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
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fifth century is still a long way from Barnabas, but doesn't that predate Mohamed? That would be a little spooky.
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.
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.
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.
A discovery that feeds right into every dogma's insecurities. Let us all see the complete text and refuse to allow the news media to set Christian against Muslim.
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...
Then, what you're saying is that your beliefs are based entirely on whether or not a person can be raised from the dead.
Have we ever seen or heard of anyone actually being raised from the dead? In other words, will reality step into view here?
Or, will that be supported by the usual Goddunnit because God can do anything?
One magical event validated by a magical being?
For once, you show you understand what I've said. Hallelujah!
However, it ends after the first sentence. There is an entire body of research and thought about the veracity of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. So the answer to your first question is, "yes."
The answer to your second question is, "no."
The answer to your third question is, "that is what people like you usually pull out to make it sound like you're smarter than I am, but you aren't."
I mean, you may have it all over me in IQ, but you haven't as yet produced any sustained, cogent and logical arguments to support your view over mine. Your usual argument can be broken down as follows:
1) I'm smart because I believe only in what's real.
2) You're stupid because you believe in magic.
3) Since I'm smart and you're stupid, I win and you lose.
There's a definite answer for ad hominem arguments like that:
Er...so your answer is yes, magic is the key to your beliefs?
Er, no. In fact, that's exactly not what I said. What I said was that people like ATM SAY I say stuff like that because they have no better argument. But they are consistent with it, no matter how consistently wrong.
So then, you don't believe in magic? No supernatural stuff like manna falling from the heavens, death folks coming alive, people's languages being suddenly disrupted and confused by supernatural beings, talking snakes( an opening for you here! ) etc.? Good, now we're getting somewhere!
Magic is the attempt by human beings to influence nature through the use of supernatural agents. I used to know people who did this. Yes, I mean wiccans.
God is not "magic." He created everything, and He can't be influenced by human rituals.
What is with you and snakes?
Magic and religion, which may involve the intercession of deities or other spirits, such as prayer.
This is a definition for magic you may not like, Cris. And human rituals include prayer to a deity, so I suppose you don't believe in prayer either. I agree, prayer to a deity which already knows someone will be praying to it long before it happens is redundant and useless.
I like snakes, they represent human fear of things they are ignorant of. Sorta like when the christians had the Salem witch trials decided by ignorant spokesmen for god. You know the type!
What's with you and the invisible supernatural deities?
Miracles and magic are the same the difference is just semantics
Magic and religion are not synonymous, except for people who's narrow definitions lend themselves to inflexible and usually arrogant arguments. That is a definition of magic you may not like, Randy. And yes, human rituals do include prayers to deities. But ritual is also not synonymous with magic. If you were familiar with the Bible, you would know that every time humans thought that the rituals prescribed by God could make Him do what humans wanted, He said, "No." And they wound up in big trouble. But yes, I'm a big believer in the power of prayer and have seen it work if you're asking God with a humble heart and not out of purely selfish desires. God wants to bless us, He just doesn't want us to think He owes it to us, because He doesn't. It's like asking your dad for money that he knows you need but wasn't going to give to you, but then you ask and he's touched that you humbled yourself enough to ask for help. You may not even need it that bad, but he still loves you and wants to help you.
As for me and "the invisible supernatural deities," there's only one Deity. All the others, well, aren't.
You like things that you can go out and touch with your hands, right? Well, God touched me with His. I know what you're probably going to say, but forget it, I have felt the presence of the Eternal God.
Nope, your novel is fraught with magic, Chris. I know you do not like to associate the word with your cult and that is too bad for you and for your cult. Anything not natural-i.e. supernatural, has magic involved in it. All religions use magic in their rituals, or least attempt to. Your gods supposed deeds and feats are magical in nature. Like it or not.
Both Pharoahs sorcerers and the staff of Moses and Aaron could be transformed into snakes by magic. Or either they both were fakes as is undoubtedly the case. Yes, I'm sure you don't like it but your invisible god is no more powerful than any of the other numerous gods worshiped throughout history and perhaps even less so than some. Feel free to prove me wrong if you can. I doubt you'll try though, your type never does.
