NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

link (http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html)

It seems that you're right about 25 being the age before infant mortality, but even so the life expectancy for a 20 year old would have been 54 so it would still fall short of the earliest prediction date of the earliest gospel (assuming the 30AD crucifixion with the disciples aged 20 at the time).

Possible but still unlikely, especially when you factor in other aspects of life:

1. The statistics are for Romans, not the hebrews. The Romans were more advanced, lived in a kinder climate and weren't living under an opressive foreign regime.
2. The statistics are for women who generally live longer. I'm not sure if this would still apply in the first century due to the high rate of deaths in childbirth but it could still be higher because of the more leisurely homelife without hard manual labour.
3. The author admits that the statistics cannot account for the varying life expectancies of varying socio-economic classes, as the disciples were some of the lowliest members of society and lived hard lives.

As I say, it is possible but not very likely.

: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. ;)

Why, thank you. (for the 'fun discussions' comment... not for the putting on ignore...)

I not only forget my own birthday, I actually have to count up, to work out how old I am.... :( Maybe it's contagious?

Anyway, you wouldn't want me on ignore... I'm such a good excuse... :D

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.



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.

John, also... never met Jesus.

And it is commonly assumed that the books of Matthew and Luke were both based on one earlier text.

So... that leaves... MAYBE one gospel? ANd that could have been based on earlier material... it certainly shows resemblences to MUCH earlier (like 600 years earlier) texts.

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

A text, written after the fact, but BASED on oral traditions, might well have a different 'tense' to it's actual contemporary period.

As I say, it is possible but not very likely.Well, If you look at the oldest 20%, they're either older than 65 or expected to live that long. That's not a bad chance. Factoring in the comparatively favorable socio economic circumstances for holy men, I would not be surprised if Mark made it past the mark ;)

But there's also a good chance people started writing their teaching down after they died, it wouldn't be as necessary while they were still alive. There is also a good chance that the 'writing of the gospels' was actually more of a compilation of what got written down over the lifetime of the apostels in question.
Once I invent time travel, I may have a looksee to find out, rather than speculate ;)

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

Really? I have but one point. Incontravertibly prove it.:)

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

If you refer to NT Apocryphal works, they were indeed left out from the canon. This was not from a simple Papal decision though, but the entire Church. Note that some events in the NT Apocrypha are taken to be real, it is just that the books as a whole are doubted.

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.

Hardly a Bible, though.

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.

Source for Paul's hatred of women, please. In regards to rape, I think you may be referring to Deuteronomy 22. In verses 25-26, it says "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death." That's a far cry from what you said.

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.

That's one reason the book is not canonical, though I am indeed familiar with it. It's easy to try to use a lone, unsupoported source to point a finger and say "Aha!," but just like the early Church did, we must reject it because there is simply no evidence to support such a claim. On to women in general, to say that early leaders overshadowed women is to take a "Sola Scriptura" approach to things, something no early Christians would do, or even consider. St. Helen, St. Mary of Egypt, etc, all played roles in early times and were highly venerated. St. Helen especially was a strong woman leader. Women leaders were not only tolerated, but elevated! Even a cursory examination of women saints in Orthodoxy will yield a list of hundreds.

In regards to rape, I think you may be referring to Deuteronomy 22. In verses 25-26, it says "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death." That's a far cry from what you said.


You are arguing with a different verse, that is why.

Leviticus was cited, for a reason.... the verses in question are in Leviticus... not Deuteronomy, as you claim.

The verses in question are, most likely Leviticus 19:20-1 "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering".



That's one reason the book is not canonical, though I am indeed familiar with it. It's easy to try to use a lone, unsupoported source to point a finger and say "Aha!," but just like the early Church did, we must reject it because there is simply no evidence to support such a claim.

That is fairly dishonest, don't you think? Since, of course, NONE of the scripture has any 'evidence' to support their claims.

You are arguing with a different verse, that is why.

Leviticus was cited, for a reason.... the verses in question are in Leviticus... not Deuteronomy, as you claim.

The verses in question are, most likely Leviticus 19:20-1 "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering".




That is fairly dishonest, don't you think? Since, of course, NONE of the scripture has any 'evidence' to support their claims.


Thanks, GnI.

The book isnt considered Canonical, becuase clearly, it supports a much different look at Mary, and even women in general.
Women can be venerated when saints, but are more often, in subserviant roles.

The reasons why the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, and others are not found "canonical" is becuase they tell other sides of Jesus, and this detracts, so the Church likely feels, away from Christs divinity.

If we see Jesus as a married family man, with wife, and even children, then this puts him in a far more humble light, and less of a martyr.
If we see , as the Gospel of Thomas suggests, as "Rabbi" (Teacher) and not "messiah", then we arent seeing Jesus as the son of god, but more like a philospher.
This isnt what the Church wants.

They instead, turn away from the actual message of Jesus' sermons, and turn to hide in the dogma, and stagnation.

Peter, for instance, in his book, asks Jesus himself, why good people go to hell,and Jesus tells him that everyone goes to hell for a time, some short, some longer, but that eventually, everyone is let into Heaven.
Jesus continues to say that Peter should not tell everyone this, becuase some may interperet it as a liscence to sin, so to speak.

This, too, is bad in the eyes of Mother Rome.

The Church wants us to be afraid, and grovel, and picture jesus as an untouchable ball of light in the sky, and not as man, with some good ideas on how to live peacefully with one another, and how to get along.

If anything, organised religions have really gone directly in opposition to what thier saviour was telling them.

You are arguing with a different verse, that is why.

Leviticus was cited, for a reason.... the verses in question are in Leviticus... not Deuteronomy, as you claim.

The verses in question are, most likely Leviticus 19:20-1 "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering".

That is fairly dishonest, don't you think? Since, of course, NONE of the scripture has any 'evidence' to support their claims.

Sorry, my mistake. However, this verse follows on the same logic of the verse in Deuteronomy: if the woman isn't screaming and trying to get help, it is sinful for her too. This is the same reason why the victim of a rape that takes place far out of populated areas cannot be killed: no one can confirm if the victim cried for help. In a city, it is far easier to know.

To which claim do you seek evidence?

The book isnt considered Canonical, becuase clearly, it supports a much different look at Mary, and even women in general.
Women can be venerated when saints, but are more often, in subserviant roles.

In Orthodoxy, men in subservient roles are also venerated much more often. Nothing to do with sex.


The reasons why the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, and others are not found "canonical" is becuase they tell other sides of Jesus, and this detracts, so the Church likely feels, away from Christs divinity.

If we see Jesus as a married family man, with wife, and even children, then this puts him in a far more humble light, and less of a martyr.
If we see , as the Gospel of Thomas suggests, as "Rabbi" (Teacher) and not "messiah", then we arent seeing Jesus as the son of god, but more like a philospher.
This isnt what the Church wants.

They instead, turn away from the actual message of Jesus' sermons, and turn to hide in the dogma, and stagnation.

Many of them hardly detract fom His divinity. The books were simply not included in the Biblical canon; they were not banned or "forbidden," just not considered as reliable. Early fathers of the Church used the works themselves.

Peter, for instance, in his book, asks Jesus himself, why good people go to hell,and Jesus tells him that everyone goes to hell for a time, some short, some longer, but that eventually, everyone is let into Heaven.
Jesus continues to say that Peter should not tell everyone this, becuase some may interperet it as a liscence to sin, so to speak.

Exactly. Even today we have an understanding of salvation based upon this idea, far from ignoring or hiding it. Only the Catholics and Protestants have distroted this teaching.

This, too, is bad in the eyes of Mother Rome.

The Church wants us to be afraid, and grovel, and picture jesus as an untouchable ball of light in the sky, and not as man, with some good ideas on how to live peacefully with one another, and how to get along.

If anything, organised religions have really gone directly in opposition to what thier saviour was telling them.

Again, you're mixing us up with Roman Catholicism. For example, we never had Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Most of Orthodoxy was never even under a feudal system. We are two totally different churches.

Sorry, my mistake. However, this verse follows on the same logic of the verse in Deuteronomy: if the woman isn't screaming and trying to get help, it is sinful for her too.

So.. if the rapist puts a knife to a womans throat threatening to slit it if she screams and she obeys ... she is a sinner ?
Hell - one does not even need to put the knife there. Chances are she is way too afraid to actually resist.

Impressive that with such a title, this thread's survived this long sans lock.
And, as is always the case, good to see Grave kickin' arse.

You must remeber allot of the the writing were letters which were written after christ died infact all the books were. 200 years by then christianity was a large cult how could they become that without the Bible?

So.. if the rapist puts a knife to a womans throat threatening to slit it if she screams and she obeys ... she is a sinner ?
Hell - one does not even need to put the knife there. Chances are she is way too afraid to actually resist.

Actually even by law in most western countries the women has to resist infact all she has to do is say a simple 'no'.

Accepted. But then the bible is False at the least.
So because it was edited it is false?

So every account of History that has ever crossed your desk has been false, by that same logic.

I am not saying I disagree with you about the book, I am saying your logic is so fundamentally flawed as be on equal grounds of absurdity as Father Time and Mother Nature.

I am wondering in the scale of things is there any evidence of Evolution except for scientific research which can be seen in many diffrent ways infact there is usally very little evidence for the things humans have faith in.

Actually even by law in most western countries the women has to resist infact all she has to do is say a simple 'no'.

Really ? I thought she had to consent - which is not the same as not resisting that scary and much stronger man.

Really ? I thought she had to consent - which is not the same as not resisting that scary and much stronger man.
You are correct, and if a woman is incapable of consent(a state of intoxication is incapable even if she can speak and say yes--drunk equals not in her right mind, that means coersion) i.e. passed out, asleep, whatever--it can become rape later even if YOU didnt think it was rape.

I am wondering in the scale of things is there any evidence of Evolution except for scientific research which can be seen in many diffrent ways infact there is usally very little evidence for the things humans have faith in.
So then would you advent the pursuit of faith with evidence in large quantity, or faith with evidence in small or virtually null quantity?

I am wondering in the scale of things is there any evidence of Evolution except for scientific research which can be seen in many diffrent ways infact there is usally very little evidence for the things humans have faith in.
What evidence could there be other than scientific research??

The evidence for evolution is massive, and there is no different way to see it which is coherent and consistant with all the evidence. Scientists research and dispute its details, but there is no other show in the scientific town. Believing it is not a matter of faith anymore than believing that the Earth is round is a matter of faith.

Sorry, my mistake. However, this verse follows on the same logic of the verse in Deuteronomy: if the woman isn't screaming and trying to get help, it is sinful for her too. This is the same reason why the victim of a rape that takes place far out of populated areas cannot be killed: no one can confirm if the victim cried for help. In a city, it is far easier to know.

To which claim do you seek evidence?

One assumes you have read the Bible, yes?

You are, of course, aware that NONE of the miraculous or spiritual content can be supported by independent, contemporary evidence?

Also, "if the woman isn't screaming and trying to get help"... is not mentioned, alluded to, or even suggested, in this passage.

Kindly stop trying to 'edit' the scripture, to mean what you want it to mean...

So every account of History that has ever crossed your desk has been false, by that same logic.


Every account of history should be assumed to have a fair probability of being false... although corrboration can help to make accepting your source a more reasonable prospect.

Impressive that with such a title, this thread's survived this long sans lock.
And, as is always the case, good to see Grave kickin' arse.

In all fairness, most of the arse has kicked itself... ;)

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?!?!
where do you get your delusions !!!! i am sick and tired of some spoiled capitalist trying to bend the laws God gave us so you dont have to feel guilty.oh i dont want to be held accountablefor my choices when its all done and over. you are so afraid of the laws of the Bible you missed out on the one true message it holds . it is a love letter between God and his creation. that is why you can piss and moan how you dont like the way things are. because He loved us enough to give us a choice. get over yourself and except His love. thats all Hes ever wanted.dont think you have to understand everything for it to be true and please stop listening to all these wiccans ,devil worshipers and other liberal whiners. God does love you. get used to it . so suck up yourself pity long enough to open your heart and learn the truth. and have a nice day. God does love you.so smile ,put down your perscription pills or illegal substances and try to be happy once in awhile.

where do you get your delusions !!!! i am sick and tired of some spoiled capitalist trying to bend the laws God gave us so you dont have to feel guilty.oh i dont want to be held accountablefor my choices when its all done and over. you are so afraid of the laws of the Bible you missed out on the one true message it holds . it is a love letter between God and his creation. that is why you can piss and moan how you dont like the way things are. because He loved us enough to give us a choice. get over yourself and except His love. thats all Hes ever wanted.dont think you have to understand everything for it to be true and please stop listening to all these wiccans ,devil worshipers and other liberal whiners. God does love you. get used to it . so suck up yourself pity long enough to open your heart and learn the truth. and have a nice day. God does love you.so smile ,put down your perscription pills or illegal substances and try to be happy once in awhile.

Christistheway=Drunk Commies Deleted?

Why bother with all this discusion?

I think it's simple really. The Bible fails the ECREE principle. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. The book of Genesis which contains the suggested first 2 people to have existed on the planet should be enough to disqualify the OLd Testament. The book of Genesis starts a Geneology with Adam and Eve therefore it is intended that the Garden of Eden story be taken literaly. If no one was there to record the events suggested to have taken place there is no means be which any one could know what happened to to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve do not tell thier own story some one tells thier story for them. Yet there was no one to their story. Also take into account the huge claims in the story for which there is no evidence. There is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, The talking snake, and the Tree of Life. The story if read without consideration of the consept of sin reads like a fable of how the snakes lost their hands and legs and why they bite at peoples heals and why people stomp on thier heads. There is no evidence at all for the Adam and Eve creation account. Therefore the intire Old Testament should be dismissed. As to the New Testament. The New Testament is attached to the Old Testament and should be dismissed with it.

I think that is the short and sweet of it.

Why bother with all this discusion?

I think it's simple really. The Bible fails the ECREE principle. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. The book of Genesis which contains the suggested first 2 people to have existed on the planet should be enough to disqualify the OLd Testament. The book of Genesis starts a Geneology with Adam and Eve therefore it is intended that the Garden of Eden story be taken literaly. If no one was there to record the events suggested to have taken place there is no means be which any one could know what happened to to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve do not tell thier own story some one tells thier story for them. Yet there was no one to their story. Also take into account the huge claims in the story for which there is no evidence. There is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, The talking snake, and the Tree of Life. The story if read without consideration of the consept of sin reads like a fable of how the snakes lost their hands and legs and why they bite at peoples heals and why people stomp on thier heads. There is no evidence at all for the Adam and Eve creation account. Therefore the intire Old Testament should be dismissed. As to the New Testament. The New Testament is attached to the Old Testament and should be dismissed with it.

I think that is the short and sweet of it.

I once worked with a Christian who believed the New Testament, implicitly... yet maintained that the Old Testament (being a Jewish, rather than Christian book), was likely to be full of errors....

That always made me laugh...

I once worked with a Christian who believed the New Testament, implicitly... yet maintained that the Old Testament (being a Jewish, rather than Christian book), was likely to be full of errors....

That always made me laugh...

Odd Suggestion when you consider that Jesus supposedly was the fix for the Adam and Eve blunder.

Odd Suggestion when you consider that Jesus supposedly was the fix for the Adam and Eve blunder.

Indeed. Somehow, this fellow was still convinced that Jesus was messiah... and, when asked how this could be, he'd cite Old Testament scripture...

Curious fellow...

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I once worked with a Christian who believed the New Testament, implicitly... yet maintained that the Old Testament (being a Jewish, rather than Christian book), was likely to be full of errors....

That always made me laugh...

Odd Suggestion when you consider that Jesus supposedly was the fix for the Adam and Eve blunder.

The word "errors" perplexes me.

What is an "error" in a book(s) like the bible?

Also,.. Jesus was not the "fix" for the Adam/Eve/Apple thing. I didn't realize
that that situation was a "fixable" one, actually.

What does it mean for the Adam/Eve/Appe thing to be "fixable"?

Jesus was simply a pointer, an example, of what to do when faced with
overwhelming physical "opposition" and how to best handle inevitability.

His message was not to identify yourself with your skin, to be courageous
and hold to your "real" self (not to your personality/skin), and give over
to "caesar" what is his and give over to God what is his, while keeping
your "you" regardless of what either does with your "skin".


-Iakeo

The word "errors" perplexes me.

What is an "error" in a book(s) like the bible?

Also,.. Jesus was not the "fix" for the Adam/Eve/Apple thing. I didn't realize
that that situation was a "fixable" one, actually.

What does it mean for the Adam/Eve/Appe thing to be "fixable"?

Jesus was simply a pointer, an example, of what to do when faced with
overwhelming physical "opposition" and how to best handle inevitability.

His message was not to identify yourself with your skin, to be courageous
and hold to your "real" self (not to your personality/skin), and give over
to "caesar" what is his and give over to God what is his, while keeping
your "you" regardless of what either does with your "skin".


-Iakeo


This isn't Evangelical belief you are proposing. I feel more offended and oppressed by Evangelicals who are theocracy supporters. I've never seen an evangelical or a member of the religous right who didn't feel that his or her religion shouldn't be made the rule of law. This of course includes the Bible thumping loon Alito.

There was,,,never a Jesus to begin with. There may have been some rebel for which the story of Jesus is losely based but there was never a Jesus. Adam and Eve never existed either. Seems rather pointless to argue the ramifications of their life or the teachings of Jesus when they never existed any ways.

Although I do like this courages rebel idea of Jesus that you suggest.

One assumes you have read the Bible, yes?

You are, of course, aware that NONE of the miraculous or spiritual content can be supported by independent, contemporary evidence?

Also, "if the woman isn't screaming and trying to get help"... is not mentioned, alluded to, or even suggested, in this passage.

Kindly stop trying to 'edit' the scripture, to mean what you want it to mean...

(sigh)

okay, Doubting Thomas:

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

:)

i think some things weren't meant for us to be able to find scientifically.

(sigh)

okay, Doubting Thomas:

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

:)

i think some things weren't meant for us to be able to find scientifically.

Yes, praise Zeus!

Why are you guys fighting about this? You know God doesn't want you to be bickering like 3 year olds over a toy. If you beleive in him that is...
God is probably sitting where ever God sits and is ROLLING his eyes thinking "Calm down, just live a good life and be happy."
Don't worry about when the rapture is going to come. Don't freak out when someone doesn't beleive you implicently about God or not-God.
I think discusions like this, when they get out of hand, are a little more than rediculous.

i think some things weren't meant for us to be able to find scientifically.
Real understanding doesn't rely on being found culturally. Emotionally, I would be okay with, but nobody embraces Christian theology without being told about it. I would suspect there is something much deeper behind your faith than what you know of; an innate Truth that, when spoken, none could deny. The challenge is to peel back the layers of myth and expose the reality that underlies our ideas, and we should not give in to society's demands to resist this call.

