jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (136 posts)

The bible is the TRUTH but not like you think

  1. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    The bible is the TRUTH.not the literal truth. But the truth nonetheless.

    It is basically a guide to enlightenment through meditation and kundalini. Theonly thing is is that you wont believe this,or figure it out unless youve been through the process.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      (sigh)
      I suppose you think Jesus Himself is a result of your yoga serpentine fantasy too, that you've invented Him or channeled Him from your great imagination or power of the spine? 
      Sorry, janesix, but I prefer to believe the literal Truth told to us by eyewitnesses who walked with Him here on earth long ago.

      1. janesix profile image61
        janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Thats the difference with you and me.i dont have to rely on belief

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I'm sorry if I offended you, janesix. 
          Just please be careful about yoga meditation, etc.?  Our minds can play tricks on us sometimes, and so can our feelings. 
          Dabbling in New Age rituals, etc., is a maze that can be hard to extricate ourselves from.

          1. janesix profile image61
            janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You havent offended me.
            smile

            I dont expect you to believe me,thats ok. We have polar opposite views.

            Your turn will come to wake up(probably not in this incarnation) but for now i hope you enjoy your life as it is.theres nothing wrong with sleeping.its how the universe experiences life.thats the whole point.

          2. profile image0
            jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Our minds can play tricks on us sometimes,
            and so can our feelings.
            Dabbling in Old Age rituals, beliefs etc., is a maze that can be hard to extricate ourselves from.

            1. janesix profile image61
              janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              "old age" beliefs arent any different than the newer abrahamic religions. Not when you look at them closely.

              1. profile image0
                jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                All religion ultimately come to this, 'give Hope, allay fear and control masses'.

                1. janesix profile image61
                  janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Or control by fear.

                  This is unfortunate but true

                2. Jerami profile image72
                  Jeramiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You have described human nature in general and not just religion.

                    It is human nature to search for hope of any kind and there is always someone around that sees a way to take advantage.

                  1. pisean282311 profile image60
                    pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    @jerami right ...thats why since death of jesus people hope for him to come back.....hope is powerful emotion and has nothing to do with truth or false...

      2. Shadesbreath profile image84
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        LOL, so you would rather go with the belief that some dude waved his hands in the air and split open a sea, that people talked to bushes, that some dude literally crammed two of every one of the billions of species on the earth on an boat he hastily built himself out of wood, by hand, lol (one of EVERY species--despite not actually having access to any of the other continents or even knowing they existed--), that people turn to pillars of salt, that zombies rise from the grave and bring salvation... and so, so, so many other completely insane stories....

        You are actually going to warn him that thought and reason and meditation on the wisdom of accumulated human experience to be found in the bible is more dangerous that a simple and reflexive unthinkingly blind belief that every metaphor in the reconstruction of those bronze age myths is literal truth and should be, or could be, justification for more racial cleansing, spitting on gays, or whatever else happens in the name of God when the next flareup happens?

        And, for what it's worth, I already know your answer is, "Yes," but I thought I'd toss the grounds of your belief out there just because I'm bored and needed something to do. smile

      3. Dale Hyde profile image85
        Dale Hydeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Wow, you know the eyewitnesses? Or are you speaking of writings of supposed eyewitnesses from several thousand years ago that have been altered repeatedly by the "churches" to continue to manipulate the masses?

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          since the king james bible there have been many bibles written and they were not copies but translations from old texts and my point is that the newer translations did not turn out to be REwrites but they actually agree with what you called manipulated texts. Now if the king james is not drastically different from these other versions then how is this manipulated text saying the same things, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book?

          1. Dale Hyde profile image85
            Dale Hydeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You must be reading different versions of the Bible than I have. Not only has the wording changed, but the meaning has changed as well. Just as the "original" teachings of Jesus have been manipulated to manipulate the masses. Scare tactics. Live in fear! Be subjective!

            1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
              BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You must be reading the Vulgate.