And prayer? If your god is indeed real, then he would already know whether the supplicants applications for help were granted long before the human ever asked and also whether he--your deity--deigned to grant the query or not. The deity would also know whether a human would be chosen for hell or heaven millions--or perhaps trillions of years before he ever started his game of human tragedy and suffering. Yeah, I know. We aren't smart enough to understand his ways. Except for a few brilliant people like YOURSELF!
My "novel"? Boy, do you need to lighten up...
Okay, for the sake of argument I will go with your definition that magic equals "anything which cannot be explained by natural, observable reasons." Needless to say, I'm not going with your secondary definition, "And therefor stupid people believing in fairy tales subscribe to it."
And if you really want to be that literal, the Bible is not a novel. Be consistent, eh?
Anyway, I never, never said that the Bible has no supernatural elements, events or occurances in it. If you think I did, then go back and find where I said that.
Done looking? Found it? Didn't think so. So let's have a genuine discussion and not put words in each others mouths, okay?
"Both Pharoahs sorcerers and the staff of Moses and Aaron could be transformed into snakes by magic." Your point? As long as I stick with you narrow and bludgeoning definition of magic, neither I nor any theologian I'm aware of nor the Bible itself contradict that statement. If you really need us to in order to state that we're wrong, then go ahead but you're wrong to say so.
My "type" meets your type on a daily basis. If verbal pomposity (i.e. "trash talk") is the way to determine the winner, then I leave you with your well-deserved and worthless victory. As for the statements preceding that little jab, when you show more knowledge of what you're talking about (and I do mean the Bible) then I'm game. My experience with "your type" is that the minute I start talking from the Bible, from the lives of believers or from my own life, you ignore everything I say, talk more smack and declare my stupidity as the seal of your superiority. Please. I've had 65 rounds of ATM's juvenile narcissism, give me debate or go home.
And prayer? God does indeed already know whether the supplicants application for help will be granted long before the human ever asks and whether He "deigns" to grant the request (not query, if you're going to wow me with your verbal dexterity then don't mischaracterize the actual event being described) or not. Again, your point? Have you actually read the Bible or do you just cherry-pick a few points that you think salient to your argument, feeling free to ignore the rest? Or (and this is more likely since we're into "types" here,) do you find something someone else has said out on the internet that sounds good to you, so you're doubly culpable of not only failing to understand what is being argued about in the first place, but also what the counter-argument that's supposed to put me to shame is?
Considering that arrogant, ill-advised, hastily stated and just plain WRONG last sentence, I think probably so.
First off, it's Mr. boy to you, Chris! And why not go with--for the sake of truth instead of argument. Your second ascribed quote is completely false, which makes you what? A true christian, of course. Or perhaps you could show me where I called you, or any other fundie "stupid" in my previous posts.
And please point out where the bible has been proven to be anything other than historical fiction, at best, and plagiarized myth at the worst.
You said it wasn't magic Sr. used to do everything. So what was it? If he/she/it used supernatural powers to make things happen, then what do you call it? Natural occurrences? You also stated prayer was not a ritual. Care to explain how this is so? Not trying to put anything in your mouth at all. Besides, there's no room there now with both of your feet already firmly ensconced in the formerly roomy area.
Again, you ruled out "magic" as being used by Sr. to do his deeds in an earlier post. Feel free to give your own proper definition of magic if you prefer.
If using facts is "trash talk" to you--and apparently it is, going by your responses--then a victory over you is not worth my time, as no one else has had any problem disputing your nonsense at all so far. And don't be so hard on yourself and feel you must keep accusing me of calling you stupid. Again, feel free to back up your words Mr. Christian! (And I ain't talkin' 'bout Mutiny On The Bounty either!
I meant to use the word "query," as many prayers are indeed supplications for need or understanding, but then, you probably know all there is to know about what folks ask for in their already predetermined prayers and results thereof. Right?
And yes, I've read the bible, which is precisely the reason I know it is merely superstitious myth and fiction. I've also read many of the former books thrown out of the novel because there was too much MAGIC in them.
I was practically raised in a church and never felt the least bit tempted to lose all of my common sense by actually believing the obviously ridiculous stories and tales included in it. I DID recognize the flood story was plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh, as have so many others, but let me guess, your guy used magic to go back in time and inspire the tale long before Moses' time! Drat! Sr.'s magic trumps all!
