me again to what I usually say. That the devil is targeting Christianity. As long as you don't believe it: it doesn't matter what else you believe as long as it's not Christianity, he's happy. And every day he gets people to post these silly threads even though they've been done to death. To discourage Christians, and to drive more people away from them. Well this is from my point of view anyway. I can't account for all Christians in my view points.

I know that this may sound incredibly stupid and naive for my part, but I think that it is naive not to believe it. Yes I know that with this thread that I am asking for it...

Anyway it is more accurate to suggest that the New Testament, the rest of the Bible is much older, was written 60-70 years after Christ's death, so there would've still been people living who were alive when he lived. 200 years suggests that all knowledge was passed down by word of mouth, and subsequently turned into a pile of exaggerated fairy stories. Fine, believe what you like, but I believe that the Bible is true. Besides much of the History we know wasn't originally recorded straight after it happened. And also pieces of historic writing can be incredibly biased, so to target the Bible in particular, is being a bit harsh, as a large portion of history as we know it could be wrong.

So why am I even replying to this thread where the author was probably just trying to annoy Christians...? I have no idea. Which is why I'm off.

Then how come it doesn't mention Dinosaurs in Genesis when it talks about the 7 days.
Well it does mention animals, i.e On the 5th day God created the animals and birds of the land, now as far as i kno, Dinosaurs were part of the reptile family, and what Biological Kingodom do reptiles belong..thats right the ANIMAL Kingdom so therefore dinosaurs r mentioned along with all the other animlas, however i think You are being a bit foolish to take that story literally, It seems to be some sort of story that the jews told, to help them understand the world around them, I would say that evolutionary therorey is correct but i dont see how that stops God being involved. The Geneisis Story was just a way for a people to bring a little bit more order in to it, and i think what we should take out of it (if you are a christian) is that God is in control and that the world came into being because of God, if not litterally like Genesis says.

I would say that evolutionary therorey is correct but i dont see how that stops God being involved.

The concept of natural selection implies creatures evolve because of (changes in) environmental factors and chance mutations- not because God directly says "become this".

Of course one could assume that God influences the environment to "guide" evolution in a direction he likes. Not playing with DNA - but creating a flood here, a desert there..

And then the geologists, climatologists etc got angry ;)

i am an atheist and i see the bible as a method of control. Control over the weak and possibly the stupid. If i can give an example. Look at the irish and how they have not progressed that much socially. they are also heavilly religious. Personally i have found my life much more free, unimposed and meaningful without a religion. Is it not right that most wars fought recently have fought due to religion
You have no idea what you are talking about if you think the problem in N.Ireland is actually to do with religion its do with republicanism and Loyalism, it just hides behind religion because of the importance of the Curch politically in the 16th-18th (is that right? I'm not totally sure when it began to decline from power, though i am glad it did) century. If yu really think any of the deaths cause by the fact somebody thinks their version of christianity is better than the other, you are being very naive.

The concept of natural selection implies creatures evolve because of (changes in) environmental factors and chance mutations- not because God directly says "become this".

Of course one could assume that God influences the environment to "guide" evolution in a direction he likes. Not playing with DNA - but creating a flood here, a desert there..

And then the geologists, climatologists etc got angry ;)
You see, i understand what you mean, i would agree with that, i just think that this idea that God is has to do things just by saying something is wrong, if God has complete control then i think He can afford to be more subtle, assuming that God is ominpotent and ominissent (you may not, but for the purpose of a decent arguement that can be spent making good points, instead of just reiterating the whole God is in control of everything, no he is a fairy tale, lets assume it if thats alrite with you) then he is in control right down to a molecular level and therefore could make random mutations in the genes, as far as i kno the environment doesnt actually chose the gene mutations (obvious, i kno) but acts as a control, so there is nothing to stop the idea that God could make these random mutations. I dont particualrly want to get into a bitter fight about it, its just my belief, i dont think this type of arguing actually does anything for Chrisitinaity or those against it, but if you have got any points to make feel free.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

I have no idea where you're getting your evidence, but it sure sounds like you went looking in all the wrong places. The bible was NOT written by a Pagan; the whole old testament was written and/or took place over 400 years before Christ's birth, and the majority of the new Testament was letters... written by several different men. The Bible may have been COMPILED by a pagan (which i doubt) but certainly not written by one.

[QUOTE=] [PopularFreedom]-creationism is a theory like evolutionism, it is science as there are proofs such as evolution has
[QUOTE]
OMFG!!! Are you serious!!!??? Creationism is NOT, and I repeat, NOT science!!!
I'm not saying evolution is the right answer but PLEASE... don't even try to say creationism is science. That is one of the best ways to get yourself laughed off this forum.
Sorry if this is considered a flame but I stand behind my statement.

OMFG!!! Are you serious!!!??? Creationism is NOT, and I repeat, NOT science!!!

Unless you redefine science of course. But then all those *other* hypotheses on the development of life, like those of the non-Christian mainstream religions, of cults like Scientology, and even those of the great flying spaghetti monsterisms would also be science, deserving equal attention.

Problem with creationists/IDers is that they are so busy attacking evolution that they are forgetting that they should show their own hypothesis to be better than all those others. Others they seem to be trying to forget.

Sigh. :rolleyes: Yet another anti-Christian thread. I see them everyday. Most Christians don't follow you around and annoy you about their faith: then why are there so many anti-Christian threads?
True - most Christians don't follow you around and annoy you, but far more Christians do so than non-believers. I've never seen an American TV station dedicated to broadcasting mass-hysterical Atheist services, I've never been door-stepped by someone promoting atheism or agnosticism, never seen atheists shouting "There is no God" down megaphones in shopping centres, or telling people that their behaviour which has no effect on anyone else is evil ...

But non-believers will engage in peaceful discussion with those who want to join the discussion, and, like Christians, will put their point of view. To complain that the discussion (which you're free not to join) is happening is an evasion from discussing the issues themselves.

Specifically anti-Christian not too many are anti-other religions.
That's untrue. Many Christians and Jews are anti-Muslim, Hindus in India are often anti-Islam etc. Atheists disagree with all theistic religions; but in a discussion with mostly western participants, Christianity is the predominant religion, and so that is what predominently gets discussed.

Which leads me again to what I usually say. That the devil is targeting Christianity.
And this is why we argue against Christianity : you haven't a shred of evidence to support the existence of the devil, let alone that he is responsible for anti-Christian argument. If you present a myth or fairy-tale as reality, realists are going to object, and rightly so!

Anyway it is more accurate to suggest that the New Testament, the rest of the Bible is much older, was written 60-70 years after Christ's death, so there would've still been people living who were alive when he lived.
A person who was an adult at the time of the crucifixion would be in his 80s 60 years later - an age to which precious few people survived at the time. In any case, the fact that people were alive when the NT was written is not proof that those people had a hand in writing them. Myths and legends can grow up within the lifetimes of people who experienced the real events.

Besides much of the History we know wasn't originally recorded straight after it happened.
Most of the history we accept as fact was recorded at the time, or is corroborated by other evidence from the time.