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?!?!

hmm...first off, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. And I'll proceed to tell you why.
1) The latest written book of the Old Testament was written several centuries before Christ was born. This is widely accepted fact, and as the questioner of said fact, you are the one who must provide evidence that what you say is true. Which you haven't.
2) The basis for a book's acceptance into the New Testament (canon) is that the book had apostlistic authority, meaning it either had to be written by an apostle (One of Jesus' disciples, and Paul), or it had to be written by a close associate of an apostle. About 1/4 of the New Testament was written by Paul. Another big chunk was written by Luke, a doctor and close associate of Paul's. The rest were written by various disciples. Matthew, the tax collector and one of the 12, Mark, a disciple that was not one of the 12, John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, Peter, one of the 12, James, Jesus' brother....ect. Again, all of this is long, and widely accepted fact, and as the questioner, you bear the burden of proof. So prove your point.
3) The Gospels are varified by secular accounts, and the Bible goes far beyond any other ancient manuscripts widely accepted as reliable. The earliest copies we have of the Bible date much closer to the date that they were originally written than any other documents.
Now here's my question: What the heck were you thinking to challenge centuries of tradition and widely accepted fact without any proof?

2) The basis for a book's acceptance into the New Testament (canon) is that the book had apostlistic authority, meaning it either had to be written by an apostle (One of Jesus' disciples, and Paul), or it had to be written by a close associate of an apostle. About 1/4 of the New Testament was written by Paul. Another big chunk was written by Luke, a doctor and close associate of Paul's. The rest were written by various disciples. Matthew, the tax collector and one of the 12, Mark, a disciple that was not one of the 12, John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, Peter, one of the 12, James, Jesus' brother....ect. Again, all of this is long, and widely accepted fact, and as the questioner, you bear the burden of proof. So prove your point.

Well Paul never met Jesus so he's hardly reliable.

The very earliest date for the very earliest book said to have been written by anyone who actually knew Jesus was 68AD (Mark) but many historians date all four gospels as being written after 100AD.

In conclusion, only one author in the whole of the New Testament actually might have known Jesus and the odds are against even that.

3) The Gospels are varified by secular accounts, and the Bible goes far beyond any other ancient manuscripts widely accepted as reliable. The earliest copies we have of the Bible date much closer to the date that they were originally written than any other documents.
Now here's my question: What the heck were you thinking to challenge centuries of tradition and widely accepted fact without any proof?

Please present to me just one reliable, secular, contempory document verifying the existance of Jesus.

The rest were written by various disciples. Matthew, the tax collector and one of the 12, Mark, a disciple that was not one of the 12, John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, Peter, one of the 12, James, Jesus' brother....ect.
Actually, there is a considerable degree of question as to whether the John that wrote the book and the John of the 12 disciples are indeed the same person, particularly due to the late date and the unusually hostile response to Judaism. It's generally accepted that John's Letters, Gospel and Revelation are probably the works of a group of people in Asia inspired by the namesake apostle just before the turn of the century.

(sigh)

okay, Doubting Thomas:

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

:)

i think some things weren't meant for us to be able to find scientifically.

That is as maybe... but you said non-Canonical scripture was of dubious nature, BECAUSE of the lack of evidence.

Now you seem to be claiming that is no problem in scripture.

Your position is inconsistent... and makes me believe you 'plead special exception' for the texts that are accepted as canonical.

Also - it is worth noting, perhaps, that Jesus is said to have actually provided physical evidence to Thomas. Thus - while faith without evidence might be best, even Jesus saw a need for evidence, for some.

Which means that, God hates non-believers and WANTS them to burn in Hell, or there just IS no evidence...

hmm...first off, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. And I'll proceed to tell you why.
1) The latest written book of the Old Testament was written several centuries before Christ was born. This is widely accepted fact, and as the questioner of said fact, you are the one who must provide evidence that what you say is true. Which you haven't.
2) The basis for a book's acceptance into the New Testament (canon) is that the book had apostlistic authority, meaning it either had to be written by an apostle (One of Jesus' disciples, and Paul), or it had to be written by a close associate of an apostle. About 1/4 of the New Testament was written by Paul. Another big chunk was written by Luke, a doctor and close associate of Paul's. The rest were written by various disciples. Matthew, the tax collector and one of the 12, Mark, a disciple that was not one of the 12, John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, Peter, one of the 12, James, Jesus' brother....ect. Again, all of this is long, and widely accepted fact, and as the questioner, you bear the burden of proof. So prove your point.
3) The Gospels are varified by secular accounts, and the Bible goes far beyond any other ancient manuscripts widely accepted as reliable. The earliest copies we have of the Bible date much closer to the date that they were originally written than any other documents.
Now here's my question: What the heck were you thinking to challenge centuries of tradition and widely accepted fact without any proof?

1) The last Canonical book may have been written several centuries before Jesus was born, but there are other Hebrew scriptures that were chosen to be left out. Also - the 'old testament' form we know today, wasn't canonised fully until AFTER Jesus' earthly ministry... indeed, some of the Old Testament texts didn't get accepted as Old Testament texts until after Revelation was written...

2) Apostolic is shady, at best. As you state, a full quarter of the New Testament scripture was written by one man, who never met the living Jesus. It's possibly also worth pointing out that you accept as Apostolic, ONLY the apostles you find in the text you accept as Apostolic. Where is Mary, in your list? Your 'logic' is circular, and self-serving.

3) The Gospels are NOT verified by any sources. The earliest 'outside' sources to even hint at the possibility of Jesus' ministry, were written MOST of a century AFTER his alleged death, by an author who was not even BORN during Jesus' life.... based on stories that author had heard.

There is NO non-hearsay evidence. There is NO independent, CONTEMPORARY evidence. There is not even any evidence at all, from the time of Jesus' ministry... the earliest partisan documents do not appear until half a century after the 'fact'.

Why do you blindly accept the repititions of fantastic stories, repeated for centuries, as 'fact', without proof?

Actually, there is a considerable degree of question as to whether the John that wrote the book and the John of the 12 disciples are indeed the same person, particularly due to the late date and the unusually hostile response to Judaism. It's generally accepted that John's Letters, Gospel and Revelation are probably the works of a group of people in Asia inspired by the namesake apostle just before the turn of the century.

Indeed.. most of the evidence suggests that the author of "John" was NOT an apostle.

Also - due to stylistic differences, and a completely different 'voice', there is a very strong suggestion that the Gospel of John, and the book of Revelation (at least) were written by very different authors.

Also - due to stylistic differences, and a completely different 'voice', there is a very strong suggestion that the Gospel of John, and the book of Revelation (at least) were written by very different authors.
Or that it was the same author, but he was high on drugs when he wrote Revelation! :)

In all fairness, most of the arse has kicked itself... ;)
Haha! :D
Well, at the LEAST, they bring the party with 'em. *nods*

(sigh)

okay, Doubting Thomas:

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

:)

Yes, blessed are the gullible. They need SOMETHING to work in their favour in a world like this, even if it is a consistent faith in a lack of practical sense. Kind of like a drunk in a fight.

The Gospel of Mathew wasn't written by Mathew. The Gospel of Mark wasn't written by Mark, The Gospel of Luke wasn't written By Luke, The Gospel of John was not written by John. The names we use to refer to the Gospels are just names given to those gospels, None of authers signed thier supposed "witness" account.

This isn't Evangelical belief you are proposing. I feel more offended and oppressed by Evangelicals who are theocracy supporters. I've never seen an evangelical or a member of the religous right who didn't feel that his or her religion shouldn't be made the rule of law. This of course includes the Bible thumping loon Alito.

Which is why America will never become a theocracy. The "religious folk" are
too splintered (and like it that way) to ever allow any one sub-group take
over.

I think you're just plain wrong about the "religious right" (which is a misnomer
by the way) wanting to have their "laws" become THE law. They know that
giving any "denomination" that ability would harm them, because they KNOW
that they are (always) a minority within the greater population (of both
religious folks and non-religious folks).

The people (of faith) that actually DO want to institute their "theocracy" are
the leftists, who would have their religion made into firm and unchangable
law,.. until it served their purpose to change it to create their "dictator" class.


There was,,,never a Jesus to begin with. There may have been some rebel for which the story of Jesus is losely based but there was never a Jesus. Adam and Eve never existed either. Seems rather pointless to argue the ramifications of their life or the teachings of Jesus when they never existed any ways.

Although I do like this courages rebel idea of Jesus that you suggest.

Whether or not Jesus was a real person or not is irrelevant and a canard
to "dismiss" the wisdom of the idea of Jesus.

The question is not whether Jesus existed, but whether the ideas that we
call the ideas of Jesus (and the peripheral ideas from others) are sensible and
useful.

If you aren't up to discussing various philosophical conjectures, regardless of
where they came from, then you're not worth talking to about such things,
by definition.

-Iakeo

The question is not whether Jesus existed, but whether the ideas that we call the ideas of Jesus (and the peripheral ideas from others) are sensible and useful.

True. But that means the ideas need to be backed up by something other then "he died for our sins". One needs to demonstrate they are in fact good instead of taking that as dogma.

True. But that means the ideas need to be backed up by something other than "he died for our sins". One needs to demonstrate they are in fact good instead of taking that as dogma.

YES. Most Christians don't practice what they preach, nor do they understand what they preach. Ask them a serious question and what do you get? Bible quotes. Question that quote. More quotes. Christianity is a compassionate way of life. If you don't know what compassion is, you're not a Christian.

Dudes, just accept it, The New Testement wasnt written by anyone who knew jesus or by anyone who met the apostles. So just go home cry and take up atheism.
Yeee i exaggerated with the 200 years claim, but the bible was Heavily revised 200 years later and bits were added. IE virgin birth by the Roman Emperors to make Pagans happier with the transformation from Paganism into Chrisitanity, the Virgin birth is a Pagan Idea.
Guttin, ur faith is based on lies. haha

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
The question is not whether Jesus existed, but whether the ideas that we call the ideas of Jesus (and the peripheral ideas from others) are sensible and useful.

True. But that means the ideas need to be backed up by something other then "he died for our sins". One needs to demonstrate they are in fact good instead of taking that as dogma.

Do you know what "He died for our sins" means? Have you actually had a discussion (conversation) with someone who says that to clarify what they meant?

Somehow I think not to the first, and probably tried but were frustrated by
the idiocy in response to the second.

And I agree with you on the dogma thing. I'm vehemently against dogma. If it
isn't worth looking at, discussing and rationally testing then it isn't worth
believing in.

Dogma BAD..!! :)

-Iakeo

Guttin, ur faith is based on lies. haha
If your view is one of sheer counterposition then Your faith is based on their lies too. =P

YES. Most Christians don't practice what they preach, nor do they understand what they preach. Ask them a serious question and what do you get? Bible quotes. Question that quote. More quotes.

Well... yes. Because that is what the Bible offers. It is not like e.g. Kants work, which gives basic rules from which you can actually derive for yourself what good and bad are in his framework- it just gives examples and commandments. Understanding the underlying principles when they are not shared is a tad bit tricky ;)

If your view is one of sheer counterposition then Your faith is based on their lies too. =P

Wordplay and Wooly-Logic makes me go "How amusing" and laugh at u ;p

Dudes, just accept it, The New Testement wasnt written by anyone who knew jesus or by anyone who met the apostles. So just go home cry and take up atheism.
Yeee i exaggerated with the 200 years claim, but the bible was Heavily revised 200 years later and bits were added. IE virgin birth by the Roman Emperors to make Pagans happier with the transformation from Paganism into Chrisitanity, the Virgin birth is a Pagan Idea.
Guttin, ur faith is based on lies. haha

Actually it's all nonsense from the end of the 73000-odd characters-place of
the Torah (the 5 books), and those 73000-odd characters are not a story
but simply an "interesting" string of characters.

http://www.meetingtent.com/MMEintro.htm
http://www.meru.org/

BUT,.. it's USEFUL nonsense...! :)

Discussion follows.....


-Iakeo

Congratulations for talking crap.
http://www.ripplesstmarysswim.com.au/images/seal_clapping.gif
wtf r u talking about!?!? its writin in 1 A.C u idiot:headbang:

Wordplay and Wooly-Logic makes me go "How amusing" and laugh at u ;p
It is amusing, isn't it?

Seriously though, to base your spirituality on the stance of one particular organisation, even in rejection, is to base your faith around their tenates. There's nothing woolly about that logic; in fact, it's tautological.

It is amusing, isn't it?

Seriously though, to base your spirituality on the stance of one particular organisation, even in rejection, is to base your faith around their tenates. There's nothing woolly about that logic; in fact, it's tautological.

*mumbles* I dont like you. (BANG) (hides body)
Real-Logic isnt good for people like me, i use Statistics ect. Im doomed to be an acountant!

*mumbles* I dont like you. (BANG) (hides body)
Real-Logic isnt good for people like me, i use Statistics ect. Im doomed to be an acountant!
*Resurrects from the dead. More in a sort of Zombie Plague way than a Holistic Apocalypse way though.*

You... cannot destroy... the power... of the philosopher...

*Gets stone. Promptly turns lead into Gold. Makes fortune.*

*Resurrects from the dead. More in a sort of Zombie Plague way than a Holistic Apocalypse way though.*

You... cannot destroy... the power... of the philosopher...

*Gets stone. Promptly turns lead into Gold. Makes fortune.*

Samples Zombie DNA
shoots you in the head
Steals gold.
Establishes Empire
Threatens people with Zombie virus if they dont like him
Gets assassinated.

Riiiiiiight.
Well basically from this post we can summarize thus.
Atheists are presenting good evidence the bible is false.
Christians are going "...No."
Soooo what are we to learn from this?
People wont change there minds and are stubborn as fuck even when presented with facts.

Riiiiiiight.
Well basically from this post we can summarize thus.
Atheists are presenting good evidence the bible is false.
Christians are going "...No."
Soooo what are we to learn from this?
People wont change there minds and are stubborn as fuck even when presented with facts.

"False"..?

What does "false" mean in this context?

As an aside, atheists, with a couple of (aka 2) exceptions, are unjustifiably
self righteous assholes,.. but that's assumed, so it's really not an issue in this
discussion and I'm sorry I brought it up.

So,.. back to the question at hand,.. "false"..?


-Iakeo

"False"..?

What does "false" mean in this context?

As an aside, atheists, with a couple of (aka 2) exceptions, are unjustifiably
self righteous assholes,.. but that's assumed, so it's really not an issue in this
discussion and I'm sorry I brought it up.

So,.. back to the question at hand,.. "false"..?


-Iakeo

It was A. Written by people who never met jesus and half who never met his apostles.
B. Seriously revised and rewritten by the Pagan Roman Emperors to help Pagans become more happy with the transition into christianity, the Virgin birth was taken from a Celtic god.

Please present to me just one reliable, secular, contempory document verifying the existance of Jesus.

Jewish Mischna
Tacitus
Pliny

Now, perhaps RandomLittleIsland could furnish us with a single reliable document within, say, 200 years of Jesus' death, which claims that Jesus did not exist.

You've accepted that the claims of Jesus' death/resurrection were made at the time of the New Testament. Where is the historical evidence to back up your point of view?

Samples Zombie DNA
shoots you in the head
Steals gold.
Establishes Empire
Threatens people with Zombie virus if they dont like him
Gets assassinated.
*Still here, in all of philosophical glory*

It was A. Written by people who never met jesus and half who never met his apostles.
B. Seriously revised and rewritten by the Pagan Roman Emperors to help Pagans become more happy with the transition into christianity, the Virgin birth was taken from a Celtic god.
Historical accuracy does not a truth make, nor absence deny. There are levels of truth to be taken from even the most ridiculous mythology.

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 --- 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 ----ation.
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...

I faced the same problem. Once I was at a table with a lot of Christians, some of which were fundementalists, some of whom were not. The fundementalists kept arguing with me and trying to convert me. As a Jain, a naturally declined, but then one of them said that he didn't care; he said I would go to hell. I ignored him, but the argument went on.

A few months later, one of the non-fundamentalists lost faith in Christianity and became a Wiccan. That was the end of the arguments.

I would say that MOST of the Bible is a lie. These parts include most of Genesis, parts of Exodus, and a lot of the New Testament. The historical parts, such as the theory/fact/whatever-the-heck-it-is that such people as Jesus, Moses, and Abraham existed, are probably true, but the rest was probably made up by the Church as time went on. There were about 19 gospels; 15 were declared to be heretical early in Christian history. Now that really tells you something, doesn't it?

Oh, and the VERY few people that mentioned the early persecution of the Christians are neglecting the fact that once the Christians got power, the persecution of the other people began. First the pagans, than Jews, and then Muslims, and Jews again (why are Jews persecuted so much by every group?). I say that after this post, it would be good not to bring up persecution again because it is completely irrelevant. Yes, I am a hypocrite, and I know 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?!?!

So Im guessing ,since im a christian, you wouldn't like very much would you?

Do you know what "He died for our sins" means? Have you actually had a discussion (conversation) with someone who says that to clarify what they meant?

Somehow I think not to the first, and probably tried but were frustrated by
the idiocy in response to the second.

And I agree with you on the dogma thing. I'm vehemently against dogma. If it
isn't worth looking at, discussing and rationally testing then it isn't worth
believing in.

Dogma BAD..!! :)

-Iakeo

Deiakeos. Like I said no need to dog your religion.

Jewish Mischna
Tacitus
Pliny

I did say 'Contempory', ie. from the time of Jesus's life. All of those sources were written long after the events, Tacitus and Pliny are simply reporting on the actions of Christians and the Josephus reference is agreed to be fake by just about everyone, the exceptions usually being the same people who claim that the Turin Shroud is genuine.

Try again.

It was A. Written by people who never met jesus and half who never met his apostles.
B. Seriously revised and rewritten by the Pagan Roman Emperors to help Pagans become more happy with the transition into christianity, the Virgin birth was taken from a Celtic god.

A. Oral tradition. The early Christians misinterpreted Jesus' words to assume that His return was imminent and did not immediately realise the need for written documents.

Historically, (secular) Bible scholars believe that the synoptic gospels relied on an earlier written source for information.

The Christian Bible states that the Bible was God-inspired. An omnipotent God would surely remember what had happened, so if Christianity is true the time delay presents no problem. If the Bible is not true its claims are irrelevant anyway.

The Dead Sea scrolls showed that accuracy was not lost in the Old Testament over millennia, so why quibble over 50-100 years in the New Testament?

B. Not so. If that were the case, the thousands of copies of earlier Bible manuscripts would show the differences. We would see the originals, and the amended versions. We would be able to compare and contrast.

The 20+ accounts of Jesus' life which were not taken as Christian gospels (eg. Thomas) also claim the Virgin Birth. These were not (all) used by the early church, and could not have been subject to tampering.

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?!?!


That is the most ignorantly stated commant that i have ever read in my life. You have obviously formed a biased oppinion of the bible and are not willing to take the time to actually look into the FACTS. The bible isnt just one book, its a compilation of many books. The fist book of the New Testament written, (James) was written only About 5-10 years after Christ died. Who was james? The half brother of Christ. Matthew, John, Peter, ALL new Jesus personlly and wrote their books with in 60 years of Christs life. Mark and Luke were friends of Matt, John, and Peter. was christ mentioned other than the bible? Better believe it. It is historical proof that there was a man named Christ and when he lived and died. Josephus was one of those people. I suggest that you research your statements more clearly before you make a remark such as this and end up being a total idiot. Oh and by the way, if you would like more HISTORICAL proof, just ask me...

and the Josephus reference is agreed to be fake by just about everyone

The point there is that Josephus, not a Christian, stated that Christ had risen from the dead. The most likely explanation is that Josephus was being sarcastic.

