NationStates Jolt Archive

Haha! :) Oh, that made my day.

Have a good weekend, Ben.
The irritating thing is that they didn't put in "Irrational Fear that makes you do stupid things" as a sin (although i understand they'd lose control there). IMO, it's a big one. After all, look where it got Anakin!

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.

Actually, Thomas was an illiterate fishermen, where as Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a physician. Both the latter would have had knowledge of reading and writing. The former would not have those skills. Thus, any claims that Thomas wrote anything, would have to be taken with skepticism.

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.

I like the direction you are going... however, I seem to recall that there is a strong case for the 'divine Jesus' story predating the 'human Jesus' story... which makes the John account the earliest. (Note - this doesn't mean John would have actually been WRITTEN first... just that it would have been based on an earlier root than the others).

Matthew and Luke are both popularly supposed to have been based on another document (what they call the "Q" scripture)... which may have arisen to combat the 'entirely divine' version of the story.

The problem with the Thomas and Mary scriptures is, we don't really have much in the way of clues about where and when they were incepted. Their first drafts could have happened immediately on the death of Jesus, and we may be reading heavy edits descended from those.

To me, it seems most likely that the progression of scripture went something like this:

A divine scripture (about a 'god' incarnated... which may or may not have started out as Jesus. This text would have evolved into "John"... but the 'original' text may stem from before 'Jesus' is even claimed to have existed).

A mundane scripture (about a man, wise but human... who may or may not have been a literal prophet. This text might have eventually have spawned "Thomas" and/or "Mary". Likely, this 'original' scripture would have been written near the lifetime of the real prophet on which it was based).

A unified scripture (about the 'man who is god'... an attempt to prove a human character as a spiritual figure, at least... hence proofs of Messiah, etc. This scripture spawned "Matthew" and "Luke", and was likely written after some time had passed).

As I said, though, the order in which the stories are first addressed may not be reflected in the order in which surviving 'versions' seem to have been written. Food for thought, though.

Surprisingly the bible turns out to be a damned good read. There's some really good stories in there. I'll read the koran next :cool: .

Actually, Thomas was an illiterate fishermen, where as Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a physician. Both the latter would have had knowledge of reading and writing. The former would not have those skills. Thus, any claims that Thomas wrote anything, would have to be taken with skepticism.

Only if you believe that all the descriptions given in that one, uncorroborated set of manuscripts are accurate and true.

Add to which, of course, that it is eminently likely NONE of them would have written their own Gospels, even if they really WERE the 'authors'... for the simple reason that the Gospels we see now are PROBABLY the records written by assistants and followers, when the original individuals were old or infirm.

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.

Of course, and on that same line, screaming was a way to show that it was against the person's will to have sex, a way to show that it was not that they who were contaminated. Thus, only the rapist would be killed.

This is all written by the nation of Barbarossa Uno, he asked me to post it here:
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."

I have never understood how Christians can believe in this bullcrap. "They are my friends, but I believe that they deserve a horrible excruciating punishment because they did not accept something that I did because my parents told me it when I was very young."

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?!?!


My argument all along. I'm glad someone actually thinks the same way as me. Religious people just don't want to take it in that God doesn't exist. Christians are told Earth was made in seven days and they believe it. They say god moulded it with his hands and yet they also say god isn't a physical being-make your mind up your just confused.

And very very wrong.

All Anti-Theist's raise your hands and rise up with me!!!!!!!

Accepted. But then the bible is False at the least.
TROLL:mad: :sniper:

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)
Lets see what Jesus (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2566269671806009973&q=jesus+will+survive) thinks.

Ok, who woke this dead thread up?

Ok, who woke this dead thread up?

Bringing the dead back to life...erm... Jesus?

He has a reputation for that kind of thing....

Bringing the dead back to life...erm... Jesus?

He has a reputation for that kind of thing....

It's a miracle! We must all worship this miraculous thread lest we be condemned to HELL!!1!one!!eleven!!:mad:

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 the hell are you getting this

the epistles where written by Paul just after the Crucifiction
the gospels range from 20-70 years after the event
the old testament is even older

what the hell kind of sources are you using

it is up to you to decide if it is a lie or not. But historical facts there can be proven if you research or ask a historian or look at a history book.

where the hell are you getting this

the epistles where written by Paul just after the Crucifiction
the gospels range from 20-70 years after the event
the old testament is even older

what the hell kind of sources are you using

Earliest is AD70, latest AD90-100. That fact that the old testament is indeed old is neither here nor there, as large parts of it are demostratably untrue. The "adam and eve" thing, Noahs ark, and literal interpretaion of the creation are clearly non-runners. You might say that buried in the bible is some form of wisdom, but you could say that about any "holy book" and probably be right.

So what do you think? Was there ( is there ) a "Q Document?"

Q was a germanic oral history that influenced both Mark and Matthew

As for date, while they may not all be correct, they are very close to what the real timeline is

And as for that comment that Mary didn't have her child in bethlehem, the History Channel did a special on that arround Christmas, saying that she most likely was in bethlehem, because geneological evidence says most of her maternal family was there. So most likely, she did have her child in Bethlehem, and as for the manger, we are misinterpreting the concept of a barn based on our world. most people lived in simple two story houses that where a barn on the bottom, and a living space on top. It os very likely that she did lay her child to rest in a manger, because a lot of her family would have been there

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?!?!
All this stuff doesn't mean that 'the bible is a lie'... were it simple as that. Christians accept the bible as the word of God. Doesn't matter when they were written, they're god's words

Earliest is AD70, latest AD90-100. That fact that the old testament is indeed old is neither here nor there, as large parts of it are demostratably untrue. The "adam and eve" thing, Noahs ark, and literal interpretaion of the creation are clearly non-runners. You might say that buried in the bible is some form of wisdom, but you could say that about any "holy book" and probably be right.

Adam and Eve was a narrative to describe why people sinned, it was a morallity tale, not all christians believe it, many, including the Catholic Church say that Intellegent Design is correct

Noah's Ark is just the Hebrew version of a real event, after all, why else would EVERY culture in the history of the world believe it

most of Genesis is morality tales. most people (Jews and Christians) do not take it literally, along with a lot of the Torah

As for all those things that where claimed to not be in the bible. Read Leviticus, it was designed to be the book of laws, with some scattered in Numbers and Genesis. many of the things the Christ taught where stuff that could be found in the Torah. Jesus was bropught up in a Phariseeic tradition

and as for Arianism, no one believes that, in fact very few back then believe that. if you have any more questions, ask a Catholic Priest, they will give you the most neutral interpretation you can possibly get

All this stuff doesn't mean that 'the bible is a lie'... were it simple as that. Christians accept the bible as the word of God. Doesn't matter when they were written, they're god's words
The Word of God and the Words of Men are one and the same. Both are fallible by necessity.

Bringing the dead back to life...erm... Jesus?

He has a reputation for that kind of thing....
Fucking Jesus, always screwing things up for the rest of us.
*shakes fist at the sky*

Adam and Eve was a narrative to describe why people sinned, it was a morallity tale, not all christians believe it, many, including the Catholic Church say that Intellegent Design is correct


Actually, the Catholic Church has been more vocal in the idea of evolution, than an actual endorsement of "Intelligent Design".


Noah's Ark is just the Hebrew version of a real event, after all, why else would EVERY culture in the history of the world believe it


They don't.

Noah's Ark is, most likely, just a Hebrew version of a real event... but it was a real LOCAL event, not some worldwide calamity.

And, most likely, the Hebrew version is stolen from the Babylonian version (since the earliest records of it in the Hebrew tradition, occur AFTER the Hebrews spent time in Babylon... where the evidence already existed for their 'version').


most of Genesis is morality tales. most people (Jews and Christians) do not take it literally, along with a lot of the Torah


Actually, most Jews take the whole Pentatauch far more seriously than simply believing it to be merely 'literal'. The Pentatauch is not just the WORD of God, it is his name. To truly understand the FULL complexity of the Pentatauch, would be to understand the nature of God.

they will give you the most neutral interpretation you can possibly get

Is this sarcasm?

You can't seriously be claiming that someone for whom Catholicism is their 'job', is going to be more 'neutral' than, for example, an educated Atheist..?

Earliest is AD70, latest AD90-100.

It is debatable that its earlier than AD70 given that

1. Jesus's referce prediction of the destruction of the temple by the Romans is not mentioned as fufilled prophicy. Given the gospel writers habit of refering to fufilled prophey before this is out of charachter for them.

2. The mentioning of buildings that existed before the destruction of the temple in AD70 in the present tense, rather than the past tense

3. The refence to certian figures by name alone without referncing, despite being exceptionally obscure and unknown in the time much after that.

It is debatable that its earlier than AD70 given that

1. Jesus's referce prediction of the destruction of the temple by the Romans is not mentioned as fufilled prophicy. Given the gospel writers habit of refering to fufilled prophey before this is out of charachter for them.

2. The mentioning of buildings that existed before the destruction of the temple in AD70 in the present tense, rather than the past tense

3. The refence to certian figures by name alone without referncing, despite being exceptionally obscure and unknown in the time much after that.

All of which are easily explained if the text was written 'in character'... or, if the text was 'based on' an earlier text.

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?!?!You lack evidence. However, modern Christianity is a stark contrast from Early Christianity. My gripes are that Paul was a jerkface (http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/) and the Council of Nicea was silly.

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

Well, I read it on the internet, so it must be true!

