jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (148 posts)

I'll leave you to read it. Aramaic Bible discovered. Jesus was a man..

  1. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    I'll quote from the piece, but leave the rest to you to read. A lot of people are, it appears, worried.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … urkey.html

    Quote:

    "He also said the Vatican had made an official request to see the scripture - a controversial text which Muslims claim is an addition to the original gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. In line with Islamic belief, the Gospel treats Jesus as a human being and not a God."

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting. I'd be curious to find out if it dates back all the way to Barnabas. And, I'll be honest. I hope it doesn't. We don't need fundamental Christians and devout Muslims banding together. It's bad enough here in the states right now. If the two get on the same page they'll be attempting to make us all wear burkas. Whether we are religious or not.

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think it's probably a fake - although it might be a 1500 fake. As it's not possible to foretell the future, it had to have been written after the birth of Mahommed.

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I looked up more info because this thread peaked my interest. That particular book has been around since the 16th century, maybe longer. I guess the language this one was found in is what sparked so much interest in it.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There is nothing new under the sun and plenty of writings around the first century claimed that Jesus was just a man. I don't think that this text if shown to be from the fifth century is anything to get excited about.

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Fifth century is still a long way from Barnabas, but doesn't that predate Mohamed? That would be a little spooky.

              1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If there is to be any credibility to this book, it must be freely made available to independent biblical and non-biblical scholars and be subject to carbon dating or other established method, to determine its actual age.

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't care what it's age is.
                  Proven, or not proven.

                  The issue is, and always has been, whether or not Christ was (is)  divine.
                  Christianity hangs on it. Disprove that, and you disprove Christianity.

                  His death and resurrection is central, and is accepted by faith. The rest is academic. IMO.

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Even if it's age can be shown to be genuine, the book will still boil down to the claims of its author. What credibility do we grant to his claims? The opinions of a single author will not make any significant dent into the central claims of Christianity.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image84
                    Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's absolutely correct. If He died and then was raised from the dead, He is real and what He said is true.

                    If not, then we're all wasting our time...

    2. kenneth avery profile image80
      kenneth averyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      (that) part about Jesus being a man is true, but not in the mortal sense. John, 1st Chapter, beginning at first verse, "in the beginning was the Word. The Word was God. And the Word was with God; and The Word was made flesh," and from the Hebrew manuscipts, "The Word," is translated: JESUS. And I agree with below comment about Islam and Christians, "Chrislam," happening here in the US. Not a good mixture.

    3. kess profile image60
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who ever denied Jesus was a man...

      He even called himself son of man and clearly written in present and current gospels.

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ******************

        You're right, he was a man

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, He is a man,

          He is also God.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

    4. gregas profile image76
      gregasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have never heard Jesus refered to as a God, only the son of God. That doesn't meke him a God. Greg.

      1. kenneth avery profile image80
        kenneth averyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Jesus Himself said, "he that seeth me hath seen the Father," and on another occasion, "I and the father are one," and in the OT, His prophesied name was, "Immanuel," meaning, "GOD with us," so that is what I believe. I try to not base my beliefs on even my own mortal conclusions or those of others. Do I understand all of The Bible? No. And no one else does either but it's great to expand my learning by reading all of THESE Intelligent comments. Honest.

        1. TLMinut profile image61
          TLMinutposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jesus did say that he and the Father are one, but that was part of his praying for all his followers to be one just like he and the Father are one. Kind of changes the meaning.

          I remember my mother-in-law talking to one of her friends. The woman said, "I've met your grandsons but I've still never met your son." My mil answered, "You've met this grandson, right? Yes? Then you've met my son. Looks just like him, acts and thinks just like him. You've met my son when you've met this grandson." I wonder if she knew just what impact that had...

          Also, doesn't the Bible itself say something about those people being false followers who claim Jesus didn't really "come in the flesh"? That he wasn't a man?

        2. profile image0
          Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ********

          God with us through the power of the Holy Ghost

          He also said we would be one as he and his Father are one, and than we would be one in them. Not one and the same person.

          John 17:11
          And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are

          John 17:21
          That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

          A husband and wife are one flesh..Not one and the same person

    5. RKHenry profile image80
      RKHenryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The actual text you are speaking of was found in Turkey in 2000.  Its discovery was announced in 2010.  The Vatican has been making different requests and inquiries to the text all along.  Only thing now is they want to "borrow" the book and bring it  to the Vatican, so they can conduct scientific research for themselves. 

