[quote]pookie wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Where did that first single celled organism come from again? Maybe Gerald knows that too.
Ah, so you’ve got a God of the Gaps. How nice. Good thing we understand how thunder happens, or you’d be praying to Thor too.
[/quote]
Your not even as pithy or clever as Gerald Massey. Care to stick to the question?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The first thing you do is “interpret” the words so as to support the meaning you want them to have.
No, actually you did that to begin with. No where on any of the verses that you gave is there a reference to a flat earth. You “assumed” meaning where there was none. And YOU were wrong.[/quote]
I pasted the flat-earther’s argument. There is no interpretation on their part. And they have a point, while the words “flat earth” don’t appear, it is to be logically deduced from those other verses.
I keep forgetting that the people from the book of Daniel had TV, satellites and 100% coverage of the human population.
There’s also this one:
“take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it” (Job 38:12-13)
Where do you find “edges” on a sphere? Let me guess: “Edges” and “flanks of the beach ball” use the same Hebrew symbol! Am I right?
[quote]You are making yet another false assumption. Who said that it would happen when they DID NOT have some sort of device that would allow them to see it?
In fact, the Bible says that it WILL HAPPEN when they ARE able to view it.[/quote]
Yeah, sure. Whatever. Maybe Galactus will come back to eat the planet before that happens.
I can safely assume that whatever tale is predicted in the Bible won’t occur, unless as something completely unrelated that gets somewhat shoehorned into the story after the fact.
That’s how those “Bible prophecies” work, right? Re-arrange the order of the stories so that events having already occurred appear to be predicted by earlier text.
The same technique works wonders to make Nostradamus appear able to predict the future when he was just writing down random gibberish verses.
Really? You’re using the Church edited versions of those writings you’re quoting. Of course they’ve been “filled in” to support the Jesus myth. Monks were the custodians of most written works for centuries before the printing press made books widely available, there was more than enough time to get the stories to agree with whatever Gospel was in vogue at the time.
Respected scholars studying the originals or the closest copies have nothing that supports the actual physical existence of Jesus. He himself wrote nothing and while many of his less illustrious contemporaries have been written about, there’s practically nothing about him. There are writings about a multitude of Jesuses, as it was not an uncommon name, but on the singular individual described in the Gospels? Nada.
And the Talmud has as much relevance as the Bible in establishing Jesus’ historical existence. You can’t use the storybook to support the storybook; not even an earlier edition. What next? Will you pull out Mithraism in support because they had 95% of the same myths?
That you swallow what passes for “evidence” of that fact is even more astonishing. And you’ve got problems with evolution? Sheesh. You reject something that’s supported by a mountain for something that’s supported by a make believe molehill.
Yup, it’s called “stating the facts.”
I was pasting from the F-E website; and they don’t interpret at all, they take the text literally. The only way you can take someone “up a mountain” and show him the entire world is if you’ve got a flat world.
You’re the one who’s giving TVs away to support your stories, and I do a poor job? Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a pogo-stick, man, wake up!
[quote]pookie wrote:
I pasted the flat-earther’s argument. There is no interpretation on their part. And they have a point, while the words “flat earth” don’t appear, it is to be logically deduced from those other verses.[/quote]
There are a variety of things “can be deduced.” That you brought those conclusions onto this thread is what is telling.
[quote]There’s also this one:
“take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it” (Job 38:12-13)
Where do you find “edges” on a sphere? Let me guess: “Edges” and “flanks of the beach ball” use the same Hebrew symbol! Am I right?[/quote]
This is the part where we both get a Hebrew Bible lesson.
The word “edges” is used in the NIV. Other versions use the “ends.” The original Hebrew word is “kanaph” pronounced “kaw-nawf.”
It has no literal translation so the above is close. However it means to grab “into.” To create a “flap.”
To paint a picture it would be like you or I grabbing “into” a balloon (for example) with such a force that it would create a “flap” or “edge.”
It’s always fun to study the actual Hebrew meaning and various translations. Rest assured that God is well able to “grab into the earth” and shake “the wicked out of it” if he wants.
[quote]You are making yet another false assumption. Who said that it would happen when they DID NOT have some sort of device that would allow them to see it?
In fact, the Bible says that it WILL HAPPEN when they ARE able to view it.
Yeah, sure. Whatever. Maybe Galactus will come back to eat the planet before that happens.[/quote]
That’s a funny sarcastic comment. Yet that does not draw you any closer to the truth does it?
[quote]You assume it will NEVER HAPPEN. Is that ANOTHER false assumption?
I can safely assume that whatever tale is predicted in the Bible won’t occur, unless as something completely unrelated that gets somewhat shoehorned into the story after the fact.