Q was a germanic oral history that influenced both Mark and Matthew

As for date, while they may not all be correct, they are very close to what the real timeline is

And as for that comment that Mary didn't have her child in bethlehem, the History Channel did a special on that arround Christmas, saying that she most likely was in bethlehem, because geneological evidence says most of her maternal family was there. So most likely, she did have her child in Bethlehem, and as for the manger, we are misinterpreting the concept of a barn based on our world. most people lived in simple two story houses that where a barn on the bottom, and a living space on top. It os very likely that she did lay her child to rest in a manger, because a lot of her family would have been there

uh.... why would mark and matthew use a germanic oral history to pad the life of jesus?

the history channel, while a fun source of basic info, wasnt doing a scholarly work on whether the bible is really a lie. the story of the birth of jesus is filled with nonsense. for example the romans didnt HAVE a census at that time and even if they had had a census they would have been utterly uninterested in jewish family lines so forcing a pregnant woman and her betrothed to take the arduous journey to bethlehem just wouldnt have happened.

but if there HAD been a census and it HAD forced people to go to their jewish ancestral seats, they would have gone to bethlehem if one of the listed bloodlines of jesus had been true (oops now i remember that there are 2 different ones mentioned and they both have big problems)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/notagain.jpg

Is this sarcasm?

You can't seriously be claiming that someone for whom Catholicism is their 'job', is going to be more 'neutral' than, for example, an educated Atheist..?

No, Atheists will give you the opinion that it is all lies (the left of the issue)
The Fundamentalists will say that it is 100% the word of God (the right)
Catholics believe that it is a combination of the two, written by man, inspired by God (The middle Ground)

it is also their job to be the most well informed they can be. They are educated in all three versions in the seminary, and no all sides of the argument. While religion is their job, they also are the most even keeled when it comes to this issue

uh.... why would mark and matthew use a germanic oral history to pad the life of jesus?

the history channel, while a fun source of basic info, wasnt doing a scholarly work on whether the bible is really a lie. the story of the birth of jesus is filled with nonsense. for example the romans didnt HAVE a census at that time and even if they had had a census they would have been utterly uninterested in jewish family lines so forcing a pregnant woman and her betrothed to take the arduous journey to bethlehem just wouldnt have happened.

but if there HAD been a census and it HAD forced people to go to their jewish ancestral seats, they would have gone to bethlehem if one of the listed bloodlines of jesus had been true (oops now i remember that there are 2 different ones mentioned and they both have big problems)

1. the source was a member of a Germanic tribe who was a follower of Jesus, he was accepted as the one oral tradition that was considered neutral, and the two first Gospel writers, where not the followers of the same name. they where followers of the apostles, who published in their master's name (a common practice in that time).

2. I never said that there was a census, that is negated by most theologians today, and may have been an attempt to set up a general timeline. Remember, these where not well educated men, it is very possible that they accidently messed up on the dates. Most historians agree that she would have been down there for another reason, i.e. her maternal family, whose job it was to birth the baby, actually duid live in Bethlehem

1. the source was a member of a Germanic tribe who was a follower of Jesus, he was accepted as the one oral tradition that was considered neutral, and the two first Gospel writers, where not the followers of the same name. they where followers of the apostles, who published in their master's name (a common practice in that time).

2. I never said that there was a census, that is negated by most theologians today, and may have been an attempt to set up a general timeline. Remember, these where not well educated men, it is very possible that they accidently messed up on the dates. Most historians agree that she would have been down there for another reason, i.e. her maternal family, whose job it was to birth the baby, actually duid live in Bethlehem
so who was this guy, whats his name, what did he know about the life of jesus that the jewish guys didnt, and where can i read more about him?

you think it makes SENSE that a woman 9 months pregnant should make the long trip to bethlehem if she didnt absolutely have to? thats why they made up the census story, so that she was compelled to go when no one would ever have made that trip at that time

so how much nonsense is OK in a holy book? at what point do you have to say that we cant trust ANY of the details offered?

Adam and Eve was a narrative to describe why people sinned, it was a morallity tale, not all christians believe it, many, including the Catholic Church say that Intellegent Design is correct
Why don't you look these things up before you say things like that?

No, Atheists will give you the opinion that it is all lies (the left of the issue)
The Fundamentalists will say that it is 100% the word of God (the right)
Catholics believe that it is a combination of the two, written by man, inspired by God (The middle Ground)


Why will an Atheist give you an opinion that is all lies?

Is this dishonesty on your part, or just a MASSIVE generalisation?

After all - I am an Atheist. My daughter is a Southern Baptist. If she asks me questions about religion, I give her answers depending on what she wants to know. That may mean I am explaining to her what science says about the issue, or it MAY mean I'm explaining to her the intricacy of religious thought on the matter. It MAY mean I'm explaining to her what the Wiccan, Muslim or Hndu opinion is on the matter.

The thing about 'skeptics' is... they make BETTER teachers, because they are objective.

I have no axes to grind, so my answers are honest in a way that no PAID practitioner of a religion could hope to manage.


Then, of course, I look at people I know that are Christians (but not Catholic), and I find your generalisation is rubbish there, also. Opinions are divided over the 'nature' of the Scripture. And, of course, I have met Catholics that have believed the Bible to be the written word of God... not 'inspired', but dictated.


it is also their job to be the most well informed they can be. They are educated in all three versions in the seminary, and no all sides of the argument. While religion is their job, they also are the most even keeled when it comes to this issue.

This is either evidence of a lack of understanding... or it is just plain dishonest. The Catholic priest's job is NOT to be 'the most well informed they can'... it is to minister to their congregation. How many Catholic priests can discuss in depth, the evolution of Cathari belief? Indeed, how many of them have read the scripture in the native tongues?

You are making claims that are just not 'real world' supported.

Add to which, of course, the assertion that "they also are the most even keeled when it comes to this issue" ignores the fact that it MUST eb a subjective issue for them, which automatically implies a bias.

I have talked to Catholic priests before, and my real-world experience makes a liar of your assertions.

Why will an Atheist give you an opinion that is all lies?

Is this dishonesty on your part, or just a MASSIVE generalisation?
You missed a word in there.

You missed a word in there.
You mean "it"?

*Confused*

You missed a word in there.

?

Help me out. It's been a long day...

Just a thought:

I go to college under an archeologist who is one of only six experts in biblical history in the world. He is actually the single expert on the Old Testament. He, you may like to know, estimates that most books of the Bible were written between 60AD and 100AD, and that it was written by several authors (such as Paul and Peter). I would urge all of you to take a closer look at facts beyond what can be found on the internet, because there are many more accurate viewpoints if you are willing to pick up a book and actually read a little.

Just a thought:

I go to college under an archeologist who is one of only six experts in biblical history in the world. He is actually the single expert on the Old Testament. He, you may like to know, estimates that most books of the Bible were written between 60AD and 100AD, and that it was written by several authors (such as Paul and Peter). I would urge all of you to take a closer look at facts beyond what can be found on the internet, because there are many more accurate viewpoints if you are willing to pick up a book and actually read a little.
Y'wha? The Old Testament has been around pre-AD, at least. The first Greek copies, I guess, would have been around 60AD, but there have definately been much older Hebrew texts found dating before the time Jesus was said to have lived.

All of which are easily explained if the text was written 'in character'... or, if the text was 'based on' an earlier text.

Well 2 maybe but 1 and 3 no. In charachter the Gospel writers constantly refered to propcey fufilments, so it would be out of charcter for them not to. And as for 3, unless they were written reletively close to the time, the copiers would have to know who it was they were talking about and most likly clarify it in their writing as if they were basing it on earlier writing, those copying it themselves would not be their when the book was later read, thus they would want to clarify who the less significent people were

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?!?!

Christians... they are playing at a political ploy. In the 500s, at his deathbed, Constantine had a final decision: Which religion should Rome be?
He hijacked Christianity, then a sect of Judaism, and changed it, making Jesus a demigod and transmuting the religion for the Pagans. The Epistles that describe Jesus as a MARRIED man (he was a Jew, so this should amaze no one (why would he be single?)) were set to be destroyed. Then, blah, blah, blah Holy Grail, blah, blah, blah Knights Templar, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!!!!:headbang:

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?!?!

Actually, most scholars believe the gospels were written between 30 and 70 years after Christ's death.

All history is biased, but that does not make it a lie. By definition, history must be written by those left around to write it.

If you are not a Christian, why do you care what Christians believe?

And what do you mean when you say it was written by "a pagan?" The bible was written by dozens of different people. The only person you could be referring to is Paul, who wrote most of the letters in the New Testament. However, Paul (or Saul) was born a Jew. The early Christians felt it was important to convert gentiles as well as Jews, so they emphasized the elements of Christ's life that resonated with pagans, especially the Romans. Every story has spin.

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

Im a Christian and I dont think that alot of christians would really believe everything in it actually occured. When in fact the bible was written think of the resources the people had. No calender or ways to keep track of years resulting in people being said to live for hundreds of years. Almost nothing scientific so they couldnt explain alot with that. I dont really believe the bible is word for word true but i believe certain things in it or most things in it stand for something. Just not what is said. I find it confuseing.

Christians... they are playing at a political ploy. In the 500s, at his deathbed, Constantine had a final decision: Which religion should Rome be?
He hijacked Christianity, then a sect of Judaism, and changed it, making Jesus a demigod and transmuting the religion for the Pagans. The Epistles that describe Jesus as a MARRIED man (he was a Jew, so this should amaze no one (why would he be single?)) were set to be destroyed. Then, blah, blah, blah Holy Grail, blah, blah, blah Knights Templar, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!!!!:headbang:
the epistles dont describe the life of jesus at all. perhaps you could site a passage or 2 that refers to his marriage...

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

It wasn't written 200 years after. The gospels were all written within the lifetimes of the apostles (which wasn't too long in those days), but the rest was written later. The entire Old Testament was written thousands of years before.

It's only false if you don't believe in it. The people who wrote it down thought it was true, as does a large percentage of the world population.

Freudtopia: that's why Christmas is around the winter solstice, instead of in April when Jesus was really born.