Now, perhaps RandomLittleIsland could furnish us with a single reliable document within, say, 200 years of Jesus' death, which claims that Jesus did not exist.

You've accepted that the claims of Jesus' death/resurrection were made at the time of the New Testament. Where is the historical evidence to back up your point of view?

Well, I've just shown that none of those sources are any good, absense of evidence is a good indication of absense.

But anyway friend, what kind of document do you want me to produce to show that Jesus didn't exist? A diary entry saying: "Dear diary, today I didn't go to the Sermon on the Mount because it didn't happen and Jesus doesn't exist. Weather fine, chicken for dinner."? How about a birth certificate saying: "On this day Jesus wasn't born, he wasn't born yesterday either or the day before because he doesn't exist." I'm afraid that kind of attitude suggests a basic ignorance of historical procedure, if you assert that someone existed then the onus is on you to provide proof, so far nobody has done so.

Jewish Mischna
Tacitus
Pliny

If you bothered to look any of them up you will notice they are not reliable possably not contemperary or seculer references to Jesus.

All three dudes are already well known including Flaveus Josephus, All
four where dismissed as invalid already and with good reason. Please don't make me look them up for. If I have to Wip out my C Dennis McKinncey book to look this stuff I'm going smack you the book afterwards.

Don't take that as a real threat as there is little chance of me achieving such action and it was meant in jest.

The point there is that Josephus, not a Christian, stated that Christ had risen from the dead. The most likely explanation is that Josephus was being sarcastic.

It is widely agreed that the passage was forged by a later Christian scholar, and anyway he was writing a long time after the events so he still isn't contempor.y

That is the most ignorantly stated commant that i have ever read in my life. You have obviously formed a biased oppinion of the bible and are not willing to take the time to actually look into the FACTS. The bible isnt just one book, its a compilation of many books. The fist book of the New Testament written, (James) was written only About 5-10 years after Christ died. Who was james? The half brother of Christ. Matthew, John, Peter, ALL new Jesus personlly and wrote their books with in 60 years of Christs life. Mark and Luke were friends of Matt, John, and Peter. was christ mentioned other than the bible? Better believe it. It is historical proof that there was a man named Christ and when he lived and died. Josephus was one of those people. I suggest that you research your statements more clearly before you make a remark such as this and end up being a total idiot. Oh and by the way, if you would like more HISTORICAL proof, just ask me...

Jospehus is widely agreed to be a forgery and isn't contemporary anyway.

Please can I have some more proof?

The Gospel of Mathew wasn't written by Mathew. The Gospel of Mark wasn't written by Mark, The Gospel of Luke wasn't written By Luke, The Gospel of John was not written by John. The names we use to refer to the Gospels are just names given to those gospels, None of authers signed thier supposed "witness" account.

What about

1 Peter 5:
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

or

2 Peter 1:
14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

or

1 John 1:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

or

Luke 1:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

and what about

John 21:

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.


The entire Bible consists of eyewitness accounts, whether written by the witness himself or by another, especially those events witnessed only by their author, God Almighty.

I've got to go to bed now, so I'll reply to any new proofs tomorrow.

'Night all.:)

What about

1 Peter 5:
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

or

2 Peter 1:
14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

or

1 John 1:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

or

Luke 1:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

and what about

John 21:

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.


The entire Bible consists of eyewitness accounts, whether written by the witness himself or by another, especially those events witnessed only by their author, God Almighty.

Haven't we already established that the eye-witnesses were dead by the time the Bible was written?

if you assert that someone existed then the onus is on you to provide proof, so far nobody has done so.

So why would you expect proof during Jesus' life? Paper was scarce and few people knew how to write. You're hardly going to find many diary extracts! There was no purpose for followers of Jesus to record his actions until after his death. Therefore you shouldn't expect evidence during Jesus' lifetime, but you should expect evidence soon afterwards.

The Christian movement grew immediately after Jesus' death. Christianity was abhorred both by the Romans and the Jews - wouldn't you expect to find some document doubting Jesus' existence within a couple of hundred years, like I said?

The following sources were written in time periods beginning from just a few years after Jesus' death, and unchallenged.

4 canonical gospels
Mischna
Tacitus
Pliny
Josephus
Other New Testament books
20+ non-canonical gospels

The point is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE DOUBTING THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS EITHER AT THE TIME, OR FOR CENTURIES AFTER. The 'for centuries after' part is important - if there were a massive fraud in circulation, someone would have written against it (especially given that the authorities - Jewish AND Roman - had a vested interest in making the claim that Jesus didn't exist).

Jospehus is widely agreed to be a forgery and isn't contemporary anyway.

Please can I have some more proof?


I would suggest 2 things to you.
#1. The fact is not that you dont have proof, but rather you are unwilling to believe it.
#2. Instead of making lame uneduacated presupisitions that have no backing other than not wanting to believe that the bible is true, read some historical accounts of writers that were either contemporarries or lived shortly after Chrits death. For example :JOSEPHUS: (37-101 A.D.), TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.) , PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D., BABYLONIAN TALMUD: (Completed in the 6th Century A.D.),LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.),LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.) ,Thallus: (52 A.D.),PHLEGON: (1st Century),SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.) ,CELSUS: (2nd Century) ,JULIAN THE APOSTATE: (332-363 A.D.),CLEMENT OF ROME: (100 A.D.) ,Ignatius of Antioch: (50-107 A.D.) ,QUADRATUS: (125 A.D.) ,EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: (130-38 A.D.),ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.),JUSTIN MARTYR: (106-167 A.D.) ,HEGESIPPUS: (2 Century) ,TRAJAN: (53-117 A.D.) ,MACROBIUS: (4th-5th Century),HADRIAN: (106-167 A.D.),ANTONIUS PIUS: (86 AD to 161 AD) ,HIEROCLES: (AD 284-305), SENECA: (3 B.C.-65 A.D.),JUVENAL: (55 AD-127 AD).....

do you need me to make wuotes of each of them also?????:sniper:

I would suggest 2 things to you.
#1. The fact is not that you dont have proof, but rather you are unwilling to believe it.
#2. Instead of making lame uneduacated presupisitions that have no backing other than not wanting to believe that the bible is true, read some historical accounts of writers that were either contemporarries or lived shortly after Chrits death. For example :JOSEPHUS: (37-101 A.D.), TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.) , PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D., BABYLONIAN TALMUD: (Completed in the 6th Century A.D.),LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.),LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.) ,Thallus: (52 A.D.),PHLEGON: (1st Century),SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.) ,CELSUS: (2nd Century) ,JULIAN THE APOSTATE: (332-363 A.D.),CLEMENT OF ROME: (100 A.D.) ,Ignatius of Antioch: (50-107 A.D.) ,QUADRATUS: (125 A.D.) ,EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: (130-38 A.D.),ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.),JUSTIN MARTYR: (106-167 A.D.) ,HEGESIPPUS: (2 Century) ,TRAJAN: (53-117 A.D.) ,MACROBIUS: (4th-5th Century),HADRIAN: (106-167 A.D.),ANTONIUS PIUS: (86 AD to 161 AD) ,HIEROCLES: (AD 284-305), SENECA: (3 B.C.-65 A.D.),JUVENAL: (55 AD-127 AD).....

do you need me to make wuotes of each of them also?????:sniper:

HAHahahhaahaha u called him uneducated and u spelled it wrong :P Haahah i love crap like that :P

[QUOTE=Europa alpha]HAHahahhaahaha u called him uneducated and u spelled it wrong :P Haahah i love crap like that :P[/QUOTE

what ho???? a typo! Thats never happened in the history of writing!! Amazing!

Firstly,
Haven't we already established that the eye-witnesses were dead by the time the Bible was written?
Only by the time the Gospels were written. It's entirely possible for these little letters to have been by the eyewitnesses, though it demands that they are taken as human works.
- Snip -
The entire Bible consists of eyewitness accounts, whether written by the witness himself or by another, especially those events witnessed only by their author, God Almighty.
Luke there seems the only plausible source, since he doesn't claim to be the source he depends on; circular logic prevents the others from being taken seriously, but Luke has a nice angle as the observer rather than the participant. Many atheists claim this to be a disproof; I personally find it more trustworthy than the others as a result.

Anyway, since I can't quite work out whether you're being allegorical with the God Authorship comment, I'll point out that it is futile to attempt to deny human penning of the books, particularly the letters and especially Luke's Gospel. To claim both validity of testimony and divine dictation is a contradictory statement, since you are simultaneously asking us to trust and ignore the personal participation of whoever is writing the book.

Alright, after just reading the first page, it made me mad.... Here ya go... Christianity does not revolve around the bible, it revolves around a specific belief. Oh, and if you are a Christian, carbon dating would have no bases for anything... because, according to carbon dating, the world is millions upon billions of years old. Most Christian groups believe that the world is between 8-10 thousand years old, or maybe 12 thousand years old, basically stating that the Earth is a fairly young planet. NEXT... the bible is mans account of whatever it is he so wanted to write about through God... lets not get into that little part... Now, about it being false, No, if it is written as being true to the writer, then, if the reader believes the writer, then it is true. If you don't believe the writer, then you don't believe... nothing to it. And I read as I type, this crap keeps going on doesn't it.... man you just keep going... but now more... How the hell do you people get all these facts that would only be true if you were there. The only place I can think that all of these... things... would be written down would be in the library that Alexander the Great established, that was burned, or something... main thing is that it was destroyed along with all the information that was in it. God this stuff just keeps on going... you people really have too much time on your hands... So... Oh, and to the Anti-Theist who started this pointless thread, don't be haten just God, become an Athiest, and hate ALL gods. That would make you happier... oh hell I am going to stop reading, I don't think that I can read the remaining 17 pages and keep my sanity... Enjoy this and I'll keep reading and write some more crap that will just get people angry again... *sigh*

I do apologise, it wasnt Written it was Edited.

...Just like every other book?

Seriously, this does "evidence" does not make the Bible a lie, nor does it make it truth.

Fact is, Jesus did exist. Whether or not what he preached, supposedly said/did, and such are ture or false lies entirely in one's faith; The keyword there is one's, mind you. No one has any business presenting their feelings on religion as fact.

Fact is, Jesus did exist. Whether or not what he preached, supposedly said/did, and such are ture or false lies entirely in one's faith; The keyword there is one's, mind you. No one has any business presenting their feelings on religion as fact.
That's not all that lies in one's faith. You presume to know what he meant when he said what he did. Surely, therefore, you also have faith in your own viewpoint on what his actions meant?

Well at least we went from not even believing that he existed to admitting that he did. Were making head way. The rest is just a difference of oppinion

Oh, and if you are a Christian, carbon dating would have no bases for anything...

Carbon dating is not the main source of evidence for Jesus' existence and the Bible's accuracy. Ancient surviving documents are.

In any case, the scientific argument with C-14 is that the proportion of C-14 in the atmosphere has increased, thereby rendering the millions of years dates inaccurate. On shorter timescales, under certain strict conditions, carbon dating MAY have some validity, but even then there have been some serious documented errors (modern paintings dated as 1000 years old, living mollusc found to have been dead for over 5000 years, etc). C-14 should never be used as the only source for any dating.

Anyway, this discussion's off-topic...

What about

1 Peter 5:
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Sufferings of Christ is a figurative term. Just like taking up the cross with Christ is a figurative term


2 Peter 1:
14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Hmm don't know what to say about this one. Seems you have got me here.


1 John 1:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

No one signed the book of John. Not a first person I witness account.


Luke 1:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

heresay


John 21:

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

No one signed the book of John. This is not a first person I witness account.


The entire Bible consists of eyewitness accounts, whether written by the witness himself or by another, especially those events witnessed only by their author, God Almighty.

Seems there must have been a few witnessed by God accounts in the New Testament. Who would have seen Jesus alone? Who would have seen Jesus with only a few companions raise a dead child? There are other parts of the story of Jesus no one could have witnessed. Also to note is the Godley style bye which much if not all the story is told. The story is told as if some god is looking down on earth discribing events. This isn't fist person testamony. First person testamony consists of I seen, I heard, I felt, I tasted, I discovered etc. Notice the story at the end with the empty tomb. May goes in alone but if she had who would have been there to tell the story?

Haven't we already established that the eye-witnesses were dead by the time the Bible was written?

So it's all just lies, lies, lies...including the parts about "love thy neighbor", "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", etc...

It has been established that the eyewitnesses were still alive, at least by reputable historians...

Most errors in people's ideas about the Bible come from unfounded accusations, assumptions and suppositions, not research, as far as I can tell, and the same derogatory statements have been made for thousands of years. The exact same statements, about the eyewitnesses being dead, it's all myths, contradictions abound, etc. have been repeated since the beginning. And everyone thinks that they have come up with something new. NOT.

The Truth will be known, whether in this world or the next.

I hope the best for all.

Fact is, Jesus did exist. Whether or not what he preached, supposedly said/did, and such are ture or false lies entirely in one's faith; The keyword there is one's, mind you. No one has any business presenting their feelings on religion as fact.

Atheists are happy to claim that their feelings on religion are fact. I assume Daein disapproves of that too?

Once you've accepted Jesus' existence, then the various writings - secular and religious - agree at least on the following:

1. Jesus preached. WHAT he preached offended the Jews (and, to a lesser extent, the Romans).

2. Jesus was put to death by the Romans, at the request of the Jews.

3. It was claimed at the time by followers of Jesus that Jesus had risen from the dead.

There is an absence of:

4. Anyone - Jews, Romans, non-believers - ever producing the body and putting a stop to the spread of Christianity.

Then ask the question - did Jesus' followers truly believe thathe had risen from the dead? Could they have stolen the body? If they did, why were they prepared to die for something they knew to be a lie?

The alternative explanations to belief in the resurrection also require faith on the part of the non-believer.

Atheists are happy to claim that their feelings on religion are fact. I assume Daein disapproves of that too?

I deny the Bible mosly on the ECREE principle although I didn't at first. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. The Bible makes many extraordinary claims there is no extraordinary evidence.

snip

Anyone - Jews, Romans, non-believers - ever producing the body and putting a stop to the spread of Christianity.

People can be scammed happens all the time. Kevin Treudo's book is a best seller case in point. Yet it is known that Kevin has been to Jail and has been been fined.

Then ask the question - did Jesus' followers truly believe thathe had risen from the dead? Could they have stolen the body? If they did, why were they prepared to die for something they knew to be a lie?

Lot's of people are willing to die for a lie. Islam is a good example of that.

The alternative explanations to belief in the resurrection also require faith on the part of the non-believer.

I believe in what has worked previusly. I believe in gravity becuase I have never seen it fail. The believe your religion requires is one very different than putting confidince in things that you have not seen fail. The kind of belief your religion requires is a uncritical acceptance.

The Truth will be known, whether in this world or the next.

I hope the best for all.
Thanks; all the best to you too.

But I think, when the Truth is finally made clear, you will be just as surprised as they are...

I deny the Bible mosly on the ECREE principle although I didn't at first. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. The Bible makes many extraordinary claims there is no extraordinary evidence.

There is to me. For instance, I have prayed and seen a friend healed instantly of an illness which had caused her serious problems for over a year by the power of God. In my own life, I have that extraordinary evidence. Granted, that doesn't help other people who have had different experiences. Then again, the Bible does make that clear too - that God meets those who genuinely search, who genuinely seek him, and who are prepared to take a leap of faith.

I have my belief, which is logical based on my experiences. You have yours, which is logical to you based on your experiences of life so far. As a Christian, all I would ask is for you to be open to the possibility that you might see some 'extraordinary evidence' for yourself one day.

People can be scammed happens all the time. Kevin Treudo's book is a best seller case in point. Yet it is known that Kevin has been to Jail and has been been fined.

People CAN be scammed. I agree. Again, would people be willing to die horribly for something they knew to be a scam? Surely not - a scam is designed for personal gain. The apostles did not gain personally out of Christianity and all (except perhaps 1) were put to death as a result.

Lot's of people are willing to die for a lie. Islam is a good example of that.

But suicide bombers genuinely believe that what they are doing - NOT for a lie. They may be misguided, some would argue insane, but they're not liars.

The believe your religion requires is one very different than putting confidince in things that you have not seen fail.

Indeed. In fact, the Bible points this out.

if you assert that someone existed then the onus is on you to provide proof, so far nobody has done so.

So why would you expect proof during Jesus' life? Paper was scarce and few people knew how to write. You're hardly going to find many diary extracts! There was no purpose for followers of Jesus to record his actions until after his death. Therefore you shouldn't expect evidence during Jesus' lifetime, but you should expect evidence soon afterwards.

The Christian movement grew immediately after Jesus' death. Christianity was abhorred both by the Romans and the Jews - wouldn't you expect to find some document doubting Jesus' existence within a couple of hundred years, like I said?

The following sources were written in time periods beginning from just a few years after Jesus' death, and unchallenged.

4 canonical gospels
Mischna
Tacitus
Pliny
Josephus
Other New Testament books
20+ non-canonical gospels

The point is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE DOUBTING THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS EITHER AT THE TIME, OR FOR CENTURIES AFTER. The 'for centuries after' part is important - if there were a massive fraud in circulation, someone would have written against it (especially given that the authorities - Jewish AND Roman - had a vested interest in making the claim that Jesus didn't exist).

There were loads of Roman scholars who have mentioned Jesus in their writings. So saying He didn't exist is lying.

So if Jesus did exist (bear with me :P), and if he did the things written about him, then surely there was something supernatural about him? If all that is written about him (even excluding the bible!) is true, then he really is something amazing...

That's how I see it anyway.

There is to me. For instance, I have prayed and seen a friend healed instantly of an illness which had caused her serious problems for over a year by the power of God. In my own life, I have that extraordinary evidence. Granted, that doesn't help other people who have had different experiences. Then again, the Bible does make that clear too - that God meets those who genuinely search, who genuinely seek him, and who are prepared to take a leap of faith.

I have my belief, which is logical based on my experiences. You have yours,
which is logical to you based on your experiences of life so far. As a Christian, all I would ask is for you to be open to the possibility that you might see some 'extraordinary evidence' for yourself one day.

Unexplained things happen for nearly every religion including healings. There may be mechinisms that bring about these "miracles" that have more to do with whe rituals than with spiritual enities. I myself have experienced the unexplained.

What I see is a lot of is leaps in logic. Some one sees an aperition. They conlude the aperition is is a demon. That person than assumes all the things connected to the conscept of demons also exist. Yet some one else could see the same aperition conclude it was a tree spirit and feel they have proof of the reality of Voo Doo.


People CAN be scammed. I agree. Again, would people be willing to die horribly for something they knew to be a scam? Surely not - a scam is designed for personal gain. The apostles did not gain personally out of Christianity and all (except perhaps 1) were put to death as a result.

I don't believe we have confirmed the existance of the apostles.


But suicide bombers genuinely believe that what they are doing - NOT for a lie. They may be misguided, some would argue insane, but they're not liars.

Couldn't Christians be misguided?