And also pieces of historic writing can be incredibly biased, so to target the Bible in particular, is being a bit harsh, as a large portion of history as we know it could be wrong.
Yes, much historical source material is biased. So it is part of the historian's craft to judge what is biased, how biased it is, and to find corroborative evidence from other sources in order to produce a more balanced picture.

The Bible is judged harshly because, by it's very nature, it is very highy biased, and lacks any contemporary corroboration.

Actually, the Dead Sea scrolls were found in earthen jars by a goatherder who was disappointed there was no gold nor any artifacts in the jars, just some old scraps of parchment.

Ok, I saw this on T.V., so I guess you're right heh :/. But eventually the right authorities did get it and figure out all that stuff about them, no sheepheader is going to rifle through all those extremely old, crinkly documents and somehow replace all the lettering on identical papyrus stuff which you really don't find in many places to begin with these days.

Speculation, I'm afraid.

It seems most likely that most of the Gospel texts actually derived from earlier sources. "Q" is commonly cited as one such source.

There are also disagreements about which came first - the Divine Jesus, humanised, or the Human Jesus, made divine. Different Gospel texts lead us to conclude that each was a localised view for SOME 'christians' in some places, at some points after the alleged events.

But, we no longer have extant "Q" scripture. ALL we have, is the 'gospel' texts, and the other texts that followed or accompanied them.

We really have NO WAY of knowing, what was 'taught from the beginning'.

Hell, we don't even have independent and contemporary proof that this 'Jesus' fellow was even PRESENT at 'the beginning'...

Red Herring. It doesn't matter what was in Q for this discussion. With the mass persecution that lasted until Constantine, and the complexity of changing doctrine at such a time, how do you explain all but two bishops at Nicea (one being Arius himself) holding an Orthodox view? There is simply no evidence to support a common view of Jesus as less than divine. And contrary to your claim that we have no way of knowing, the fact is we do. Don't forget about oral tradition. The sources point to the idea that Nicene Christianity was what was taught from the beginning.

Sigh. :rolleyes: Yet another anti-Christian thread. I see them everyday. Most Christians don't follow you around and annoy you about their faith: then why are there so many anti-Christian threads?
Where the hell do you live that you don't have Christians battering you where ever you go? I want to live there!!! Well, if you're already a Christian you don't view it as harasment as the rest of us do. You're just "spredding the word" Most Christians don't actually realise that the way they act towards other religions and non-religions is why people dislike them. They don't realise that not every one wants to hear about the Christian god, whom I think is the same as most single gods in other religions...(p.s. nothing to back that up, just a personal belief like god is responsible for evolution)
I once got into a discusion with a christian about religion. He asked what was my religion and I told him agnostic. He looked at me and said in all sinserity "You worship Satan!?"
Of course I looked at him like he was the dumb ass he was. And I said no. I told him what agnostic was and he then decided it was his current life goal to convert me. I of course said NO THANKS! But of course he didn't stop... Lord bless his soul. He at one point made me really angry by spouting some very sexist and demeaning coments.
So I looked him straight in the eye and told him(with much pleasure) that "It's people like you that makes me hate God and now I worship satan." Then I thanked him for it and my eternal dambnation.
LMAO!!!
I thought he was going to cry!!!
The lesson...
If someone says leave me alone I don't want to hear it, listen to them.
Please ignore my REALLY bad spelling...

Well, your mastery of debate is dually noted, instead of boring everyone with a line item dispute of the Truths I have listed, You instead Propose your statement and back it up with ?.....Nothing.
Obviously you have carefully considered each point in my argument.
The amazing mental energy you expended in this post is matched only by its Brevity.
Maybe you should write children's Books ?
In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
g'day.

Nice attempt at sarcasm, my friend.

Falls down on the fact that I actually do write children's books, of course.

Let me enlighten you a little... I didn't respond to your entire post, in line by line format, because it honestly isn't worth it. You can claim 'prophecy' means anything after the fact.

There is, however, withing the texts you cited, (specifically the book of Jeremiah), 'prophetic' writing that absolutely puts lie to the idea that all Old Testament prophecy is made true in the New.... which is the simple fact that NO son of Jeconiah can ever ascend to the throne of David.

Perhaps I assumed you were more familiar with scripture than you actually are... I assumed that the combination of a reference to 'Jeremiah', and how it might 'deny Messiah', would be enough for you to make the connection - even if you disagreed.

My apologies if you found that cryptic.

And, though I am loathe to dignify it by response: "In a battle of wits, you are unarmed".... is not necessarily the sort of assumption one might wish to make about another person, based on the entire strength of one comment... now, is it?

Red Herring. It doesn't matter what was in Q for this discussion. With the mass persecution that lasted until Constantine, and the complexity of changing doctrine at such a time, how do you explain all but two bishops at Nicea (one being Arius himself) holding an Orthodox view? There is simply no evidence to support a common view of Jesus as less than divine. And contrary to your claim that we have no way of knowing, the fact is we do. Don't forget about oral tradition. The sources point to the idea that Nicene Christianity was what was taught from the beginning.

You are following something of a circular logic....

Arius was one of very few 'heretical' beliefs at the Nicea debacle, because most 'heretics' were not going to be invited. Arius has sufficient 'power', and was enough of a 'threat', that Arian heresy had to be confronted face to face.

You start with the assumption, it seems, that the attendance of Nicea was somehow representative of ALL contemporary 'Christians'

You claim there is no evidence to support Jesus as less than divine.... but then, there is no independent, contemporary proof that he even existed... much less that he was divine.

You are following something of a circular logic....

Arius was one of very few 'heretical' beliefs at the Nicea debacle, because most 'heretics' were not going to be invited. Arius has sufficient 'power', and was enough of a 'threat', that Arian heresy had to be confronted face to face.

You start with the assumption, it seems, that the attendance of Nicea was somehow representative of ALL contemporary 'Christians'

You claim there is no evidence to support Jesus as less than divine.... but then, there is no independent, contemporary proof that he even existed... much less that he was divine.

I don't believe in divinity at all, but as a thorough heretic myself I'm amazed
that ANY heretics were allowed to attend whatsoever..!

Oh,.. and I got somehow banned (again, for the 53rd time), so it's good to
see you again, in yet another guise.

-Iakeo (( Deiakeos )) :)

You are following something of a circular logic....

Arius was one of very few 'heretical' beliefs at the Nicea debacle, because most 'heretics' were not going to be invited. Arius has sufficient 'power', and was enough of a 'threat', that Arian heresy had to be confronted face to face.

You start with the assumption, it seems, that the attendance of Nicea was somehow representative of ALL contemporary 'Christians'

You claim there is no evidence to support Jesus as less than divine.... but then, there is no independent, contemporary proof that he even existed... much less that he was divine.

If that is truly the case, then you should have no trouble providing letters or documents showing that not all of Christianity was represented, or that some bishops were not allowed to attend.