Im a Christian and I dont think that alot of christians would really believe everything in it actually occured. When in fact the bible was written think of the resources the people had. No calender or ways to keep track of years resulting in people being said to live for hundreds of years. Almost nothing scientific so they couldnt explain alot with that. I dont really believe the bible is word for word true but i believe certain things in it or most things in it stand for something. Just not what is said. I find it confuseing.

Of course they had calendars...the Hebrew calendar, the Babylonian calendar, the Sumerian calendar...

As far as the census, Josephus referred to one taking place in 6 A.D., so that was something that did occur, and one could have occurred when Luke said that it did...

If the Bible is really so full of errors, then it cannot be God's word, and therefore there is no real reason to be a Christian. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

The gospels were all written within the lifetimes of the apostles .

Can't be proved.


It's only false if you don't believe in it.

Actually... that's not how it works...

sorry about that, small, but very important typo.

Most NEW TESTAMENT books were written between 60 and 100 AD.

Actually... that's not how it works...
If it is established as a factual invalidity, then it is. If it's not true in the literal sense then it could still be true in the mythological sense; if you don't believe that, then there is no truth to it and hence it is false.

If they knew that the Bible was really a lie, then no, they wouldn't be Christians. Nobody would be if they thought it was a pile of nonsense: this is why most of the atheists I know are atheists.

If they knew that the Bible was really a lie, then no, they wouldn't be Christians. Nobody would be if they thought it was a pile of nonsense: this is why most of the atheists I know are atheists.

This just deserved to be quoted.

If they knew that the Bible was really a lie, then no, they wouldn't be Christians. Nobody would be if they thought it was a pile of nonsense: this is why most of the atheists I know are atheists.
I think you mean "This is why most of the Atheists I know reject Christianity/Judaism". After all, being an Atheist solely as a reaction to a pair of misguided belief structures seems somewhat... well, reactionary.

It doesn't bother me that the Bible is mythology. Regardless of whether he never lived, Jesus said some wise stuff in that book, and the notions of divinity that the hypothetical challenge of the incarnated and sacrificed God present are both incredibly insightful and so fundamentally different to mainstream Christianity that I'm astounded they can use it as their scripture and not notice the obvious implications.

Can't be proved.
You think they wrote their testaments after dying?

Kamsaki: I have no beef with Jesus, but I fear he'd shit blood over a lot of what's been done in his name since he died.

OK, where do I begin? First off, the Gospels where written only about 20-40 years after the death of Christ. The rest of the New Testament was about the Disciples spreading the faith, which occured, shockingly, AFTER the main event of the religion! As for the Old Testament, cross reference Jewish records to Zorasterist records, they are the same.

Roman Historians record most of the events of the New Testament, stop watching the anti-christian discovery channel, geez... If I have to smash another Holy Grail rumor into the ground, I might go on a war rampage...

I have no beef with Jesus, but I fear he'd shit blood over a lot of what's been done in his name since he died.
I wouldn't be too surprised. He absolutely laid into the Organised religion of his day for acting very much in the same way as current ones. But the thing to remember is Jesus was never about the past. Scripture and history served him one purpose: communication with the people for the here and now. It obviously didn't matter to him that people were attributing the atrocities of their civilisation to the God he saw and served, otherwise he would have had a complete hemorrhage diarrhea attack and caused a second global flood the first time around.

I think it's best to treat it as art rather than history and to gleam what little snippets of philosophical insights you can from that. Were Jesus a real individual, I don't doubt that he'd suggest something similar.

Roman Historians record most of the events of the New Testament, stop watching the anti-christian discovery channel, geez... If I have to smash another Holy Grail rumor into the ground, I might go on a war rampage...
which events of the NT are recorded by the romans? beyond the obvious history references of there BEING a roman empire, there being a roman governor, there being an antioch, an egypt, a corinth etc.

and what zoroastrian records do you have access to?

The Earliest Gospel was written by Saint Mark 30 years after Christ death and reserection i also detect a hint of the vey historicly inaccurate devinci code in here Emperor Constintine did not rewrite the bible the council at nicea was a very detelled process that combed over all the "gospels" and found that only mark matthew john and luke to be written withen 55 years of Christ death and reserectuion and therefore accurate. Also as for the apocrypha the was respected as historicly acurrate but not necaserly God inspired but still worthy of respect untill King Jame wrote it out of the bible

which events of the NT are recorded by the romans? beyond the obvious history references of there BEING a roman empire, there being a roman governor, there being an antioch, an egypt, a corinth etc.

and what zoroastrian records do you have access to?

Flavis Josephus a Preist of the higest order

which events of the NT are recorded by the romans? beyond the obvious history references of there BEING a roman empire, there being a roman governor, there being an antioch, an egypt, a corinth etc.

and what zoroastrian records do you have access to?
Technically, the third Gospel and everything between the two works of "John" in the common Bible were reasonably confidently written by Roman citizens. Don't know if that counts; Luke was a secondary source anyway and Paul was... well, Paul. Doesn't really affect their credibility either way.

Technically, the third Gospel and everything between the two works of "John" in the common Bible were reasonably confidently written by Roman citizens. Don't know if that counts; Luke was a secondary source anyway and Paul was... well, Paul. Doesn't really affect their credibility either way.

John had 5 works Gospel according to I-III John and Revalation

also Saint Luke was a doctor and historian he traveled around with
Paul and kept a record of the other apostles deeds (see the book of Acts) but Luke was a greek he interviewed MANY people and checked there records against eachother his is regarded by historians as the most acurate gospel

John had 5 works Gospel according to I-III John and Revalation
And there're a few others too; Okay, everything between John and James. <_<

John had 5 works Gospel according to I-III John and Revalation
Wasn't Revelations a different John?

Wasn't Revelations a different John?

nope Saint John of Patmos and Saint John the apostle are one in the same

Oh, of course the bible is full of falsehoods and contradictions. I'll leave my personal atheism out of this. I think the vast majority of Christians accept that there are plenty of errors in the bible caused by translation and age. But you can't discredit the whole book based on that. I mean, the vast majority of our social morality comes from Judeo-Christian tradition. And religion has proven to be a very good anti-depressant, for those who can truly believe it. Religion does, many, many good things for the world. Its just taking ALL of the words of holy works ABSOLUTELY LITERALLY (fundamentalism) that's dangerous.
I argue with the religious all the time, but I don't really expect to ever convince (all of) them otherwise, because that's impossible.

nope Saint John of Patmos and Saint John the apostle are one in the same
My bad, then. I always assumed they were two different Johns. One lives and learns.

Technically, the third Gospel and everything between the two works of "John" in the common Bible were reasonably confidently written by Roman citizens. Don't know if that counts; Luke was a secondary source anyway and Paul was... well, Paul. Doesn't really affect their credibility either way.
yes but they werent historians. they were theologians at best, short story writers at worst.

so that the writers of the bible were roman citizens doesnt cover the assertion that "Roman Historians record most of the events of the New Testament"

josephus writing well after the fact about events he wasnt witness to nor anywhere near not even alive at the same time as, doesnt quite make the cut of being an historian who recorded the events.

yes but they werent historians. they were theologians at best, short story writers at worst.

so that the writers of the bible were roman citizens doesnt cover the assertion that "Roman Historians record most of the events of the New Testament"

josephus writing well after the fact about events he wasnt witness to nor anywhere near not even alive at the same time as, doesnt quite make the cut of being an historian who recorded the events.
Didn't Constantine's succesor (I forget his name) make a point of destroying a lot of the records that mentioned Christ?

nope Saint John of Patmos and Saint John the apostle are one in the same
no really they arent.

Didn't Constantine's succesor (I forget his name) make a point of destroying a lot of the records that mentioned Christ?
i dont know. my grasp of roman history is pretty weak especially when it comes to christianity.

i dont know. my grasp of roman history is pretty weak especially when it comes to christianity.
You'd be able to look it up[ if I could recall his name, which it seems that I can't. I'd need to dig out my copy of The Rise and Fall to check this.

If you are so sure that god is real that give us some proof of that. If "god" truly loved us then he wouldn't let us hurt ourselves or even die at that. So being so he isn't real otherwise we would not be dying, fighting, or be feeling pain.

If you are so sure that god is real that give us some proof of that. If "god" truly loved us then he wouldn't let us hurt ourselves or even die at that. So being so he isn't real otherwise we would not be dying, fighting, or be feeling pain.

but you assume that God will reach down and help us
that would be a violation of our Free Will. God lets us set our course, and discover the consequences. he only intervenes when it will not affect free will. War is our decision, murder is our decision. He lets us choose our actions, with the appropriate consequences ready.

Wasn't Revelations a different John?
The two books were of the same origin, although neither was written by a single author. It's understood that, although a John probably did exist at some point, it was a community of his followers that would have actually put his life into writing.

but you assume that God will reach down and help us
that would be a violation of our Free Will. God lets us set our course, and discover the consequences. he only intervenes when it will not affect free will. War is our decision, murder is our decision. He lets us choose our actions, with the appropriate consequences ready.

Yes that makes sence but if god loves us enough then he would keep us from harm. You also didn't proove how he is real.

but you assume that God will reach down and help us
that would be a violation of our Free Will. God lets us set our course, and discover the consequences. he only intervenes when it will not affect free will. War is our decision, murder is our decision. He lets us choose our actions, with the appropriate consequences ready.
He lets us choose our actions is a milder way of saying that he lets human nature take over, making us kill each other and basically self-destruct.

Why don't you look these things up before you say things like that?

what are you talking about, Pope John Paul II said that Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, he supported Intellegent Design, I read the paper in which he said this. He said Intellegent Design was the theory that Evolution occured, but that God was the one that shaped it.

And just so you know, I am a Catholic, in a Catholic School, who when bored, bones up on theological issues.

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?!?!