Indeed. In fact, the Bible points this out.

I am a brain hog. I won't share my brain with others. I will think my own thoughts. I do not ( or at least I hope so ) and will not uncriticaly accept anything.

massive snip

The following sources were written in time periods beginning from just a few years after Jesus' death, and unchallenged.

4 canonical gospels
Mischna
Tacitus
Pliny
Josephus
Other New Testament books
20+ non-canonical gospels

The point is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE DOUBTING THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS EITHER AT THE TIME, OR FOR CENTURIES AFTER. The 'for centuries after' part is important - if there were a massive fraud in circulation, someone would have written against it (especially given that the authorities - Jewish AND Roman - had a vested interest in making the claim that Jesus didn't exist).

All have been challenged. There would be no mention of antichrists in the Bible if there was no challenge. There would be no advice in the Bible as to how to deal with challenges if there was no challenge. This passage would not be in the Bible if there was no challenge.

1 Corinthians 1:18-29
18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Couldn't Christians be misguided?


I think his point is that the Apostles knew that what they were dying for was true, where as sucide bombers are not as certian as they have not witnessed it

All have been challenged. There would be no mention of antichrists in the Bible if there was no challenge.

The point was that the EXISTENCE of Jesus wasn't challenged at the time.

The following sources were written in time periods beginning from just a few years after Jesus' death, and unchallenged.

Wrong - *all* of them *are* challenged. Do a quick internet search and find dozens of pages... or just buy the books ;)

<snip>The following sources were written in time periods beginning from just a few years after Jesus' death, and unchallenged.

4 canonical gospels
Mischna
Tacitus
Pliny
Josephus
Other New Testament books
20+ non-canonical gospels<snip>

Not true, there are only five surviving gospels that can be dated to within the first century AD, the four canonical ones and the Copic Gospel of Thomas which was only discovered in complete form in 1945. The Two-Source theory also states that there was a sixth sayings Gospel written about 50-60 AD, but a copy of it has never been found.

The point was that the EXISTENCE of Jesus wasn't challenged at the time.


No one with an ounce of sense questions whether Jesus actually existed, there is enough circumstantial evidence to reasonably conclude that he did.

However, there is nothing to support any such claims to divinity, any miracles, or any supernatural mumbo-jumbo, outside of the Bible.

However, there are texts, and documents, wich point to the alternate, and much more probable, truth.
Some, may even pre-date, or be contemporaries of the New Testament texts.

No one with an ounce of sense questions whether Jesus actually existed, there is enough circumstantial evidence to reasonably conclude that he did.

However, there is nothing to support any such claims to divinity, any miracles, or any supernatural mumbo-jumbo, outside of the Bible.

However, there are texts, and documents, wich point to the alternate, and much more probable, truth.
Some, may even pre-date, or be contemporaries of the New Testament texts.
i never did have any sense

i have come to the conclusion that jesus the son of god existed as a concept well before jesus the son of mary ever did.

that christianity is, in essence, "greek monotheism".

that every personal story about jesus is stolen from some other historical figure mitrha, alexander the great, whoever.

that the theology of christianity has only a passing resemblance to the judaism that it supposedly came from.

judaism is a very much more sophisticated religion than greek polytheism. it has a couple very big problems though, 1) its only for jews and 2) it has way too many rules (especially circumcision which few nonjews were willing to submit to). so no matter how attractive the sophistication was, it needed to be "greekified" in order to spread into the rest of the mediterrranean area.

how else does a strict monotheism like judaism get to be a psuedo monotheism like christianity? they have one god but its really 3 gods but its really one god but it has a father who begot the son but the son existed from the beginning of time but its really only one god. surely only a polytheistic thinker could come up with a monotheism like THAT.

does it REALLY make sense that a god who for thousands of years decreed strict dietary and behavioral laws would suddenly say "PSHYCHE! didnt really mean it!!" and negate them all? doesnt make sense to me that a young rabbi would ever advocate such a thing.

So why would you expect proof during Jesus' life? Paper was scarce and few people knew how to write. You're hardly going to find many diary extracts! There was no purpose for followers of Jesus to record his actions until after his death. Therefore you shouldn't expect evidence during Jesus' lifetime, but you should expect evidence soon afterwards.

Interesting, you effectively admit that there is no contemporary evidence.

[QUOTE=PostEUBritain]The Christian movement grew immediately after Jesus' death. Christianity was abhorred both by the Romans and the Jews - wouldn't you expect to find some document doubting Jesus' existence within a couple of hundred years, like I said?

Friend, please try to remember that there were no speedy forms of communication around at the time, people would have relied on hearsay and gossip for their news.

The following sources were written in time periods beginning from just a few years after Jesus' death, and unchallenged.

[QUOTE]4 canonical gospels

We've already been over this several times, all of them were written after the events, probably after the eye-witnesses were dead.

Mischna

I'm afraid I can't find anything on this 'Mischna' on Wiki or Google except some stuff in German, could I have a link please?

Tacitus

Was writing long after the events and was simply reporting the beliefs of the Christians, not confirming their veracity.

Pliny

Was writing in 112AD about the actions of Christians, how is this proof?

Josephus

Was forged and was written long after the events.

Other New Testament books

Any in particular? Most of the New Testament was written by Paul and he never even met Jesus.

20+ non-canonical gospels

Any in particular? I can't respond if you don't tell me what you're refering to.

The point is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE DOUBTING THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS EITHER AT THE TIME, OR FOR CENTURIES AFTER. The 'for centuries after' part is important - if there were a massive fraud in circulation, someone would have written against it (especially given that the authorities - Jewish AND Roman - had a vested interest in making the claim that Jesus didn't exist).

Bear in mind that while Christians were in power doubting the existance of Jesus would have resulted in being burnt at the stake.

I would suggest 2 things to you.
#1. The fact is not that you dont have proof, but rather you are unwilling to believe it.

Well actually I don't have any evidence, the passage that you gave me is a forgery and most historians would back me on this point.

#2. Instead of making lame uneduacated presupisitions that have no backing other than not wanting to believe that the bible is true, read some historical accounts of writers that were either contemporarries or lived shortly after Chrits death. For example :JOSEPHUS: (37-101 A.D.), TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.) , PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D., BABYLONIAN TALMUD: (Completed in the 6th Century A.D.),LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.),LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.) ,Thallus: (52 A.D.),PHLEGON: (1st Century),SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.) ,CELSUS: (2nd Century) ,JULIAN THE APOSTATE: (332-363 A.D.),CLEMENT OF ROME: (100 A.D.) ,Ignatius of Antioch: (50-107 A.D.) ,QUADRATUS: (125 A.D.) ,EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: (130-38 A.D.),ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.),JUSTIN MARTYR: (106-167 A.D.) ,HEGESIPPUS: (2 Century) ,TRAJAN: (53-117 A.D.) ,MACROBIUS: (4th-5th Century),HADRIAN: (106-167 A.D.),ANTONIUS PIUS: (86 AD to 161 AD) ,HIEROCLES: (AD 284-305), SENECA: (3 B.C.-65 A.D.),JUVENAL: (55 AD-127 AD).....

Friend you really don't seem to understand the meaning of contemporary, it means "written at the time". One of the sources you refered to was finished in the sixth century! In fact the only name that you offer who was even alive at the time of Jesus's life is Seneca.

do you need me to make wuotes of each of them also?????:sniper:

Make wuotes of them? Isn't that illegal under the bestiality act? But if you have time I would like to see this Senaca source.

Firstly,

Only by the time the Gospels were written. It's entirely possible for these little letters to have been by the eyewitnesses, though it demands that they are taken as human works.


Agreed. However, that is purely speculation. I've never claimed that Jesus definitely didn't exist, merely that it can't be proved so he might not have done.

[QUOTE=PostEUBritain]So why would you expect proof during Jesus' life? Paper was scarce and few people knew how to write. You're hardly going to find many diary extracts! There was no purpose for followers of Jesus to record his actions until after his death. Therefore you shouldn't expect evidence during Jesus' lifetime, but you should expect evidence soon afterwards.

the lack of evidence doesnt PROVE that jesus didnt exist. it just shows that there is room for doubt and that one might want to look for other evidence that points one way or the other.

the part where the details of jesus's life are bullshit is interesting to me. if he existed, why did they have to make up stuff like the details of his conception and birth? and if they made up part (which they obviously did) how can you trust ANY of the other details?

personally, i think that the romans taking no notice of the pain-in-the-ass preacher that they crucified coming back from the dead is powerful evidence that it didnt happen. not that its PROOF, just that it makes one doubt the story.

...Just like every other book?

Seriously, this does "evidence" does not make the Bible a lie, nor does it make it truth.

Fact is, Jesus did exist. Whether or not what he preached, supposedly said/did, and such are ture or false lies entirely in one's faith; The keyword there is one's, mind you. No one has any business presenting their feelings on religion as fact.

I'm afraid you are presenting your feelings as fact here.

Jesus might have existed, he might not have done, anyone who claims to know for a fact one way or another is either presenting their personal feelings as fact or has access to historical documents that nobody else has ever seen.

Well at least we went from not even believing that he existed to admitting that he did. Were making head way. The rest is just a difference of oppinion

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the debate where you presented some new proof instead of petty abuse.

So it's all just lies, lies, lies...including the parts about "love thy neighbor", "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", etc...

That tactic is childish and beneath you friend, the issue here is not whether or not "love thy neighbour" is a good guiding principle but rather if the guy who is reputed to have said that can be proved to exist.

It has been established that the eyewitnesses were still alive, at least by reputable historians...

Really? I'd be intrigued to see that proof, I'd always thought that it was solely Christian tradition.

Most errors in people's ideas about the Bible come from unfounded accusations, assumptions and suppositions, not research, as far as I can tell, and the same derogatory statements have been made for thousands of years. The exact same statements, about the eyewitnesses being dead, it's all myths, contradictions abound, etc. have been repeated since the beginning. And everyone thinks that they have come up with something new. NOT.

Funny, that's exactly what I think every time somebody drags up the forged Josephus passage yet again and thinks they've won the debate single handed. If you could link me to the proof that the eyewitnesses were alive at the time of writing I would be indebted to you.

The Truth will be known, whether in this world or the next.

I hope the best for all.

And all the best to you too friend.

Atheists are happy to claim that their feelings on religion are fact. I assume Daein disapproves of that too?

Once you've accepted Jesus' existence, then the various writings - secular and religious - agree at least on the following:

1. Jesus preached. WHAT he preached offended the Jews (and, to a lesser extent, the Romans).

2. Jesus was put to death by the Romans, at the request of the Jews.

3. It was claimed at the time by followers of Jesus that Jesus had risen from the dead.

It would be more accurate to say that "Christians at the time beleived that what Jesus preached offended the Jews and he was put to death", this would be supported by Tacitus and to a lesser extent by Pliny.

And you hit the nail on the head when you said "Once you've accepted Jesus' existance", his existance can't be proved, it can only be accepted.

There is an absence of:

4. Anyone - Jews, Romans, non-believers - ever producing the body and putting a stop to the spread of Christianity.

This made me chuckle, the whole point is that he might not have existed, producing the body of a non-existant man would be a miracle in itself.

Then ask the question - did Jesus' followers truly believe thathe had risen from the dead? Could they have stolen the body? If they did, why were they prepared to die for something they knew to be a lie?

Many of the matyrdoms aren't recorded historically, it is simply Christian tradition. Even if they did occur then there are many possible explanations.

The alternative explanations to belief in the resurrection also require faith on the part of the non-believer.

Only if Jesus can be shown to have existed...

There were loads of Roman scholars who have mentioned Jesus in their writings. So saying He didn't exist is lying.

So if Jesus did exist (bear with me :P), and if he did the things written about him, then surely there was something supernatural about him? If all that is written about him (even excluding the bible!) is true, then he really is something amazing...

That's how I see it anyway.

There were several Roman scholars who mentioned him in their work. All of them lived and wrote long after the events, and often they were simply reporting the actions and beliefs of the Christians in Rome.

i never did have any sense

i have come to the conclusion that jesus the son of god existed as a concept well before jesus the son of mary ever did.

that christianity is, in essence, "greek monotheism".

that every personal story about jesus is stolen from some other historical figure mitrha, alexander the great, whoever.

that the theology of christianity has only a passing resemblance to the judaism that it supposedly came from.

judaism is a very much more sophisticated religion than greek polytheism. it has a couple very big problems though, 1) its only for jews and 2) it has way too many rules (especially circumcision which few nonjews were willing to submit to). so no matter how attractive the sophistication was, it needed to be "greekified" in order to spread into the rest of the mediterrranean area.

how else does a strict monotheism like judaism get to be a psuedo monotheism like christianity? they have one god but its really 3 gods but its really one god but it has a father who begot the son but the son existed from the beginning of time but its really only one god. surely only a polytheistic thinker could come up with a monotheism like THAT.

does it REALLY make sense that a god who for thousands of years decreed strict dietary and behavioral laws would suddenly say "PSHYCHE! didnt really mean it!!" and negate them all? doesnt make sense to me that a young rabbi would ever advocate such a thing.

I think I remember you posting a link on the topic, do you still have it? I read part of it and it was extremely interesting.

I think I remember you posting a link on the topic, do you still have it? I read part of it and it was extremely interesting.
my computer crashed and i lost everything. grrrrr.

if you look up the "did jesus exist" thread, i think it was candelar (i dont think i spelled it right) who posted the link originally. it was in the first couple of pages anyway.

that link changed my whole thought on christianity. it used to bother me that some was made up and some wasnt. now that i know it was ALL made up whole cloth, i feel much better about the common practice of picking and choosing what to believe. since there was no real jesus to learn from, all theology that leads to the idea of a benevolent god is pretty much equal. and it is all allegory.

the earlier the christian writing the fewer details there are about the life of jesus. the earliest focus only on his divinity and not at all on his humanity. even peter, who was supposed to be best buds with jesus, and james, his brother, never toss in interesting anecdotes about what it was like to hang out with god. weird.

my computer crashed and i lost everything. grrrrr.

if you look up the "did jesus exist" thread, i think it was candelar (i dont think i spelled it right) who posted the link originally. it was in the first couple of pages anyway.

that link changed my whole thought on christianity. it used to bother me that some was made up and some wasnt. now that i know it was ALL made up whole cloth, i feel much better about the common practice of picking and choosing what to believe. since there was no real jesus to learn from, all theology that leads to the idea of a benevolent god is pretty much equal. and it is all allegory.

the earlier the christian writing the fewer details there are about the life of jesus. the earliest focus only on his divinity and not at all on his humanity. even peter, who was supposed to be best buds with jesus, and james, his brother, never toss in interesting anecdotes about what it was like to hang out with god. weird.

Is this the link (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm)?

I read part of it and I really need to find the time to read the rest, I haven't read anything so thought-provoking for a long time.

Is this the link (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm)?

I read part of it and I really need to find the time to read the rest, I haven't read anything so thought-provoking for a long time.

yes thats it. i clicked on the "puzzle of jesus" link. there are lots more sites like this to be found if you put "did jesus exist" into google.

i never did have any sense

i have come to the conclusion that jesus the son of god existed as a concept well before jesus the son of mary ever did.

Well, As I said, theres plenty of circumstantial evidence, from various sources, to make me believe, that a man, named "yashweh' (or however the Aramiac spelling) was born, lived, and was sentenced to death, by his own people, and executed, by the Roman govenor, Pontias Pilate.

However, any attributation of miracles, divinity, and ressurection, are entirely fabrication, and the equivalent of legend, and folklore....much like Dracula.

that christianity is, in essence, "greek monotheism".

To be sure.
Christianity has undergone many facelifts, to make it easier for tribal polytheist types to accept.
This is why we decorate trees to celebrate the birth of the Messiah, (even though everyone knows Dec 25 ISNT his Birthday)
Or paint eggs during Easter....etc.

Since Greece was polytheistic, it had to be altered to suit.'
Thus, we have a "pantheon", so to speak, with Mary (mom), God, Jesus, and his Disciples.
Catholics pray to the Saints, much in the same way ancient Greeks might pray to Nike, the Goddess of Victory, even though she wasnt a major god, and likely had few temples, or shrines.

that every personal story about jesus is stolen from some other historical figure mitrha, alexander the great, whoever.

Jesus was a street preacher, and a philospher.
The story of "The Sermon on the Mount"....that probably happened.
He probably gave a particularly moving speech, and attracted a few regular listeners, unlike many similar street preachers of the time.
In a few years, he probably attracted several hundred fans, and followers, and his radical ideas, likely started to worry local athorities, who had enough problems suppressing uprisings, and had him executed for rabble-rousing.

The mythos of his miracles, and ressurection, were added about 60-70 years after he died.

that the theology of christianity has only a passing resemblance to the judaism that it supposedly came from.

Well, it bears enough similarity, that the God in the OT, is referenced as the very same one, in the NT.



how else does a strict monotheism like judaism get to be a psuedo monotheism like christianity? they have one god but its really 3 gods but its really one god but it has a father who begot the son but the son existed from the beginning of time but its really only one god. surely only a polytheistic thinker could come up with a monotheism like THAT.

Agreed.

does it REALLY make sense that a god who for thousands of years decreed strict dietary and behavioral laws would suddenly say "PSHYCHE! didnt really mean it!!" and negate them all? doesnt make sense to me that a young rabbi would ever advocate such a thing.

Thats what cult leaders do.

Well, As I said, theres plenty of circumstantial evidence, from various sources, to make me believe, that a man, named "yashweh' (or however the Aramiac spelling) was born, lived, and was sentenced to death, by his own people, and executed, by the Roman govenor, Pontias Pilate.

I believe it was 'Yeshuah' but don't quote me on that.

Well, As I said, theres plenty of circumstantial evidence, from various sources, to make me believe, that a man, named "yashweh' (or however the Aramiac spelling) was born, lived, and was sentenced to death, by his own people, and executed, by the Roman govenor, Pontias Pilate.

what circumstantial evidence is that? the only thing that really strikes ME as evidence is "why would anyone making up a religion have their "god" suffer crucifixion"? crucifixion was the execution suffered by the lowest most scummiest people. not a good advertisement for a new cult.

i was skimming through the non-pauline epistles yesterday (i have a hard time understanding paul but he never met jesus anyway)

i was looking for references to the life and ministry of jesus.

there werent any. not by peter, best friend of jesus, or james, brother of jesus, jude whoever he was, or john which while really good stuff is way too mystical to fall to the level of real life. (not that im sure i didnt miss something, i really was only skimming)

the closest thing to a reference to the life of jesus is a passage in 2nd peter that says he was on the mount when the sky opened up and god declared that jesus was his son. (or whatever he said, you remember the episode im sure)

on checking the introduction, i found out that 2peter was not accepted by many of the early church founders and that its extremely doubtful that it was actually written by peter. this was on the official catholic site, not some atheistic diatribe.

i find the whole thing quite curious

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
"False"..?

What does "false" mean in this context?

As an aside, atheists, with a couple of (aka 2) exceptions, are unjustifiably
self righteous assholes,.. but that's assumed, so it's really not an issue in this
discussion and I'm sorry I brought it up.

So,.. back to the question at hand,.. "false"..?