That’s how those “Bible prophecies” work, right? Re-arrange the order of the stories so that events having already occurred appear to be predicted by earlier text.
The same technique works wonders to make Nostradamus appear able to predict the future when he was just writing down random gibberish verses.[/quote]
That is your take on it, but not the reality of it.
There are in fact over 400 prohecies of Jesus Christ’s original coming written in the Old Testament. All of them proved to be 100% accurate. Do you realize the odds against that?
[quote]oubting the existence of Jesus Christ? Now that is silly indeed:
Really? You’re using the Church edited versions of those writings you’re quoting. Of course they’ve been “filled in” to support the Jesus myth. Monks were the custodians of most written works for centuries before the printing press made books widely available, there was more than enough time to get the stories to agree with whatever Gospel was in vogue at the time.
Respected scholars studying the originals or the closest copies have nothing that supports the actual physical existence of Jesus. He himself wrote nothing and while many of his less illustrious contemporaries have been written about, there’s practically nothing about him. There are writings about a multitude of Jesuses, as it was not an uncommon name, but on the singular individual described in the Gospels? Nada.
And the Talmud has as much relevance as the Bible in establishing Jesus’ historical existence. You can’t use the storybook to support the storybook; not even an earlier edition. What next? Will you pull out Mithraism in support because they had 95% of the same myths?
Jesus Christ did in fact live! That you do not even accept this fact is astonishing.
That you swallow what passes for “evidence” of that fact is even more astonishing. And you’ve got problems with evolution? Sheesh. You reject something that’s supported by a mountain for something that’s supported by a make believe molehill.[/quote]
The evidence that I have posted is very high quality and virtually everyone accepts the fact that he existed. That you do not accept even this is stunning! In fact, it’s almost as if you have a blind spot. You would be a far more effective Atheist if you believed he existed but thought he was just a man.
Why would Roman historians lie?
They had no pro Christian agenda. In fact, they may have had an agenda to LIE and say Jesus did not exist.
To deny Jesus Christs existance is almost as foolish as denying the existance of any historical figure.
You are making the assumption that Satan who has enormous power (as you know) was not able to show him the entire world in some way from that mountain top. I assume as you do that the scripture means that he showed him the entire world.
However, unlike you, I assume it was done in some supernatural way. It was not stated exactly “how” it was done. Hence, you can assume it’s a lie, that is what you do. I have to assume that it is not a lie and it was done by a means unknown to me.
Now if it said “because the world was flat Christ saw all the cities.” Then I would have to agree with you. But alas it does not state such a thing.
In fact, to show you how foolish your assumption is, you would not be able to see the entire earth even if it was flat from the top of a mountain!
sooo don’t be hasty in your assumptions my friend.
[quote]You’re the one who’s giving TVs away to support your stories, and I do a poor job? Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a pogo-stick, man, wake up!
[/quote]
Actually, I’m the one who is reading the scripture and taking it for what it says. I have added my own little theory which you can make fun of. I have no problem with that as I may be off base. Just because I know that something happened does not mean that I know HOW it happened.
That is a far cry from the nonsense that you have infused into the debate by inserting the “flat earth” theory, as it is never once mentioned in the Bible!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That’s like that fish that was supposed to be 2 billion years old and extinct that was caught off the coast of Australia years ago.
Things like this continue to invalidate the evolutionary model, and yet because of the religion-like faith of the supposed scientists involved, they just continue as if nothing had happened and just ignore all the evidence that disproves their theory. I guess they too have faith in the unproven and the unseen. I wonder where there church is? Oh, that’s right, it’s their “lab”.
[/quote]
You do realize that the fish was a coelacanth. It was an ancient lobed finned fish. And it validated several evolutionary ideas. It is actually a living itermediary between modern fish and the fish that crawled out of the ocean.
If you are going to use something in an argument perhaps you should do at least a little research on it. Post like this make me scared for the future of this nation. You quickness to post something you have no knowlege of is scary. Have you ever even seen a real fossil? Have you ever read a basic biology book? Do you know what the study genetics is? You do realize that the same people that thought up and study evolution are the ones making new medicines?
FINALLY, EVEN IF EVOLUTION IS PROVEN WRONG IT DOESN’T MEAN CREATIONISM IS RIGHT.
Day two of the search for unexplained cross strata fossils. Guess what? None. Not one hit in any geological, paleontogical, or biological journal. Some creationist sites metion them, but of course without any PROOF. How can you live your life so ingorant of the real universe around you, but spend so much time reading mythical poorly written notes from some semitic goat herders? I would hope God would want me to have good critical thinking skills and a love and understanding of his creation. Not a blind obediance to some crazy book that obviously teaches through parables and metaphors.