Politics of the late Constantine. Before his changes in the 500s, the religion was almost exactly like Judaism, with FEMALE priests and Jesus' WIFE :D as the head. Constantine made it so that Mary was a whore and Jesus was a demigod. Then, blah blah blah Holy Grail blah blah blah blah blah blah! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

The two books were of the same origin, although neither was written by a single author. It's understood that, although a John probably did exist at some point, it was a community of his followers that would have actually put his life into writing.

its my understanding from the notations provided on the catholic bible website that that is what theologians believe is the origins of the "johns".

Things need to be proved. You cannot say something is true just because it is not disproved.

However, if people follow a religion, then their faith is enough for them in most cases, which explains why people believe in religions.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: That thing's awesome. I didn't notice it till now.

but you assume that God will reach down and help us
that would be a violation of our Free Will. God lets us set our course, and discover the consequences. he only intervenes when it will not affect free will. War is our decision, murder is our decision. He lets us choose our actions, with the appropriate consequences ready.

Thank you!!!:) :) :cool: :cool: :p :p :D :D

If you are so sure that god is real that give us some proof of that. If "god" truly loved us then he wouldn't let us hurt ourselves or even die at that. So being so he isn't real otherwise we would not be dying, fighting, or be feeling pain.
Pain lets us know we are injured. I'd rather feel pain than not.

Death is a necessary part of Life; it is in thousands of regulated, little deaths of the cells within him that keeps a man alive and healthy. Otherwise, they become old, worn down and ultimately cancerous. Similarly, the only way for the life of the Earth to flourish is for those on it to die to prevent their continued self-indulgence from becoming a terminal cancer on it.

God loves us because he loves Himself. We are all part of God; each one of us is an organ in the great biology that is existence and whose consciousness is God. It is in God's interests to do what is in our interests, and vice-versa.

And it's easy to prove God. The problem is that it requires the introduction of some new mathematical notation that not everyone is willing to accept up front.

but you assume that God will reach down and help us
that would be a violation of our Free Will. God lets us set our course, and discover the consequences. he only intervenes when it will not affect free will. War is our decision, murder is our decision. He lets us choose our actions, with the appropriate consequences ready.

You still havn't answered my question, how do u know he is real? If god really loved us then he wouldn't give us pain.

: That thing's awesome. I didn't notice it till now.[/QUOTE]

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: It is, isn't it? But, back to the topic. An obvious thing stops my speech from saying Christianity is false. If God birthed Jesus, shouldn't he also be able to??? Provocative.:headbang: :cool: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: These R cool.

Christianity started out as a cult you know....
Maybe that's why cults nowadays are considered evil! Chrisians just don't want new religions that might threaten theirs to take root....


Seriously though, I just don't understand how, with so many cultures each having their own religion and beliefs, how can you know that yours is superior? And also...nowadays when people claim to hear the voice of god, they're either presidents or crazys who we label schizophrenics or however that's spelled.

To me it simply seems silly to pick one religion over another, so I just go with maybe I'm deist, maybe I'm atheist. I don't really care. I can say what I want, but god doesn't interfere anymore. It wont smite me, it wont make miracles, it just sits on his ass if it even exists in the first place.

Maybe he died because we didn't sacrifice anything to him... you know the greeks believed that their gods would lose power if sacrifices weren't made, maybe the same thing works for the christian/jewish/muslim god... Just don't sacrifice humans, that would offend the god(s) because of the holy shape humans were made in.

Pain lets us know we are injured. I'd rather feel pain than not.

Death is a necessary part of Life; it is in thousands of regulated, little deaths of the cells within him that keeps a man alive and healthy. Otherwise, they become old, worn down and ultimately cancerous. Similarly, the only way for the life of the Earth to flourish is for those on it to die to prevent their continued self-indulgence from becoming a terminal cancer on it.

God loves us because he loves Himself. We are all part of God; each one of us is an organ in the great biology that is existence and whose consciousness is God. It is in God's interests to do what is in our interests, and vice-versa.

And it's easy to prove God. The problem is that it requires the introduction of some new mathematical notation that not everyone is willing to accept up front.

why did your god create cancer? you say death is necissary, what if we all lived forever? totally healthy...
haha prove god with math? then why are scientists atheist? dont you think that if someone had come up for a formula for god that we'd be hearing a lot more of it, the the intellectually elite would beleive in god, but they dont

so if a child is stuck in th middle of the street, (out of fear), and is about to get hit by a truck. If you help him, both him and yourself would survive. do you let him die becuase he's got free will, and even though he is not moving he can chose to move. Imagine that kid was your son
so you save him, well thats a lot more then god was gonna do for the kid, does that mean your nicer then your god? but god is perfect so its impossible to be nicer then him

so if a child is stuck in th middle of the street, (out of fear), and is about to get hit by a truck. If you help him, both him and yourself would survive. do you let him die becuase he's got free will, and even though he is not moving he can chose to move. Imagine that kid was your son
so you save him, well thats a lot more then god was gonna do for the kid, does that mean your nicer then your god? but god is perfect so its impossible to be nicer then him
God does not have free will, god has God's Will.

God does not have free will, god has God's Will.
a couple posts down someone said that god leaves people free will, does that mean he would let the kid die?
the answer according to what has been said by the theists would be yes, i would save the kid, that makes me better then perfect (better then god .: better then perfect)

so if a child is stuck in th middle of the street, (out of fear), and is about to get hit by a truck. If you help him, both him and yourself would survive. do you let him die becuase he's got free will, and even though he is not moving he can chose to move. Imagine that kid was your son
so you save him, well thats a lot more then god was gonna do for the kid, does that mean your nicer then your god? but god is perfect so its impossible to be nicer then him
if god loved me half as much as my mother does he would never send me to hell.

(i wish i could remember who said that)

a couple posts down someone said that god leaves people free will, does that mean he would let the kid die?
the answer according to what has been said by the theists would be yes, i would save the kid, that makes me better then perfect (better then god .: better then perfect)
God grants us free will. That means, if we can save the kid, we should.

God doesn't have free will, god has God's Will. It's like fate. If the child dies, even if we tried to help, that is God's Will.

You still havn't answered my question, how do u know he is real? If god really loved us then he wouldn't give us pain.

we give ourselves pain. God gave us a manual (which you have contiuosly derided) and he gave us the tools to prevent pain. Howeve, we ignore these tools or mis interpret them, and they become tools of evil. As for proof, bone up on miracles (exorcisms especially), they could be considered proof He exists.

You mean "it"?

*Confused*
Yes, "it".

The opinion "that it is all lies" is different from the opinion that is all lies.

what are you talking about, Pope John Paul II said that Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, he supported Intellegent Design, I read the paper in which he said this. He said Intellegent Design was the theory that Evolution occured, but that God was the one that shaped it.

And just so you know, I am a Catholic, in a Catholic School, who when bored, bones up on theological issues.
And since he's passed on, then, do you know what the stance of the church is?
I'm checking you on this, since i've already posted the answer. Perhaps you understand, perhaps not.

so if a child is stuck in th middle of the street, (out of fear), and is about to get hit by a truck. If you help him, both him and yourself would survive. do you let him die becuase he's got free will, and even though he is not moving he can chose to move. Imagine that kid was your son
so you save him, well thats a lot more then god was gonna do for the kid, does that mean your nicer then your god? but god is perfect so its impossible to be nicer then him

As has been said before, we have free will. a child is naive to the world, and therefore, cannot exorcise their free will. Adults can. It is up to Adults to try and do the right things. it isn't God's Will, because if it was God's Will, then he would have made sure that the truck was there. Thus interfereing with the Trucker's free will. God merely sits and does nothing, because he forbadde himself from doing anything. I am reminded of an example that a friend told me once.

God is like a man standing on top of a very tall building. He can see the crash is coming but he can't do any thing to stop it.

If you ever watch Bruce Almighty, you see numerous examples of Bruce trying to interfere with someone's free will, he can't. he can only influence him. it is the same with God, He can influence us all he wantsd, but it is still up to us to accept Him or not.

God's Will is more big picture. He says hthat the Parusia will occur and Christ will come back, that is His will. It was His will that Jesus was born. It was His will that Jesus taught. It will be His Will that the universe as we know it will end. All the little, everyday choices are our own, God can do nothing tochange it.

As for Hell, Hell is the eternal seperation from God. God does not "send us to Hell" we chose to go there through our actions. God weeps for every one that goes to hell.

And since he's passed on, then, do you know what the stance of the church is?
I'm checking you on this, since i've already posted the answer. Perhaps you understand, perhaps not.

It was an offical Papal statement, supported by the College of Cardinals, I doubt it has changed (though I might be wrong, I haven't seen any thing so far on this from Benedict)

It was an offical Papal statement, supported by the College of Cardinals, I doubt it has changed (though I might be wrong, I haven't seen any thing so far on this from Benedict)
Try this out.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html

EVOLUTION AND THE POPE

by Mark Brumley
To paraphrase Santayana: Newspapers ignorant of history are condemned to reprint it. How else should we interpret the recent headline, describing Pope John Paul II's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Pope Says Evolution Compatible with Faith"?


There's not much "news" there. Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."


While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn't necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn't reject evolution altogether. How then do we explain the big headlines when John Paul II says basically the same thing in 1996?


One answer: the alleged war between science and religion is good copy. So any chance to chronicle another fight between them is pounced on by the media. The Big Bang? That proves God's existence-so much for those infallible scientists who think they can explain everything without God. Evolution? That proves human beings come from slime-so much for those infallible theologians with their dogma about man being the image of God. Which side gets the better play depends on who appears ahead at the moment. That's why John Paul II's recent address on evolution was cast as a concession speech in many stories; a supposed acknowledgement that science was right all along.


But there's another reason for the present media hoopla: John Paul II himself. He's a living contradiction to many in the media. They see him as a dogmatic, dominating Polish patriarch on the one hand, and brilliant philosopher and cultural critic on the other. "Can the same man who put the kibosh on women priests endorse Darwin?" they wonder.