      But Turkey locked the book in a sealed vault, I believe in 2008 and has denied the Catholics their requests.  Why huffington put out  tweets on this info yesterday, seemed odd to me.  Because its an old discovery... 12 yrs old, and they know its been in a sealed vault since 2008. 

      I think they just want the book and making another public announcement is a ploy to get it for themselves and lock it away.  Turkey needs to keep it so it cannot be forgotten.  Items get forgotten or lost in the Vatican's care...  Not good for history.

    6. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sophia: without substantiating anything what you write has no meaning what so ever.

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's applicable to you too!

    7. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ************

      So do the Jews

      The Prophecies about indicates the Messiah is just a man.

    8. vector7 profile image61
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Worried???

      lol lol lol

  2. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    Anybody seen this video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9Tc9C-MsMk

    Somebody just posted this on facebook.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Have seen it before and it looks like someone was playing fast and loose with the facts. But because it's sensationalist and is a 'right-on' rant at the big bad Christians, lots of people voted it up believing it to be inerrant.

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think that's completely true. I find out a lot of stuff in this video in the late 70s. I really dug hard to find it. At the time I was trying to establish just how authentic Christianity (or any religion) was, and the cult of Mithras and these different religions did exist. Even the story of Adam and Eve goes back t an old Babylonian myth. It isn't original to the bible.

        So my question is: which one of the stories is false? I didn't know them all, but I did know some of them.

        1. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol

          All your research to find out what you already held true before looking?

          Do tell.. would anything change your mind?

          that's rhetorical btw... a solid 'no' being fact.

          keep digging deep. hope your wasted time satisfies you.

          reading words you claim hold no value to you to find answers.

          maybe you should try to add letters now to do your finances...
          they don't hold any value in that regard either...
          but hey - maybe the phone company will accept $P,KJU.KL Dollars.
          whatever works for you.

          smile

          1. profile image0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Vector 7. I grew up believing completely in God. I was a born again Christian for a decade. During that time, I went to church four times a week, prayed two or three hours a day, read the bible for three or four hours a day, and never had any other life besides going to church and going to work. I never dated, submitted my entire life to 'god.' etc.

            So, I think your facetiousness is out of place.

            Yes, I did look, but I did not seek from a place of doubt. I sought because Christians were even nastier and more vicious to me than people who weren't Christians. I desperately sought God with every ounce of my intellect, emotion, spirit, and being. I desperately wanted to know what I was doing wrong and I thought God must hate me.

            In the end, at the ripe old age of 53 years old, I discovered that I had a verbal processing disability and what other people interpreted as rudeness, stupidity, snobbishness, etc. was just the delayed responses and inability to respond in real time. So much for the gifts of the spirit for Christians. They didn't know anymore than I knew.

            In any event, I was absolutely convinced for 45 years of my life that there was a God. Then I went through nearly a decade thinking that there had to be something, and eventually about 5 years ago, I finally became an atheiest.

            There is nothing out here.

            And I deeply resent your implication that I had looked after I made up my mind. You might do that. I don't.

            1. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              i simply meant, i am lost as to the reasoning to read texts which are historical, when by factual basis of hubpages forum records, those who deny Jesus Christ indeed do so in the reasoning that the documents are falsified in light of their historicity and therefore completely erroneous.

              On such a basis then, how is it so that opposite notions are held, and opposite claims applied to contrasting views, though the documents regarded are equally historical texts, and at that less verified than those claimed by Christians.

              I see logical flaw was my point.

              And you've given me the life story twice in the past, I'm aware.

              Apology if I offended. I meant it in light heart.

              [and couldn't deny myself the analogy at that, especially because it fit so well, lol]

              Hope your day gets better if I upset you.

              smile

              1. profile image0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Vector 7, you need to develop your command of English. You use large words and they are erroneously placed in your sentences so that your meaning is unclear. I find it difficult to follow you.

                So, if you know my story, what is the point of your remark that I did those studies with the preconceived idea that Jesus was fallacious? It was insulting to my integrity and, as you point out that you already knew that, then I must say that your remark was manipulative.