-creationism is a theory like evolutionism, it is science as there are proofs such as evolution has
A scientific theory has to be consistent with all available evidence, it has to be testable (either as a whole or in all it's individual elements), it has to make testable predicitions, and it has to be falsifiable. Creationism does none of these things.

In science, you begin with hard evidence in the real world, you hypothesise about what the evidence represents, you test that hypothesis, and, if it stands up to testing, you then publish the results in a book or journal, so that other people can do their own tests and attempt to falsify it.

In creationism, you begin with a book, which is just words on paper, and then attempt to find (or distort) evidence to fit what the words say. That is not science. It is absolutely inconceivable that someone who didn't know the Genesis story would come to its conclusions by using scientific method.

-just because a court judges something as such does not make it so...
And just because a book of scripture says something does not make it so, but at least a court has applied strict rules of evidence in coming to its conclusion.

-where is your information from? I provided you with mine which state clearly that the bible from King David onwards except for what I had already listed is factually correct. My question for you is where is your proof, or are you just talking opinion and not fact?
You didn't provide any information. You merely made the assertion that "everything from King David onwards (except for the miracles of Christ, any supernatural things, and King Solomon) has been proven." What is the proof? Where is the evidence?
-the statement was made that all in the bible was false, I stated the above to show that the statement was incorrect, thank you for reinterating my point.
I'm not arguing that everything in the Bible was false, but your point looked like an attempt to say that because some basic background facts in it are true, then the entire story (from King David onwards) is true. That is a logical fallacy.

There is a historical record of a Jesus of Nazareth, I have already given you my source material, where is your source material?
You have not given any single piece of contemporary, primary, source material for the existence of Jesus. You can't have done, because there is none in existence that we know of. Later documents, written by people of unknown identity, do not qualify.

I have no source material to prove that Jesus didn't exist (and nor do I claim definitively that he didn't), but that is the whole point : either there is source material for something, or there is no source material for it. You cannot find evidence for something which isn't there.

If that is truly the case, then you should have no trouble providing letters or documents showing that not all of Christianity was represented, or that some bishops were not allowed to attend.Not every christian sect had bisshops in the first place, some were not hierarchically structured. I very much doubt the any gnostic christians were invited, for example. Because they were just such a sect, quite a large one at that, but not organized from above.

In any case, 1700 years of history makes it somewhat problematic to proof things one way or another. There aren't that many document left from that time, let alone ones related to this event. There isn't even a complete list of all the different churches/sects at the time.

Not every christian sect had bisshops in the first place, some were not hierarchically structured. I very much doubt the any gnostic christians were invited, for example. Because they were just such a sect, quite a large one at that, but not organized from above.

In any case, 1700 years of history makes it somewhat problematic to proof things one way or another. There aren't that many document left from that time, let alone ones related to this event. There isn't even a complete list of all the different churches/sects at the time.

Actually, Gnostics, and every early, major Christian sect, were essentially hierarchically structured. This is why early apologetics so often involved showing that their bishops had no apostolic succession, which would be [one important] proof of their teaching.

I disagree. Even taking a small portion of the writing we have from that time would take hundreds, if not thousands, of hours to go through, and that's without actually studying the material, but just reading it. Eusebius' writing may prove useful if you're interested in early Church history as a whole, otherwise, a lot of history can be peiced together from the letters and works of early writers such as Clement and Irenaeus. Finally, while I don't recall a hammered out "list" of all the different sects, you'll find all of them mentioned somewhere.

Actually, Gnostics, and every early, major Christian sect, were essentially hierarchically structured.That's really peculiar, because that seems rather at odds with the gnostic beliefs. Of course I'm no theologian, let alone a historian of early christianity..

Finally, while I don't recall a hammered out "list" of all the different sects, you'll find all of them mentioned somewhere.'All' is a strong claim. Even then there would have been a myriad a small sects no one heard or cared about. Of course it's hard to actually proof, because no one mentions which ones weren't mentioned.

How about the ones from outside the Roman empire? Were they invited? e.g. the church from Ethiopia?

You have no idea what you are talking about if you think the problem in N.Ireland is actually to do with religion its do with republicanism and Loyalism, it just hides behind religion because of the importance of the Curch politically in the 16th-18th (is that right? I'm not totally sure when it began to decline from power, though i am glad it did) century. If yu really think any of the deaths cause by the fact somebody thinks their version of christianity is better than the other, you are being very naive.
Ok you have a point but am i nit right that without religion the world would probably be a better place?

Ok you have a point but am i nit right that without religion the world would probably be a better place?

Unknown. Religion definately played a big part in actually uniting people into civilisations[1], but something which was once good does not necessarily stay useful forever.

[1] Of course we do not know what would have happened if it hadn't. Maybe we would still consist of small tribes fighting eachother. Maybe we would have died out. Maybe we would have been more advanced now. But let us assume it was a positive effect.

Unknown. Religion definately played a big part in actually uniting people into civilisations[1], but something which was once good does not necessarily stay useful forever.
Did it? It was certainly used by the leaders of some civilisations to keep people in order, but others developed and grew without a reliance on religion. I don't think either the Greek or Roman Empires had a single religion, for example. The Roman Empire adopted one (Christianity) in the 4th century, but that was just about when the Empire started to fall apart into tribal nations!

Of course we do not know what would have happened if it hadn't. Maybe we would still consist of small tribes fighting eachother.
... instead of big tribes fighting each other, which we've had for the past couples of thousand years :)

Maybe we would have been more advanced now. But let us assume it was a positive effect.
I think it's quite likely that we would have been more advanced by now. Imagine how much more quickly science might have developed if people hadn't been limited in their enquiries by various unsubstantiated beliefs and by the idea that belief/faith per se has any evidential validity.

Unknown. Religion definately played a big part in actually uniting people into civilisations[1], but something which was once good does not necessarily stay useful forever.

[1] Of course we do not know what would have happened if it hadn't. Maybe we would still consist of small tribes fighting eachother. Maybe we would have died out. Maybe we would have been more advanced now. But let us assume it was a positive effect.


If anything, organized religion has held back scientific progression for centuries.
How many Italian philosophers, and astronomers were exectuted for heresy, because they dared suggest the sun did not revolve around the Earth?

If anything, organized religion has held back scientific progression for centuries.
How many Italian philosophers, and astronomers were exectuted for heresy, because they dared suggest the sun did not revolve around the Earth?
How many current researchers are being hamstrung by the religious fundamentalists who loath anything based on empiricism, naturalism, or humanism?

If anything, organized religion has held back scientific progression for centuries.
How many Italian philosophers, and astronomers were exectuted for heresy, because they dared suggest the sun did not revolve around the Earth?Not that many actually. And you seem to conveniently forget nearly all scientists during the middle ages were clergymen. Because 1) they were the only one that had time to devote themselves to such matters and 2) nature being gods work, it was a very pious thing to examine and research.
It wasn't really until the renaissance that the church started to make parts of science dogma, and then had to stiffle future work that contradicted what they had just a few decades earlier declared truth. Copernicus didn't have half the trouble that Galileo had as proponent of the copernican view of the solar system.