But he didn't endorse Darwin. He said that evolution, so far as it concerns man's bodily origins, is really a theological non-issue. With certain qualifications such as God's ultimate role in man's creation, the direct creation of the human soul by God and man's inherent dignity as a person, the theory of evolution needn't be seen as contrary to Christian revelation. So we're really back to Pius XII with one proviso.



John Paul II's Assumption
John Paul II apparently accepts the idea widely (but not universally) held among biologists that the scientific evidence corroborates evolution. But that hardly amounts to a papal "endorsement" of Darwin. John Paul II would be the first to admit that, when it comes to science, he's a layman. Only when a scientific hypothesis or theory impinges on theological matters does he have any special authority regarding science.


In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope reportedly stated that evolution is "more than a hypothesis." At first, some critics of evolution argued that the pope was mistranslated into English here. What he really said, they argued, was that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."Even the English language edition of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, seemed to concur, until a corrected translation was published. John Paul II did say evolution was "more than a hypothesis," according to the paper.


In any event, it seems clear that the pope thinks evolution is supported, at least to some extent, by the evidence. Noting various discoveries and evolution's progressive acceptance by "researchers," he concluded, "The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."


Perhaps John Paul II was making a subtle distinction, sometimes made by philosophers of science, between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis, on this view, is simply a possible explanation of a phenomenon; a theory is an explanation with some evidential verification, usually based on testing and research. The pope appears to think there's evidence to support evolution, hence it is "more than a hypothesis."



Catholics and Evolution
Must faithful Catholics accept evolution as true? No, but they may accept it, with the proper theological qualifications in place, without contradicting their faith. Whether man's body actually evolved from a subhuman species isn't, as such, a theological issue even if, indirectly, it may have some theological implications; it is mainly a question of scientific evidence. Perhaps John Paul agrees with those who think the scientific evidence supports evolution. But Catholics, as Catholics, are not obliged to hold that scientific assessment.


In recent years the theory of evolution has been challenged by critics who contend that the scientific evidence doesn't support it. Some critics even attack the theory as a form of naturalism, the philosophical view that nature is all there is-no God, no supernatural, no transcendental order of being. The idea is that human existence can, at least in principle, be wholly explained in terms of scientific laws. Evolution, on this view, wholly accounts for human origins, in purely physical terms.


Whatever the scientific evidence for evolution, a purely naturalistic formulation of the theory won't hold up philosophically or theologically, anymore than a purely naturalistic account of human nature as it exists today will. Human beings possess spiritual souls. That means, among other things, that we have intellects and wills, neither of which can be entirely reduced to merely natural, scientific explanations without jettisoning the reliability of all human thought and human freedom. For, as C. S. Lewis and others have argued, unless at least some of our thoughts aren't explicable wholly in terms of the physical processes of the natural world, the very scientific idea of nature itself is unreliable. For it, too, would be merely the product of biochemically determined thinking. And unless at least some of our choices aren't wholly produced by the operation of purely natural, physical laws, all our choices, including moral decisions to kill, lie, cheat or steal, would be mere products of nature. We would make them because the physical, biochemical processes of the universe compel us to; we couldn't do otherwise.


Now we all think people's thoughts or decisions are at least sometimes explicable in terms of mere physical processes. When, for instance, a drunkard tells us he's seen a pink elephant, we explain it entirely in terms of alcohol's effect on his nervous system. Or when a captured loyal soldier divulges strategic secrets to the enemy under the influence of conditioning and drugs, we don't consider him a traitor. We say he was brainwashed, and explain his actions that way rather than as a free decision to betray his country.


Those who would reduce the human mind to matter- philosophical naturalists-claim that all human thoughts and decisions are similarly reducible to particular states of brain chemistry. But no naturalist really thinks all thoughts as unreliable as his theory suggests and few, we can suspect, would deny human freedom altogether. For doing so, as we have seen, would undermine science-indeed, all knowledge.


If, therefore, a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false. A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true. He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket. He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.



A Crucial Distinction
Obviously, John Paul II distinguishes between evolutionary theories compatible with sound philosophy and theology, and those, such as naturalism, which aren't. In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he spoke of "theories of evolution," rather than simply the theory of evolution, to make the distinction. Believers who defend or attack evolution should make the same distinction.


When a philosophically or theology unsound version of evolution is proposed, it should be challenged on those grounds. But when a view of evolution doesn't contradict sound philosophy or theology-when it is compatible with what John Paul II calls "the truth about man"-then its validity depends on the scientific evidence. Ultimately, the evidence will either corroborate or undermine the theory. Those who accept or reject such a theory should do so on scientific, rather than philosophical or theological, grounds.


That distinction will, no doubt, displease those who think the theory of evolution not only scientifically false but theologically erroneous. Little can be said to persuade Fundamentalist Protestants otherwise. But Catholics who criticize Pope John Paul II for not condemning evolution should recall Pope Pius XII's now half-century old teaching, and avoid trying, in their anti-evolutionary fervor, to be more Catholic than the pope.



Mark Brumley, a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism, is the managing editor of Catholic Dossier.
---
I had a few in this line but for some reason the forum isn't divulging from archive, so i have to hunt & peck.

If it is established as a factual invalidity, then it is. If it's not true in the literal sense then it could still be true in the mythological sense; if you don't believe that, then there is no truth to it and hence it is false.

I don't accept it. If a thing is literally 'true', then it is true with or without belief. If a thing is true 'in spirit', then it is still true, with or without belief.

Example: Jesus was a real person. If this is true, it is true. Belief is irrelevent.

Example: Jesus is representation of a concept. If the CONCEPT is 'true', then the principle is true, whether or not you believe in the principle, or in the story.

You think they wrote their testaments after dying?


There is no independent, contemporary evidence that any of the supposed 'ministry' occured.

There is no independent, contemporary evidence that any of apostles really existed.

If the apostles DID exist, there is no independent, contemporary evidence that any of the supposed gospel-type texts, were written BY those apostles.


Indeed... even if you accept that, for example, Paul's texts were LITERALLY texts by Paul... the chances are greatly in favour of Paul being the DICTATOR, but not the hand that PENNED the texts.

And, if the texts are dictations, there is no need for them to have been written during the 'ministry' of the given apostle. Indeed, chances are, the texts would ONLY have been committed to paper, once it became clear that Jesus was NOT returning during the lifespan of the 'dictators'.

Roman Historians record most of the events of the New Testament...

Evidence?

nope Saint John of Patmos and Saint John the apostle are one in the same

You are spreading rumours, my friend.

The 'text' of the Gospel according to John, is written in very different 'style' to the epistles of 'John'... and in even MORE different 'style' to the Revelation texts.

There is a GREAT deal of debate about the identity of the author of Revelation... with most of the weight of opinion suggesting that the authors of the two texts are fairly certainly not the same.

Indeed... this is not even a NEW thought. Within the first few centuries after the writing of the texts, Dionysius of Alexandria was pointing out the MAJOR inconsistencies in style. Not to mention the fact that, if the texts are to be believed as of one author, he would have been at least 90 years old by the time Revelation was written.

Another factor, of course, is the fact that the 'John' of the Gospels is an apostle, and the 'John' of Revelation is a prophet.

Perhaps the best arguments, however, are those IN the texts: the John 'gospel' records a 'prophecy' by Jesus, which does not match, in any way, the Revelation prophecy. He promises a 'vision' (ostensibly to Nathaneal, but the Greek makes it obvious it is not JUST to one person he is talking) of Jesus surmounting a bridge between OPEN heavens and the earth, on which angels ascend and descend; the fact that, in many ways the John 'gospel' is incomplete... while the Revelation text is 'finished'.

There are a wealth of other reasons why it is unlikely the same 'John' is responsible for Gospel and Revelation... so much so, that MOST 'critical' analysis of scripture considers the two texts as unconnected.

Indeed... even the most cursory of examinations, a basic websearch, throws up the following:

"However, others, especially more recently, believe that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos refer to at least two separate individuals (see Authorship of the Johannine works for a full discussion). Several lines of evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, not the Gospel of John or the Epistles of John. Revelation and the Gospel of John are very dissimilar in many ways. For one, the author of Revelation explicitly identifies himself as John several times, but the author of The Gospel of John remains anonymous, never identifying himself directly. The theology of the Gospel is markedly different from that of Revelation. While both works liken Jesus to a lamb, they consistently use different words for lamb—the Gospel uses "amnos", Revelation uses "arnion". Lastly, the Gospel is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation)

The two books were of the same origin, although neither was written by a single author. It's understood that, although a John probably did exist at some point, it was a community of his followers that would have actually put his life into writing.

The wealth of evidence actually argues (strongly) against the 'one John' theory...

Actually the books started to appear in the first century by then most of the apostles had died and finished there books it would take another hundred years to get the books together since at the time of there deaths the apostles where everywhere from Rome to Jerusalem.

I don't accept it. If a thing is literally 'true', then it is true with or without belief. If a thing is true 'in spirit', then it is still true, with or without belief.

Example: Jesus was a real person. If this is true, it is true. Belief is irrelevent.

Example: Jesus is representation of a concept. If the CONCEPT is 'true', then the principle is true, whether or not you believe in the principle, or in the story.
The degree to which the concept is true is entirely dependent on the observer's participation. To say "Jesus died for me" is akin to saying "I am Sparticus". It's only metaphorically true if you take it upon yourself. Nobody else can tell you with any degree of validity that you are he or that Christ died for you; it is a conscious analogy we must ourselves make in order to give it truth.

Actually the books started to appear in the first century by then most of the apostles had died and finished there books it would take another hundred years to get the books together since at the time of there deaths the apostles where everywhere from Rome to Jerusalem.