                Next, the only records that count are the ones that are OUTSIDE the church. Anything inside the church is biased. That includes the bible and anything that has been stored by the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. As the Protestant church did not exist before about 1600 AD, any documentation they have comes from the Vatican and the Greek Orthodox Church.

                The point is that historical documentation outside the church does NOT support the claims of the church, and never has.

                You are being deceitful if you say that your comments were meant in a light heart. They were absolutely not. There were no smilies attached and your comment came across as one of attack.

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It's alright for them to be confrontational and for them to attack religions and ideas, but attack theirs and you're an a-hole. They treat the world as if they are supposed to bow down to there infinite wisdom, as if the bible has all the answers. It's called magical thinking, an aspect of insanity.

                2. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  look, last reply..

                  if you find difficulty, don't point the finger, your the only one finding it.

                  point was, already cleared this i thought, flawed logic.. story was irrelevant.

                  my command of english is fine, and i'm not attempting a grand treatise here.. 'forum'.........

                  manipulative? is that a joke? leave that for everyone else. no comment from me.

                  as far as records, more factual flaws. heresay...

                  "lol" - quote from first post i made - LAUGHTER- hence, no deceit.

                  Your very rude btw...

                  I still love you. wink

                  good day.

                  smile

                  1. profile image0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm glad you still love me. smile

                    However,with regard to the written word, regardless of whether it is a forum or not, the correct written word is mandatory - and I'm speaking as a professional editor. I was employed by several publishers in London to edit. I do know what I'm talking about.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Those who bandy around that statement usually know little of it and act contrary to it. They are not to be trusted.

      2. Captain Redbeard profile image62
        Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Kinda creepy init

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Amen.

    2. pedrog profile image60
      pedrogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That clip is from the first Zeitgeist movie,it is very inaccurate and has some pure lies.

      In the clip it says that Horus mother was a virgin, actually that is not true.

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

      You can read more here about Zeitgeist:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie

  3. RKHenry profile image80
    RKHenryposted 5 years ago

    And the thing about Jesus being a man..., uh duh.  That's all I can say.  He wasn't a girl.  He wasn't an it.  What else could he be?  Divine? I don't believe in the whole hogwash of Jesus as a god.  But what is a god anyways?   Neat thing is...,  if he does exist in this universe, he is a carbon base lifeform.  What do you know...  so is a man.

  4. Captain Redbeard profile image62
    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago

    I don't understand where Christians feel they must defend the bible or when something like this is found the possiblity of the bible might be disproven they panic. If you hope is in Christ it shouldn't matter what is found. You either believe or you don't.

    I am confident in Jesus as the Messiah, I could care less what this text says. I have a confident faith. There are multiple gospels dipicting Jesus in ways that are completely contrary to the four in the bible. Why is this a suprise that there is another?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Facts will not sway believer's beliefs, no matter what.

      Indoctrination good, facts bad. smile

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image62
        Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So then you believe that Muhammod is the Messiah that Jesus speaks about in this piece? You just said facts are facts.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, I was referring to your statement that you could care less what something had to say because you were firm in your beliefs. Whether it was fact or not, you simply dismissed it out of hand in favor of your beliefs.

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image62
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ok but you stand firm in your belief that Christ is not a messiah right? Even though there is no physical proof proving this or not. How is my belief any different than yours?

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              For the millionth time, I have no such beliefs one way or the other.

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image62
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't believe you. You either believe he was or he wasn't just like you believe either I exist or I don't. Some things you can't be indifferent about.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The same may be said for the Easter Bunny, CR!  Either you believe in him/her/it, or not.  Whether you do, or do not believe in the creature, has no bearing on the actual truth.  Belief does not affect truth in the least.  And yes, Mohammed has just as good a chance of being the Messiah as junior.  Have you actually read the prophecies which tell what the messiah was supposed to do?  Junior didn't fit the characteristics well and this is why the Jews don't accept Jr. as the messiah.  sad


                                                   http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I understand the religiously indoctrinated have no concept of the mind beyond that of believing in things. No need to remind me. smile

              2. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                YOU LIE!

                You said yourself to me that you don't believe Jesus even existed!

                1. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL....