How many current researchers are being hamstrung by the religious fundamentalists who loath anything based on empiricism, naturalism, or humanism?

How about we make it easier, and ask how many ARENT?

ID, anyone?

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

parts of the bible were written before, some after. the ROMANS re-wrote the points they didn't agree with, hence the animal-loving vegetarian non-drinking christ (of the Essenes) turned into the wine-swilling, meat-eating, damnation-speaking opposite you see in the bible nowadays. the original christ said that religion in not found in a book.. it's found in the soul. :eek:

Option 1: (Some) People actual believe the bible, and society is a much better and safer place for it

Option 2: Smartasses question and demean the bible, and everything is chaotic.

your choice.

this is what always bothered me. i really dont understand how people can claim that society is only good because of the bible. how so? i'm an atheist, have never finished the bible cover to cover and i can honestly say that i don't plan on destroying the world or causing, as you said, chaos.

im not saying the bible is wrong. sure, i dont believe in any of the scripture, but i agree with some of the teachings. i'm just saying that you don't have to learn your morals from a book.

and whats wrong with questioning? id rather question and know the truth than be silent and ignorant.

The hell are you talking about? Genesis was written about 1500 years before Jesus was born.

I think he's referring to the New Testament and scriptures on Jesus in general.

My personal opinion: Wtfever

Getting back to the subject (i.e. not Creation/Evolution, Christian/Anti Christian, shoving anything down or up anyone else’s anatomy, and definitely not on any proof or lack of proof of God’s exsistance.)

The one problem, (and I’ll admit, confusion,) is that if you read the Bible, what you get from it is dependant on what you want to find. You wanna find hatred and discrimination, then you’ll find it. You wanna find commandments where women are supposed to be treated like shit, then you’ll find it. You wanna find peace, love, and equality… you’ll find it in there also. The key factor is, what the reader has in his/her heart, they’ll find it in the Bible.

The way the Bible (or any holy text for that matter) works are hidden in the interpretations one gets when one reads the Bible. Sure, you can go and listen to other people’s interpretations of the Bible, but if someone like Phelps or Robertson speaks loud enough and long enough, then more people will listen to them… wether they agree with him or not. However, discussing it with others, like your pastor or friends who are also reading the bible, you will find a variety of opinions as well as interpretations of the advice given inside. Thus the encouragement for Fellowship and not just watching the telly or listening to the Radio.

Take the example of the submissive wife.

Ephesians 5:22
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
Interesting word there… submit. The word submit, as it can also be interpreted, can mean “to voluntarily put yourself in another person's hands" (i.e. they will take care of you.) A child submits to their parents, in times of crisis people will submit to those with more knowledge and/or skills. Thus wives should give to their husbands as they (wives) give to the Lord. Basically, willingly with love and trust.

So you can have, Women, be slaves / trusted companions of your husbands. Which do you honestly think it means?

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Interesting analogy there… as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. So great was Jesus’s love that he died for our sins. So this verse instructs the Husband to be as loving to his wife as Christ was to his people.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.

And now we have how the Husbands should be treating their wives. Verse 26 is talking about how Christ Loved the Church and the “her” mentioned there is the Church and her people. From verse 27, the “Her” is the wife. Note verse 28, “in the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.” Not a commandmant for treating women as shit… well unless the man treats himself as shit. But it does go on to say he must care for her, as Christ cared for the Church.

Now in 1 Peter 3: 7
7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. If you don't treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard.

Same verse but in the King James Version.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

So, is the husband being told to treat his wife (or spouse) like shit?


As for more, since I am not a Scholor nor a Historian, I leave it to this page. (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/chrwoman.html)
As also this page (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/womspeak.html) also discusses the role of women at that time, both in society as well as in the Bible.

Society treated them like lower class citizens yet Paul had women helping him spread the word. He, as well as others in the Bible, encouraged Husbands to treat their wives as equals and with respect and honour.

--

The Bible is a confusing tool, I’d admit. But like many other tools, it’s how the reader interprets the messages contained within. Which is why there are so many different views from differenct sects of Christianity.

Another problem with the Bible, (Yes, again, I admit there are problems with the BIBLE.) is that it is a work translated by a person. A person who can be pursusaded by political and social standards that can place a dangerous and errorous spin on versus and passages.

Thus hate spewers can quote versus and passages that support their claims… I.e. Anti-abortion, But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.
Gay issues can also be supported by the fact that all references to Holy Marriage is One Man and One Woman, not to mention all the OT versus about man laying with man as man would with woman.. Not taking into account the other passages that call for Peace and love between all of Mankind.

Is the Bible full of Lies? No.

Is the advice inside outdated? The advice it contains are viable and acceptable by today’s standards.

Who’s translation should we follow? Like everything else, one must think and follow according to one's beliefs and not let anyone else do their thinking for them.

Should the Bible be taken literally? :Rolleyes: only if you really, REALLY think it should be.

good point. the bible is all interpretation.

i guess my only gripe is that a lot of people interpret the bible and then reject everyone else's interpretation. people should just believe what they want to believe. leave other people out of your own beliefs and let them find their own.

oh, and to clear up a little of the Irish nationalism subdebate we have going, part of the reason Ireland has been a place of conflict is religious. the Irish are devout catholics and that zeal certainly had a lot to do with their rebellion against the protestant british.

That's really peculiar, because that seems rather at odds with the gnostic beliefs. Of course I'm no theologian, let alone a historian of early christianity..

How about the ones from outside the Roman empire? Were they invited? e.g. the church from Ethiopia?

Well, what do you think of as Gnostic? There are many groups today that claim lineage to ancent groups, but only for legitimacy, not doctrine. As you are probably aware, the "true" Gnostics died out a long, long time ago.

Of course. Christians under the Patriarch of Alexandria played a large role in early Christianity. It wasn't until Chalcedon (451) that the Ethiopians and other Miaphysite groups split from the rest of Orthodoxy. (And there is widespread talk of them coming back, actually). The news of the early councils was spread far and wide, and people from all over the known world came. (Also of note, Orthodoxy still follows that same practice today. All major decisions must be accpeted by the entire Church throughout the world. No person, or group, has the final say)

The one problem, (and I’ll admit, confusion,) is that if you read the Bible, what you get from it is dependant on what you want to find. You wanna find hatred and discrimination, then you’ll find it. You wanna find commandments where women are supposed to be treated like shit, then you’ll find it. You wanna find peace, love, and equality… you’ll find it in there also. The key factor is, what the reader has in his/her heart, they’ll find it in the Bible.

That is a good point, something that explains the enormous number of Protestant groups in the world today. However, there are other ways to go about it. Instead of having one person, or small group, interpret it (this is where Papism and Sola Scriptura are clearly uncovered as two sides of the same coin), everyone as a whole must follow and guard what is passed down, without change. If one person, or group, tries to change things, the rest of the people will come and stop it. (This has happened from time to time in Orthodoxy. However, as doctrine is not dependant solely upon the clergy, there is really no way to change things of importance.) Then, the Bible means the same thing, and is no longer limited to relative interpretation.