              But you know, the book of Isaiah found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls does pretty much match up with the King James.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Which copy of the Book of Isaiah? There were three varied copies found with the Dead Sea Scrolls...

                1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                  BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "Varied" you say?

                  In what way?

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
                    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    They were not identical. There were variances. They were about 95% the same...And while I agree this is close enough to confirm authenticity overall that a book was written by Isaiah (or his scribe)...There is still some variances...Which could (not does) call into question if, in fact, they are completely accurate copies of the original.

          2. pisean282311 profile image60
            pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            @brother there where 20 odd gosphels out of which only 4 where chosen...those 4 suited purpose of those who selected them....talk about manipulation?....

            1. profile image0
              brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              not manipulation at all. Those 4 gospels were picked because they are the best and truest of all those gospels. I have read many of those gospels and in no way can those gospels persuade me to anything other than belonging to those scam gospels written in psuedepigrapha style by authors who just stuck names on them for quick sale. Indeed, they are far far below the quality of the gospels written by the ones close to and at the time of Jesus christ himself.
              I have written much about the illegitimacy of those other gospels but will refrain at this time.

              1. pisean282311 profile image60
                pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                @brother best and true based on whose judgement?...how can 300 yrs down the line people judge what is best and true?....obviously best to suit purpose selectors intend to accomplish and truth is something which non can claim after 300 yrs ....so it is best to suit purpose of selectors and truth is irrelevant out here..

                1. profile image0
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You stand in a modern day courtyard and describe courtyards from 300 yrs ago? We cannot judge the standards of then with today.

                  The early church did not argue over who wrote the gospels, they knew and named them thus - why did they name them thus? because they had some extra maybe cultural information or word of mouth turned colloquialism... They simply were closer to the event that we are today. In short we must stop second guessing those a mere 300 yrs away from such historic events that founded their belief and just agree.
                  Another good point is that we do not have the gospel of peter and thomas and mary and others in the bible, obviously there were reasons sometimes we must trust simple things to just be correct. And this simple thing of naming the gospels is just one example.

                  You can say oh political reasons, but the word has just not opened up enough to reveal to you its flow and sober usage of communicating words and its many styles all mixed together with intricate weavers ability. Its obvious that the books all support the doctrines and the books outside the bible have doctrinal contradictions.

                  So power NO
                        proper  YES

      4. shepheka profile image59
        shephekaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Brenda Durham,

        It is a very common mistake for many Christians to believe that the gospels are "eye-whiteness" accounts. , Jesus lived from 1 B.C.E. to around 33 C.E.  The gospels featured within the bible, were written many years after the alleged death of Jesus. In fact, they were written so many years after, there is no chance that any of the authors were actually alive during the life of Jesus. The gospel of Mark was written in 70 C.E., making it first of the 4 featured within the bible, 4 decades after the death of Jesus; therefore, using liberal estimations, the author of Mark would have to had been around 70 years old to have been an eye-whiteness. The average lifespan of the time was around 29. The first writing of Jesus to emerge after his death was that of the Apostle Paul, during the 4 decade gap before the gospel of Mark was written.  Paul claimed Jesus came to him in a vision, before which he knew nothing of Jesus, and commanded him to spread His word. Paul wrote over 80,000 words about Jesus, all of which completely contradict the writings of Mark. In fact, Paul does not mention: The virgin birth, any of the miracles or that Jesus was an actual earthly being.  Simply said, the gospel of Mark was written completely from hearsay and was also embellished very deeply.

        1. pisean282311 profile image60
          pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          @shepheka i dont think majority of christians believe that gosphels are eye witness account...they know that it is not eye witness account...they also know that authors of gosphel are unknown....

          coming to virgin birth , that came later....and so came many stories linked to jesus....1st century jesus and 4th century jesus are much different...christ as character evolved since death of jesus and todays christ is far from what actually 1st century christians made of christ...

          1. shepheka profile image59
            shephekaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            30% of Americans believe the bible to be the ACTUAL word of God.  85% of America believes in a traditioal form of God.