Very funny, Chris! Keep on with the nonsense and you may even qualify to be a Mormon if you can be a mite more unbelievable in your arguments! Tough, I know. But I "have faith" you can do it
"First off, it's Mr. boy to you, Chris!"
Let me start off my reply by saying that I was impressed by two things about you: 1) That you have an actual sense of humor and 2) that you have a life story that you're willing to share and helps explain where you're coming from. Seriously, I respect both of those things
Now, I was kind of intense with you, but you came at me in attack mode and I responded in kind. I'm more than willing to step back if you are, because I enjoy good conversation, even with people I disagree with.
"And why not go with--for the sake of truth instead of argument."
My definition of magic came from time spent with people who practiced magic, and by that I mean witchcraft. I stand by it, but I'm flexible. I have found some definitions out on the web that basically show magic and supernatural to be interchangeable, so I'll go with it. It doesn't mean you chalk up some kind of victory, though.
"Your second ascribed quote is completely false, which makes you what? A true christian, of course."
Ah yes, let the ad hominem attacks begin! Look, you know less about me at this point than I know about you, but your willingness to ascribe all kinds of evils and, yes, stupidities to me means that, whether you literally think that or not, it certainly comes out that way when you're attacking me. And attacking me you were. Like I said, if you can dial it down, so can I.
"Or perhaps you could show me where I called you, or any other fundie "stupid" in my previous posts."
Like I said, you may not have used the word, but you certainly vibed the vibe. Again, if you don't mean it literally, if you don't think that I'm stupid just because I believe in Jesus, then great ! Because I certainly don't think you're stupid just because you don't believe in Jesus.
"And please point out where the bible has been proven to be anything other than historical fiction, at best, and plagiarized myth at the worst."
You first. Point out where it WAS pointed out as historical fiction. And if you pull Richard Dawkins out, then hang it up. But there are plenty of places.
"You said it wasn't magic Sr. used to do everything. So what was it? If he/she/it used supernatural powers to make things happen, then what do you call it? Natural occurrences? "
We've dealt with that, time to move on.
"You also stated prayer was not a ritual."
No, I didn't. I went back and looked at what I said. I was responding to a specific point with a specific point. Prayer is "ritual" in that God did say we must do it, although it doesn't have to be "ritualistic" in that it must be done the same way all the time. And my point is that just because we pray does not obligate God to give us what we want. But yes, it is ritual.
"If using facts is "trash talk" to you--and apparently it is, going by your responses--then a victory over you is not worth my time"
Trash talk is about attitude, i.e. the attitude (stated or implied) that I'm stupid.
"as no one else has had any problem disputing your nonsense at all so far."
Actually, the hardest charging disputer of my "nonsense" has as yet to establish a valid string of logic to "refute" me. No, I'm not talking about you, but your refutation is largely the same as his, a few oft-repeated broad accusations and sneering jabs.
Ironically, the person who had the best arguments I've never seen in a forum again. His logic was flawed, but he had the best consistency, the best depth and the best understanding of what he was saying and its possible ramifications.
"Again, feel free to back up your words Mr. Christian!"
Aye-aye, Capt'n Bligh! Done and done, suh!
"I meant to use the word "query," as many prayers are indeed supplications for need or understanding, but then, you probably know all there is to know about what folks ask for in their already predetermined prayers and results thereof. Right?"
Here's the problem with ad hominem attacks: they make suppositions that are more often wrong than not. I have never claimed to have that kind of knowledge, and have often claimed not to.
"And yes, I've read the bible, which is precisely the reason I know it is merely superstitious myth and fiction. I've also read many of the former books thrown out of the novel because there was too much MAGIC in them."
GOOD! Then when I point out things the Bible actually does say, you won't just give me the broad accusations and sneering jabs! I don't expect you to agree with my conclusions, but at least you'll know where I get my stuff from!
"I was practically raised in a church and never felt the least bit tempted to lose all of my common sense by actually believing the obviously ridiculous stories and tales included in it. I DID recognize the flood story was plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh, as have so many others, but let me guess, your guy used magic to go back in time and inspire the tale long before Moses' time! Drat! Sr.'s magic trumps all! "
My story is exactly the opposite. I grew up outside the religion, so when I felt the pull, I have needed to investigate it.