I don't believe in divinity at all, but as a thorough heretic myself I'm amazed
that ANY heretics were allowed to attend whatsoever..!

Oh,.. and I got somehow banned (again, for the 53rd time), so it's good to
see you again, in yet another guise.

-Iakeo (( Deiakeos )) :)

What the hell?

Man... I wish they'd just get over it.... live and let live, I say....

Always good to hear from you, friend. In any guise.

On topic: well, they WERE very selective about which 'heretics' they allowed. Arius was basically only there because he was such a danger, because of his 'popularity', and the amount of 'power' he was getting.

Indeed, the Nicea thing was basically a mechanism for 'shutting the door' on people like Arius.

As you are probably aware, the "true" Gnostics died out a long, long time ago.Yeah, the last in the 12th or 13th century, in southern france..

Well, what do you think of as Gnostic? Well, it seems to be a very personal 'inner journey', finding the true god inside yourself. So that's why I'd think the outside world, and thus any hierarchy wouldn't have much credibility to them.

If that is truly the case, then you should have no trouble providing letters or documents showing that not all of Christianity was represented, or that some bishops were not allowed to attend.

Since it is easier to 'prove' a positive, than a negative... why don't you tell me who represented Cathari at Nicea?

Since it is easier to 'prove' a positive, than a negative... why don't you tell me who represented Cathari at Nicea?

Catharism was a religious movement with Gnostic elements that originated around the middle of the 10th century
The first Council of Nicaea was in AD 325. So unless the Cathari had discovered time travel, I doubt they could be represented in Nicaea

The first Council of Nicaea was in AD 325. So unless the Cathari had discovered time travel, I doubt they could be represented in Nicaea

Really depends... As an 'established sect' you CAN say that the Cathars were a 12th/13th century phenomenon... or you can trace Catharism back through Manichaeism, and back even further into the fusion of Zoroastrianism and early Christianity.

Really depends... As an 'established sect' you CAN say that the Cathars were a 12th/13th century phenomenon... or you can trace Catharism back through Manichaeism, and back even further into the fusion of Zoroastrianism and early Christianity.Well, certainly they have their roots there. But that's like saying protestants are Roman catholics, just because you can trace them back to that. Although I'm not sure how big the difference between Catarism and Manichaeism is.
It would be clearer just to pick whatever the name of the sect of the time was, that would also make them easier to find in those documents (if they're mentioned).

It's noted that of the 1800 bishops invited, only about 200-300 actually turned up (but then travel was a bother back then). And I still have my doubts every sect had a bishop that could have been invited in the first place (but have no substantial evidence for that suspicion).

Yeah, the last in the 12th or 13th century, in southern france..

Well, it seems to be a very personal 'inner journey', finding the true god inside yourself. So that's why I'd think the outside world, and thus any hierarchy wouldn't have much credibility to them.

The 12/13th century fellows were not what I'd call Gnostic. The Gnostics were very dogmatic. Some of the beliefs they held: a different God in the OT and NT, corruption/inferiority of the material, rejection of the Virgin birth, etc. An "inner journey" towards truth may have been taught by Gnostics, but the concept is very Orthodox; it hardly defines what Gnosticism is.

It's noted that of the 1800 bishops invited, only about 200-300 actually turned up (but then travel was a bother back then). And I still have my doubts every sect had a bishop that could have been invited in the first place (but have no substantial evidence for that suspicion).

Where does the 1800 number appear? Also, in regards to the bishop issue, it was not uncommon for them to send representatives. So, one didn't have to be a bishop to join the meeting. (Even laymen that were not reps were allowed to observe the council at many points, leaving plenty of time for even a theoretical "uninvited" party to be heard.)

Where does the 1800 number appear? I checked wikipedia. There's a whole list of references (though I didn't double chekc it). I find it an oddly round number though..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west).

Well, certainly they have their roots there. But that's like saying protestants are Roman catholics, just because you can trace them back to that. Although I'm not sure how big the difference between Catarism and Manichaeism is.
It would be clearer just to pick whatever the name of the sect of the time was, that would also make them easier to find in those documents (if they're mentioned).

It's noted that of the 1800 bishops invited, only about 200-300 actually turned up (but then travel was a bother back then). And I still have my doubts every sect had a bishop that could have been invited in the first place (but have no substantial evidence for that suspicion).

The biggest difference between the Cathari (as a 'recognised' group), and their predecesors, could be argued as being practise of the "Consolamentum" - a kind of pre-death transcendental ritual.

As you point out though... organisations that did not actively use a heirarchy structure would have been likely to be poorly represented at Nicea...

It's also interesting to note Santa Claus attended the council.

Or more accuratedly, the person Santa is partly based on, Saint Nicolas of Myra.

It's also interesting to note Santa Claus attended the council.

Or more accuratedly, the person Santa is partly based on, Saint Nicolas of Myra.

Indeed. The Wonderworker Saint Nicholas of Myra in Lycea. He's really big in the Russian Orthodox Church. He punched Arius in the face, actually

I checked wikipedia. There's a whole list of references (though I didn't double chekc it). I find it an oddly round number though..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Indeed. Wikipedia is good for general information, though I'd much prefer an ancient document for this number!

Indeed. The Wonderworker Saint Nicholas of Myra in Lycea. He's really big in the Russian Orthodox Church. He punched Arius in the face, actuallyReally? I always thought he was such a peaceful character, haha..

Indeed. Wikipedia is good for general information, though I'd much prefer an ancient document for this number!It might be in one of the references listed in the bibliography. Of course it'd been nice if they had made a footnote which reference it's from. If you can find out, you could perhaps update the page.

for what it's worth, google gives about 10000 hits for '1800 bishops nicaea' (disregarding direct references to wikipedia)
Some links specify the 1800 are from the roman empire.

Really? I always thought he was such a peaceful character, haha..

It might be in one of the references listed in the bibliography. Of course it'd been nice if they had made a footnote which reference it's from. If you can find out, you could perhaps update the page.

Hehe, one reason I trust the Orthodox Church so much. You can tell we don't "patch up" less-than-perfect areas of our history!

Sure, I will do some poking around, and I will post here if I find anything of note.

i could be wrong, but wasn't jesus born approximately 6 AD and live for 36 years or something? that would put his death right in the 30-40 AD range you specified.

and yes, proof of the 200 AD thing would be 100% totally awesome.

Actually, he can quite acurately be placed in the year 6-4 B.C. When the Christian calendar was created, the Monk somehow missed the fact that Jesus was during Herod's Reign, whom died in 4 B.C. It is known, then, that Jesus was born before then, but not much earlier.