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I said I hold no such beliefs that Jesus existed. I understand there were all sorts of "holy" men wandering around sharing their brand of religion during a time when everyone wanted a Messiah.

                  Accusations of lying, coming from you? lol

                  1. Chris Neal profile image84
                    Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, you said you had provided proof that Jesus never existed. I never saw the post where you "provided' the proof, but I definitely saw the post where you claimed to have provided it.

    2. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      **************

      The Jewish Bible was before the Christian bible and The Jewish Bible disproves the Christian Bible,

      1. Disappearinghead profile image88
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I certainly believe the Hebrew scriptures outrank the NT in authority. The NT consist of a collection of fragmented memories and the views and opinions of a few letter writers.

      2. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Motzei Shabbat. Yes. And I've tried explaining the meaning of the Hebrew text too many times. It doesn't work. So I just leave it.

  5. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    This is a fascinating piece of research that will back up those who say that they will continue to believe in Jesus - regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

    http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/154252 … d_reality/

    Essentially, if I've read the piece correctly (and you would probably be better off reading it through yourself), it means that some people believe what they hear the most, is the strongest message, etc.

    Fascinating stuff.

  6. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    This is an interesting listen too...especially since we have seen the rise of the Catholic lately, as well as the blasphemy in Hollywood via Lady Gaga and Niki Minaj.

    http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 … 120218.php

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks, interesting link. The copies of Josephus's history did not contain any mention of Jesus before 1000 AD. So I'd be interested to hear what this is.

  7. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    Not meaning to throw water on your efforts here, but here are some Historical Doubts that may be the reason the Church wants to see it!

    The Gospel of Barnabas is promoted by Muslims as an original Gospel written by the man named Barnabas[1] who it is claimed was a disciple of Jesus (p. 2). Thus they claim it was written by a Jewish man in the 1st century A.D. who travelled with Jesus. If Barnabas really is the author then it is reasonable to expect that he would be familiar with the basic facts of Jewish life at this time. We will now consider this book to see if he does.

    a/ Christ. The word (Christ) is the Greek translation for the Hebrew word  (Messiah). Both these words when translated into English mean the Anointed One or the Chosen One. This word is not an obscure or rarely used word, on the contrary it is one of the most famous words in the Jewish and Christian religions. There is no doubt that a religious Jew like Barnabas would have been very familiar with this word.

    At the very start of the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus is called the Christ: God has during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ (p.2). However, throughout the book Jesus denies being the Messiah: Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah" (chap. 42). How can Jesus be the Christ and deny being the Messiah when both words mean exactly the same thing? Whoever wrote this book did not know the Greek meaning of the word Christ is Messiah. Barnabas was a Hebrew who lived on the island of Cyprus, a Greek-speaking island, and travelled around the 1st century Greek-speaking world![2] He was Hebrew and knew Greek and could not have made this mistake with such a famous word.

    b/ The Rulers of the 1st Century A.D. In chapter 3 we are told that Herod and Pilate both ruled in Judea at the time of Jesus' birth: There reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was governor. This is historically wrong for Herod and Pilate never ruled Judea at the same time. Herod ruled Judea alone from 37-4 B.C., while Pilate ruled thirty years later from 26-36 A.D.[3] The real Barnabas lived during the rule of Pilate, so if he really was the writer of this book, how could he make such a simple mistake?

    c/ Geography. In chapters 20-21 of this book we are told about Jesus sailing to Nazareth and being welcomed by the seamen of that town. He then leaves Nazareth and goes up to Capernaum:

    Jesus went to the sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth. ... Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus wrought (done) ... (then) Jesus went up to Capernaum (chaps. 20-21).
    There is a major error in this account. Nazareth was not a fishing village, in fact it was about 14 km from the sea of Galilee and situated in the hills of a mountain range![4] Capernaum was the fishing village that Jesus arrived at with his disciples, not Nazareth.[5] Nazareth and Capernaum were two towns which Jesus often visited with his disciples[6] therefore any disciple of Jesus would know these towns well. However the author of this book does not! This casts doubt over the claim that he was a disciple of Jesus. It also make us doubt that he ever lived in that region.