I have honestly not heard of teh Gilgamesh thing. I will have to look into that..
Cool beans, Chris! I'm not mad at you nor do I think you are stupid. Ignorant? Perhaps, as we all are about some things. I am ignorant about lots of things. Women, for instance. But even god didn't have them pegged too well himself if he expected Eve not to eat the fruit after he told her NOT TO!
You'll notice he never got married and instead had a little fling with a 13 year old already betrothed virgin girl, without her permission, at that. Hmmm. This puts the term "acting godly" into a different context, doesn't it. Try explaining this to your Sunday School class next weekend and see how this truth goes over with the brothers and sisters, Chris!
Do check out The Epic of Gilgamesh, Chris. You'll find it predates the Christian bible by quite a bit and the details of the character and other creatures in the tale were no doubt "borrowed," to put it kindly, and used as the basis for the Great Flood in Genesis. The old testament is merely a collection of retold myths adapted to control ignorant people. And it still works just fine on some today.
Got any hard data to back that one up? The number I hear most frequently is 15 or 16. Says a lot of about sourcing.
But I will definitely look up Gilgamesh.
If my 15 or 16 year-old, 21st Century American daughter were to become pregnant by a human man, then no, it would not be okay.
If my 15 or 16 year-old Israeli daughter living in the 1st Century BC were to become pregnant because of the movement of God, an act which many Jewish people were looking for and hoping for at that time, I would probably feel different.
If my 15 or 16 year old American, 18th Century daughter became pregnant by some human man, then the shotgun would be coming out.
You can't judge God as a 21st Century American liberal man would be judged, and perspective is everything.
Is that the same God you promised to show me and haven't as yet?
From what I understand, she was only 13 and I'll try to find out where this was stated. But there was really no reason he had to impregnate the fiance of another man, was there? How hard would it be for him to find a child not betrothed for his purpose? Why didn't he use his magic to do this instead of causing trouble for Joseph?
But this myth is similar to the one I asked you check out about [i]Yhe Epic of Gilgamesh]/i], Chris. Much of the myth of JC was "borrowed" from the Egyptian god Horus, including the virgin birth. Have you checked out the Gilgamesh connection yet? If so, you see what I mean.
Many myths/stories from around the globe mention a great flood - not just Gilgamesh. Geoscientists claim that a substantial area of land was covered by water when the Black Sea and the Mediterranean were flooded, 5,000-7,000 years ago.
But they all didn't have characters which released birds to search for land. And there were floods in the area at different times, nothing new there. None covered the entire earth, however. And who believes it had never rained before the biblical flood, or there were no rainbows before the event?
There are many problems with the flood myth. Think about this. How did all of the animals get to Australia after the ark was supposed to have beached itself on Mt. Ararat? Australia has been separated from the other land masses for so long many of its animals are found nowhere else. The time period for these species of marsupials to develop make the Biblical myth impossible.
Did you ever wonder how the ark could drift so long on the water covered earth and end up almost in the same place? Magic?
I like the theory you suggested to me once, about the DNA. Remember?
And many of the flood stories do include the release of a dove to find dry land. The Delaware tribe's version had a loon instead of a dove, I think.
Well, perhaps the Bible merely plagiarized the "loony" story from the Delaware tribe then! No ideas about how the kangaroos got to Aussie land? It takes a "leap" of faith to believe they migrated there from the middle east!
No, I don't remember the DNA theory we discussed, but I think I may have "old timers" disease!
a) I've done some research about the age. 13 is cited for the same reason16 is cited, it was a "common" age for Jewish girls to get married at that time. I have as yet to read documentation on either side, so it tends to be a matter of what you prefer and why.
b) I haven't had a chance to check out Gilgamesh because I am caring for my sick wife. Reading a for-real epic is not something I'm opposed to, but it's not something I can easily slot in right now.
c) The Celts and the Greeks both have flood myths where the water covers the entire earth. Zues even created men by throwing stones over his shoulder. So what? (Did I mispell Zues? Sorry if I did!)
d) Horus (and Mithras, the other favorite of people who claim that Christianity plagiarized pagan religions) both had elements that became significantly more "Christian" AFTER Jesus' time. The original stories don't track that closely.
e) I don't have a ready answer for the Australia thing. There are things I readily admit I take on faith. But the existence of God is not one of them. I have felt the presence of God and seen Him work in my life and the lives of others.