Also, the 4 B.C. mark is indicated by the "Star of Bethlehem". Which, oddly, wasn't even noticable if you didn't know what you were looking for. The "Star" was likely a series of astrolonomical(And astrological) events leading up for months, and probably years, before Jesus was born. Short version:

An eclipse of planets was an extremely important event in astrology(which was very important in Israel). Leading up to the year Jesus was born, there were many of such eclipses occuring, signifying a very important person being born. The final lynchpin in this would be the Eclipse of Jupiter and Venus(I think it was venus), which to astrologers would signify the birth of a King(Jupiter was the reason for this). Also, this eclipse occurred in the constalation Ares... which was the astrological symbol for Bethlehem.

The "wisemen" of the area actually weren't kings, and there probably weren't three. The wisemen were astrologers, most likely from Babylon. After seeing these events in the sky, and finally seeing the Eclipse of Jupiter in the Constelation Ares would lead them to their new kind, whom would be born in Bethlehem. They didn't know when exactly he would be born, however. Forget any notion of them showing up at the door soon afte he was born. More likely he was a toddler by the time they met him.

Anywho, this notion is more secured by the fact that the Emporer asked the wisemen what they had seen in the stars(mentioned somewhere in the bible-not sure exactly where) to make them believe that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, thus leading the assumption it was not visible to the untrained eye.

Where am I getting with all this? Well, the last time such a series of events happened, with Jupiter's final eclipse in Ares was about 6-4 B.C.

So, meh. A long post about a scientific date for Jesus.

Wether the Modern Day Bible is authentic is hard. But I have a point or two to make.

All the Popes upto and including the 14th century have regularly "edited" bits of the bible, whilst they were in charge. Either to make it more palatable, or to simply change our perspective. it all started of as parables to teach a way of life, and to explain to illiterate (which was the greater majority) how the world supposedly started.

In no way was it written by God, it was written by men to enable control over other men.

Women are largley ignored in the bible and there is evidence to suggest that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, but she was castigated as one because one Pope had an irrational hatred of women, and he decided to muddy the waters a bit.

Wether the Modern Day Bible is authentic is hard. But I have a point or two to make.

All the Popes upto and including the 14th century have regularly "edited" bits of the bible, whilst they were in charge. Either to make it more palatable, or to simply change our perspective. it all started of as parables to teach a way of life, and to explain to illiterate (which was the greater majority) how the world supposedly started.

In no way was it written by God, it was written by men to enable control over other men.

Women are largley ignored in the bible and there is evidence to suggest that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, but she was castigated as one because one Pope had an irrational hatred of women, and he decided to muddy the waters a bit.

The Pope can only edit a Bible that the Vatican is in charge of, which turns out to be pretty much none of the most frequently used ones. the New International Version was made by a large group of independent, varied-denomination scholars using scrolls that the Vatican had nothing to do with since they went right to the Greek, Aramic, and ancient Hebrew sources, the King James Bible was made expressly by order of the King of England as a protestant Bible, (England and the Vatican wern't very chummy at the time) the American standard was created by a joint effort between American and English scholars in the late 1800's and published in 1901 after piracy attempts to change it, (Yes, Jehovah's witnesses use this one sometimes, but only because their own translation is super ultra secret copywrited by the Watchtower or something, it doesn't really support them at all honestly) and these versions and most others were all made highly separate from Vatican control, (Seriously, the Pope never did have secret officals ruling the American government, mmk?) and all generally went and used Greek, Aramic, or ancient Hebrew scripts, which were not all locked in the Vatican's basement. Very recent translations such as the NIV have also been able to benefit through liberal use of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a highly trustworthy collections of sources of old testiment works, which the Vatican does not have locked in their basement, and actually visited the U.S. once on tour. the point is, the Vatican does not, and hopefully never will, control the wording of the world's Bibles. This would require several blatant violations of American copywright laws, of which I seriously doubt the government would be highly amused with.

Evolution rulz all you hard-core christians

Evolution rulz all you hard-core christians
Let me give you a suggestion not to post on a thread that doesn't have the topic your responding to. apparently they are very harsh with rules, I just got back from being banned. I suggest you delete your post, or better yet continue on so i can laugh when someone other than me gets banned for a week.

The Pope can only edit a Bible that the Vatican is in charge of, which turns out to be pretty much none of the most frequently used ones. the New International Version was made by a large group of independent, varied-denomination scholars using scrolls that the Vatican had nothing to do with since they went right to the Greek, Aramic, and ancient Hebrew sources, the King James Bible was made expressly by order of the King of England as a protestant Bible, (England and the Vatican wern't very chummy at the time) the American standard was created by a joint effort between American and English scholars in the late 1800's and published in 1901 after piracy attempts to change it, (Yes, Jehovah's witnesses use this one sometimes, but only because their own translation is super ultra secret copywrited by the Watchtower or something, it doesn't really support them at all honestly) and these versions and most others were all made highly separate from Vatican control, (Seriously, the Pope never did have secret officals ruling the American government, mmk?) and all generally went and used Greek, Aramic, or ancient Hebrew scripts, which were not all locked in the Vatican's basement. Very recent translations such as the NIV have also been able to benefit through liberal use of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a highly trustworthy collections of sources of old testiment works, which the Vatican does not have locked in their basement, and actually visited the U.S. once on tour. the point is, the Vatican does not, and hopefully never will, control the wording of the world's Bibles. This would require several blatant violations of American copywright laws, of which I seriously doubt the government would be highly amused with.
Were not talking recently, the wording was probably changed when the first Roman translation occured, probably around 200 AD, which is why this is associated with the creation date while most texts consist of writings and letters of scholars during that time period. By the way, Jesus was definitely a real person, but his association with "god" if there is one, was probably exaggerated (notice none of the texts of the bible are written by him) and I think that it was also altered many times during translations. If you listen to the teachings it really shows you how to be a good person, but it has been manipulated to a point where i think the whole religion is crap.

wtf is with everybody on this thread? all everybody seems to do is say "well I think its false because I know that..." or, "It's true because I it says so on Wikipedia- here's a link". Honestly, get some quotes going from some books or something other than just Wikipedia- its relied on too much these days for flimsy evidence in heated debates.

So, meh. A long post about a scientific date for Jesus.

A long post about a scientific date for a person that has yet to be empirically proved to have actually existed, even.

Kind of like screwing wheels onto a tomato.... time consuming, and, ultimately... fruitless.

All the Popes upto and including the 14th century have regularly "edited" bits of the bible, whilst they were in charge. Either to make it more palatable, or to simply change our perspective. it all started of as parables to teach a way of life, and to explain to illiterate (which was the greater majority) how the world supposedly started.

In no way was it written by God, it was written by men to enable control over other men.

Women are largley ignored in the bible and there is evidence to suggest that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, but she was castigated as one because one Pope had an irrational hatred of women, and he decided to muddy the waters a bit.

Perhaps you can provide some more information of which parts of the Bible the Popes changed. Papal power was no different from the power of any other bishop until the Roman Catholic Church split from Orthodoxy in 1054, and Papal Infaliability is an 19th century dogma! It seems unlikely that this actually happened, but is a response instead to modern "Romophobia."

As for the claim about controlling others, one hardly needs a book to tell them to do it. It "enables" nothing of the sort.