    Conclusion: the Gospel of Barnabas makes basic mistakes about the language, history and geography of the Jewish world in the 1st century A.D. These types of mistakes cast doubt over the claim that it was written by Barnabas in the 1st century.

    sorry, just some facts i came across  smile

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yup. Thought it was a fake. The very fact that it supposedly prophesies Mohammed as the Messiah ahead of time tells me it is a fake. It's impossible to tell the future.

    2. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      *********

      Good information.

      I have to disagree with the stuff on Herod though,
      When Herod died his son Herod Antipas took over.
      Antipas died in 39 AD

      When Yahshua was brought before Pilate for trial, Pilate handed him over to Antipas

      A lot of people think it is speaking of Herod the Great.

      1. Chris Neal profile image84
        Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's true. I think there are three different Herods mentioned, and I was in my thirties before I understood that.

    3. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well done, sir! smile

  8. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    @ts i dont think we need 1500 book to tell us Jesus was a man...obviously he was a man who was elevated to son of god or god status...if we research human history and how humans operate , none needs 1500 year old book to reveal that...

  9. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Sophia Angelique wrote
      So, Vector 7. If you people really want to convince people that Christ exists and the bible is real, then you present the evidence.



    ==  == - = - = - 


    ME 
      first off ...  Howdy  ..   
        I think that the first thing us Believers should do in proving that the bible is real is to come to some kind of agreement as to what is written within its pages.   

       We have to stop changing the meaning of the simplest of statements.
       It is kinda like building a model car.
       We know we have to glue the pieces together. 
    We "should" follow the directions, though we seldom do.

       It just makes sense to glie the stearing wheel to something first,  But when we do   ??   the rest of the pieces just won't fit.  No matter how we try.

       We then throw up our hands and anounce that;   "IT"S A Mystery"   ...
       and it is for sale.
    If an overview of its meanings are not achieved when we read it, there is no understanding.
       And if we have no understanding ...  We can't explain it properly.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, Jerami!  Long time no speakee!  Perhaps you can fill in your fellow believer here on making unsubstantiated claims and then refusing to back them up.  He seems to think we have to look up his sources for him for some reason.

      How've you been?  smile


                                           http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Howdy back atchA
        I've been getting older and more decrepid every day.


           But then again I can honestly  say that it isn't going to get any better than this .. LOL

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ah yes, I know what you mean, Jerami!  But it's better than the alternative, so far! smile


                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

          1. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes
            SO far.   the air still feels good coming in and out. 

              Wish I had more to time to spend in here, telling folks how it really is.  HA

              But I don't so I won't.   


              I'll be back around later.   Maybe by then, everything will be better.

    2. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami, did you go to school? smile I'm sorry. But if you want to use something as a source, you first have to verify the source. You don't check the veracity of a criminal standing trial by listening to what he has to say. You get other people to confirm independently that what he is saying is the truth.

      In order to prove the truth of Christianity and the Bible, you have to come up with two things:

      a) Independent evidence, outside the Church, that provides definite evidence that a man called Jesus lived (not some man upon whom the myth was based) plus prove that he was the son of god.

      b) You have to prove that the Bible is the word of god and not just some early writings by shamans of the tribe. The words inside the bible cannot prove anything as they are a conflict of interest. If you want to prove that the bible is the word of God, you have to use secular history to prove it.


      For the record, everything I ask of Christians to prove about Christianity, I ask of every other religion. They all have their holy books which were written by their gods. They also all have gods, some of which were born of a virgin, others which ride on tortoises, and still others who have six arms.

      So, smile

      I don't mean to ridicule, but the onus is on Christians to prove in a secular manner with secular evidence, untouched by anything the church provided (because that's a conflict of interest as the church is definitely going to protect its own interests).

      I look forward to receiving this. I haven't found it in 40 years, but you might.

  10. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Any time we make statements of "Fact ?"  based from an interpretation of something we have read ...   I think we tend to fall farther from whatever it is we are trying to understand.

       SSOOoooo   I guess I gotta agree with Ya,  quite often ....    but not 100%

  11. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    In order to prove the truth of Christianity and the Bible, you have to come up with two things:
    ==========================

    Yep!  I did go to school,  Probably a decade or two before you were born.
    Once upon a time  I was considered to be quite bright. But that was a long time ago and I have forgotten more than I will ever know.