You have highlighted the entire problem of Creationism v Evolution, though. Evolutionists (not all, but many) look at evolution as the reason man does not NEED God, it all happened without Him! The problem is that evolution is a "scientific theory," not a proven fact. Yeah, the evidence is strong enough for those who want to believe it to be comfortable with it, but there are still things that don't get explained. Where did matter come from? Why are people ever nice to each other when natural selection would mitigate against applied self-interest?
You will find no answer to the flood myth, Chris. And natural selection has played a part in whether "nice" folk have survived better than those less amiable. In ancient times mean people often did not live long enough to spread their genes very far. Anyone causing strife within a community was either banished or more likely killed if they did not get along with the tribe.
Thieves, murders, or other malcontents were not tolerated as they threatened the harmony of a tribe. This happened even without a invisible deity to police the morality of the members. Give up on the flood myth. There's no reason for your god to make it so ridiculous as to prohibit using common sense in trying to swallow the myth.
Nor for it ever to have to take place to begin with. Why did all of the animals have to die, not to mention innocent babies who never had a chance to sin? Try making some sense out of that if you dare, or either fall back on the old "we are not meant to understand" BS!
What? The stories are almost identical and show well beyond a shadow of a doubt the Horus story came well before the Jesus story.
Yes, evolution is a fact AND a theory, just like gravity.
Nonsense, people understand it, they don't believe in it for comfort, that's entirely ridiculous.
So what? Just because there are still unanswered questions does not preclude the fact evolution is a fact.
Matter formed from the ocean of radiation left over by the Big Bang.
Because being nice to each other is a trait that has evolved into us as well as other animals. Evolution is not about self-interest, that is just a fallacy.
Okay, now that I've read several different sites about Horus, you're just going to need to draw me a map.
Horus was not the son of a human woman.
He was not killed to save people from their sins.
The Devil is not in any sense Jesus' uncle.
Ra may as well be Superman for all his similarity to Yahweh.
Ditto and then some for Osiris.
Since the similarities are surface and minimal, and the differences can fill a book, what's the deal?
I sincerely hope that Gilgamesh yields more than this.
I didn't claim Horus and Jr. were exactly the same, only that the writers of the bible borrowed from other myths and incorporated them into the novel. Neither is Gilgamesh identical to Noah, but some things in the epic are more than coincidental, as you will see. Most authors going to the trouble to try and pass of others work as their own will not copy a story in its entirety. These guys were not completely stupid.
And perhaps you can tell me how the kangaroos and other unique creatures got from Mt Ararat to Australia after the flood? They sure as heck didn't hop across the water!
Yes, but he similarities would have to outweigh the differences, and the differences so vastly outweigh the similarities that the "borrowing" can be explained 100 different ways (figuratively speaking, don't think that I mean you should ask for a literal 100 ways! )
In a different forum someone tried to tell me that an ancient Aztec myth was like Jesus' story because it had gods that died and came back to life. I read the story and the differences were so vast that you really had to be reaching to claim that was a valid instance of proving the Gospel narrative inauthentic. The same goes for Horus. I would need a good deal more than just "god is born, god dies, god rises from the dead" to think that Horus (or any other myth) was something "plagiarized" by the 1st Century Jews.
I'm still not passing judgement on Gilgamesh. You may really have something there, I don't know.
Natural selection actually doesn't explain nice people. Rulers were usually not nice people, that's often how they got to be rulers. Therefor, mean people certainly did live long enough to propogate their genes. Few tribes were so rigid that they ruthlessly rooted out all the malcontents and banished or exterminated them. It's a well-known and well-proven axiom that you get the justice you can afford, and the rich mean folk often did much better than the poor mean ones.
Of course the thieves and murderers had to be dealt with, yet they still were there throughout history.
I'm not buying the "natual selection" argument. As a theory, it's as good as any other (if you've never met God.) But the practical study of history shows that it doesn't go that far.
Think Alois Hitler.
You can try to whack me with the Australia argument all you want. My belief in God does not stand or fall on that. I have met God and heard Him and seen Him at work in my life and the lives of others. I can certainly explain what I mean by that, if you're interested. As someone who didn't come from a Chrsitian background, I often wonder what it was like to sit through church when you strongly don't believe.