Finally, the Bible was actually quite generous to women. From Esther to the Virgin Mary, women have played an important role. In regards to the issue of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute, the text was never changed. An inference was simply made, one well supported by Patristic thought. I must ask though, what difference does it make is the female prostitiute was Mary Magdalene or not? Is one choice really more "sexist" than the other?

Kind of like screwing wheels onto a tomato.... time consuming, and, ultimately... fruitless.

Upon reading that, I felt a strange rotational motion in my skull, and now I can't remember my wife's birthday.

The "wisemen" of the area actually weren't kings, and there probably weren't three. The wisemen were astrologers, most likely from Babylon.

Zoroastrian astrologers, more than likely. Anyways, to comment a little about this, the three wisemen being astrologers doesn't exclude them from being kings. Further, there is actually a Roman Catholic church that has the tombs of three wisemen: Baltazar, Gaspar and Melchior. Not everyone is agreed that these are the actual wisemen, but it seems to be further proof that there were just three. (Remember, if one is trying to create fake relics, that person will try to get every detail right. So, whether they are fake, or the real thing, it still points to the same number: three.)

Honestly, get some quotes going from some books or something other than just Wikipedia- its relied on too much these days for flimsy evidence in heated debates.Oh fine, let's 'quote some books'.
The dead sea scrolls tell us Jesus was a bald fat homosexual.
Don't believe it? Just read them for yourself. Third scroll, line 150 or about..
What do you mean you don't have access to them?
Well, you'll just have to take my word for it then.
...

You can quote books all you want, but if they aren't readily available they are no more trustworthy than your word. At least with online references, they're as trustworthy as the reference, because you can actually check it yourself.
Besides which Nature did a study recently showing wikipedia is only slightly less trustworthy then the encyclopedia britannica. (On a limited number of topics, at least).

Oh fine, let's 'quote some books'.
The dead sea scrolls tell us Jesus was a bald fat homosexual.
Don't believe it? Just read them for yourself. Third scroll, line 150 or about..
What do you mean you don't have access to them?
Well, you'll just have to take my word for it then.
...

You can quote books all you want, but if they aren't readily available they are no more trustworthy than your word. At least with online references, they're as trustworthy as the reference, because you can actually check it yourself.
Besides which Nature did a study recently showing wikipedia is only slightly less trustworthy then the encyclopedia britannica. (On a limited number of topics, at least).To be fair, Books are easily accessable... heard of the Library? just because you can't readily get to them at a moment's notice does not make them less trustworthy

To be fair, Books are easily accessable... heard of the Library? just because you can't readily get to them at a moment's notice does not make them less trustworthyI'm pretty sure none of the libraries here has the dead sea scrolls.. Or many of the other documents from that time (let alone that I couldn't read them if they had) Sure if I had the money and time I could travel to were they do have them, but really...

Of course you're right that the books aren't untrustworthy because of this (they might be for other reasons, just as anything people make or write). But it does make the usage of quotes unreliable; you can't easily check whether people aren't pulling quotes and books-titles out of their ass.
Besides which you can count on the fact that pretty much nobody will go out to the library to look up whether you're telling the truth. Forum discussions are too fast paced for lengthy research. As it is, you can barely get away with asking people to read a 500 word article.

Perhaps you can provide some more information of which parts of the Bible the Popes changed.

Several books concerning jesus were intentionally left out, or ignored all together, even ones that predate Matthew, Luke, etc.



As for the claim about controlling others, one hardly needs a book to tell them to do it. It "enables" nothing of the sort.

That is incorrect.
You may wish to check out the origin and purpose of "The book of common prayer" circa early 1500's.
It was the first modern bible written in English, so the common folks could read it.
At least, those with the education to read.
Before then, Bibles were primarily printed in Latin, wich was a language of the social elite, in Europe.

The Book, was far less complete than todays bibles, becuase much of it was taken out, and what was left, stressed obedience to God, and King.

The book was a tool for the elite, to help control the poor, and middle class.
Nothing more.

Finally, the Bible was actually quite generous to women. From Esther to the Virgin Mary, women have played an important role. In regards to the issue of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute, the text was never changed. An inference was simply made, one well supported by Patristic thought. I must ask though, what difference does it make is the female prostitiute was Mary Magdalene or not? Is one choice really more "sexist" than the other?

The bible is certainly NOT kind to women, beyond Mary (Mom, not Magdeliene)

Paul, for instance, was obviously a member of the He-Man Woman Haters' Club.

Leviticus says that an unmarried woman, who gets raped, should be scourged, becuase while she obviously wanted be raped, she was not free, and still property of her father, and therefore, her life is to be spared.

As for what difference it makes if Mary Mag was a prostitute...

The very depiction we have of Jesus, is the difference.

Are you familiar with the "Gospel of Mary"?
It says, that Mary was the most beloved of all the disciples, and very probably, Jesus' wife.
This puts Mary in a very, VERY different light.

This means, that instead of remembering her as the Wife of the Messiah, and Matron of the Holy family line, and very likely, intended to lead the Church after Jesus' death.......

..we remember her as a prostitute.

This was not the image men like Paul wanted women to have, back then.
Most biblical scholars will agree, at least, that Mary's role in the early formation of the church was diminished by men like Paul, who could not tolerate the idea of a strong woman leader.

Relying on the Bible for accuracy is like relying on Wiki for accuracy.

Relying on the Bible for accuracy is like relying on Wiki for accuracy.
A recent study of wikipedia showed its inaccuracy rate to be not a great deal higher than that of Enclyopaedia Brittanica. The Bible, on the other hand, is packed full of inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims.

A recent study of wikipedia showed its inaccuracy rate to be not a great deal higher than that of Enclyopaedia Brittanica. The Bible, on the other hand, is packed full of inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims.


So is that a compliment to Wiki, or an insult to Brittanica?

That is incorrect.
You may wish to check out the origin and purpose of "The book of common prayer" circa early 1500's.
It was the first modern bible written in English, so the common folks could read it.
That is incorrect. The Book of Common Prayer is not a Bible - it's a service book. But the Bible was also translated into English at around the same time (slightly earlier, in fact).

So is that a compliment to Wiki, or an insult to Brittanica?
....both? :confused:

I'm pretty sure none of the libraries here has the dead sea scrolls.. Or many of the other documents from that time (let alone that I couldn't read them if they had) Sure if I had the money and time I could travel to were they do have them, but really...
Libraries won't have the originals, but any decent reference library should have the published translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Upon reading that, I felt a strange rotational motion in my skull, and now I can't remember my wife's birthday.

I think that's good, right?

Well.. not the forgetting the birthday part... but at leats you get to blame me... :)

Relying on the Bible for accuracy is like relying on Wiki for accuracy.*Ahem* Relying on the Bible for HISTORICAL Accuracy is like relying on Comic Books for Cultural accuracies. ;)

I think that's good, right?