    I have never consider myself to be attempting to prove or disprove Christianity or the bible
       
       I try to prove to myself what actually is written in this BOOK. I have to know this first before use it as proof of anything.

      I attempt to disregard any and all interpretations/ assumptions/ preconcieved concepts; which I have been influenced from .....  while reading whatever I am reading.  And in so doing .... 

      1  I have come to the conclusion that the God of Abraham IS,

      2  And that the prophesy has come to pass.

      3  Jesus Was the Messiah which was promised to the Hebrew peoples of that time.

      4  And,  in THAT generation, he fulfilled all prophesy concerning him which was written in the OT.

      It is at this point that I and Religion have different opinions.
      If I am going to believe the NT at all, I first believe those things written in red.

      For this is supposed to be what Christianity is built upon.

      Jesus said, "this" generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled, and religion today, (2000 years later) says it is not yet,

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami, you're funny. smile

      With reasoning like yours, I can see why you arrive at the wrong conclusions.

      So you looked at my photo and decided that you went to school a decade or two after I was born. Well, you're 60. I'm 61. So I doubt it.

      Next, on the basis that once upon a time you were considered very bright and you'v forgotten more than you know, you think that's sufficient evidence to justify my accepting the fact that you cannot provide the proof - that the proof must be just because you believe some stories in a book? I don't think so.

      So, let's forget our personal egos, and get down to the real issue - actual proof.

      You haven't got any, have you? If it was so freely available, you could just do a click or two on the web and present it. The reason you keep sidestepping is because there isn't any.

      You cannot prove the veracity of the bible just because the bible says it. Using the same methodology, you could say the same thing about the Koran or any other 'holy' book. You cannot apply one type of reasoning for one thing, and another type of reasoning for something similar. smile

  12. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    Hey listen everybody, let's not bring intelligence or stupidity into this.

    There's a new study out. People don't believe what they believe because they're stupid or intelligent.

    They believe what they believe because they've been exposed to the same thoughts and information over and over again. In fact, it's the story of Pavlov's dogs.

    That's why different people in different countries have different religions and different cultures. It's what they learnt from birth.

    In some countries, black is associated with death. In other countries, white is associated with death. If people went to live in the other country, the individuals would find it difficult to change their associations.

    So strong is this conditioning that, regardless of how intelligent or educated people are, they will use that intellect and education to back up what they 'already know.'  What they know is what their particular culture ingrained into them from birth and what their nation, as a whole, believes.

  13. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Sophia Angelique;   Thank You!   Of all the things I have been accused of,  funny is my favorite.


    ==============================
    With reasoning like yours, I can see why you arrive at the wrong conclusions.
    ================================

    me
    Is it such a good thing when we come to the same conclusions as everyone else?
    Why is it a bad thing to want to understand what is written within a Book which many people profess as "The Truth" even though they do not understand it!

    What good comes from studying when we only read those things which we think that we already understand?
    And then change the meanings of everything else in such a way as to conform to that which we WANT it to be saying.
     
       The fundamentalist do it in an attempt to reinforce their beliefs.
       Atheists do it for the same reasons.
       Why read anything "IF" we already know what we are going to get out of it?

    You, Me, ... everyone are prisoners of our own mind.
    When we do not push against these perimeters of our own making, we become trapped.


    ===================================
       So you looked at my photo and decided that you went to school a decade or two after I was born. Well, you're 60. I'm 61. So I doubt it.
    =====================================

    me
    You caught me;  I was trying to be funny and I wasn't.  I'm BAD  ..  I deserve a spanking.


    ========================================
    Next, on the basis that once upon a time you were considered very bright and you'v forgotten more than you know, you think that's sufficient evidence to justify my accepting the fact that you cannot provide the proof - that the proof must be just because you believe some stories in a book? I don't think so.
    =========================================


    me
    Again;  I wasn't attempting to prove anything with this statement.  Was trying to be funny some more.   Guess I need more spanking.



    =============================
    You cannot prove the veracity of the bible just because the bible says it. Using the same methodology, you could say the same thing about the Koran or any other 'holy' book. You cannot apply one type of reasoning for one thing, and another type of reasoning for something simila
    ==============================


    me
        My reasoning is that I want to know what the bible actually says before I disregard it as purely myth.
        There are parts of the bible where  NO ONE  wants to go.                        To exanine some parts of the bible and to question the extablished interpretations of them are considered "Blasphemy" against the Church.
       