            I cannot find any data regarding eye-witness acounts polls, but I believe the number is higher than you think.  ...."but I prefer to believe the literal Truth told to us by eyewitnesses who walked with Him here on earth long ago.".... Brenda Durham posted this in response to the original thread.

            1. shepheka profile image59
              shephekaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              As far as the evolution of Christ, I attribute that to the evolution of society. As a society changes, they adapt their mythology to grow with it. The reason religion/myth does not change much anymore is because we are now in the information age, history is now less fluid.

            2. pisean282311 profile image60
              pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              @shepheka ."but I prefer to believe the literal Truth told to us by eyewitnesses who walked with Him here on earth long ago."?????...now that is impossible....if there are two people witnessing same event and asked after 40 yrs , both would have different versions of it....bible was never word of god...unfortunately people believe that it is word of god....bible is believed to be word of god and there is  difference between believe and truth...

              there where 20+ gosphels and out of them only 4 where selected...these 4 suited agendas of early church...that itself nullifies bible as being word of god...

              1. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You seem to forget that people took notes. If you think they did not then i will remind you that Jesus the christ son of the living God was speaking to them and that meant more to them than it does to you.
                Have you ever gone to school and not taken notes? Perhaps you did not taken notes in the classes you disliked, but in the classes you enjoyed you certainly did.
                Same scenario here.
                Now also remember that these people are versed in OT and know it thoroughly and here comes the promised messiah - thats like someone you idolize - pardon the expression hehe - and you don't remember what that person said?
                One day you read something (the gospel of mark) and your memory is jogged, perhaps you even go to your notes.

                As we notice with the 4 gospels they are not exactly the same. They talk about the same situations but they all supplement and augment the situation with their viewpoints. They give different facts that do not contradict but enhance the gospel of mark.
                If i saw a train accident and someone else saw a train accident and the cops asked us.. there would not be a situation of i said there was a train accident and the other guy said there was not a train accident. I would say, i saw the trains collide head on and then i saw people getting out of the train. The other guy may say, I saw the trains hit but before they hit people were jumping out of the train.
                Contradiction? nope.

                God has left his word and that is fact too

                Nothing you have said nullifies the bible as being the word of God.

        2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          shepheka, what you said is your OPINION. An OPINION from the perspective of an atheist.

          I happen to believe Mark was written by Mark under Peter's supervision.

          It would be helpful if you would begin your posts with, "I am an atheist and this is my OPINION."

          If you don't, I am going to start my posts with, "It is a very common mistake for many atheists to believe . . ."

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this



            There are many Biblical Scholars who would disagree with you on this point...Including what is currently being taught in theology classes in most, if not all, American Colleges.

            1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
              BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              There are many biblical scholars who would disagree with you on this point . . . including what is currently being taught in theology classes in most, if not all, American colleges.

              So you graduated from an American college that taught theology classes? Which one was that?

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Regents University with a Masters of Divinity(Missiology) and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies. Currently working on a second Masters degree in Theology from Saint Leo's University. And may complete a second Doctorate in Ministry depending on a final decision of what I will be doing after I retire from the Military in a few years.. (Fulltime Minister or College Professor)

                Edit: If you are interested...Here are video's with the full course material of the New Testament and Old Testament as taught at Yale University...
                http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies

                The NT is 26 lectures and the OT is 24 lectures.

                1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                  BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Regent's University is of course Pat Robertson's baby. The statement of faith of that university begins with: "That the Holy Bible is the inspired, infallible and authoritative source of Christian doctrine and precept."

                  How did you get a PhD from Regent's? By disagreeing with the statement of faith?

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
                    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Completed a BA, wrote my letter of intent, got a letter of recommendation from two Navy Chaplains, One Catholic and One Episcopal. Applied and was accepted. Completed my Masters, enrolled and was accepted into the Doctorate Program. Completed my required courses of study, applied for and received my Degree.

                    The statement of faith applies to the school, student beliefs can be more varied. Besides, who said I agree or disagree with the schools statement of faith. You do realize that very few of the professors actually believe exactly like Pat Robertson. There is even an "atheist" or two, who are professors there.