Well.. not the forgetting the birthday part... but at leats you get to blame me... :)
"I'm sorry dear, but a post by Grave_n_idle made me forget your birthday..."

somehow, I think that would make things worse... :D

He did call the Council of Nicaea, which was partially intended to curb Arianism. However, the idea of the Virgin Birth was already well established for a century and a half before the council.

Didn't the Council of Nicaea also ban the idea of reincarnation in christianity too

"I'm sorry dear, but a post by Grave_n_idle made me forget your birthday..."

somehow, I think that would make things worse... :D

Unless.... un-less... she has read some of my posts, too. Then, she might forget [i]her own[/] birthday. :)

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

Im am going to admit that i hate the catholic church(not catholics themselves) and that a lot of the bible is BS. That said the bible was not written 200 years after christ, the old testament was written before Christ. the most recent book in the old testament was written about 200 years before christ. The new testament was written after christ, but the first book was written about 60 year later. The book of revelations was written around 90ad.

also, the vigin birth of mary is bs, joseph screwed her (or someone else did :P).

Sorry about any incorrect grammer/spelling, i broke my collar bone and im having trouble reaching the keyboard

Unless.... un-less... she has read some of my posts, too. Then, she might forget [i]her own[/] birthday. :)
:eek:
maybe that's why I can't remember anyone's birthday... INCLUDING MY OWN... (true, I actually forgot when my birthday was untill people actually reminded me.)

I should put you on ignore just for that.... but then I'd miss all the fun discussions I've had with you...


oh well, I save money not buying gifts anyway. ;)

Sorry about any incorrect grammer/spelling, i broke my collar bone and im having trouble reaching the keyboard :eek: owch dude... take care not to aggrivate it some more.

also, the vigin birth of mary is bs, joseph screwed her (or someone else did :P)

Can you prove that? I'd be interested to hear any evidence you think you have

Can you prove that? I'd be interested to hear any evidence you think you have

She was pregnant?

She was pregnant?

You misunderstood. Can you prove she was pregnant because Jospeh slept with her. That was the assertion

You misunderstood. Can you prove she was pregnant because Jospeh slept with her. That was the assertion

I didn't misunderstand I was just winding you up.:)

...four separate gospels written by four separate people (Matt, Mark, Luke, John)

most of the rest of the New Testament written by the Apostle Paul, who lived in the first century AD

Much of the Old Testament validated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (much of the OT is the history of Israel/Judah -- its kings and its prophets)

so what parts of the Bible are you referring to?

You misunderstood. Can you prove she was pregnant because Jospeh slept with her. That was the assertionIf it wasn't for the fcat it was two millenia ago, we could have tried a DNA test :p

You misunderstood. Can you prove she was pregnant because Jospeh slept with her. That was the assertion

If we - for the sake of argument - assume Jesus was actually born at all the assertion can also be that she was not a virgin when she gave birth to him. Considering she was married to Joseph that is a reasonable assumption in my opinion.
Doesn't mean Joseph had to be the father though ;)

...four separate gospels written by four separate people (Matt, Mark, Luke, John)

It is unlikely that any of the four gospels were written by actual disciples, the earliest estimate for Mark is 68-73AD and it is widely agreed to be the first gospel to be written.

Bear in mind that the average life expectancy at the time was 25 years.

Also bear in mind that some scholars think that none of the four gospels were written before 100AD.

most of the rest of the New Testament written by the Apostle Paul, who lived in the first century AD

Would this be the same Paul who never actually met Jesus? The fact that, as you say, most of the New Testament was written by a guy who never knew Jesus doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I didn't misunderstand I was just winding you up.:)

Well arnt you sad

It is unlikely that any of the four gospels were written by actual disciples, the earliest estimate for Mark is 68-73AD and it is widely agreed to be the first gospel to be written.

Bear in mind that the average life expectancy at the time was 25 years.

Also bear in mind that some scholars think that none of the four gospels were written before 100AD.


If you look at the Gospels, they speek of a time when Jesus went to a pool and then healed a paralysied man. They say that the pool is there in the present tense, yet in 70AD that pool, and much of Jerusluem surrounding it was destroyed by the Romans. So we can infer that those Gospels mentioning it in the present tense wrote before 70AD

If you look at the Gospels, they speek of a time when Jesus went to a pool and then healed a paralysied man. They say that the pool is there in the present tense, yet in 70AD that pool, and much of Jerusluem surrounding it was destroyed by the Romans. So we can infer that those Gospels mentioning it in the present tense wrote before 70AD

Not necessarily. It is known that the gospels were written well after Jesus died, and to convey a better sense of the time for readers later on, the author could have easily used a present tense. You can never use such a simple mechanism as tenses when decided when something was written.

Bear in mind that the average life expectancy at the time was 25 years.I don't think that's true. And even if it were scholars tend to live quite a bit longer than average.

I don't think that's true. And even if it were scholars tend to live quite a bit longer than average.

It was true. 25 years, but thats cos kids died young, if you made it past 13 you survived for a long while.

I don't think that's true. And even if it were scholars tend to live quite a bit longer than average.

Scholars tend to live a bit longer than average because they do little hard work and can afford to care for themselves. The disciples apparently spent much time travelling far and wide and lived fairly tough lives without much money. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but they were mainly manual workers before they became disciples which wouldn't have helped.

Nevertheless, if the crucifixion took place in 30AD and Mark was about 20 at the time then he would have been 60 when Mark was written. Possible but highly unlikely and even more unlikely for the other gospels.

I saw a website a while ago that showed how life expectancies for people in the past are worked out, i'll try and find it.

It was true. 25 years, but thats cos kids died young, if you made it past 13 you survived for a long while.Ah, that's a possibility I suppose. I still wouldn't mind having a reference for it though. Because I have my doubts anyone cared enough at that time to keep statistics on it.

The hell are you talking about? Genesis was written about 1500 years before Jesus was born.
*plays buzzer sound*

That is the old testament. Christianity is primarily based on the new testament.

Im not an Anti-Theist. Alright i am, but thats beside the point.
The bible was written 200 years AFTER christ was born. SOoo no first hand evidence.
It was written by a Pagan, who took Traditional Chrisitanity (now long forgotten) and added bits. Like the virgin birth. This is actually true but noone bothers to read up on it.
He added Miracles to it so it would Echo the Old Ways, and become more popular with the Pagan Populace.
So my question is... what the hell are christians playing at?!?!

Howdy Europha,

We're not playing at anything. May I ask where on earth you got this?

*plays buzzer sound*

That is the old testament. Christianity is primarily based on the new testament.

Edited to apologise for the buzzer sound thing, that was rude of me. I'm sorry.




Let's consider Genesis for a minute. In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. If we don't belive this, how can the rest of it matter? Take a look at the Nicene creed, a statement of Christian faith:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


That said, the OT is a bit more important than you're giving it credit for. A lot, actually.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Is this not important? If God hadn't created the heavens and the earth, then we'd have no point to life. Nothing would matter. Everything would be irrelevant. It would then not matter if we had a savior, it would be irrelevant and serve no purpose. How then can you say that Christianity is based mostly on the New Testament?