Of course, you don't, especially if you have based your decision on the ridiculous and laughable examples provided above.
The dishonest will not only make up garbage about science to justify their irrational beliefs, but will undoubtedly follow up with lies about meeting and conversing with their god as if they think others are as gullible and delusional as them.
Did I claim every every vestige of "meanness" or evil, if you prefer, has been eliminated by natural selection? Sorry if I gave that impression as I certainly did not mean to. But how could you tell our ancient ancestors were not more savage than they are presently?
And do you suppose our more barbaric ancestors would shy away from eliminating those who caused trouble among those who had a hard enough time surviving as it was? They didn't have to worry about courts of law to protect the accused from being either cast out from the tribes or simply given a quick death in those days. This is a no-brainer for anyone with a realistic view of known history, not to mention that of a much more savage and violent people.
No, I didn't expect you to address the problem of how the biblical flood account makes no sense when the facts are shown. Christians simply pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore in their novel. Otherwise, they have to deal with truth, something not compatible with their beliefs.
Why would your god inspire his followers to write things which make no sense at all if he really wanted us to have faith in him? Did he want to make it as difficult as possible for people to believe his message? Or does one have to completely ignore their own common sense and life experiences in order to believe in him? Is science the work of Satan, do you think? If so, don't use it! Refuse to take scientifically developed medicines if you are ill and simply pray for healing from your deity if you don't trust the words of educated men.
I've found those who try so hard to vilify scientists who disagree with their novel simply pick and choose which modern conveniences are okay depending on what they like and need. These same scientists and researchers must use logic and commonsense to achieve great things. The same logic and facts which tell them many events in the bible are simply ridiculous. Either believe them or don't take advantage of their work. Otherwise, hypocrisy is the only result of your rantings against scientific knowledge. You simply cannot have it both ways, Chris.
And I was so looking forward to your theory on the Australian animal question. Simply refusing to address it seems to indicate we've reached the end of our discussion unless you expect others to ignore your own queries in a like manner.
I will give a more detailed answer another time, but for now, lighten up Capt'n Bligh!
I have NEVER said that science is the work of the devil. In fact, it is God who gave us the natural world and the common sense to figure it out!
Please stop making these assumptions about me!
My apologies, Chris. I'm merely trying to find out just what you do believe concerning the Christian faith. If you are still seeking to discover the veracity of the Bible then I applaud you. I do not intend to cause you to believe anything which is not fact based or is merely conjecture. I hope the same goes for your intentions towards myself.
When are you going to show me your God? Or, have you been blowing hot air all this time?
Common sense, indeed.
"Or does one have to completely ignore their own common sense and life experiences in order to believe in him?"
Actually, to some extent you do. The Bible did deal with this, notably in 1 Corinthians 3:18-23.
For me it's really not such a stretch (and no, not because I'm lacking common sense or life experience!) God has shown Himself to me, so yes, I believe He exists.
The point of a miracle is that it DIDN"T happen all the time. That's why they were recorded as these great things that happened. Had they been commonplace, then there would have been no reason to record them.
Look, this is philosophy, not physics, BUT...
If there was a Creator, one who put things in place, and He created an orderly universe, one where even uneducated people with no knowledge of atomic particles or germs could still observe and record certain thngs about the world, then couldn't the One who made the systems and the processes also be the One who could suspend them?
But believing in miracles or a Creator does not contradict believing in electro-magnetism or particle physics, or using a computer (despite what many trollers want to say...) Science is NOT the realm of the devil and science is NOT inherently anti-God (nor is belief in God inherently anti-science.) There's still so much that is not understood both in religion and science.
And yes, there are things that I don't understand in the Bible that, as I said before, I do take on faith. I take those things on faith because the fundamental point, that there is a God and that Jesus died for our sins, is not a matter of blind faith for me. Take that as you will, I know that many people would write me off exactly at this point and consign me to the dumpheap of pinheads and nano-brains. I actually tried to stop being a Christian once (long story which I will probably never explain) but I simply couldn't forget my experiences with God and the Holy Spirit.
But let me say once again that I am not anti-science. I love string theory (I don't understand a lot of it, but I sure find it interesting!) Ironically, I find a lot of evolutionary theory interesting too.