-Iakeo

It was
A. Written by people who never met jesus and half who never met his apostles.
B. Seriously revised and rewritten by the Pagan Roman Emperors to help Pagans become more happy with the transition into christianity, the Virgin birth was taken from a Celtic god.

A. So what? How does this "falsify" what the work(s) said?

B. Again, so what? If these texts have no meaning to you as they are,
regardless of their "history", then why do you even concern yourself with
them?

Why do you care?


-Iakeo

A. So what? How does this "falsify" what the work(s) said?

Well if a piece of evidence says 'Jesus existed' but the author never met Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus then it's not reliable evidence.

B. Again, so what? If these texts have no meaning to you as they are,
regardless of their "history", then why do you even concern yourself with
them?

Why do you care?

Well I can't speak for the person you replied to but I just enjoy debating, especially controversial points. I also believe that debating is a great way to find better understanding of your views and opinions and to revise them if they turn out to be wrong.

Im Jesus, Im dying
I am nailed to a cross
Im Jesus, Im dying
The punctures are kililng me
Im Jesus, Im dying
This really hurts
Im Jesus, Im dying
The Jews didn't do anything, the Romans did

I have this crown of thorns,
There and they make me wear it.
And I say "ouch" but I know I'm coming back
Except, really, not.

Well if a piece of evidence says 'Jesus existed' but the author never met Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus then it's not reliable evidence.
What you refer to is 'witness testamony'. It may be reliable even if not first-hand knowledge.

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
A. So what? How does this "falsify" what the work(s) said?

Well if a piece of evidence says 'Jesus existed' but the author never met Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus then it's not reliable evidence.

Evidence of WHAT..?

If the concern is for the "existence of Jesus" then you're correct.

If the concern is anything otherwise (such as the usefulness/etc of
the "work") then is the "work" falsifiable?

My contention is no, it's not. Many people "throw out the baby" with
the "bathwater" of current/past "proof" that there is or is not documentary
evidence of this-and-such supposed fact.

Do I need a piece of Noah's big boat to find the story useful, or entertaining?

No.



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
B. Again, so what? If these texts have no meaning to you as they are,
regardless of their "history", then why do you even concern yourself with
them?

Why do you care?

Well I can't speak for the person you replied to but I just enjoy debating, especially controversial points. I also believe that debating is a great way to find better understanding of your views and opinions and to revise them if they turn out to be wrong.

Good for you. Me too. It's the way humans do things, actually.

Humans talk.

Boars snort.

Talk good, snort bad. Unless you're a boar, in which case it's appropriate.

-Iakeo :)

Im Jesus, Im dying
I am nailed to a cross
Im Jesus, Im dying
The punctures are kililng me
Im Jesus, Im dying
This really hurts
Im Jesus, Im dying
The Jews didn't do anything, the Romans did

I have this crown of thorns,
There and they make me wear it.
And I say "ouch" but I know I'm coming back
Except, really, not.

Is that Jesus Gonzalvez..!!

I knew that guy..!!

He REALLY didn't like that crown-thing....

-Iakeo

Is that Jesus Gonzalvez..!!

I knew that guy..!!

He REALLY didn't like that crown-thing....

-Iakeo

Right, in the bible (IM NOT ANTI-SEMETIC!!!)
It says that the Jews chose Barabas a Serial Killer over Jesus.
Ergo they are in theory in the wrong.
But the romans chastised him, so they are also in the wrong.
So are Women,Eygyptians,Zoroastrians,Easterners,Kings,Princes,Lords,Judas,Men and some chap jesus bumped into called Bernard.

I am not suggesting that anybody do this, but I have never yet run across many threads criticizing major religions of the world other than Christianity. Why are atheists always in opposition of Christianity? Nobody is out there saying that Islam, Judiasm, or Hinduism are worthless and wrong. Why is everyone always going after Christianity? Just leave it all alone, no one will change their opinions based on some pontification on the internet.

I am not suggesting that anybody do this, but I have never yet run across many threads criticizing major religions of the world other than Christianity. Why are atheists always in opposition of Christianity? Nobody is out there saying that Islam, Judiasm, or Hinduism are worthless and wrong. Why is everyone always going after Christianity? Just leave it all alone, no one will change their opinions based on some pontification on the internet.

(sighs)
Because Christianity is the Front Runner.
Ever played SenateSeeker?
You ALWAYS attack the guy in the lead!
Then when hes down you prey on the New guy in the lead until YOUR first and everyone attacks you!
The best policy is to be Second right up until the last minute.

I am not suggesting that anybody do this, but I have never yet run across many threads criticizing major religions of the world other than Christianity. Why are atheists always in opposition of Christianity? Nobody is out there saying that Islam, Judiasm, or Hinduism are worthless and wrong. Why is everyone always going after Christianity? Just leave it all alone, no one will change their opinions based on some pontification on the internet.

1. There are plenty of Christians to debate with on the board but very few people from other religions.
2. I for one wouldn't know where to start debating Islamic or Hindu theology whereas I know a reasonable ammount about Christian theology.

What you refer to is 'witness testamony'. It may be reliable even if not first-hand knowledge.

'May' being the operative word. If you've ever played Chinese Whispers you'll know how quickly a story can change, I remember one particuarly memorable game which started with a comment about dinner and finished by questioning the sexual preferences of the teacher.

So yes, it could be reliable but we have no way of telling and the more people there are between the eye-witness and the recorder the less it can be relied upon as evidence.

Evidence of WHAT..?

If the concern is for the "existence of Jesus" then you're correct.

If the concern is anything otherwise (such as the usefulness/etc of
the "work") then is the "work" falsifiable?

My contention is no, it's not. Many people "throw out the baby" with
the "bathwater" of current/past "proof" that there is or is not documentary
evidence of this-and-such supposed fact.

Do I need a piece of Noah's big boat to find the story useful, or entertaining?

No.

It would seem that I misinterpretted your post and I apologise.:)

Good for you. Me too. It's the way humans do things, actually.

Humans talk.

Boars snort.

Talk good, snort bad. Unless you're a boar, in which case it's appropriate.

-Iakeo :)

*nods sagely*

I am not suggesting that anybody do this, but I have never yet run across many threads criticizing major religions of the world other than Christianity. Why are atheists always in opposition of Christianity? Nobody is out there saying that Islam, Judiasm, or Hinduism are worthless and wrong. Why is everyone always going after Christianity? Just leave it all alone, no one will change their opinions based on some pontification on the internet.

I say it all the time, theyre all wrong. I quite like buddhism though. If it wasnt for the reincarnation thing I could be a buddhist.

No one is trying to change anyones opinion, opinions rarely change, people just like to feel smug and share the correct view with everyone and then sit back and laugh when all the people who disagree are still stupid.

I am not suggesting that anybody do this, but I have never yet run across many threads criticizing major religions of the world other than Christianity. Why are atheists always in opposition of Christianity? Nobody is out there saying that Islam, Judiasm, or Hinduism are worthless and wrong. Why is everyone always going after Christianity? Just leave it all alone, no one will change their opinions based on some pontification on the internet.

Islam and Judaism get *plenty* of negative feedback. I assume Hinduism gets less because most people debating here do not know much about it or are not confronted with it often. And since the Christian faith is by far the biggest of all - especially in the regions where most posters live - it makes sense it is most often the main target. It is most present.

'May' being the operative word. If you've ever played Chinese Whispers you'll know how quickly a story can change, I remember one particuarly memorable game which started with a comment about dinner and finished by questioning the sexual preferences of the teacher.

So yes, it could be reliable but we have no way of telling and the more people there are between the eye-witness and the recorder the less it can be relied upon as evidence.
My point was that it is not necessarily unreliable just because it is witness testamony.
Edit: ...that is not first-hand.

I am not suggesting that anybody do this, but I have never yet run across many threads criticizing major religions of the world other than Christianity. Why are atheists always in opposition of Christianity? Nobody is out there saying that Islam, Judiasm, or Hinduism are worthless and wrong. Why is everyone always going after Christianity? Just leave it all alone, no one will change their opinions based on some pontification on the internet.
islam, judaism, hinduism, buddhism, wicca, confucianism, taoism and shinto are all wrong also

do you feel better now?

My point was that it is not necessarily unreliable just because it is witness testamony.
Edit: ...that is not first-hand.
true

but all non-first hand testimony needs to be carefully considered before it is believed. thats why "hearsay" isnt admissible in american courts.

islam, judaism, hinduism, buddhism, wicca, confucianism, taoism and shinto are all wrong also

do you feel better now?
Do you believe that?

Is there some particular problem you have with Buddhist philosophy?
Does the Hindu Caste system completely deny any theological value it might have?
Why is personifying the forces of nature such a bad thing?

What you refer to is 'witness testamony'. It may be reliable even if not first-hand knowledge.


Sadly none of the biblical texts qualify as anything similar to "witness" testimony.
The EARLIEST any of the texts of the new testament MAY have been written is anywhere from 60-200 years fter Jesus death.
This means that no one was alive who saw anything, when these books were recorded.

"Mark", or "Luke" etc...werent around when these books were written.

Therefore, anything in them,...are conjecture, and hearsay.

Do you believe that?

Is there some particular problem you have with Buddhist philosophy?
Does the Hindu Caste system completely deny any theological value it might have?
Why is personifying the forces of nature such a bad thing?


islam, judaism, hinduism, buddhism, wicca, confucianism, taoism and shinto are all wrong also

There is truth and misinfirmation in all those religions including Christianity.

But I'm with Ashmoria here. In similar fahion to Christianity not being perfect all those other religions are in error as well.

Just that I know of no one in america who is trying make legislation out of the ideals of any religion other than Christianity.

Do you believe that?

Is there some particular problem you have with Buddhist philosophy?
Does the Hindu Caste system completely deny any theological value it might have?
Why is personifying the forces of nature such a bad thing?
yes i do believe that, im a freaking atheist!

why would someone else's beliefs be more correct about the supernatural than a christians??

some indian prince leaves the house, finds out that massive numbers of indians live in utter misery and squalor, meditates for 30 years and comes up with the notion that the only way to deal with it is not to care. oh let me sign up for that!

the hindus believe that the misery you suffer today is the result of something some dead guy did. you had the misfortune to "inherit" his karma so you are screwed. oh let me sign up for that.

ya ya rocks and trees have spirits. dont even bother...

did i mention im an atheist?

There is truth and misinfirmation in all those religions including Christianity.

But I'm with Ashmoria here. In similar fahion to Christianity not being perfect all those other religions are in error as well.

Just that I know of no one in amercica is trying make legislation out of the ideals of any religion other than Christianity.
exactly.

there is great beauty and deep philosophy in all religions. you can benefit from the study of them all

but none of them are "true" and none of them should be the basis for law. its just that in a majority christian country you come to know much more about christianity than other religions. if this were india, we would be discussing the history and veracity of the vedas.

exactly.

there is great beauty and deep philosophy in all religions. you can benefit from the study of them all

but none of them are "true" and none of them should be the basis for law. its just that in a majority christian country you come to know much more about christianity than other religions. if this were india, we would be discussing the history and veracity of the vedas.

Benefit from religion.
(twitches) i think i smiled for the first time in years.
to quote the simpsons "Once you use the seeds you dont keep the packet!"

Religion brought us Healthcare, Propoganda (It IS A GOOD THING TO SAY SO IS UNPATRIOTIC.) Morals and Education.
Now all it gives us is people talking in loud voices and banning fun things.
Like Sex before marriage and gay sex.
and other types of sex.
and sexual contraception.
If the pope TRIED this stuff hed changed his posistion completely :p

yes i do believe that, im a freaking atheist!

why would someone else's beliefs be more correct about the supernatural than a christians??

...

did i mention im an atheist?
You did. And, truthfully, I have trouble believing you. Your notions of other faiths are so ridiculously stereotypical that you can't have given them any real thought. It seems like you made your mind up about Christianity then simply said "Yeah, I don't believe in God". Which's silly; it implies you believe Christians when they say "Ours is the One True God".

There is truth and misinfirmation in all those religions including Christianity.

But I'm with Ashmoria here. In similar fahion to Christianity not being perfect all those other religions are in error as well.
I'm not saying they're perfect. Any idea will be wrong if that's your criteria; for instance, I could say Atheism to be wrong for being incapable of taking myths at anything other than face value.

While I can't group them all together, I've found many of them (ignoring Islam/Judaism) to be refreshingly different in their approaches. The fashion in which they're not perfect is almost always completely different to the ways in which the monotheistic religions that dominate our society are flawed. Worth at least a look, I reckon.

Sadly none of the biblical texts qualify as anything similar to "witness" testimony.
The EARLIEST any of the texts of the new testament MAY have been written is anywhere from 60-200 years fter Jesus death.
This means that no one was alive who saw anything, when these books were recorded.

"Mark", or "Luke" etc...werent around when these books were written.

Therefore, anything in them,...are conjecture, and hearsay.

I think you are exhagerating slighty. The four gospels (which are the ones which assert the existance of Jesus of Nazereth) are usually dated as being written late in the first century with the exception of John which was written long after the others. Usually the latest dating for the synoptic gospels is a bit after 100AD.

I find it so funny that people site the 200 years later with no first hand knowledge thing as an excuse, but neglect to mention all the other historical records that are written in excess of 500 years after events and they are taken as fact with little to no verification.
Besides, that 200 year date is so inflated. Most of the New Testament written in enough time for a secretary to write down the first hand accounts of people that were still alive, though aged. And don't forget the Old Testament, which was written at least 500 years before the birth of Christ, all with prophecies there fullfilled by Christ, most of which being first hand accounts. Just because the Bible was "compiled and cannoned" over 200 years after Christ's birth doesn't mean it was "written" 200 years after Christ's birth.

[QUOTE=Europa alpha]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.QUOTE]

I find it so funny that people site the 200 years later with no first hand knowledge thing as an excuse, but neglect to mention all the other historical records that are written in excess of 500 years after events and they are taken as fact with little to no verification.
Besides, that 200 year date is so inflated. Most of the New Testament written in enough time for a secretary to write down the first hand accounts of people that were still alive, though aged. And don't forget the Old Testament, which was written at least 500 years before the birth of Christ, all with prophecies there fullfilled by Christ, most of which being first hand accounts. Just because the Bible was "compiled and cannoned" over 200 years after Christ's birth doesn't mean it was "written" 200 years after Christ's birth.

The person who quoted 200 years was exhagerating but then again so are you. The very earliest estimate for the first Synoptic Gospel (Mark) is 67 AD, 37 years after the Ressurection at a time when the average life expectancy was 25 years. Sounds like a fairly slow secretary to me, also sounds like most, if not all, of the eyewitnesses would have been dead.

Please could you give me an example of a text written over 500 years after an event and is accepted as truth without any verification.

And the Old Testament prophecies are irrelevant in proving whether or not Jesus existed.

Jewish Mischna
Tacitus
Pliny

Did you miss the word 'contemporary'?

And the Old Testament prophecies are irrelevant in proving whether or not Jesus existed.

Not only are Old Testament prophecies irrelevant they are completely non-existent. There is not a single legitimate one. In fact I've considered opening a post like The Hunt for a Legitimate Jesus Prophecy.

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.

While i can't be bothered joining in this debate about the veracity of the Bible, i will say the first source to mention Jesus outside of the Bible was Josephus, who was about - i believe - 150 years after his death.

I think you are exhagerating slighty. The four gospels (which are the ones which assert the existance of Jesus of Nazereth) are usually dated as being written late in the first century with the exception of John which was written long after the others. Usually the latest dating for the synoptic gospels is a bit after 100AD.


Actually, it seems some of them were a bit earlier than 100 a.d.
Possibly, as early as 60 a.d.
However, this was thirty years after Jesus' death, and likely, well after any of the actual eye witnesses, particularly, the disciples' deaths.

This means that the "eye witness testimony" was probably, second, or even third hand information, when first written.
Now, keep in mind, that if it was indeed, towards the very end of the first century A.D, this makes it now fourth, or even fifth hand information.

No information that is passed down like this, can hope to be accurate whatsoever.

The earliest text, may well be the Gospel of Thomas, wich many scholars agree to have been written @40 A.D.
In it, are 114 sayings of Jesus.
None of them mention divinty, miracles, or ressurection.

Therefore, I believe, that the miracles and divinity, and supposed ressurection, were added approximately 100 ad, and completely fabricated, to be easier for pagan faiths to adopt, since it so resembles other pagan faiths.

In short, they may have been invented, by the leaders of a growing church, to gain further converts, in other lands, especially Greece.

Actually, it seems some of them were a bit earlier than 100 a.d.
Possibly, as early as 60 a.d.
However, this was thirty years after Jesus' death, and likely, well after any of the actual eye witnesses, particularly, the disciples' deaths.

This means that the "eye witness testimony" was probably, second, or even third hand information, when first written.
Now, keep in mind, that if it was indeed, towards the very end of the first century A.D, this makes it now fourth, or even fifth hand information.

No information that is passed down like this, can hope to be accurate whatsoever.

The earliest text, may well be the Gospel of Thomas, wich many scholars agree to have been written @40 A.D.
In it, are 114 sayings of Jesus.
None of them mention divinty, miracles, or ressurection.

Therefore, I believe, that the miracles and divinity, and supposed ressurection, were added approximately 100 ad, and completely fabricated, to be easier for pagan faiths to adopt, since it so resembles other pagan faiths.

In short, they may have been invented, by the leaders of a growing church, to gain further converts, in other lands, especially Greece.

Another interesting point is that the Gospel of Thomas refers to Jesus as 'teacher' or 'Rabbi', never as 'Lord' or 'Messiah'.

Did you miss the word 'contemporary'?

You should have been here earlier, one guy refered to a document written in the sixth century.

You did. And, truthfully, I have trouble believing you. Your notions of other faiths are so ridiculously stereotypical that you can't have given them any real thought. It seems like you made your mind up about Christianity then simply said "Yeah, I don't believe in God". Which's silly; it implies you believe Christians when they say "Ours is the One True God".


I'm not saying they're perfect. Any idea will be wrong if that's your criteria; for instance, I could say Atheism to be wrong for being incapable of taking myths at anything other than face value.

While I can't group them all together, I've found many of them (ignoring Islam/Judaism) to be refreshingly different in their approaches. The fashion in which they're not perfect is almost always completely different to the ways in which the monotheistic religions that dominate our society are flawed. Worth at least a look, I reckon.
sorry bout the slow response, i had a busy evening.

what is the point of a religion?

religion explains the unexplainable. where were we before we were born? what happens to us after we die? where did the earth come from? why does life suck so much? why do bad things happen to good people?

its not about "life style" its about basic belief about the way the universe is run. a religious person believes in unseen actions in the universe. they believe that there are forces that are beyond science that run the universe.

christianity/islam/judaism say its one big bad god who you better pay attention to or else.

buddhism/hinduism have many versions of gods and movers in the unseen world. they believe that when you die you will be reincarnated over and over again, each new life dependant on what you did in your past lives. (giving them an excuse for why YOUR life sucks and theirs doesnt eh?)

shinto believes that there are "spirits" everywhere and in everything.

no need to go on and on.

the point is, that while its interesting to study different approaches to life and the unknown/unknowable, none of it is TRUE. there is no "GOD" there is no reincarnation, there are no spirits, elves, fairies. if i dont put food on my ancestral tombs on new years, im not in big trouble with the ghosts of my ancestors, they are DEAD.

so, unless i look really good in saffron robes, why would i become a hindu? why become a buddhist if i dont think ill ever attain nirvana? (besides that im not interested in detachment) why should i pretend that i believe that the big rock has some kind of spirit life? im not the type of person who pretends. if its not true, i dont believe in it.