PS The coelacanth was discovered in 1938 and at the time it was considered a huge boost to the evolutionary model. Better luck next time.
http://bob.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism/index.html
Two sites two help you navigate through the loads of creationism and ID crap.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There are a variety of things “can be deduced.” That you brought those conclusions onto this thread is what is telling.[/quote]
Let me explain it again to you:
You stated that nowhere in the Bible is it said the the Earth is flat.
I used the arguments presented on a flat-earther’s website to show you how the argument is supported with the Bible.
I personally don’t think the Earth is flat, nor do I care whether the Bible says it is or not, as it is completely irrelevant. Works of fiction may or may not correspond with objective reality.
I knew it.
[quote]The word “edges” is used in the NIV. Other versions use the “ends.” The original Hebrew word is “kanaph” pronounced “kaw-nawf.”
It has no literal translation so the above is close. However it means to grab “into.” To create a “flap.”
To paint a picture it would be like you or I grabbing “into” a balloon (for example) with such a force that it would create a “flap” or “edge.”[/quote]
The Earth is not a rubber balloon. Grabbing it to make “holding flaps” would crumble it like a cookie.
Yes, the study of Hebrew is quite fun; especially when you realize that the original texts where written without the benefit of punctuation or spaces between words. Many words are also abbreviated or truncated.
As an analogy, your paragraph above might have appeared thusly:
TSLWYSFNTSTDYTH
CTLHBRWMNNGNDVR
STRNSLTNSRSTSSR
DTHTGDSWLLBLTGR
BNTTHRTHNDSHKTH
WCKDTFTFHWNTS
And from that, you’d have to reconstruct the original message, keeping the meaning intact.
Then you’ve got the numerous translations and re-transcriptions where various clerics might have added their personal interpretation or tried to clarify or amplify some passage.
And that process went on for centuries. You want me to believe that there wasn’t ample occasion for tampering so that the texts supported the religion’s claims? Puh-lease.
[quote]Yeah, sure. Whatever. Maybe Galactus will come back to eat the planet before that happens.
That’s a funny sarcastic comment. Yet that does not draw you any closer to the truth does it?[/quote]
Yes it does. It draws us closer to the truth the the Bible, just like a Marvel comic book, is a work of fiction. Stories written down by men; Marvel Comics just do it better.
I’d place a bet with you, but you can push the event indefinitely into the future and as such can never be proven wrong.
Unless you’re willing to assign precise dates to those foretold events?
No, it’s well established that the various “books” of the Bible have been arranged in their particular order to make it seem like prophecies come true, when in actuality many later books were written before previous ones. Exodus was written before Genesis, for example. Revelation is the oldest book of the New Testament and was written before the rest of it.
Exactly. That’s why creative editing and book sorting was done. And also the reason why some original texts where rejected from the canon.
It’s not fact, it’s faith. Facts require evidence to back them up. There is none. At least, none that hasn’t been tainted by people with a vested interest in proving Jesus’ existence.
Secular, more “neutral” evidence shows the existence of many Jesuses at that time, but none that fit the entire story from beginning to end.
Also telling is that most of the “events” of Jesus’ supposed life all occur previously to older mythological figures. Virgin birth, miracle working, healing the sick, dying and resurrecting, etc. Not a single original idea; they’d all been done before by other religions form nearby regions.
Accepted by those with faith who have a vested interest in seeing Jesus’ existence confirmed.
Their problem is that they work backward from the conclusion they wish to support. They assume Jesus’ reality and work from there, shoehorning any available evidence to support that “fact.” That makes them shoddy historians, but it doesn’t make Jesus true.
The correct way to do it is to look at the existing evidence and draw the conclusion that presents itself naturally, which is: Jesus, as described in the Bible, never existed at any time, in any place. Or he did, but left no evidence whatsoever of his passage.
Of course, no Christian is willing to accept the truth when that truth gets rid of the lynch pin on which the whole religion is predicated.
I don’t care about being “effective,” I care about knowing the objective truth, or getting as close to it as possible.
From the evidence to the conclusion, remember? Not the other way around.
They didn’t lie; the texts were “revised” to include previously non-existing references to Jesus. It’s not the Romans who lie, it’s the Church.
Your Josephus quote, for example, is known to be fake because earlier copies of the texts were found and have many passages, mainly those referring to Jesus as “more than a man” or “the messiah” missing. I bet the Church hates it when that happens.
Correct. The lies were added at some later date.