       It would seem that it is better for a man to deny GOD than to question the Church.
    But then ....  the bible says that it will be so.

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami.

      You're also confused! smile

      Firstly, you continue to jump to conclusions. I change as I have more information. I do not read to keep believing what I did. The very fact that I used to be a Christian should tell you that. I also used to believe in the law of attraction but don't anymore. So you're wrong. You might read only what you want to believe. That doesn't mean everybody else does. You cannot evaluate others because of what you believe. You have to step outside yourself.

      I do actually know what the bible says - I once read it 18 times in 18 months and spent a decade studying every single word of it - repeatedly, over and over again. I also checked out the many contradictions (and it is full of contradictions). In addition, I checked our secular history, and it does not tie up with what the bible says.

      Look, you want to believe in God. I understand that. Let's leave it at that.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry you had to read the bible so many times to finally come to the conclusion it is merely a collection of old myths and stories. Too bad many believers approach the book as being truth before actually knowing what is contained in the old tome and actually how it was put together.

        Sadly, those indoctrinated into the christian faith are at a disadvantage when it comes to having an open mind towards the handbook because they seldom escape what has been drilled into their brains since early childhood.  Anything they happen to find which doesn't make sense they simply use the old "we aren't meant to know" or "it will all be made clear" excuse so many fall back on.

        It really is a shame so many otherwise intelligent folks allow themselves to be manipulated to the extent they are by an old collection of hearsay and fairy tales.  But this does not excuse them for atrocities committed under the excuse of "we were just trying to follow god's commandments"! 

        Tell all of the former slaves that, or those who were burned and tortured as witches by well respected church leaders.  They read the same book used today and unfortunately, the same mindset is still prevalent among its adherents.  Ignorance still runs rampant among most christians and will continue to do so as these forums so aptly display.

                                                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Christians have monopolized the meaning of enlightenment and given the role to themselve's. As if to say "The answer is mine and mine is better".

      2. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You seem to be understanding the oposit of what I am  trying to say.


             You are right and I am wrong even when we are saying the same thing.

             So as you say ;  lets just leave it at that.

  14. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    Latest news!!!

    Jesus found buried with family...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … Jesus.html

    1. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yep!  I read the whole thing; (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … Jesus.htmland) and it has nothing to do with what I was talking about;             What does ancient scripture actually say .....    outside of 1000s of B.S. interpretations.

          I wanta hear an uninterpreted version of truth. Without any frills !

    2. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nah, OLD NEWS!

      Wrong Jesus!

      Sorry to disappoint. sad

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ya...jesus cannot be buried in marked grave...to promote the scam , they needed to hide jesus's grave....logically it would be foolish to have marked grave...i dont think jesus grave can be found and if found no one can recognize it...in end jesus as human doesnot have much of evidence other than by authors who created myth of christ...till he died he was pretty ordinary human being who preached like many in those day...

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We know where the grave is.

          Where is He, since His resurrection?
          Certainly NOT in a coffin, OR a grave.

          Ordinary He NEVER was.

          No one of His time, or before EVER preached like Him.
          His message was NEW!

          But you wouldn't know that, judging by your assumptions. lol

          1. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            @aka-dj dont be too certain about it....certainty cant be achieved about 2k yr old man....only thing which can be certain is various version about same man....and one version is urs , one is from book found , one if from men who wrote golsphels...one is from quran...one is from jews...various versions...

  15. raciniwa profile image79
    raciniwaposted 5 years ago

    This is an interesting topic...and yes, a lot for us to learn...we'll maybe need to refresh our history for this matter...not one sided as to the ones presented by the Romans but we need to look both sides of the coin...

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Too late! Peter said that Jesus was a man approved of God. Many christians can't read.

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is what I have been saying ever sinse I came here.

           Who wants to learn how to read?

           I often wish that a Professor of the English language would decipher for us that which is ACTUALLY written in the English bible.

           Our religious schollars don't seem to be able to agree.

           "IF" only, a half dozen English teachers would take on this burdon.

  16. profile image0
    MP50posted 5 years ago

    The poster of this question, got their information from the daily mail.

 
working