Another interesting point is that the Gospel of Thomas refers to Jesus as 'teacher' or 'Rabbi', never as 'Lord' or 'Messiah'.


Very true.
In fact, the closest thing it DOES mention, is Jesus instructing his followers to "Heal the sick".
Now some whackos, like to say this means Jesus is instructing his followers to go out and perform miracles.
Howevr, this would be another attempt to assign a divine meaning, where non exists.
Jesus simply meant heal the sick....as anyone taking care of a sick person would.

No more, and certainly no less important, than big fat, meaningless "miracles".

You should have been here earlier, one guy refered to a document written in the sixth century.

I guess that's what you have to do, when real evidence is so sparse...

religion explains the unexplainable. where were we before we were born? what happens to us after we die? where did the earth come from? why does life suck so much? why do bad things happen to good people?
Religions purports to explain these things, but doesn't actually do so; just as Santa Claus purports to explain the appearence of Christimas presents, but doesn't actually do so.

We grow out of Santa Claus, and it's time we grew out of religion. We don't have genuine answers to all the questions religion claims to answer (although we have far more now than we used to), but a mature mind ought to be able to come to terms with the fact that there are some things we don't know (at least yet). If, on Christimas Day, there's a present under the tree with no label saying who it's from, no adult would assume that it must be from Santa - he'd make enquiries, but may have to face the fact that he'll never know who the giver was. The same is true of unanswered questions about life and the universe : we can enquire into them, but if we don't have answers, it is still a fallacy to fill the gaps with an unproven god.

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 if they don't think it's a big deal then they wouldn't would they? Think about it this way.... if you had just had a baby, I'm sure you wouldn't want to keep the good news for yourself would you.

So, in the same way, Christians are spreading news which they believe is good and you need to hear it.

[QUOTE=Candelar]
We grow out of Santa ClausQUOTE]

:S what are you saying :(

But seriously, there is no way we will grow out of religion. That suggestion is completely ludicrous my friend. Everyday things happen which we cannot explain using science or rationalisation. Religion will ALWAYS be a big influence on people's lives.

The first post alone just makes me mentally go "ouch". I think might bleed from my ears if I read this whole thread, so I won't.

No more, and certainly no less important, than big fat, meaningless "miracles".
I had an interesting thought the other day. See what you guys think:

According to my understanding of the term, a miracle is an event that is inexplicable by the laws of nature and is therefore attributed to some supernatural origin (often an act of God). This, to me, seems to present a serious problem for anyone who claims to have observed a miracle, because for it to be a miracle they must prove that it is inexplicable by the laws of nature. This means they must prove not only that there is no currect knowledge that explains the event, but they also must prove that there will NEVER be knowledge of natural laws that can explain the event.

In other words, they must be proving a negative (that there is not, and will never be, a natural explanation for the "miracle").

By this train of thought, there cannot be miracles. Or, alternatively, we must accept that the term "miracle" refers only to "those things which our current knowledge cannot explain in terms of natural law." That seems a bit lame...I mean, basically you are saying that whatever you can't understand must be an act of God, and that seems like a profoundly primitive way of thinking.

Of course, this kind of thinking would probably explain a lot of the knowledge-phobia that is prevalent today. If acts of God are defined as all those things which humans cannot explain, then science and research are reducing God's power with every passing day! If we remain ignorant then we will be surrounded by "evidence" of God's power, but if we begin to understand the world around us then we will be forced to reduce the number of things that are attributed to God's power. God becomes progressively less and less impressive, and less and less necessary as time goes on.

I'm probably thinking in circles by now, so I'll stop. But maybe y'all see where I am going with this...?

I had an interesting thought the other day. See what you guys think:

According to my understanding of the term, a miracle is an event that is inexplicable by the laws of nature and is therefore attributed to some supernatural origin (often an act of God). This, to me, seems to present a serious problem for anyone who claims to have observed a miracle, because for it to be a miracle they must prove that it is inexplicable by the laws of nature. This means they must prove not only that there is no currect knowledge that explains the event, but they also must prove that there will NEVER be knowledge of natural laws that can explain the event.

In other words, they must be proving a negative (that there is not, and will never be, a natural explanation for the "miracle").

By this train of thought, there cannot be miracles. Or, alternatively, we must accept that the term "miracle" refers only to "those things which our current knowledge cannot explain in terms of natural law." That seems a bit lame...I mean, basically you are saying that whatever you can't understand must be an act of God, and that seems like a profoundly primitive way of thinking.

Of course, this kind of thinking would probably explain a lot of the knowledge-phobia that is prevalent today. If acts of God are defined as all those things which humans cannot explain, then science and research are reducing God's power with every passing day! If we remain ignorant then we will be surrounded by "evidence" of God's power, but if we begin to understand the world around us then we will be forced to reduce the number of things that are attributed to God's power. God becomes progressively less and less impressive, and less and less necessary as time goes on.

I'm probably thinking in circles by now, so I'll stop. But maybe y'all see where I am going with this...?

It seems to me that has a problem where you assume someone has to prove something is true to others for it to be true, if I saw a flying pig go by my window, I don't think i'd be able to prove that to anyone else, but I would know that it was true because I saw it happen, I couldn't deny reality simply because there is no consensus, first person experience is kind of the strongest proof of all even if you can't spread it to others.

It seems to me that has a problem where you assume someone has to prove something is true to others for it to be true, if I saw a flying pig go by my window, I don't think i'd be able to prove that to anyone else, but I would know that it was true because I saw it happen, I couldn't deny reality simply because there is no consensus, first person experience is kind of the strongest proof of all even if you can't spread it to others.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the problem I was talking about would apply just as much to yourself as to other people.

In other words, you couldn't even prove to yourself that something was a miracle, by the definition of "miracle" as I understand it. You could prove to yourself that you had seen something that you could not currently explain, perhaps even that you saw something that nobody can currently explain, but you could never prove to yourself that you witnessed a miracle. To prove that, you would have to prove that what you saw will NEVER be explained in natural terms.

Unless you define "miracle" as simply "something I can't explain," in which case it seems like you are just glorifying your own ignorance.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the problem I was talking about would apply just as much to yourself as to other people.

In other words, you couldn't even prove to yourself that something was a miracle, by the definition of "miracle" as I understand it. You could prove to yourself that you had seen something that you could not currently explain, perhaps even that you saw something that nobody can currently explain, but you could never prove to yourself that you witnessed a miracle. To prove that, you would have to prove that what you saw will NEVER be explained in natural terms.

Unless you define "miracle" as simply "something I can't explain," in which case it seems like you are just glorifying your own ignorance.

Ah I get what your saying, it's just I thought you meant that we shouldn't say the miraculous situation even existed. It is entirely possible of course that some things that many call miracles are just insane coincidences, but since you can't really prove that either for just about anything, I don't see why you can rule out miracles as explaining some things. But what I was trying to say is that simply by seeing something that appears miraculous happen, I wouldn't need to prove to myself it happened, it just happened, I saw it, so therefore it must of happened. Even if whatever it might possibly be was an illusion, the illusion would still of existed, so something must of happened whether other people agree with me or not. Besides, I don't distrust my common sense so much that I think a pig can fly without something miraculous and/or something like a jet engine strapped on it, I don't see how this is ignorance glorification.

Ah I get what your saying, it's just I thought you meant that we shouldn't say the miraculous situation even existed. It is entirely possible of course that some things that many call miracles are just insane coincidences, but since you can't really prove that either for just about anything, I don't see why you can rule out miracles as explaining some things. But what I was trying to say is that simply by seeing something that appears miraculous happen, I wouldn't need to prove to myself it happened, it just happened, I saw it, so therefore it must of happened. Even if whatever it might possibly be was an illusion, the illusion would still of existed, so something must of happened whether other people agree with me or not. Besides, I don't distrust my common sense so much that I think a pig can fly without something miraculous and/or something like a jet engine strapped on it, I don't see how this is ignorance glorification.
Well, I guess maybe I am a bit more humble when it comes to my "common sense." There are many things I've thought were impossible that I later learned are quite possible through natural forces, and there have been plenty of times when my common sense was not entirely accurate. I don't believe that my gut reaction to an event is the final word, and I'm certainly not prepared to attribute everything I don't understand to a supernatural being.

I mean, for the longest time I couldn't figure out how M&Ms had their shape. I still don't entirely understand how a jet stays in the air. I haven't the slightest idea how my pancreas functions. But I'm not going to assume that all these things are miraculous, no matter how amazing or baffling they may be to me. A human being from the 1800s would probably see most of our current technology as "miraculous," and would probably attribute most of it to supernatural or magical forces until they learned more about it. I think I will learn from their (hypothetical) example, and refrain from assuming that my current knowledge is sufficient to define what is and is not "miraculous."

Face it : There is no afterlife! God doesn't exist! Please come back to reality! God and religions are just the creation of people who wanted to explain the world while the sciences were not develloped enough to explain it. :rolleyes:

Face it : There is no afterlife! God doesn't exist! Please come back to reality! God and religions are just the creation of people who wanted to explain the world while the sciences were not develloped enough to explain it. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, perhaps the reality that you and I are familiar with is something of an extension or a manifestation of a much greater reality, the greater reality being God and the spiritual world. And perhaps the universe is set up in such a way that we exist in the lesser reality and can only understand the greater reality when we are prepared to believe.

The first post alone just makes me mentally go "ouch". I think might bleed from my ears if I read this whole thread, so I won't.

Admittedly it does start badly but it does improve.

On the other hand, perhaps the reality that you and I are familiar with is something of an extension or a manifestation of a much greater reality, the greater reality being God and the spiritual world. And perhaps the universe is set up in such a way that we exist in the lesser reality and can only understand the greater reality when we are prepared to believe.

And perhaps this response was written by a monkey randomly tapping keys on a keyboard.

It could be true but it's purely speculation.

Let me simply state that I read the Bible, dismiss evolution, believe in God, and believe in hell, and no one will ever be able to change that.

The Bible is not a lie. While there is a possibility it has been altered over time, the overall purpose and message still remains. It gives people an overlying purpose in life, and (in the case of Christianity, since that is the religion in question) helps people live better, more meaningul and productive lives.

Let me simply state that I read the Bible, dismiss evolution, believe in God, and believe in hell, and no one will ever be able to change that.

The Bible is not a lie. While there is a possibility it has been altered over time, the overall purpose and message still remains. It gives people an overlying purpose in life, and (in the case of Christianity, since that is the religion in question) helps people live better, more meaningul and productive lives.

And let me simply state that if you've already decided to reject any points that we make then I won't waste my time debating with you.

Good day.

Let me simply state that I read the Bible, dismiss evolution, believe in God, and believe in hell, and no one will ever be able to change that.
Why come here, then? You clearly aren't even remotely interested in having a cool discussion on the subject, so why waste your time (and ours)? Since you've already decided that you know everything you need to know, why not just go hang out with people who will agree with you non-stop?


The Bible is not a lie. While there is a possibility it has been altered over time, the overall purpose and message still remains. It gives people an overlying purpose in life, and (in the case of Christianity, since that is the religion in question) helps people live better, more meaningul and productive lives.
If you need the Bible to find purpose in your life, then you have my deepest sympathy.

It seems to me that has a problem where you assume someone has to prove something is true to others for it to be true, if I saw a flying pig go by my window, I don't think i'd be able to prove that to anyone else, but I would know that it was true because I saw it happen, I couldn't deny reality simply because there is no consensus, first person experience is kind of the strongest proof of all even if you can't spread it to others.

Is it not more likely that individuals are inherently more or less likely to see things that have never really happened?

We know that our subconscious can intrude on our conscious to the extent that some people literally cannot tell where their reality starts and ends. These people are considered abberant, and separate to the rest of humanity (now, don't go getting all PC on me... what I mean is we TREAT them differently because they see the world differently).

But, what if all of us have that in us? Just... some of us experience it less regularly... or only when we do certain things? Is it not eminently likely that we experience religious sensations because we want to... because we open a door to what, if it happened ALL the time, might be called 'madness'? Those 'touched by the hand of God' in church, experience a delusion, created by the DESIRE for the experience, over-riding the normal controls over delusional tendencies?

Unless there is a Miracle soon, i think Atheism will overtake christianity within the century.

Unless there is a Miracle soon, i think Atheism will overtake christianity within the century.

Currently about 33% of the people in the world consider themselves to be a Christian, while only 2% says they're atheists. About 15% of the world doesn't state a specific religion, but many of them have some spiritual belief.

Considering many sections of Christianity stimulate getting lot of babies, I am wondering how you figure it woill be overtaken ? *Changed* perhaps, made more spiritual and blended with other religions; but overtaken ?

I fear not.

Is it not more likely that individuals are inherently more or less likely to see things that have never really happened?

We know that our subconscious can intrude on our conscious to the extent that some people literally cannot tell where their reality starts and ends. These people are considered abberant, and separate to the rest of humanity (now, don't go getting all PC on me... what I mean is we TREAT them differently because they see the world differently).

But, what if all of us have that in us? Just... some of us experience it less regularly... or only when we do certain things? Is it not eminently likely that we experience religious sensations because we want to... because we open a door to what, if it happened ALL the time, might be called 'madness'? Those 'touched by the hand of God' in church, experience a delusion, created by the DESIRE for the experience, over-riding the normal controls over delusional tendencies?
Some research has suggesting a model along those lines.

There is a disorder known as temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in which there is a dramatic, and potentially dangerous, elevation in the electrical activity of the temporal lobe of the brain. One of the most fascinating symptoms of this disorder is that individuals can suddenly display hyper-religiosity; somebody who was never especially religious will suddenly become extremely spiritual and very fixated on God/gods or religious practices in general.

This has lead some researchers to speculate that elevated activity in particular regions of the brain may be associated with religiosity. In other words, the TLE patients are the most extreme example, but "normal" individuals may have varying levels of brain activity that are connected to their relative religiosity.

One piece of evidence that may support this model is that there have been studies measuring brain activity during prayer and meditation. A particular pattern of activity has been observed during self-reported states of "spiritual connection," and when this kind of pattern is artificially stimulated many people will report "feeling like they are not alone" or "feeling close to God."

Now, granted, all this is VERY preliminary, but I think it's pretty fascinating. A lot of religious people have a knee-jerk opposition to this research, since they view it as a scientific attack on their spirituality, and I think that's kind of sad...it doesn't have to be interpretted that way. If you want to believe in God, then why not believe that elevated activity in a certain area of your brain is how God helps you feel His presence? What if your predisposition for this elevated activity reflects the fact that God has blessed you with a particularly strong ability to sense Him?

At any rate, I find it kind of neat-o.

Currently about 33% of the people in the world consider themselves to be a Christian, while only 2% says they're atheists. About 15% of the world doesn't state a specific religion, but many of them have some spiritual belief.

Considering many sections of Christianity stimulate getting lot of babies, I am wondering how you figure it woill be overtaken ? *Changed* perhaps, made more spiritual and blended with other religions; but overtaken ?

I fear not.
I think he might get that idea because in nations like the US the number of Christian citizens is dropping roughly as quickly as the number of secular citizens is rising. Furthermore, in many areas of Europe people will identify as "Christian" even though they simultaneously report that their belief in God is only "moderately strong," and they also report that they attend church "rarely if ever."

I'm trying to find the link to this...I posted citations for a couple of these surveys on another thread a while back, but that thread has since dropped off the edge of the Forum.

I believe Christianity will persist for as long as there is ignorance and poverty, but I hold out hope that one day we will live in a world without either of those :).

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?!?!

Have you been reading the Da Vinci code?

Have you been reading the Da Vinci code?
I must admit, some of that is a bit garbled. However, he's partially right...the Bible was composed quite some time after Christ was supposed to have lived, and it was compiled by a secular leader who sought to use the growing Christian cult as a vehicle to secure his political power. That doesn't necessarily make the Bible a lie in and of itself, but it does mean that Christians should be honest about the source they're using.

So.. if the rapist puts a knife to a womans throat threatening to slit it if she screams and she obeys ... she is a sinner ?
Hell - one does not even need to put the knife there. Chances are she is way too afraid to actually resist.

This arguement relies on an extremely legalistic application of the law. Here you're also putting modern cultural stereotypes to both the woman and the rapist, which is not logically sound.

You are, of course, aware that NONE of the miraculous or spiritual content can be supported by independent, contemporary evidence?

Also, "if the woman isn't screaming and trying to get help"... is not mentioned, alluded to, or even suggested, in this passage.

Kindly stop trying to 'edit' the scripture, to mean what you want it to mean...

Which miracle are you looking for then? Some events have little evidence either way, but there are independent sources that confirm at least some truth to many of them.

As for screaming, it is very much alluded to. The passage in Levitivus clearly pulls on the logic of the verses from Deuteronomy. If you believe Leviticus 19 is so self-sufficient, where in the chapter can I find the laws for executing, or even punishing, rapists which is clearly alluded to? It is you who are changing the meaning of the text by taking verses out of context. That is akin to ripping some equations out of a mathematical proof and then saying "Aha! It doesn't work!"

Didn't this thread die already?

Didn't this thread die already?

No it will live forever AHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHH :D:D:D:)

I found this thread mildly offensive so I don't really know why I'm here, but I suppose it's better than just staring at my ceiling.

I found this thread mildly offensive so I don't really know why I'm here, but I suppose it's better than just staring at my ceiling.

If i manage to offend every single view point im happy :) (Jk)

Didn't this thread die already?

I was away for a week, and it has since gained 10 pages. Some threads just keep on going, though hopefully some sort of understanding can be reached on the main issues.

Normally I think offensive behavior is fine as long as it's funny but insulting someone's intelligence because they don't think like you isn't really entertaining, therefore I don't approve of it.

Unless there is a Miracle soon, i think Atheism will overtake christianity within the century.

Unlikely... too many people have too much invested in organised religions.

Look at the Christianity that existed in the time of Spurgeon, and try to reconcile it with most of the Christianity today (ESPECIALLY, those versions that consider themselves MOST consistent, like Southern Baptists). Evolution is not just something that happens in the natural world...

The 'enlightenment' came, and made something like the turn-in-the-tide you project... and we are now wading in the Christian backlash against it.

If you need the Bible to find purpose in your life, then you have my deepest sympathy.and if you think that only your way of finding purpose in life is the best way for everyone,

then you have my deepest and heartfelt sympathy.

Some research has suggesting a model along those lines.

There is a disorder known as temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in which there is a dramatic, and potentially dangerous, elevation in the electrical activity of the temporal lobe of the brain. One of the most fascinating symptoms of this disorder is that individuals can suddenly display hyper-religiosity; somebody who was never especially religious will suddenly become extremely spiritual and very fixated on God/gods or religious practices in general.