Note that it was no big feat to alter those texts without anybody finding out. Mass literacy and availability of books is a quite recent historical happening. For hundred of years, books where quite rare and most people could neither read nor write. Much less read and write Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic. Correcting errors in a text (to bring it in line with accepted canon) was like taking candy from a child.
It’s foolish to deny the existence of historical figure when abundant evidence exists to support it. Jesus has the problem of having no valid evidence, only the discredited kind. Bummer.
I think Galactus could take him in hand-to-hand combat.
Maybe he used a map? I can see the entire world right now. I have a globe three feet from me. Supernatural not required…
Hint: Anytime you need to resort to “the supernatural” to explain something, you might want consider that you’re leaving reality (ie, the natural) and entering the realm of fantasy.
I assume it’s a “lie” in the same way that any other fiction is a “lie.”
But the Hebrew word for “flat” probably has 79 other meanings, so you’re quite safe.
On a perfectly clear day? Sure you could. You might have trouble making out the detail near the edge, but you’d see all the way to the horizon.
You’re reading fiction and trying to make fact of it. That’s why you often make so little sense.
You think? Duh.
You “knowing” it happened has no bearing on the objective reality that it never did. You can “know” all the fiction you want and “know” it’s true; unfortunately, it only makes you appear deluded.
You’re the one who asked for it. You can disagree with the verses that indicate a flat earth, as different interpretations will support any pet theory you want them to. There’s a reason why there are thousands upon thousands of varying Christian “sects” that make up Christianity. They all understand the Bible differently. It seems that God, for all his vaunted omniscience and omnipotence, makes for a very befuddled and confused author.
Have a nice Sunday. Sun-Day. The day of the Sun. Time to pray to the chief god.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Let me explain it again to you:
And there isn’t!
I understand. However, those arguments are quite flawed.
But not irrelevant enough to avoid taking a cheap shot at the Bible. Which is what you do a great deal of.
Another cheap shot!
[quote]This is the part where we both get a Hebrew Bible lesson.
The word “edges” is used in the NIV. Other versions use the “ends.” The original Hebrew word is “kanaph” pronounced “kaw-nawf.”
It has no literal translation so the above is close. However it means to grab “into.” To create a “flap.”
To paint a picture it would be like you or I grabbing “into” a balloon (for example) with such a force that it would create a “flap” or “edge.”
The Earth is not a rubber balloon. Grabbing it to make “holding flaps” would crumble it like a cookie.[/quote]
It was a rough comparison which I used to make my point. IF you don’t like it so be it. That however does not change one thing relative to the original meaning of the Hebrew word.
I fully understand that you are a very cynical person. However the Bible is highly accurate. In fact so much so that some were shocked when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. As you know these scrolls are original manuscripts of the Bible!
“The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that from the ninth centuries A.D., the Jewish scribal copying of the Old Testament Scriptures was accomplished with remarkably few errors. With the exception of minute copying errors here and there, the Dead Sea manuscripts exhibited virtually identical readings to their counterparts of the ninth century. They proved that the many scholars who expressed doubts concerning the accuracy of the Massoretic text were unfounded.”
In fact, compared to other ancient writtings (Plato etc.) the Bible is far more accurate:
"Now let’s compare these to the Bible. The New Testament which records the life of Christ, was written between 50 and 90 A.D. Fragments of the New Testament writings exist from as early as 114 A.D., entire books from 200 A.D., near complete New Testaments from 250 A.D., and copies of the entire New Testament from 350 A.D.
This gap of time is only from 30 to 225 years. But the remarkable thing is that we have over 5,300 copies of these ancient manuscripts.
Comparing these ancient manuscripts with our translations today we discover that the Bible is 99.9% accurate. The .1% discrepancies are variations in spelling, grammar, or word order. The amount of ancient data supporting the reliability of the Bible is vastly greater than any other ancient book."
http://www.waytogod.org/qtrust.html
More cheap shots. These make you happy, see note above.
I’m sorry pookie, I have seen no evidence which indicates that your charges regarding the Old Testament have any merit. If you do have some evidence of what you have posted please produce it.
I thank you.
This idea has actually been kicked around for many years. Unlike the Old Testament which tells a detailed sequence of events, the New Testament is all about Jesus Christ. Hence, it would not matter if Revelations were written first, last or somewhere in between. Nor are any of the books of the New Testament necessarily important to read in any sort of order. As you know they are for the most part “letters” written by various people.
In other words the book of Revelations exact placement with in the Bible is unimportant.
[quote]There are in fact over 400 prophecies of Jesus Christ’s original coming written in the Old Testament. All of them proved to be 100% accurate. Do you realize the odds against that?