                    Also, just as a side note, Any school that is federally funded (Public, non-private school) is not allowed to discrimate on who attends their school. As long as the entrance  requirements are met, and tuition is paid, a student can attend.

                    Covered under Executive Order 13160 of June 23, 2000:

                    Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Race, Sex, Color, National
                    Origin, Disability, Religion, Age, Sexual Orientation, and Status
                    as a Parent in Federally Conducted Education and Training
                    Programs


                    I am curious...Do you intended to view the courses located in the link I provided? It will take some time to get through all of them...But should be interesting to you..I would think..

          2. shepheka profile image59
            shephekaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            BLACKANDGOLDJACK

            You are very mistaken; First and foremost, I am not biased to one side or the other. I have spent many years of my life weighing the evidence for each side but what I have come to realize is the fact that the religious side has almost no evidence. In the event that undeniable evidence supporting religion was produced, I would have no problem changing my position.

              The dates and events mentioned in my previous post are not opinions, they are indeed facts. The biggest problem is not the facts the way they are interpreted. People who wish to believe will find a way to believe.

        3. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You are completely wrong on what i must call your assumptions.
          The gospels were written within the lifetimes of those that followed christ meaning his disciples and those that were taught by his disciples and those that were witnesses to the resurrected christ - remember christ visited over 500 people before his ascension.
            1 Corinthians 15:6   After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 1 corinthians is written about 55 ad so at this time there are those who are alive and witnesses.

          but lets deal with your high date for the book of mark.
          Acts ends with Paul being held in jail in rome, therefore paul is not dead, Paul died in 68ad, even if we go as high as 72 ad we must notice that acts was written before that date. Now we also know that luke wrote both the gospel of luke and acts and that acts is a continuation of luke, so luke was written before acts and before pauls death. We also know that luke used marks gospel when writing lukes gospel - so you can see the date for marks gospel easily is lesser than 70ad and puts marks and other gospels well within 30ish years after jesus death - which compared to other literary works of antiquity is a news flash! delivered by Reuters.

          The gospel of mark comes from eyewitness peter, this is a fact and hearsay as yousay does not enter the picture.

          The idea that you know what paul has to mention in order for truth to emerge is what i call, alarming. Paul never contradicts any christian guideline that either jesus or the OT mention. Recall that Paul was sent to the gentiles - whether you want to dispute this or not is irrelevant to me - but the gentiles do actually have different practicalities than the jews did. The jews were under the law, the gentiles had no law, Christ came to free people from the law and bring grace and forgiveness to all people - equally, therefore, since the letter of the law and the horrible way the jews mistreated the law and created new laws were done away with - replaced by the true spirit of the law - the gentiles who knew not the law needed to know what is up. The law was never placed upon the gentiles and should neither have been given them to bear.

          1. shepheka profile image59
            shephekaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Your  argument fails to do anything more than to prove the point I made ealier: There is NO evidence, outside of the Bible, to prove the life of Jesus.
            The Bible my be all the proof you need; however, for myself and many others we demand actual historical evidence.

            1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
              BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You say, "to prove the life of Jesus." Are you saying that there is no historical evidence besides the Bible that Jesus existed as a man on earth?

              I doubt you atheists would be satisfied with anything but cell phone pics from way back when taken at the scene of the resurrection.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Anything would do really. Lets say 10 contemporary historical references?

                Go!

              2. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                ha.  Indeed!  Even that probably wouldn't satisfy them.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No - really - anything would do that is not in the bible. You must have a lot to think we would only take photos - right?

                  All that evidence and proof I have rejected.....  lol

                  You keep on providing more and more - we keep rejecting it. lol

                  1. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You stand on the proof (the earth).
                    You see the proof (the reality of life and death).
                    You live the proof (you are alive, yet with no explanation of how humans came into being except at the hand of a Creator).
                    You have access to reading the proof (the Holy Bible).