Not according to what Ive heard.

The earliest texts like Thomas may have been as early as 40 A.D, but Mark and the others may have been as late as 200 A.D.
We simply dont know for sure.

If the NT texts were indeed in circulation in the first century, then no surviving copies have been found, the earlist ones we do know of, are approximately early second century.

Certainly, there is much doubt as to the actual authors of these texts, since none of the actual "eye witnesses" were likely alive during the writings.

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

I don't know how you can know this as a fact. That is very ignorant. I cannot show you any undeniable proof, I'll admit that. But, I have felt God work in my life in so many ways. I know because of this that God exists, and Christ is with God, and Christ is God.

I don't know how you can know this as a fact. That is very ignorant. I cannot show you any undeniable proof, I'll admit that. But, I have felt God work in my life in so many ways. I know because of this that God exists, and Christ is with God, and Christ is God.

And the follower of any other relgion would say exactly the same with regard to their religion.

you are so out of your mind im a christian and in the bible most of the old testiment jesus wasnt even born yet when jesus died they wrote the new testiment a new coventent you seriously need to sit in a church one time and just listen to what the preacher has to say you need to review both sides of the argument before you jump to conclutions you probably dont know anything about the bible or christains to be talking about people like that!

you are so out of your mind im a christian and in the bible most of the old testiment jesus wasnt even born yet when jesus died they wrote the new testiment a new coventent you seriously need to sit in a church one time and just listen to what the preacher has to say you need to review both sides of the argument before you jump to conclutions you probably dont know anything about the bible or christains to be talking about people like that!

Punctuation is your friend. Hug it. Embrace it. Become one with it.

you are so out of your mind im a christian and in the bible most of the old testiment jesus wasnt even born yet when jesus died they wrote the new testiment a new coventent you seriously need to sit in a church one time and just listen to what the preacher has to say you need to review both sides of the argument before you jump to conclutions you probably dont know anything about the bible or christains to be talking about people like that!

If I get what you are saying... you are saying that some people here need to 'review both sides of the argument'... because you think they are unaware of the 'Christian' side?

It has to be said... I'm not convinced you, yourself, are well versed in the 'opposition' arguments to your perspective, so I find that a little ironic.

Not according to what Ive heard.

The earliest texts like Thomas may have been as early as 40 A.D, but Mark and the others may have been as late as 200 A.D.
We simply dont know for sure.

If the NT texts were indeed in circulation in the first century, then no surviving copies have been found, the earlist ones we do know of, are approximately early second century.

Certainly, there is much doubt as to the actual authors of these texts, since none of the actual "eye witnesses" were likely alive during the writings.

Thomas is a book in the Bible?
----

Authors of the books of the Bible (author, approx. year: book(s) written)

New Testament

Matthew, 55 AD: Matthew

John Mark, 50 AD: Mark

Luke, 60-65 AD: Luke, Acts

John, 90 AD: John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation

Paul, 50-70 AD: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy,
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

James, 45 AD: James

Peter, 60 AD: 1 Peter, 2 Peter

Jude, 60 AD: Jude

Unknown (best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas or Apollos) 65 AD: Hebrews


Old Testament:
Moses, 1400 BC: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Joshua, 1350 BC: Joshua
Samuel/Nathan/Gad, 1000 - 900 BC: Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel
Jeremiah, 600 BC: 1 Kings, 2 Kings
Ezra, 450 BC: 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah
Mordecai, 400 BC: Esther
Moses, 1400 BC: Job
Several different authors, mostly David, 1000-400 BC: Psalms
Solomon, 900 BC: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon
Isaiah, 700 BC: Isaiah
Jeremiah, 600 BC: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Ezekiel, 550 BC: Ezekiel
Daniel, 550 BC: Daniel
Hosea, 750 BC: Hosea
Joel, 850 BC: Joel
Amos, 750 BC: Amos
Obadiah, 600 BC: Obadiah
Jonah, 700 BC: Jonah
Micah, 700 BC: Micah
Nahum, 650 BC: Nahum
Habakkuk, 600 BC: Habakkuk
Zephaniah, 650 BC: Zephaniah
Haggai, 520 BC: Haggai
Zechariah, 500 BC: Zechariah
Malachi, 430 BC: Malachi

Thomas is a book in the Bible?
----

Authors of the books of the Bible (author, approx. year: book(s) written)

New Testament

Matthew, 55 AD: Matthew

John Mark, 50 AD: Mark

Luke, 60-65 AD: Luke, Acts

John, 90 AD: John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation

Paul, 50-70 AD: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy,
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

James, 45 AD: James

Peter, 60 AD: 1 Peter, 2 Peter

Jude, 60 AD: Jude

Unknown (best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas or Apollos) 65 AD: Hebrews


Old Testament:
Moses, 1400 BC: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Joshua, 1350 BC: Joshua
Samuel/Nathan/Gad, 1000 - 900 BC: Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel
Jeremiah, 600 BC: 1 Kings, 2 Kings
Ezra, 450 BC: 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah
Mordecai, 400 BC: Esther
Moses, 1400 BC: Job
Several different authors, mostly David, 1000-400 BC: Psalms
Solomon, 900 BC: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon
Isaiah, 700 BC: Isaiah
Jeremiah, 600 BC: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Ezekiel, 550 BC: Ezekiel
Daniel, 550 BC: Daniel
Hosea, 750 BC: Hosea
Joel, 850 BC: Joel
Amos, 750 BC: Amos
Obadiah, 600 BC: Obadiah
Jonah, 700 BC: Jonah
Micah, 700 BC: Micah
Nahum, 650 BC: Nahum
Habakkuk, 600 BC: Habakkuk
Zephaniah, 650 BC: Zephaniah
Haggai, 520 BC: Haggai
Zechariah, 500 BC: Zechariah
Malachi, 430 BC: Malachi

No. The Gospel of Thomas is part of the Apocrypha. It could have been written at any point between 40 and 160AD, we really don't know.

Incidently the dates you assigned to some of the New Testament books are awfully early.

Thomas is a book in the Bible?
----

Authors of the books of the Bible (author, approx. year: book(s) written)

(Bunch of speculative dates, cited as though they mean something)...



No. Thomas is not considered a Canonical text, now... thus, it is not in our 'bibles'. But, it was considered a valid text, 'pre-canonisation'.

If your question focuses more on what 'made it in' to the canonised book, than on what the texts were that were used by the 'Christian' churches before the intervention of Rome... then your answer is 'yes'.

The Bible is not so much a lie as it is a collection of middle eastern myths pulled together in one place, skewed to support a particular agenda and presented as a cohesive argument to support a religion. That's the Old Testament.

The New Testament is a collection of four books carefully chosen from hundreds to support an agenda, supported by the commentary of several misogynistic Jews and Greeks along with a couple of books designed to scare people into believing.

The Bible is not so much a lie as it is a collection of middle eastern myths pulled together in one place, skewed to support a particular agenda and presented as a cohesive argument to support a religion. That's the Old Testament.

The New Testament is a collection of four books carefully chosen from hundreds to support an agenda, supported by the commentary of several misogynistic Jews and Greeks along with a couple of books designed to scare people into believing.
That sums it up quite nicely:p

No. The Gospel of Thomas is part of the Apocrypha. It could have been written at any point between 40 and 160AD, we really don't know.

Incidently the dates you assigned to some of the New Testament books are awfully early.

i got them from a web site. i'll provide a link if you like.

i got them from a web site. i'll provide a link if you like.

Repeat after me: "website" does not equal "true"...

i got them from a web site. i'll provide a link if you like.

Go ahead.

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

No, it was not. It was written by fanatic Jews during the Ptolemaic era in Alexandria.

It is a well known fact that most of the Bible's narratives are ok in describing historical events but that the whole theological claims are just rubbish. There had never been monotheism prior to the Jews' return out of their Babylonian Exile. All about the faith of Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses is a big fat lie. Those folks believed in what everybody else believed in that region and in that time.

Thomas is a book in the Bible?


The Bible, as in "The old Testament", or "The New Testament"?

No.

Gnostic Text.

Much like "The Gospel of Mary".

By that post, I meant earliest known texts of Jesus Christ, wich, Thomas just may be the earliest in terms of writing date.

You don't have to question the bible or the existance of God if you have faith.

Of course... who would believe in something written hundreds of year ago? and who would believe that the world just magically appeared and created in about a week... who would believe in a virgin birth? i mean... it all sounds like some nutta who obviously lost too many brain cells as a child right?

But when you have faith you don't even have to question any of this. I ain't gonna say any more cause i know no ones gives a shit about what i have to say. From what i've seen on these threads it seems like a heck of a lot of people are just attacking the whole 'christian' aspect.

But yeh, Faith. Thats all it comes down to.

You can debate all of this forever and come to no conclusion. But after investigating everything carefully I have come to the understanding that the new testament books were all written within a generation of Christs death and were either written by witnesses to his ministry or dictated by said witnesses to disciples. And number two, although I might die for what I believe in why on earth would I die for something I know was false. You expect us to believe that people who were in a position to know for sure whether or not Christ was resurected from the dead all chose to die for something they knew was a lie. Can you find me twelve people on this planet who, given a choice would die for something they knew to be a lie?

Faith is just that, faith. Either you believe in the spiritual or you don't. Thats the choice you have. If I'm right, I'll lead a good life according to Gods law and when I die I will be resurected into Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'll lead a good life according to gods law and when I die nothing will happen. If You're wrong you'll lead a good or bad life according to your law and when you die you'll burn for all eternity in a lake of fire. I'm going to play the odds on this one. It's no burden to me, it's actually a joy.

You don't have to question the bible or the existance of God if you have faith.

Of course... who would believe in something written hundreds of year ago? and who would believe that the world just magically appeared and created in about a week... who would believe in a virgin birth? i mean... it all sounds like some nutta who obviously lost too many brain cells as a child right?