Of course, invisible magical super beings suspend the laws of physics all the time, that's why they're magical super beings.
Understanding physics would contradict believing in miracles and a creator. One can believe whatever nonsense they want.
Nothing about science is understood by believers who claim miracles don't contradict physics.
<--- coveted double laughie award
As I suspected, reality is not something you wish to acknowledge as valid or credible without injecting magical thinking and irrational beliefs.
So, according to you, "smart" is synonymous with the lengths of magical thinking will take you.
Yes, I know you have no interest in reality, hence your magical thinking and irrational beliefs will always be the winner here.
Those are your usual lies. And, if you can't show me where I said those things, then you are obviously putting words in mouth and you owe me an apology. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.
(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.
Who ever denied Jesus was a man...
He even called himself son of man and clearly written in present and current gospels.
I have never heard Jesus refered to as a God, only the son of God. That doesn't meke him a God. Greg.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
Sophia: without substantiating anything what you write has no meaning what so ever.
So do the Jews
The Prophecies about indicates the Messiah is just a man.
Anybody seen this video?
Somebody just posted this on facebook.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm glad you still love me.
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.
Those who bandy around that statement usually know little of it and act contrary to it. They are not to be trusted.
The entire novel called the Holy Bible is merely hearsay, Vector. I assume you find that particular hearsay acceptable though, correct?
The rejection of the Bible is also hearsay, Randy. In fact, there is an entire body of work spanning centuries about the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible.
Where were the first century naysayers to the Gospels? They were written within the lifetimes of people who knew the people and places written about. There were plenty of people who hated, disliked, distrusted, disbelieved, and had plenty of reason to say, "no, I was there and that wasn't the way it happened." Where are they?
And if you're going to pull the pat answer "The Church suppressed them," then you must explain why gnostic "gospels" that contradict Matthew, Mark, Luke and John managed to survive even though "the Church" suppressed them, too.
Cool! Who exactly wrote the "entire body of work" you reference? Not believers were they? And sure there are real places in the bible and people too. Just none of those with magical powers or proof of any miracles either. But I'll be glad to have a look if they come from anywhere but sites with a religious ulterior motive of spreading religious propaganda. You know, one which uses scientific facts.
Gone With The Wind uses real events, places, and people in it to give a sense of reality to the tale, but it is, nevertheless, still a novel.
The 1st century naysayers were well documented as many gods were worshiped at the time of Jr.'s rumored existence. In fact, there is no mention of Jr. by his contemporaries in any record books or other know writings. It was many decades after his supposed death before anyone even mentioned the rumored events of his life. Sorry, too bad for you! And I don't have to explain why anything which contradicts the anonymous "according to" Greek authors of the pulp fiction series of the day is even pertinent to this discussion.
Christianity was merely a small cult until it was later to be the required religion by certain "religious leaders." but you already knew that, didn't you?
'Historical' records weren't wrote for 'profit'..
Hence the reason scholar's refer to them.. ::ahem:: HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS...
But thx for throwing pretenses like 'novel' in there.. Nice twisted view for everyone to take a good analysis on..
The Biblical truths are verified by Greek gov't record keepers, no motive, strict punishment for false information.
Maybe you should just admit 'I don't like' and be done... lol
And which biblical truths are you referring to which were "verified" by the Greek government record keepers, Mr. helper?
Well I never expected the 'denier' to accept my staement.
That's to lead others to research and see I'm right.
You think people don't look?
The problem with your response is that it would show more confidence if you actually gave a source. You don't because you can't. If you could, you would give it. The real point is that you believe what you believe because you've been told it's true. But people make mistakes all the time, and other people even blatantly tell lies for their own purposes.
So until you, and others, produce actual proof of the veracity, it's going to be in doubt. Faith doesn't cut it.
please Sophia.. give it up.
They make search engines don't they?
You want me to mail the papers snail mail too?
Do your OWN hw.. and quiting trying to nail me.
I just said I'm not here to prove it to him, and that includes you as well.
You would deny whatever i produced.
What a waste.
Vector 7, there isn't anything scientific on the web that proves anything.
However, I could ask you the same question.
Three times, in the past week, I have been approached by Christians to 'share their faith.' Before they even started, I said, "I'm an atheist."