                    Instead of seeing the proof that's all around you, you search for something that isn't there (literal denunciation of rational conclusion).

    2. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Does that "process" require that we should become whimsical, and just throw out reality?

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That depends on how reality is discovered. In my experience, i know far more now than i did when i first became a christian. My knowledge is deeper, loose ends got cleared up and God has shown and proven himself to me more often than i can count.
        So to all those who want to have all the answers before they repent and be saved, i say, the deeper i get in christ, the bigger He becomes.

    3. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It's a subjective truth, one that is an illusion of desire and attachment.

    4. AEvans profile image80
      AEvansposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I would say it is a book of enlightment. It aides you in becoming a better person spiritually when you pray and understand the word. smile

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Wow - do "better people" lie about what they look like and use other people's images to imply they are more attractive than they really are?

        You are hot. Even hotter than the way you used to look when you looked like Audrey.

  2. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Forgive them, for they know not what they do

  3. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    But the natural man does not recieve the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to them; nor can he know them, Because they are spiritually discerned.1Cor2:13

    1. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      the spirit that discerns them is the spirit of God and not some other way.
      Meditation biblically does not mean we empty our minds and repeat some tantrum (lol) but it does mean we think about what the bible is saying. We mull it over.

      Romans 10:6   But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
        Romans 10:7   Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
        Romans 10:8   But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
        Romans 10:9   That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

      See no serpentine thingy needed or third eye or rummaging through books that promise deep spiritual insights. Gods ways are simple and available to all. No special degree or masters of the universe playing card needed.

    2. Barbara Kay profile image90
      Barbara Kayposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      janesix, I agree with you.

  4. pisean282311 profile image60
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    @ts bible is truth?......hmmm....depends on how u define truth...

  5. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago

    The Bible is nothing more than the first and failed attempt for ignorant men to understand the world around them.

    1. janesix profile image61
      janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I used to think so too, untill i had an experience that convinced me otherwise. Its not something a person can believe just by trying to explaine it to them. It has to be lived.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Personal feelings and emotions are what were used to explain the world around us in the Bible, which is one of the reasons it failed.

        We now use science to explain our world.

        1. janesix profile image61
          janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          There is much more in this world than science can explain.

          I dont expect to sway you to my way of thinking. Theres nothing wrong with being logical. Enjoy it! Life is meant to be lived and experienced.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Such as what? What do you know that science does not know?



            Sorry, but I see no form of thinking in your post, I see only unfounded assertion.

            1. janesix profile image61
              janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              If i could put it into words i would.when you have a direct experience, there is no logic involved.it is unexplainable.the closest i can come is that you get a sense of the underlying order of everything. Among other things.

              I completely agree i am not being logical.that doesnt mean i am not thinking.

              I know i am very much alone in my views.thats why i discuss it in an annonymous forum.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Emotionally charged experiences are nothing more than hallucinations, easily explainable. That is not any evidence at all for your claim, it is just wishful thinking.



                Scientific views are not alone or anonymous and can be seen and tested by anyone.

                1. janesix profile image61
                  janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I never claimed having any evidence.

                  I just believe it.

                  I mainly wrote this thread hoping someone knows what im talking about and can relate.there is no one i can talk about it

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    That's fine, but if that's the case, making claims that "There is much more in this world than science can explain" is rather dishonest considering science IS based on evidence and not personal belief.

    2. Jerami profile image72
      Jeramiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      and when selfproclaimed wise men can't understand something the fault must lie in the thing not understood.

         I'm not pointing at anyone in particular ATM  but at all self proclaimed WISE people such as myself.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Or, they are not wise at all.

    3. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thats interesting, obviously you play a numbers game.

      prove that the bible is a failed attempt to explain the world around them and i am betting you find a God not linked to natural events as an explanation of them at all but you find a God who is concerned with sin and not attached to fertility rites or the passing of seasons.

      Sorry ATM but you are very much wrong again.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        No, we don't find gods at all.

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          we?

          lol

          hows your health these days?