But when you have faith you don't even have to question any of this. I ain't gonna say any more cause i know no ones gives a shit about what i have to say. From what i've seen on these threads it seems like a heck of a lot of people are just attacking the whole 'christian' aspect.

But yeh, Faith. Thats all it comes down to.

I'm not really sure if that's defending or attacking faith...

You can debate all of this forever and come to no conclusion. But after investigating everything carefully I have come to the understand that the new testament books were all written within a generation of Christs death and were either written by witnesses to his ministry or dictated by said witnesses to disciples.

Are you going to back that up or are you taking it on faith?

And number two, although I might die for what I believe in why on earth would I die for something I know was false. You expect us to believe that people who were in a position to know for sure whether or not Christ was resurected from the dead all chose to die for something they knew was a lie. Can you find me twelve people on this planet who, given a choice would die for something they knew to be a lie?

Circular logic:

How do we know the Apostles were matyred? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Apostles even existed? Because the Bible says so.

Faith is just that, faith. Either you believe in the spiritual or you don't. Thats the choice you have. If I'm right, I'll lead a good life according to Gods law and when I die I will be resurected into Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'll lead a good life according to gods law and when I die nothing will happen. If You're wrong you'll lead a good or bad life according to your law and when you die you'll burn for all eternity in a lake of fire. I'm going to play the odds on this one. It's no burden to me, it's actually a joy.

*cough*Pascal's Wager!*cough*

You can debate all of this forever and come to no conclusion. But after investigating everything carefully I have come to the understand that the new testament books were all written within a generation of Christs death and were either written by witnesses to his ministry or dictated by said witnesses to disciples

Look, you can believe what you want to, but this just isnt the truth.
Its what you've chosen to believe.
The truth is that we arent exactly sure when these texts were writen exactly, but we can guess with some degree of accuracy.
The truth is that they were most likely not written within a generation of Jesus' death, nor, likely dictated by "John" or "Mark" etc.

Consider the average life span of a lower class citizen 2000 years ago, the expected lifespan is about forty, old age being 50.
Even if we assume the earliest of the NT texts to be penned in 60 A.D, wich is a bit of a stretch....its unlikely any of the Disciples were alive.
If we get a bit more realistic, and guess the date to be approximatly 100 A.D, then we now have third hand accounts, or even fourth hand.




. And number two, although I might die for what I believe in why on earth would I die for something I know was false.


You think anyone is likely to kill you for being a christian?



Faith is just that, faith. Either you believe in the spiritual or you don't. Thats the choice you have. If I'm right, I'll lead a good life according to Gods law and when I die I will be resurected into Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'll lead a good life according to gods law and when I die nothing will happen. If You're wrong you'll lead a good or bad life according to your law and when you die you'll burn for all eternity in a lake of fire. I'm going to play the odds on this one. It's no burden to me, it's actually a joy.


I could get nasty and say that the "its a matter of faith" routine is simply an exscuse, a cop-out, that christians use when religion fails to answer simple important questions, or contradicts itself...

But lets not go there...

Instead, I'll suggest that if indeed Im wrong, and God exists, that instead of buying into any particular religions dogma, that God may have given us a brain, and has all along wanted us to use it to think for ourselves.
That instead of focusing so intensely upon Jesus death, and supposed ressurection, that it was his message that was truly important, and even though simple, it has been ignored completely.
Thus, maybe if God judges us, he will do so based on merit, and how you have lived your life, and not by the number of Hail Mary's, or "Our Fathers", or amount of money youve tithed.

You can debate all of this forever and come to no conclusion. But after investigating everything carefully I have come to the understanding that the new testament books were all written within a generation of Christs death and were either written by witnesses to his ministry or dictated by said witnesses to disciples. And number two, although I might die for what I believe in why on earth would I die for something I know was false. You expect us to believe that people who were in a position to know for sure whether or not Christ was resurected from the dead all chose to die for something they knew was a lie. Can you find me twelve people on this planet who, given a choice would die for something they knew to be a lie?

Faith is just that, faith. Either you believe in the spiritual or you don't. Thats the choice you have. If I'm right, I'll lead a good life according to Gods law and when I die I will be resurected into Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'll lead a good life according to gods law and when I die nothing will happen. If You're wrong you'll lead a good or bad life according to your law and when you die you'll burn for all eternity in a lake of fire. I'm going to play the odds on this one. It's no burden to me, it's actually a joy.

And, what about if someone else is right?

And, YOU end up burning in someone else's hell?

Your logic only holds if there are two options: a) my god or b) no god.

Problem with that is, if you are going to accept one unprovable myth, how do you decide which one?

I got bored halfway through the page 12.

You can debate all of this forever and come to no conclusion. But after investigating everything carefully I have come to the understanding that the new testament books were all written within a generation of Christs death and were either written by witnesses to his ministry or dictated by said witnesses to disciples.

Addressing this point seperately...

Okay, you have examined EVERYTHING carefully?

What do you think about the claims of Mithraistic influence in New Testament texts?

What is your opinion of the ministry of the first Buddha, 600 years before Jesus?

I'm curious as to how you view the Babylonian versions of the Flood and Eden myths?

What do you make of Jesus quoting the Book of Enoch?

How do you view The Didache?

Which do you consider the more accurate... the Gospel of Bartholemew, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Phillip?

How do you rate the validity of the two books of Hermas?


Quite simply - it is a HUGE claim to make... that you have investigated "everything carefully". I've been researching in this field for a couple of decades, and don't think I can come CLOSE to HONESTLY saying I have investigated 'everything carefully'.

When it comes down to it, there is just NO evidence that any of the text was written by anyone that had even MET an apostle... let alone, being BY an apostle. Indeed... we have no way to independently corroborate the truth of the existence of Jesus OR his apostles.


Last point: I don't think you have researched in ANYTHING like the depth you claim... because you make a fundamental error. You say "I have come to the understanding that the new testament books were all written... by witnesses to his ministry or dictated by said witnesses to disciples".

And yet, even the most CASUAL examination of the scripture would have shown that ALL of Paul's work CLEARLY does not meet either of the requirements you claim. Paul was never present as a witness to Jesus' earthly ministry... so ALL of the Pauline texts are, at best, commentary or secondary accounts... hearsay.

Problem with that is, if you are going to accept one unprovable myth, how do you decide which one?
And the obvious solution to that little problem is to realise that a significant proportion of said unprovable myths all say something very, very similar. Every religion that holds to the idea of a "Hell" is practically a simple copy of one of the others. In that respect, no matter which one you choose, it all filters down to whichever the original inspiration was.

Certainly, what evidence do you have from the era in which the gospels were written rebutts any of their claims. What historical evidence do you have that claims they were false and written hundreds of years later.

I'm going to quote Dr. Craig L. Blomberg (Ph.D) from Aberdeen University in Scotland.

"The Standard scholarly dating for, even in very Liberal circles, is Mark is written in the 70's, Matthew and Luke in the 80's and John in the 90's. But listen: that's still within the lifetime of the various eyewitnessesof the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around.
"Consequently, these late dates for the gospels really aren't all that late. In fact, we can make a comparison that's very instructive.
"The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to generally trustworthy. Yes, legendary material about Alexander did develope over time, but it was only in the centuries after these two writers.
"In other words, the first five hundred years kept Alexander's story pretty much in tact; Legendary material began to emerge over the next five hundred years. So whether the Gospels were written sixty years or thirty years after the life of Jesus, the amount of time is negligible by comparison. It's almost a non-issue."

He also stated that the books were written earlier than most scholars assume they were. He stated...
"And we can support that by looking at the book of acts, which was written by Luke. Acts ends apparently unfinnished- Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book was written before Paul was put to death."

If you want to debate the Historical accuracy of the new testament then you're going to be debating with Historians like Josephus and many many archeologists who have confirmed names dates and places mentioned in the bible. But I will certainly like to join in said debate.

.
"The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to generally trustworthy. .

Alexander has never claimed divinity, nor ressurection.
Theres a big difference between conquering a nation, with millions of eye witnessess to a deed, or accomplishment, and claiming to be the son of god, and coming back from the dead.

You can debate all of this forever and come to no conclusion. But after investigating everything carefully I have come to the understanding that the new testament books were all written within a generation of Christs death and were either written by witnesses to his ministry or dictated by said witnesses to disciples.

Then, in all honesty, your investigation was pretty shoddy. Whether or not you choose to believe in the Bible is your business, but don't pretend to care about empirical realities if you're going to do such a bad job of investigating them.


And number two, although I might die for what I believe in why on earth would I die for something I know was false.

The way some Christians talk, you'd think "Thou Shalt Be Melodramatic" was the 11th Commandment.


You expect us to believe that people who were in a position to know for sure whether or not Christ was resurected from the dead all chose to die for something they knew was a lie. Can you find me twelve people on this planet who, given a choice would die for something they knew to be a lie?

Hell yes I can. I can find you thousands (probably millions) of people who would rather die than admit to themselves that their "faith" has all been a lie. I'm personally friends with someone who tried to kill himself when that realization set in.


Faith is just that, faith. Either you believe in the spiritual or you don't. Thats the choice you have. If I'm right, I'll lead a good life according to Gods law and when I die I will be resurected into Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'll lead a good life according to gods law and when I die nothing will happen. If You're wrong you'll lead a good or bad life according to your law and when you die you'll burn for all eternity in a lake of fire. I'm going to play the odds on this one. It's no burden to me, it's actually a joy.
Ahh, Pascal's Falacy. I'm sure he would be delighted to know that people are still falling for his pitiful con after all these years.

And the obvious solution to that little problem is to realise that a significant proportion of said unprovable myths all say something very, very similar. Every religion that holds to the idea of a "Hell" is practically a simple copy of one of the others. In that respect, no matter which one you choose, it all filters down to whichever the original inspiration was.