This has lead some researchers to speculate that elevated activity in particular regions of the brain may be associated with religiosity. In other words, the TLE patients are the most extreme example, but "normal" individuals may have varying levels of brain activity that are connected to their relative religiosity.

One piece of evidence that may support this model is that there have been studies measuring brain activity during prayer and meditation. A particular pattern of activity has been observed during self-reported states of "spiritual connection," and when this kind of pattern is artificially stimulated many people will report "feeling like they are not alone" or "feeling close to God."

Now, granted, all this is VERY preliminary, but I think it's pretty fascinating. A lot of religious people have a knee-jerk opposition to this research, since they view it as a scientific attack on their spirituality, and I think that's kind of sad...it doesn't have to be interpretted that way. If you want to believe in God, then why not believe that elevated activity in a certain area of your brain is how God helps you feel His presence? What if your predisposition for this elevated activity reflects the fact that God has blessed you with a particularly strong ability to sense Him?

At any rate, I find it kind of neat-o.

I recall reading about research that involved generating e.m. fields in the vicinity of a certain area of the brain, which resulted in very similar results to that you describe... (I think the experiments were conducted in some kind of sensory deprivation mechanism, also).

What they found was, those who had fairly religious upbringings, (in terms of exposure, not necessarilly the intensity of the religion) tended to have fairly strong 'visions' in response to the stimulation. Christians (nominal, or 'serious') experienced 'divine' experiences... being in the presence of the 'Creative force', or experiencing 'heavenly' sensations.

Those who were raised in other religions, encountered similar experience, only of a different 'flavour'... so - a Muslim would 'encounter Allah', perhaps.

The correspondent for the piece I was reading, was an Atheist... Implicit, it would seem. When exposed to the same stimulation as prior candidates, the correspondant was party to very realistic 'as-it-happened' recollections from his youth... resembling (very much) 'lucid dreaming'.

One possible conclusion, and one that seems to make sense to me - is that our religious 'mood' can influence the part of our brain that deals with some interface between certain memories, and certain processes, and can change our perceptions to fit a 'stored template'... which might explain why, as an Atheist, I no longer 'experience' religion the way I did when I was a believer.... my 'processes' have changed priorities, and the parameters of the 'memories' accessed have also altered.

Didn't this thread die already?

Yes, but then it descended to hell for three days before returning to life. In 50 years time we'll write a book about it and it will be worshipped by mankind for ever and ever.

Or not.

Which miracle are you looking for then? Some events have little evidence either way, but there are independent sources that confirm at least some truth to many of them.

As for screaming, it is very much alluded to. The passage in Levitivus clearly pulls on the logic of the verses from Deuteronomy. If you believe Leviticus 19 is so self-sufficient, where in the chapter can I find the laws for executing, or even punishing, rapists which is clearly alluded to? It is you who are changing the meaning of the text by taking verses out of context. That is akin to ripping some equations out of a mathematical proof and then saying "Aha! It doesn't work!"

The punishments are universal. It is a levitical law thing... those sins that result only in 'uncleanness' can be treated by one of several methods of ritual cleansing... often, either bathing in water, or waiting a while.

Certain sins require specific punishments, such as exile... but most of the 'other' sins (i.e. NOT matters of ritual cleanliness) are dealt with in the same way... they are considered 'true' abominations (rather than the distorted way we use the phrasing nowadays)... which would (or at least, would THEN) mean that the person is contaminated by evil (usually, the idea was that they harboured an 'evil spirit').

Thus - the punishment for such crimes has to be terminal, but ALSO, specifically not involve the punishers being 'contaminated' by the unclean thing... The punishment most often used, was, of course, the long range punishment of throwing rocks at the criminal.

It's not a matter of twisting scripture... the punishments are fairly well established.

To the original poster: How about instead of learning your "History" from The DaVinci Code, you actually educate yourself in real facts.

To the original poster: How about instead of learning your "History" from The DaVinci Code, you actually educate yourself in real facts.

It was confused and inaccurate but the general principle was sound.

I realize how the Bible is false, but I've always considered the message to be what matters, not the words.

To the original poster: How about instead of learning your "History" from The DaVinci Code, you actually educate yourself in real facts.

Here here

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

Da vinci code debunked

Here here

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

Da vinci code debunked

did the Da Vinci Code really need debunking? Or is that a site set up by Hollywood, like all the invisible anti-semitism that was floating around before Passion of the Christ?

Not that I took the time to read it mind you.

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.

Extracts from a site which systematicaly disproves this point

Did Constantine decide the canon? How did the process work?[17]. Constantine was not the decider of the canon, and played in fact no role at all in its assembly; the church at large was the party responsible. The process of canonizing the New Testament was based on a model that had existed for centuries whereby various religions chose a collection of normative sacred books. It is likely that Paul himself began the process by collecting his own letters, or that one of his friends like Luke or Timothy did so. Far from being an arbitrary process, or one decided upon by Constantine much later, the formation of the canon was the result of carefully-weighed choices over time by concerned church officials and members. Later votes on the canon were merely the most definitive steps taken at the end of a long and careful, sometimes difficult, process. Biblical scholar Robert Grant, in The Formation of the New Testament, writes that the New Testament canon was:
...not the product of official assemblies or even of the studies of a few theologians. It reflects and expresses the ideal self-understanding of a whole religious movement which, in spite of temporal, geographical, and even ideological differences, could finally be united in accepting these 27 diverse documents as expressing the meaning of God's revelation in Jesus Christ and to his church. [18]
To claim that Constantine was behind the canon, or was responsible for destroying Gospels he did not approve of, is a ludicrous distortion of history. In fact, Constantine convened the Council at Nicea, paid the travel expenses of those who attended, and provided his summer lake palace for the site, but he had no ecclesiastical authority at all. The information we have on the Council is fascinating and in no way supports the idea of a pagan Roman’s overthrow of “early Christianity” or any conspiracy. A good introduction to the facts about the Council is available in the Summer 1996 issue of Christian History magazine, “Heresy in the Early Church,” at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/51h/ .

“The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual – the miter, the altar, the doxology, and communion, the act of “God-eating” – were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions.”[19]

In his text Brown only names one particular mystery religion alleged to provide a source for Christian beliefs (see below), but in general, this can be said in reply:

The taking over of symbolism is true – but signifies ideological victory, not borrowing. Note to begin with that we are talking here not of apostolic Christianity of the first century, but of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries. What we see here is not so much “borrowing” but a sort of advertising campaign, or a type of artistic one-upmanship. The pagan deity Mithra was depicted slaying the bull while riding its back; the church did a lookalike scene with Samson killing a lion. Mithra sent arrows into a rock to bring forth water; the church changed that into Moses getting water from the rock at Horeb. Why was this done? It was done because this was an age when art usually was imitative. This is because the people of the New Testament world thought in terms of what could be "probabilities," or verification from general or prior experience. Imitation was a way of asserting your superiority: “Mithra is not the real hero. Samson is. Ignore Mithra.” “This mystery religion uses a miter as a sign of power. Well, we have the true power. We claim the miter for our own.” Note that the borrowing only involved art and ritual – it did not involve borrowing of ideology.

Have you been reading the Da Vinci code?
No, but Stewie apparently has!

And besides, the movie'll be out in the next year.

The Bible is based off shaky proof, but historical criticism and similar evidence have proven that some stories are concrete enough to be considered real.

I'm not a Christian, but history (at this point in time and space) can prove that Jesus existed thanks to a log by the Jewish historian Jospehus.

Redsylvania']The Bible is based off shaky proof, but historical criticism and similar evidence have proven that some stories are concrete enough to be considered real.

I'm not a Christian, but history (at this point in time and space) can prove that Jesus existed thanks to a log by the Jewish historian Jospehus.

Friend, if you'd taken the time to read this thread you would have seen Josephus being debunked several times. The passage in question was forged by a later Christian historian. Even if the passage was genuine it is not contemporary.

Extracts from a site which systematicaly disproves this point

I got as far as reading that Constantine played no part in deciding the Canon, and abandoned all hope.

Constantine required codified texts, in large numbers. Constantine was the moneyman for the whole endeavour. Indeed, the Canonisation was only REALLY required, so that one definitive set of scripture could be printed.

To even pretend he had no input, is to ignore all the evidence.

Redsylvania']The Bible is based off shaky proof, but historical criticism and similar evidence have proven that some stories are concrete enough to be considered real.

I'm not a Christian, but history (at this point in time and space) can prove that Jesus existed thanks to a log by the Jewish historian Jospehus.

Even if Josephus HAD been confirmed as the author of the whole work (which is extremely questionble)... his testimony would still only be a non-contemporary source, and based on hearsay... since (if Jesus really even lived) Jesus was dead years before Josephus was even born.

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?!?!
1. The majority of the Bible was not written 200 years after Christ.
We know that the old testament was written before Christ and there is evidence of that.
The book of Matthew was written around the year 60AD.
The book of Mark was written around the year between 65AD and 75AD
The Book of Luke was written around 59AD to 62AD
John was 65AD to 85AD
Acts was written around the same time as Luke and by same person as Luke.
Romans was written in the year 58AD
And the list goes on.
2. The Bible was not written by a single person. It was written by a variety of people who wrote on God's behalf. The people who wrote the Bible, were Jews and Christians.
3. The divinity of Jesus still stands even if there were no virgin birth. The word in Isaiah, interpreted to mean virgin, was also used to mean "young girl". Mary was a young girl when she had Jesus. Therefore the prophecy of Isaiah would still have been fulfilled.
There is very little truth to what you claim. The point of your thread is to stir up enmity and division.

1. The majority of the Bible was not written 200 years after Christ.
We know that the old testament was written before Christ and there is evidence of that.
The book of Matthew was written around the year 60AD.
The book of Mark was written around the year between 65AD and 75AD
The Book of Luke was written around 59AD to 62AD
John was 65AD to 85AD
Acts was written around the same time as Luke and by same person as Luke.
Romans was written in the year 58AD
And the list goes on.
2. The Bible was not written by a single person. It was written by a variety of people who wrote on God's behalf. The people who wrote the Bible, were Jews and Christians.
3. The divinity of Jesus still stands even if there were no virgin birth. The word in Isaiah, interpreted to mean virgin, was also used to mean "young girl". Mary was a young girl when she had Jesus. Therefore the prophecy of Isaiah would still have been fulfilled.
There is very little truth to what you claim. The point of your thread is to stir up enmity and division.

I'm afraid that the same accusations could be pointed at your response... you state things as facts which are still greatly debated, and make assertions that are optimistic, at best (like the 'link' between Luke and Acts).

Further, of course, even if he really lived, there is no certainty of the divinity of Jesus, with or without virgin birth. So many things about Messianic prophecy were missed, that it is actually almost impossible to reconcile the 'Jesus-as-Messiah' story with the Hebrew scripture.

Revelation was written in 70 AD
1 Corinthians 55 AD
2 Corinthians was 56 AD
Hebrews was between 64 and 68 AD
Galations was 48AD
1 Timothy was 62 to 66 AD
2 Timothy was 67 AD
1 Thessalonians was 50AD
2 Thessalonians was 51 to 52 AD
Colossians was 58 to 62 AD
Phillipians was 61 AD
Ephesians was 60 to 63 AD
Titus was 66 AD
Philemon was 60 AD
James was 45 AD and the earliest book of the New Testament to be written.
1 Peter was 60 to 65AD
2 Peter was 65 to 68 AD by Peter himself who one was on the verge of death.
1 John was 85 to 95 AD like the Gospel of John this book was written by Jesus aposlte of the same name.
2 John was 85 to 95 AD
3 John was 85 to 95 AD, authorship is unknown but all evidence points to John the Apostle.
Jude was 60 to 80AD by some guy named Jude who wanted to share his faith in Christ.

I'm afraid that the same accusations could be pointed at your response... you state things as facts which are still greatly debated, and make assertions that are optimistic, at best (like the 'link' between Luke and Acts).

Further, of course, even if he really lived, there is no certainty of the divinity of Jesus, with or without virgin birth. So many things about Messianic prophecy were missed, that it is actually almost impossible to reconcile the 'Jesus-as-Messiah' story with the Hebrew scripture.
http://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-Survey.html

this site tells you the dates of authorship and who the authors were and what the conditions of the day were when they wrote.

http://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-Survey.html

this site tells you the dates of authorship and who the authors were and what the conditions of the day were when they wrote.

And this site has been verified by witnesses?

Or, are you stating 'as gospel', someone else's speculations?

And this site has been verified by witnesses?

Or, are you stating 'as gospel', someone else's speculations?
have you looked at the site?

The point of your thread is to stir up enmity and division.

I am going to have to agree with him. These "religion-is it real/false/etc..." sort of threads never really work. I say, to each his own. Personally, I find the stories (forgive me if that is the wrong word) in the Bibles quite compelling but fail to actually believe in them.
And just because something was written a long time ago and is recorded now (dates of the writings) doesn't make it true...they are still finding out that, oh say, Sammartini didn't write half the stuff that was credited to him and was actually written by Berteau (for an example...)

http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm

The year 325 AD was not the date the New Testament was written, but the date they were all put together and officially sanctioned by a committee of the church.
You can't use carbon dating because back then it was sacrilege to let a book deteriorate away. So when a book became old, it was copied word for word and the original that was copied from was always destroyed. Either by fire or burial. And we know that paper and papyrus don't last very long when you bury them.

Even if Josephus HAD been confirmed as the author of the whole work (which is extremely questionble)... his testimony would still only be a non-contemporary source, and based on hearsay... since (if Jesus really even lived) Jesus was dead years before Josephus was even born.

Elvis was born YEARS before you were, doesn't mean someone telling you he existed is hearsay

http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm

The year 325 AD was not the date the New Testament was written, but the date they were all put together and officially sanctioned by a committee of the church.

http://www.british-israel.ca/Interview.htm

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Elvis was born YEARS before you were, doesn't mean someone telling you he existed is hearsay

Unlike the Josephus/Jesus parellel, I lived during Elvis' time on earth. DID I believe everything I heard about Elvis? No - of course not. DO I believe everything I hear about Elvis? No - of course not. Should I? No - of course not.

The point is, Jospehus is not equivalent to me, in this case. If I were to write a history about Elvis, I LIVED during his time, AND I can base my research on provable 'facts'... independent testimonies, contemporary testimonies, etc.

Josephus did not live in the same part of the world as Jesus... although he stayed near there for a short while. Josephus did not share any of his time on earth, with Jesus.

Indeed - when Josephus came to write his work, he based his reports on what he learned in that part of the world, from people who would have been one, even two, generations removed from the lifetime of Jesus.


Not to mention, of course, the fact that the Joesphus text usually cited, does not fit the 'narrative form' of the text it is found within, and is written in an apparently entirely different 'voice' to the rest of the text. Also - that section is NOT quoted by other contemporary authors or commentators on the work of Josephus.

Thus - it is a very reasonable assumption, that the Josephus passages referred to, were added at a much later date.

Ulike the Josephus/Jesus parellel, I lived during Elvis' time on earth. DID I believe everything I heard about Elvis? No - of course not. DO I believe everything I hear about Elvis? No - of course not. Should I? No - of course not.

The point is, Jospehus is not equivalent to me, in this case. If I were to write a history about Elvis, I LIVED during his time, AND I can base my research on provable 'facts'... independent testimonies, contemporary testimonies, etc.

Josephus did not live in the same part of the world as Jesus... although he stayed near there for a short while. Josephus did not share any of his time on earth, with Jesus.

Indeed - when Josephus came to write his work, he based his reports on what he learned in that part of the world, from people who would have been one, even two, generations removed from the lifetime of Jesus.


Not to mention, of course, the fact that the Joesphus text usually cited, does not fit the 'narrative form' of the text it is found within, and is written in an apparently entirely different 'voice' to the rest of the text. Also - that section is NOT quoted by other contemporary authors or commentators on the work of Josephus.

Thus - it is a very reasonable assumption, that the Josephus passages referred to, were added at a much later date.
1. You are entirely missing his point. You were not alive when Thomas Jefferson was born. According to what you are saying, that fact means that Jefferson never existed.

2. Any one can write stuff based on interviews with eyewitnesses. It was the same with Josephus.

3. He didn't have to live at the same time as Jesus.

4. That does not make them any less true. The people he spoke to had access to the writings of the Apostles, you do not.

have you looked at the site?

I looked at the page you linked to... but I'm damned if I'm going to trawl through some site looking for data. If there was something specific you were trying to illustrate, you really need to say what, or link to it.

I looked at the page you linked to... but I'm damned if I'm going to trawl through some site looking for data. If there was something specific you were trying to illustrate, you really need to say what, or link to it.
What? Am I supposed to do your homework for you?

1. You are entirely missing his point. You were not alive when Thomas Jefferson was born. According to what you are saying, that fact means that Jefferson never existed.


Bullshit. It means, of course, that the literal existence of Thomas Jefferson should be assumed ONLY as far as independent, CONTEMPORARY sources can verify.

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson could walk on water?

Prove it isn't true...


2. Any one can write stuff based on interviews with eyewitnesses. It was the same with Josephus.


But, Josephus wasn't IN that part of the world while ANY of the 'eyewitnesses' were alive, was he?


3. He didn't have to live at the same time as Jesus.


In order to be considered 'contemporary', it would certainly be a big help.

If I start, today, making assertions about the divinity of Joseph Smith... I I make the kind of oblique references we find in Josephus... i.e. "that there were some who held Joseph Smith to be a prophet, etc", then my 'testimony' is ONLY going to be as reliable as my exposure to real evidence about Joseph Smith.

I wasn't there... that is going to count against me.

I haven't met anyone that met him... that should count against me, too.


4. That does not make them any less true. The people he spoke to had access to the writings of the Apostles, you do not.

Again, you seem to peddle rumour as though mere repeition made it equal to truth...

Where is your evidence that Josephus ever saw literal scripture, or talked to anyone that had seen an apostle, or read literal material written by an apostle?

I am always amazed how few of the Christians I meet, have even read the Bible... and yet, they often talk very authoritatively about the 'truth' of the Jesus myth. There is a parallel there.

Revelation was written in 70 AD
1 Corinthians 55 AD
2 Corinthians was 56 AD
Hebrews was between 64 and 68 AD
Galations was 48AD
1 Timothy was 62 to 66 AD
2 Timothy was 67 AD
1 Thessalonians was 50AD
2 Thessalonians was 51 to 52 AD
Colossians was 58 to 62 AD
Phillipians was 61 AD
Ephesians was 60 to 63 AD
Titus was 66 AD
Philemon was 60 AD
James was 45 AD and the earliest book of the New Testament to be written.
1 Peter was 60 to 65AD
2 Peter was 65 to 68 AD by Peter himself who one was on the verge of death.
1 John was 85 to 95 AD like the Gospel of John this book was written by Jesus aposlte of the same name.
2 John was 85 to 95 AD
3 John was 85 to 95 AD, authorship is unknown but all evidence points to John the Apostle.
Jude was 60 to 80AD by some guy named Jude who wanted to share his faith in Christ.
Many of these dates are highly uncertain and the subject of considerable debate among scholars. Few would argue that James was written as early as 45 AD, for example, and many believe it was pseudepigraphical, and could date from as late as the late 2nd century,

What? Am I supposed to do your homework for you?