  6. profile image60
    augustine72posted 5 years ago

    First of all I really don't know if people in this hub want a sincere discussion or are here for simply to pass their time. Those who are here to simply while away their time are really showing the degree of morality by spitting out some nonsense that comes to their mind. These are the ones who many a time gives out one word or one phrase uninformative posts. I really wish this website was usefully used. 

    To those who are here for sincere discussion here are some information.

    There are evidences that Jesus Christ was a real person who walked on this planet.

    1. There are historic writings that indicate these truths. 
    2. The gospels are not mere stories but mentions specific personalities and places that existed during that time.
    3. Jesus was born around 4 B.C. and lived for around 33 years. That places his death around 30 A.D. The first Gospel (by Mark) was written around 70 A.D. That is just 40 years later. Many close associates of Jesus would still have been living at that time. So Mark could not have paraded with his incorrect stories.
    4. What books would become a part of the Bible was not decided some crook who was biased towards some belief. Gospels that had clear indication that they were inspired works (which was based taking into account various parameters) were only select to be a part of the Bible.

    I have question for those who talk about enlightenment, kundalini and all the new age stuff. What is the basis for your stuff? What is the evidence that what you are saying is true?

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      3. Jesus was born around 4 B.C. and lived for around 33 years. That places his death around 30 A.D. The first Gospel (by Mark) was written around 70 A.D. That is just 40 years later. Many close associates of Jesus would still have been living at that time. So Mark could not have paraded with his incorrect stories.

      mark could not is assumption...considering assumption is true...no one knows who was mark...now supposingly mark took interview of eyewitnesses ....if u ask two people witnessing same thing even 1 yr back there would be lot of difference in their versions..

      lets assume jesus was god sent person...if he was , he should have known that his words are so very important....why didnt he himself wrote them down then?...why wait for some unknown mark to write after 40 yrs?.....

      4. What books would become a part of the Bible was not decided some crook who was biased towards some belief. Gospels that had clear indication that they were inspired works (which was based taking into account various parameters) were only select to be a part of the Bible.

      bible was standardized after 300 yrs....now after 300 yrs who can decide with authority what is authentic and what is not....it is simple those who selected 4 gosphels believed that what they are selecting are authentic version and as per their own set of perception of authenticity promoted those versions....none can claim that their version is 100% authentic...they floated things which suited their own agendas...now agenda might be good ...nothing to take away from these people regarding that...but good intentions never mean what they marketed was , what is was....

      I have question for those who talk about enlightenment, kundalini and all the new age stuff. What is the basis for your stuff? What is the evidence that what you are saying is true?

      yoga and kundalini are not new age stuff...they are much older than even torah ...bible ,quran are pretty new book in comparison....yes evidence of what topic starter claimed can be asked for...

      1. profile image60
        augustine72posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Not if the event was of at most importance to them. Many scholars say that Mark had taken the information down from Peter. If that is the case Peter would not have forgotten anything because he was continuously teaching about Jesus to everyone. Also the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was there on the writers to guide them in their writing.   



        You forgot divine inspiration.




        What is your evidence for this claim?

        1. shepheka profile image59
          shephekaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I apologize for the error in my previous post. I did intend to say 70 C.E.; however, I obviously did not proof read well enough.

          The bible simply cannot be used to prove itself. It is a book, written by countless unknown and unverified authors. Though some of the events within can be historical verified more cannot. The bible consist of 4 gospels, the first written 40 years after the fact and the next three written FROM the first; There is absolutely no credibility. If you wish to prove Jesus HISTORICLY you must do it outside of the Bible-including any of the gospels that did not make the cut. To date, there is NO such proof which brings me to the underlying problem. The standards used to judge the historical actuality of Jesus are lower than that of anyone (or thing) else in history; People accept without proof simply because they want to believe.