With one voice, they all asked the same question (I think this must be the new Christian trick question.). "Where do you think you come from?
"My mother's womb?"
"But before that? What about your spirit?"
"I don't know the answer to that. I don't believe anyone does."
"Oh, that's God."
"Tell me, where do you think this table comes from?"
"I don't know. Some carpenter, I suppose."
"Well, do you think God sat down and made it personally just because you don't know the name of the carpenter?"
"It's not that simple."
So, Vector 7. If you people really want to convince people that Christ exists and the bible is real, then you present the evidence. And, yes, absolutely, as you are the ones that want to convert people, it's your job to provide the proof. Only dummies accept things without proof.
Considering you have produced nothing, it's easy to deny, isn't it?
Come on, TM! I'm sure this new genius will enthrall us with his finely honed research abilities and exhibit records even the experts haven't found. Just you wait and see. Okay Vector, show us how brilliant your research is. Don't be coy! Just be sure and use simple words so TM and I can keep up!
Sure, some look, but not everyone sees! I have looked, but found nothing of substance which backs up anything but known history and nothing of any help in ferreting out any corroborating miraculous biblical events. So, the links to your claims of Greek records backing up biblical events, please. Other than already well known happenings, of course!
You made the claim, back it up!
The only Greco-Roman sources were that of Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius, all which were references to early Christians, not to Jesus himself, and all were written well after the alleged Crucifixion.
Everyone knows that, it is well documented.
Of course, everyone knows that to be entirely false, why would you make such a claim (as if we didn't know)
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.
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?
Facts will not sway believer's beliefs, no matter what.
Indoctrination good, facts bad.
So then you believe that Muhammod is the Messiah that Jesus speaks about in this piece? You just said facts are facts.
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.
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?
For the millionth time, I have no such beliefs one way or the other.
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.
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.
Yes, I understand the religiously indoctrinated have no concept of the mind beyond that of believing in things. No need to remind me.
You said yourself to me that you don't believe Jesus even existed!
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?
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.
And, I definitely saw the post in which you said you were going to show me your God. When will that happen?
If you can't show me your god, isn't that proof enough he doesn't exist? I mean, you claim to have conversations with him, why can't you just tell him to show himself to me if he shows himself to you? What's the problem?
The Jewish Bible was before the Christian bible and The Jewish Bible disproves the Christian Bible,
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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! 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. 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! Capernaum was the fishing village that Jesus arrived at with his disciples, not Nazareth. Nazareth and Capernaum were two towns which Jesus often visited with his disciples 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
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.
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.
@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...
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.
== == - = - = -
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.
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?
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
Ah yes, I know what you mean, Jerami! But it's better than the alternative, so far!
Jerami, did you go to school? 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.
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.
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%
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,
Jerami, you're funny.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You're also confused!
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.
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.
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.
Jesus found buried with family...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … Jesus.html
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 !
Nah, OLD NEWS!
Sorry to disappoint.
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...
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.
@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...
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...
Too late! Peter said that Jesus was a man approved of God. Many christians can't read.
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.
The poster of this question, got their information from the daily mail.
by Beelzedad6 years ago
"Let me just say, that NO MAN convinced me to believe.I just MET Jesus Christ."I copied these words from a post in order to ask any believer here who claims to have met Jesus to send him to me or any other...
by charlie9 months ago
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.It seems most people professing to be Christian do not have a proper grounding in the scriptures. They drink the milk but do not seem to be able ( or maybe no desire?)...
by A Thousand Words5 years ago
I was just laying here on my mother's bedroom floor. She turned to one of the TV preachers, and he was talking about how much Jesus loves us, and the sacrifices that He made for us, and how every human is expected to...
by Kris2 years ago
Why did you leave the church?I left the church, because of hypocrisy. I was tired of hearing the church called a place of love and healing when all of my interactions with Christians had been full of judgment and hurt....
by Kebennett18 years ago
If Apologetics is about spreading God's truth as we know it as Christians then why is it necessary?Isn't t that what Christian witnessing is all about? Is this another cult hiding behind the word Christianity?
by Peeples5 years ago
Is someone only a Christian until they screw up?Many are saying the horrible things happen because of lack of God. Many people who do bad grow up in the church and as an adult suffer a break and do something bad. My...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.