No. But if you expect to be taken seriously, when you make 'extraordinary claims' you really need to provide 'extraordinary evidence'.

In this case, even 'ordinary' evidence is found lacking.

You are free to bring nothing to the table, but you may be judge accordingly.

No. But if you expect to be taken seriously, when you make 'extraordinary claims' you really need to provide 'extraordinary evidence'.

In this case, even 'ordinary' evidence is found lacking.

You are free to bring nothing to the table, but you may be judge accordingly.
there is nothing extroadinary about the claim.

As for your comment bout christians not reading the bible, it is clear you haven't read it yourself.

You can tell when the new testament books were written by the way the styles of the authors and comparing them to the cultures around of the times.
because the culture of the 1st century AD, was so different from our modern culture, it would be rediculous to claim the New Testament was written in 2,000 years after Christ.
Likewise, the culture of the 2nd to 4th centuries is way too different from that of the 1st century for anyone to go and say that the whole new testament was written in 325 AD. The culture of 325AD does not match the culture of the authors of the books, which you can tell by their writing styles.

Many of these dates are highly uncertain and the subject of considerable debate among scholars. Few would argue that James was written as early as 45 AD, for example, and many believe it was pseudepigraphical, and could date from as late as the late 2nd century,
The people who favor the 2nd century hypothesis also admit that that's when the oldest surviving manuscripts date from.

The culture of the time, was that when a text that was considered sacred was old and starting to fall apart, it was sacriligious to let it continue to do so. So the old manuscript was copied and the original was always burned. Even those who advocate the 2nd century hypothesis, admit this.

And just recently there was an article where scholars discovered that contrary to what is common misbelieved today, the Bible was copied word for word, and very faithfully.

there is nothing extroadinary about the claim.

As for your comment bout christians not reading the bible, it is clear you haven't read it yourself.

You can tell when the new testament books were written by the way the styles of the authors and comparing them to the cultures around of the times.
because the culture of the 1st century AD, was so different from our modern culture, it would be rediculous to claim the New Testament was written in 2,000 years after Christ.
Likewise, the culture of the 2nd to 4th centuries is way too different from that of the 1st century for anyone to go and say that the whole new testament was written in 325 AD. The culture of 325AD does not match the culture of the authors of the books, which you can tell by their writing styles.

Two things:

1) I have not suggested that the New Testament texts were written in 325 AD. I have just quibbled the certainty which makes you think you can claim when (even to the specific year, apparently) they WERE written.

2) I have not read the Bible, my friend? A curious claim... that seems not strictly connected to the topic, or supported by anything presented IN the topic. Also, unfortunately for your assumed position of superiority, it is likely that I have 'read the bible' in a far more literally 'true' manner than most...

Two things:

1) I have not suggested that the New Testament texts were written in 325 AD. I have just quibbled the certainty which makes you think you can claim when (even to the specific year, apparently) they WERE written.

2) I have not read the Bible, my friend? A curious claim... that seems not strictly connected to the topic, or supported by anything presented IN the topic. Also, unfortunately for your assumed position of superiority, it is likely that I have 'read the bible' in a far more literally 'true' manner than most...


1.http://www.spiritualabuse.org/articles/bible_versions.html

supposing you did read even a part of it, which version did you read?

Was it the King James version? Or the one that was put out the so-called Jesus historical society, a group that claims that christianity is a false religion and whose goal is to discredit it?

2. I seem to have misread you as to your statement of the date of the writings. My bad.

3.The original bible would have looked something like this.


hecameuntohisownandhisownreceivedhimnotbutasmanyasreceivedhimtothemgavethepowertobecomethesonsofgode ventothemthatbelieveonhisnamewhichwerebornnotofbloodnorofthewillofthefleshnorofthewillofmanbutofgoda ndthewordwasmadefleshanddweltamongusandwebeheldhisglorythegloryasoftheonlybegottenofthefatherfullofg raceandtruthjohnbarewitnessofhimandcriedsayingthiswasheofwhomIspakehethatcomethaftermeispreferredbef oremeforhewasbeforemeandofhisfulnesshaveallwereceivedandgraceforgraceforthelawwasgivenbymosesbutgrac eandtruthcamebyjesuschrist

regarding whether one has actually read the Bible was a subject you brought up when you implied that people who support the authenticity of the Bible "haven't read it".

speaking of which, if you have so authoratatively read the bible you should be able to tell from which book and which chapter I took the qoute from in my previous post.

I think a lot of religion is crap, but if it accomplishes some good in the world, I say let it fester.

Karma is bullshit, but at least people help eachother.


As a sidenote, Jesus never claimed to be the messiah or the literal son of god. And the original Christians followed his teachings about life, while also not claiming his divinity.

I think a lot of religion is crap, but if it accomplishes some good in the world, I say let it fester.

Karma is bullshit, but at least people help eachother.


As a sidenote, Jesus never claimed to be the messiah or the literal son of god. And the original Christians followed his teachings about life, while also not claiming his divinity.
I agree on the religion part.

But your statement that the original christians did not think Jesus was the literal son of God is false. They wholeheartedly believed he was the messiah and son of god.

regarding whether one has actually read the Bible was a subject you brought up when you implied that people who support the authenticity of the Bible "haven't read it".

speaking of which, if you have so authoratatively read the bible you should be able to tell from which book and which chapter I took the qoute from in my previous post.

I suggest you go back and re-read my posts... you are imagining slights that were never made. I deliberately pointed out that I was showing a 'parallel' to people 'knowing about' scriptural things, without being directly exposed TO the scripture... not saying that people only believed because they had not read it.

Regarding the other question... you quoted John 1:11-7.

1.http://www.spiritualabuse.org/articles/bible_versions.html

supposing you did read even a part of it, which version did you read?

Was it the King James version? Or the one that was put out the so-called Jesus historical society, a group that claims that christianity is a false religion and whose goal is to discredit it?

2. I seem to have misread you as to your statement of the date of the writings. My bad.

3.The original bible would have looked something like this.


hecameuntohisownandhisownreceivedhimnotbutasmanyasreceivedhimtothemgavethepowertobecomethesonsofgode ventothemthatbelieveonhisnamewhichwerebornnotofbloodnorofthewillofthefleshnorofthewillofmanbutofgoda ndthewordwasmadefleshanddweltamongusandwebeheldhisglorythegloryasoftheonlybegottenofthefatherfullofg raceandtruthjohnbarewitnessofhimandcriedsayingthiswasheofwhomIspakehethatcomethaftermeispreferredbef oremeforhewasbeforemeandofhisfulnesshaveallwereceivedandgraceforgraceforthelawwasgivenbymosesbutgrac eandtruthcamebyjesuschrist

You needn't believe any claims I make about my 'experience'... but you COULD ask other posters who have debated the bible with me, about how well acquainted I might be with the text.

Some of them could probably also offer support to some of the claims I MIGHT make to the version(s) I have read.

I have read the KJV... indeed, most of my Bibles are KJV versions... because I like the way it flows. I like the poetry. It pisses me off when I'm trying to get at the heart of the matter, sometimes, because of it's tendency to make relatively unsupportable edits to the text, but it is a 'pretty' version to read.

I don't claim to be gifted, or miraculously endowed with abilities to comprehend beyond my own reach... but I have some experience with the scripture, and not just the modern "Clip Note" translations.

But your statement that the original christians did not think Jesus was the literal son of God is false. They wholeheartedly believed he was the messiah and son of god.

You speak of early Christians as though they were one unified movement. Many of the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was ONLY divine... not mortal at all. One the other hand, many other early Christians considered Jesus to be a gifted prophet. Some reconciled 'the spirit' with the flesh... and others claimed that such reconciliation was impossible.

You speak of early Christians as though they were one unified movement. Many of the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was ONLY divine... not mortal at all. One the other hand, many other early Christians considered Jesus to be a gifted prophet. Some reconciled 'the spirit' with the flesh... and others claimed that such reconciliation was impossible.

I'm sure the apostles would disagree with the only divine statement, due to the fact that they ate with him and actually touched him, Thomas comes to mind, touching his wounds after the ressurection. Also on the road to errasmas(sp?) the two men broke bread with Jesus, and the apostles themselves saw him eat fish after his ressurection. They were aware that he was both man and God, the reconciliation that you speak of.

I'm sure the apostles would disagree with the only divine statement, due to the fact that they ate with him and actually touched him, Thomas comes to mind, touching his wounds after the ressurection. Also on the road to errasmas(sp?) the two men broke bread with Jesus, and the apostles themselves saw him eat fish after his ressurection. They were aware that he was both man and God, the reconciliation that you speak of.

Well, the Gospel of John differs from the other three gospels about many of the spiritual versus flesh aspects of the story.

What do we know of the apostles? Pretty much the same as we know of Jesus... ONLY what is present in the Gospels, that may, or may not be true.

We can't even prove that the apostles were 'real', any more than we can for Jesus... let alone verify the content of their accounts.

Doesn't it seem odd, that Jesus maintained mortal wounds after he was ressurected? Perhpas it is just me, but it doesn't 'fit'... either he was still in the dead flesh, or he was in perfect (maybe even spiritual) flesh... either way, the idea of Thomas feeling around inside him seems somewhat disconnected.

I suggest you go back and re-read my posts... you are imagining slights that were never made. I deliberately pointed out that I was showing a 'parallel' to people 'knowing about' scriptural things, without being directly exposed TO the scripture... not saying that people only believed because they had not read it.

Regarding the other question... you quoted John 1:11-7.
so you have indeed read the bible.

Well, the Gospel of John differs from the other three gospels about many of the spiritual versus flesh aspects of the story.

What do we know of the apostles? Pretty much the same as we know of Jesus... ONLY what is present in the Gospels, that may, or may not be true.

We can't even prove that the apostles were 'real', any more than we can for Jesus... let alone verify the content of their accounts.

Doesn't it seem odd, that Jesus maintained mortal wounds after he was ressurected? Perhpas it is just me, but it doesn't 'fit'... either he was still in the dead flesh, or he was in perfect (maybe even spiritual) flesh... either way, the idea of Thomas feeling around inside him seems somewhat disconnected.
Your position on the nature of Jesus after the ressurection is interesting. When Jesus rose from the dead, he rose with his body. It was a bodily ressurection. That's why the scars were still there. To prove to his followers that his body had been resurrected along with his spirit.

Your position on the nature of Jesus after the ressurection is interesting. When Jesus rose from the dead, he rose with his body. It was a bodily ressurection. That's why the scars were still there. To prove to his followers that his body had been resurrected along with his spirit.

The problem with that would be, that he doesn't come to the apostles directly... he spends (supposedly three days, although, I seem to recall, the numbers don't add up) some time doing other stuff. So - we have a dichotomoy... either two resurrections, or one that 'changes' nature.

Either he took his body, physically to 'hell', which I find strangely unconvincing... OR he left his body mouldering while he jaunted and gallivanted around for a while. Seems like it would have been fairly obvious, when he appeared to Mary, et al, that they were talking to someone who wasn't as 'fresh' as they might have been.

Then, of course, he translates to the Kingdom of Heaven, one assumes... and yet, Revelation, for example, does not describe him in a wounded body... but I don't see any reason why he would NEED to heal it.

Also - looking at the crucifixion, Jesus is referred to as the lamb... looking at revelation, the same estimate is made.. but sacrificial lambs were meant to be unblemished, which is far from the case in the crucifixion sacrifice...

All thr more reason why it makes no literal sense for the lamb to remain blemished AFTER the resurrection.

so you have indeed read the bible.

Indeed. I have a couple of dozen versions to hand... not just English translations, either.

The people who favor the 2nd century hypothesis also admit that that's when the oldest surviving manuscripts date from.

The culture of the time, was that when a text that was considered sacred was old and starting to fall apart, it was sacriligious to let it continue to do so. So the old manuscript was copied and the original was always burned. Even those who advocate the 2nd century hypothesis, admit this.
The ages of the oldest surviving manuscripts have almost nothing to do with the estimated of dates of composition : they are dated by language, content and external corroboration (such as references to the texts). The oldest surviving manuscripts are 3rd century or later, but nobody is suggesting that the NT books are that late.

And just recently there was an article where scholars discovered that contrary to what is common misbelieved today, the Bible was copied word for word, and very faithfully.
Which scholars? And how on Earth did they "discover" that suriviving early manuscripts which clearly differ in content are really word for word identical??

The problem with that would be, that he doesn't come to the apostles directly... he spends (supposedly three days, although, I seem to recall, the numbers don't add up) some time doing other stuff. So - we have a dichotomoy... either two resurrections, or one that 'changes' nature.

Either he took his body, physically to 'hell', which I find strangely unconvincing... OR he left his body mouldering while he jaunted and gallivanted around for a while. Seems like it would have been fairly obvious, when he appeared to Mary, et al, that they were talking to someone who wasn't as 'fresh' as they might have been.

Then, of course, he translates to the Kingdom of Heaven, one assumes... and yet, Revelation, for example, does not describe him in a wounded body... but I don't see any reason why he would NEED to heal it.

Also - looking at the crucifixion, Jesus is referred to as the lamb... looking at revelation, the same estimate is made.. but sacrificial lambs were meant to be unblemished, which is far from the case in the crucifixion sacrifice...

All thr more reason why it makes no literal sense for the lamb to remain blemished AFTER the resurrection.
He rose in the flesh but when it was time for him to ascend to heaven, his body was transformed. That's how it will be for those who are still alive when Christ comes the second time. Paul writes, "Behold, I tell you a mystery, in that moment we shall be transformed." And what he is talking about is that if you are alive at the return of Christ and you are written in the book of life, your physical body will be transformed into a spiritual body. Just like what happened to Jesus as he ascended into heaven.
He didn't remain blemished.
The thing with the word "hell" is that it doesn't mean what most people think it means. Hell is not a place of eternal fire and brimstone where the devil gets to torture people for eternity.
If you look at the original words from the greek and hebrew that are translated hell, the greek word is actually Hades and the Hebrew word is actually sheol. Both simply mean the grave. The place where you are buried when you die. When a person dies, they lay sleeping in the place they are buried until the day of their ressurection. That's why Jesus, when he spoke death, called it a type of very very long sleeping. Kind of like in a cocoon. They go to sleep as physical persons, but they will wake up as spirits. Death can be seen as a cocoon.

Indeed. I have a couple of dozen versions to hand... not just English translations, either.
I can tell.

As for that last question regarding your post, that's all I needed because:
1. If you didn't read the Bible, you would not have been able to tell me book, chapter and verse. You also gave me the verse even though I didn't ask for it. That requires that you be very familiar with that text.
2. The fact you were able to pinpoint it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have read it regularly. The point of removing the capitals, spacing, and punctuation was to throw you off. If you were a regular reader and had actually read the Bible, it would'nt throw you off.
3. Someone who claims to have read the Bible, but actually hasn't, would have been thrown off and not have been able to answer the question correctly. The paragraph would have confused them.

What do we know of the apostles? Pretty much the same as we know of Jesus... ONLY what is present in the Gospels, that may, or may not be true.

We can't even prove that the apostles were 'real', any more than we can for Jesus... let alone verify the content of their accounts.

Doesn't it seem odd, that Jesus maintained mortal wounds after he was ressurected? Perhpas it is just me, but it doesn't 'fit'... either he was still in the dead flesh, or he was in perfect (maybe even spiritual) flesh... either way, the idea of Thomas feeling around inside him seems somewhat disconnected.

Speaking of Thomas...

I wondering if theres a connection between the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, particularly the lack of reference of Jesus as "Messiah", or "Lord", or "Savior" and instead, simply reffering to him as "Rabbi", or "Teacher", and "Doubting Thomas".

Now we all know the story of Thomas' doubt in wich he failed to walk on water, (No, I cant quote you verse and chapter), but is it possible that Thomas didnt end up so devout as we assume?
Is it possible that his book, simply told the "true" side of Jesus, since his was likely the first book written and circulated?

Now, Ill go further out on a limb...

What if, the latter texts of the bible, Matthew, Luke etc..were written in response to other texts like Thomas, wich did not paint Jesus as the messiah, and were written several years later, by the heads of a now growing church?
Certainly, a person in power of a growing religion would want his vision of that belief, to be the most accepted message available, would he not?

This may also explain why the Gospel of Mary is so overlooked.

Re: Do Christians know the Bible really is a lie?

Do you know you really don't exist?

Re: Do Christians know the Bible really is a lie?

Do you know you really don't exist?



"Seconds out! Round one! Ding ding!"

Re: Do Christians know the Bible really is a lie?

Do you know you really don't exist?
It's funny how easy it is to give a circumstance that divides those two ideas.
Try the proof thing, and substantiation of proof.
Although things can get gray in some's perception, nonetheless you come to a couple of important conclusions, and they make the difference.

Re: Do Christians know the Bible really is a lie?

Do you know you really don't exist?

Cogito Ergo Sum. I can be certain that I am a thinking thing therefore you are wrong.

Next!

Cogito Ergo Sum. I can be certain that I am a thinking thing therefore you are wrong.

Next!
Short & sweet.

This is all written by the nation of Barbarossa Uno, he asked me to post it here:

"ok firstly i want to introduce myself, My name is Ben and i am a christian. I am storongly involved in the church, I am in the next month going to be leading the Youth church (scary for me but hey God says i can do it) but all this info is just so you know where i am coming from.
basically all humans Sin (sin is doing something we should not do, or more specifically doing something God told us not to) I sin everyday, i tried once not to sin all day and got to midday befoer i became proud ofthe factthat i had not sinned that day and in that second i sinned. so it is impossible for us not to sin. But as a christian we beleve that if we sin we cannot go to heaven. God does not want this he wants us to be there with him, se he sent his son to die on the cross and take the sins of the world on himself, becasue he was a sinless sacrifice (in the sense that he never sinned) so with that in mind we must remember that we are no better then anyone else, the difference between christians and the "non-saved" is this, we have accepted Jesus as the son of God and have asked for him to forgive us and asked to have a relationship with him. That is what it means to be a christian to have a relationship with Jesus, with God. I don't judge anyone, i often feel like paul that i am "the worst of sinners" but i do tell people that if they are doing something sinful that they need to ask for forgivness of it. i have many many no-chrisitan friends form many different religions. I like to learn about waht they belive becasue i care about them. Christians should never shun anyone, that is oging against the most important commandment acording to Jesus "love your neighbour as yourself"
I beleve that the only way to heaven is through Christ Jesus, but that does not mean we cannot be friends and have good discusions about anyhting, shoot do people think that all christians do is talk about God? i think some "christians" and i use that term loosely don't truely belive what they are saying so they make up for it by being overly agressive in how they deal with it. Every second of every day is about God (or at least they pretend it is) the Bible syas that there is a time for everything."

basically all humans Sin (sin is doing something we should not do, or more specifically doing something God told us not to) I sin everyday, i tried once not to sin all day and got to midday befoer i became proud ofthe factthat i had not sinned that day and in that second i sinned.
Haha! :) Oh, that made my day.

Have a good weekend, Ben.

good luck with that youth ministry thing, ben.