That's not true, though... is it?

What if the original Canaanites had it right? And every OTHER religion since they were basically wiped-out, has been based on the wrong version?

Thus, similar or not, ALL the modern versions of the Shemitic root, would be equally wrong.

But, that aside, there have been other, non-Judeo-Christian religions, that have embraced ideas of 'heavenly' and 'hellish' afterlife concepts. If THOSE religions were right, then none of the Judeo-Christian style religions can be quite right... especially where there have been BIG differences between how those areas were supposed to be entered.

An example, of course, would be the Greek Elysian Fields. You couldn't 'earn' your way in, and you couldn't be 'saved' in. The only way 'in' was to be pre-picked by the Gods. Another example would be Valhalla... which the average Christian would also fail entry to.

"The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to generally trustworthy. Yes, legendary material about Alexander did develope over time, but it was only in the centuries after these two writers.

However we do have contemporary evidence to support some of the claims.

a coin showing Alexander the Great which was produced in his lifetime (http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/alexanderzeuscoin1.jpg)

I challenge you to provide anything so clinching for the existance of Jesus.

Certainly, what evidence do you have from the era in which the gospels were written rebutts any of their claims. What historical evidence do you have that claims they were false and written hundreds of years later.

I'm going to quote Dr. Craig L. Blomberg (Ph.D) from Aberdeen University in Scotland.

"The Standard scholarly dating for, even in very Liberal circles, is Mark is written in the 70's, Matthew and Luke in the 80's and John in the 90's. But listen: that's still within the lifetime of the various eyewitnessesof the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around.
"Consequently, these late dates for the gospels really aren't all that late. In fact, we can make a comparison that's very instructive.
"The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to generally trustworthy. Yes, legendary material about Alexander did develope over time, but it was only in the centuries after these two writers.
"In other words, the first five hundred years kept Alexander's story pretty much in tact; Legendary material began to emerge over the next five hundred years. So whether the Gospels were written sixty years or thirty years after the life of Jesus, the amount of time is negligible by comparison. It's almost a non-issue."

He also stated that the books were written earlier than most scholars assume they were. He stated...
"And we can support that by looking at the book of acts, which was written by Luke. Acts ends apparently unfinnished- Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book was written before Paul was put to death."

If you want to debate the Historical accuracy of the new testament then you're going to be debating with Historians like Josephus and many many archeologists who have confirmed names dates and places mentioned in the bible. But I will certainly like to join in said debate.

First: Comparison proves nothing. It doesn't work when you tell your mom "but, EVERYONE IS DOING IT", and it doesn't work when you say "But, your source isn't very reliable, either".

This is not a plea bargain... we are not trading off which texts we shall accept: "Okay, if you admit that the Gospel of Matthew is 'true', we'll let you have the life of Julius Caesar..."

Second: There are strong arguments against the body of this argument... could John really have written Revelation? He would have had to be at LEAST 90... in a time and place where you were considered old in your 30's?

Third: Still, the case remains that there is no INDEPENDENT and CONTEMPORARY evidence that ANY of the scripture is TRUE, or even, that it was written by the people who CLAIM to have written it.

Fourth: The argument you present makes a big deal about Acts being 'unfinished'. A quick look at the Gospel of John, reveals that that text appears to be unfinished, also... with a hurried 'not-in-context-or-style' ending. And yet, some claim that John went on to write Revelation many years later... So... either the two texts had different authors, or being 'unfinished' means nothing.

However we do have contemporary evidence to support some of the claims.

a coin showing Alexander the Great which was produced in his lifetime (http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/alexanderzeuscoin1.jpg)

I challenge you to provide anything so clinching for the existance of Jesus.
Why should they? They have FAITH. Golly, why can't we just accept their FAITH? They've got FAITH that their fairy stories are real, and that's enough. They have FAITH that we're all going to burn in Hell for rejecting their God, so why do we have to get all disrespectful and questioning about their FAITH?

Why should they? They have FAITH. Golly, why can't we just accept their FAITH? They've got FAITH that their fairy stories are real, and that's enough. They have FAITH that we're all going to burn in Hell for rejecting their God, so why do we have to get all disrespectful and questioning about their FAITH?

I couldn't help thinking of the 'Just William' stories when I read this post. :)

Okay, let me just settle things right here and now: my science can beat up your "faith" any day of the week. Why? Because science will work for ANYBODY.

Your belief in Jesus doesn't do fuckall for me, or for anybody else who doesn't share your "faith." But science will work for anybody, whether they believe in it or not. Science can get rid of your headache, can treat your wounds, can make your car go, can make your plane stay in the air, can build your home, can power your computer, can purify your water, can save your life...and it can do all of this even if you stamp your little foot and insist that God's behind every single thing.

You can believe that the world was created in 7 days, and the flu vaccine will work just as well on you as anybody else (even though it only exists because of evolutionary biology). You can believe that God sticks babies into women's tummies, but science will still be just as able to help you prevent or protect your pregnancy. You can spend every waking moment talking about how rotten science is, while still enjoying all the gifts that science brings.

You can be utterly and completely ignorant of science, and it can still save your life...can the same be said for "faith?" If a person knows nothing of Jesus then she cannot be "saved," but a person who is utterly ignorant of biology can still be treated by modern medicine. A person who has no knowledge of the Bible can't reap any of the benefits of your "faith," but a person can drive a car with an internal combustion engine even if they haven't got the least idea what makes it go. Hell, that engine is being powered by FOSSIL FUELS, for crying out loud, so all the people who don't believe in evolution are driving around in cars powered by the remains of animals that they insist never existed.

Science doesn't help or not help based on what Sky Fairy a person believes in. Science doesn't save or damn people based on which myths they accept. Science doesn't protect or ignore based on what kind of hat you wear, what foods you eat on which days, or which words you mumble for good luck.

If you want to put your "faith" in one book, compiled centuries ago by a secular leader looking to solidify his own political power, then go right ahead. Science isn't going to damn you to hell for it. Scientists will still work to save and improve your life. Science isn't as petty and vindictive as your God.

However we do have contemporary evidence to support some of the claims.

a coin showing Alexander the Great which was produced in his lifetime (http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/alexanderzeuscoin1.jpg)

I challenge you to provide anything so clinching for the existance of Jesus.

There are Roman and Semitic literary sources that do so, alluding to him as a rabbi, however I cannot proffer a link to them. Failing that, I daresay the Turin Shroud should suffice:)

There are Roman and Semitic literary sources that do so, alluding to him as a rabbi, however I cannot proffer a link to them. Failing that, I daresay the Turin Shroud should suffice:)

I doubt it. I'm not sure anyone actually believes the Shroud is a genuine artifact...

I doubt it. I'm not sure anyone actually believes the Shroud is a genuine artifact...

Not good with irony then....

Not good with irony then....

Irony is difficult on the internet. :)

Irony is difficult on the internet. :)

Really...;)

Not good with irony then....

Was it irony?

In a thread like this, you never know.... I've seen people claim that the James Ossuary thing was real...

the first testament (the first part od the bible) was written thousands of years before christ - its the section shared by jews and christians - and the main part of the second testament was written by people who were alive when jesus was. so, what the hell are you talking about? merely saying on a NS thread that the bible was written 200 years after jesus doesnt make it true. i want to see proof

the first testament (the first part od the bible) was written thousands of years before christ - its the section shared by jews and christians - and the main part of the second testament was written by people who were alive when jesus was. so, what the hell are you talking about? merely saying on a NS thread that the bible was written 200 years after jesus doesnt make it true. i want to see proof

A fair assessment.

Of course, those of us that don't accept the assertions of Biblical historicity are still waiting for evidence, also...

I have to point out, though, that there is actually no evidence for the Hebrew scripture predating Jesus by even a thousand years...

The bible is crap. But... the old testament is quite old. And it has miracles too. No, the New Testament is written by Christians. One thing of interest: the later the Gospels get, the more miracles Christ is involved in. Personally, I believe that Christ existed. Either he was schizophrenic, or the whole "son of god" thing came later. I am sure Muhammed was schizophrenic.

The bible is crap. But... the old testament is quite old. And it has miracles too. No, the New Testament is written by Christians. One thing of interest: the later the Gospels get, the more miracles Christ is involved in. Personally, I believe that Christ existed. Either he was schizophrenic, or the whole "son of god" thing came later. I am sure Muhammed was schizophrenic.
It is actually more likely that Mohammed suffered from a disorder known as temporal lobe epilepsy. Biblical accounts suggest that Saul/Paul also suffered from this disorder, though there is insufficient evidence even to speculate about Jesus himself.

It is actually more likely that Mohammed suffered from a disorder known as temporal lobe epilepsy. Biblical accounts suggest that Saul/Paul also suffered from this disorder, though there is insufficient evidence even to speculate about Jesus himself.

There's also a theory that Paul was a repressed homosexual. Not really relevant but I thought I'd drop it in for interest.

The bible is crap. But... the old testament is quite old. And it has miracles too. No, the New Testament is written by Christians. One thing of interest: the later the Gospels get, the more miracles Christ is involved in. Personally, I believe that Christ existed. Either he was schizophrenic, or the whole "son of god" thing came later. I am sure Muhammed was schizophrenic.

And of course science kicks faith's ass. My father is a physicist. The thing to remember: religion was originally invented to explain. Humans are naturally curious, and always ask "Why?" If they have no way of knowing the answer, they make one up. So thats why they came up with religions. But now, we have evidence. Most of the answers are sitting right in front of ours eyes, and more are being discovered. The bible is obviously nonsensical. Hell, its not even self-consistant.

But if you are going to attack faith and the bible like they deserve, at least do some research first. Same goes with defending.

Didnt mean to post twice. I clicked stop in firefox, thought that would stop post.