          1. profile image60
            augustine72posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It is really easy to write such posts. I could also write thus"

            The bible simply can be used to prove itself. It is a book, written by around 40 authors. Though some of the events within can not be historical verified more can. The bible consist of 4 gospels, the first written 40 years after the fact and the next three written later on by different authors for different people. There is absolute credibility. If you wish to prove Jesus HISTORICLY you can do it from the Bible - excluding any of the gospels that did not make the cut. The standards used to judge the historical actuality of Jesus are higher than that of anyone (or thing) else in history; People accept with proof simply because they do not want to believe blindly.

            You simply have not done sincere unbiased study. You just don't want to believe that Jesus existed.

        2. pisean282311 profile image60
          pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          @augustine ....

          if mark took from peter , why gospel of peter itself was rejected?...it is simple selectors chose what suited their agenda...secondly who is this mark?...any historical details about him...when was he born , where did he live, what did he do....whom he interviewed to write gospel?....what was his criteria?....holy spirit is too naive term to say oh i am inspired and what i wrote is divine...who verified whether mark was inspired or not?....do we have record about people who backed claims of holy spirit?...what where their names?...what did they do?...tomorrow xyz can come and write and say hey holy spirit inspired me ...would u belief xyz then?....

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Mark is john mark, elder to the early church, wealthy so of a rich man. Friend of peter. A helper of the church and eager evangelist.
            Papias, in 140ad,  writes clearly of mark writing the gospel.

            When people say things like this, it should be taken with a grain of salt unless the person who says this is a christian disciple of God and their lifestyle shows that they are just that.

    2. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I wouldn't call this truth, but a mere vague possibility--as there are ALSO no mention of him in historical records where he should be mentioned.
       


      Fiction can also mention specific personalities and places.



      You don't know  whether the author of the book of Mark wrote incorrect stories or not.



      And how do you know this?



      They have just as much evidence as you.

      1. shepheka profile image59
        shephekaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        @Augistine72

        Your argument is completely flawed. The only historic item that mentions anything about Jesus is the Bible, there is literally NOTHING else. I think that any rational person would agree that the Bible itself cannot be used as proof.
        As getitrite said, any fictional story can be based on actual persons and places, a few good examples are The Odyssey and The Iliad; surely you do not claim that Hercules was a real perso, born of Zeus?
           You are correct in your dates about the birth and death of Jesus; however, anyone alive and old enough to actually have witnessed or been part of his life would have been much too old to be alive around 120 C. E. (gospel of Mark). The average life span of the time was 29...
        You also mention that the 4 books chosen to be put into the Bible were the most correct and inspired, but what of the 80,000 words written by the apostle Paul. Paul wrote and taught about Jesus during the 40 year gap before the book of Mark was written. Paul's story of Jesus mentioned NOTHING of a virgin birth, any miracles and he implied that Jesus was never actually an earthy figure.
        You speak of ill of other people's morality, but I challenge you to take a closer look at your own. I challenge you to remove faith from the equation and truly study the evidence. You might be surprised at the implications you find.

        1. profile image60
          augustine72posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          There are other historic writings that do talk about Jesus. You just have to do better research. Also the Bible itself can be used as proof simply because is not just on book. Its many books compiled together.  Therefore if one book says something it can be verified by other books. Also the there are writings in the old testament that would verify the claims of the new testament.

          It very easy to sit around and say this is wrong and that is wrong without doing proper study. The truth will remain unchanged whatever you say or believe. 



          Gospel of Mark was written around 70 AD and not 120 AD



          What if I make the same challenge to you? You assume that I took faith before studying.

        2. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The Odyssey and The Iliad

          translated from old documents no one disputes that the words they read in these also ancient texts is false. No one questions the validity of their statement but the bible gets full scrutiny - why?

          Your date for marks gospel is outrageously high. 50-60 is wider more accepted date, based on the ending of acts with paul in jail not dead yet so the book of luke is written prior to acts taken from mark, mark has to be younger than 65ad.

          Jesus mentioned NOTHING of a virgin birth, any miracles

          Paul doesn't have to explain these things. These are early information that is readily known throughout jewdom first and then into the church. Paul is talking to the gentile nations and the gentiles aren't really up on Jewish history, what they like are facts, get to the point please Paul and Paul treats them this way.

      2. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Why should a religious figure have a place in secular history, which is does as a secondary event through pliny and others, but, why would when speaking of roman society and historic events would any religious movement be given loads of attention?

        Do we read of sung moon when we look into history of the 60's?
        Do we frequently encounter menonites when studying the occupation of canada? When i pick up the paper today are there any religions taking up space on the first page or other pages? So why do we require it here?
        When buddha walked why do we not have secular evidence of his journey?

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          If you have to answer a question with a question, then you don't have an answer.

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            because it is more important that you think rather than i dictate smile

        2. janesix profile image61
          janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Buddha didnt really exist.just like jesus

        3. getitrite profile image80
          getitriteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          With the "out of this world" claims that believers make concerning their gods, it would seem absolutely impossible for them to sneak right under the radar of World History, unless, of course they are myths.
             

          This is intellectual dishonesty, but I'm sure you couldn't care less.

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            intellectual dishonesty is more the ability to not become intellectual than to claim something that others cannot believe.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Funny how believers are intellectually dishonest with their definitions of intellectual dishonesty.

              "Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary."

              lol

              1. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                then your intellect is confused

  7. Jerami profile image72
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    A quick answer to this statement.
       Ya gotta remember that These are not books that they published.

       These were just a few letters that they had written to each orher or to somebody .. out of; who knows ? how many were written.   
      These particular letters were adressed to certain people that can be documented a date that "it" was probably written.

       The rest of them have been destroyed or is in the Vatican.

       Christians should definately take this into acount also

  8. Jerami profile image72
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    pisean282311 wrote:
    @shepheka

    there where 20+ gosphels and out of them only 4 where selected...these 4 suited agendas of early church...that itself nullifies bible as being word of god...

    ===========================
       I'm sure that the desiples wrote multitudes and bunches of letters. And that this small number of writings is all that survived almost 300 years until  some of   these were chosen to establish their Church upon.

      All that I get from this is that the bible is only a small part of the word of God.

    1. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      these 20 odd gospels are NOT written by disciples, they are
      pseudepigrapha:
      are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded; a work, simply, "whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past." For instance, few Hebrew scholars would ascribe the Book of Enoch to the prophet Enoch.

      1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
        Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Were'nt the 4 gospels included in the bible written decades after jesus death by people that couldnt have been alive when jesus existed?

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          yes
          no

          there are your answers smile
          happy now

  9. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Why deny Jesus existed if you don't believe in God? Do you also deny that the Holocaust happened? Same logic. You are like the bad guy in "The Book Of Eli" trying to read the braille bible. That guy was Jack Nicholson. Ever hear of Jack?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So, the fact that there are several locations in Europe that have large ovens with peoples bones in them is somehow equivalent to a mythical son of a mythical super being? That's the same logic? lol

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      But Jesus did not exist. The Holocaust happened. We have evidence. Not the same thing at all.

      1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        There are those who say the Holocaust didn't happen.

        Not only do Christians believe Jesus existed, most Jews and most Muslims believe Christ existed, due in part to the historical evidence other than the Bible.

        Then there are those who believe God is a girl and her name is Kali.

        I get Druid Dude's point about braille and the three blind mice.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          So what?

          Jesus did not exist and we have proof that the holocaust happened.

          What anyone says or believes has nothing to do with that. I don't care what irrational believers believe. I already know why they need to believe such things. I don't care that some people say the holocaust never happened. That has no bearing on whether or not they are true.

          I already know that people will lie both to themselves and others in order to defend their beliefs. Particularly irrational religious beliefs.

          So again - so what?

          1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What evidence of the Holocaust do you think would exist if the Germans had won the war?

            So what?

          2. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Oddly so, and yet true to form the best documenteers of the holocaust have been the jews. They reported quite accurately the events of the holocaust with care and determination.

            The same qualities they show when recording about their OT and in the NT.

  10. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    I dont know what you're talking about.and i do believe in god.her name is Kali

 
working