Exactly. That’s why creative editing and book sorting was done. And also the reason why some original texts where rejected from the canon.[/quote]
I should have been more clear (I bet that wouldn’t help with you anyway for some reason :).
There are predictions of the coming of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. As you know there is no amount of switching which can suddenly make over 400 prophecies appear.
The coming of Jesus Christ was predicted in many books of the Old Testament!
[quote]Jesus Christ did in fact live! That you do not even accept this fact is astonishing.
It’s not fact, it’s faith. Facts require evidence to back them up. There is none. At least, none that hasn’t been tainted by people with a vested interest in proving Jesus’ existence.
Note that it was no big feat to alter those texts without anybody finding out. Mass literacy and availability of books is a quite recent historical happening. For hundred of years, books where quite rare and most people could neither read nor write. Much less read and write Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic. Correcting errors in a text (to bring it in line with accepted canon) was like taking candy from a child.[/quote]
I find your accusations not only remarkable, but actually laughable!
Do you realize how far fetched your suggestions are? Every single Roman and Jewish historian who documented Christs existance would have to have had their work forged!
And someone must have sneaked into the caves (prior to folks finding the Dead Sea Scrolls) and tampered with the scrolls…right?
And not only did all this happen according to you, but not one person even mentions that this travesty occurred!
Sure pookie…um that makes sense NOT!
For example:
Pliny the younger was an Roman historian, philosopher and lawyer. He mentions Christ and Christians.
Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996."
So what you are saying to me right now (yes I’m smiling) is that somehow Pliny never actually mentioned Christ or Christians…and that his works along with ALL of the other historians were tampered with?
And that all of the comments about Christ and Christians were added?
LOL
Please explain away in specifics how Pliny’s works were tampered with. I hope this is not just a belief or wishful thinking on your part. I hope you actually have evidence to prove these very nutty accusations.
Otherwise, I’m afraid that you have signed on to the wrong faith!
There are NO verses in the Bible which ever state that the earth is flat. That you want to read certain things into verse to make is so indicates an agenda on your part.
I could read into certai verses that the earth is round, but I refuse to do so.
Yes, man has free will just as Satan has free will. God is not a master puppeteer. We are all born with certain gifts (which are mentioned in the Bible). And many of us see things differently.
Even Paul had dsiagreements with other Christians in the early church (the church that you think never existed ha ha).
Here is one important point however that you leave out: All Christians believe that Christ is the son of God, he came to earth died for our sins and through our belief if the shedding of his blood we are saved and will live for eternity in heaven!
Odd how we all agree on that huh?
It seems that you are the one who is befuddled. You are buying into all sorts of conspiracy theories regarding the tampering of all of those Roman works…Um you think maybe you have a blind spot ole’ buddy?
[quote]Have a nice Sunday. Sun-Day. The day of the Sun. Time to pray to the chief god.
[/quote]
Hey! You ended true to form with more cheap shots! LOL
pookie I think you signed on to the wrong God…And I know you know what I mean. 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I understand. However, those arguments are quite flawed.[/quote]
So are yours, but that doesn’t seem to bother you. TVs? Earth Flaps? Those are “flawless” arguments? Ha!
Is that your new mantra now? Cheap shot? How else should someone treat a mostly fictional work that’s taken seriously by a large portion of the population?
Whether it’s “edges” or “flaps” or “handles,” none of it changes the fact that it is simply laughable to think that any of those could be attached to a planet to allow someone to shake it.
Yes, they contain a lot of Jewish documents, but we’re talking about Jesus, remember?
By the way, here’s an interesting excerpt from the Wikipedia:
Allegations that the Vatican suppressed the publication of the scrolls were published in the 1990s. Notably, Michael Baigent’s and Richard Leigh’s book The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception claim that several key scrolls were deliberately kept under wraps for decades to suppress unwelcome theories about the early history of Christianity; in particular, Eisenman’s speculation that the life of Jesus was deliberately mythicized by Paul, possibly a Roman agent who faked his “conversion” from Saul in order to undermine the influence of anti-Roman messianic cults in the region. The complete publication and dissemination of translations and photographic records of the works in the late 1990s and early 2000’s has greatly lessened the credibility of their argument among mainstream scholarship. Today most scholars, both secular and religious, feel the documents are distinctly Jewish, rather than Christian.
Read the last part in bold: Dead Sea Scrolls = Jewish documents; not helpful to support your Jesus hypothesis.
[quote]“The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that from the ninth centuries A.D., the Jewish scribal copying of the Old Testament Scriptures was accomplished with remarkably few errors. With the exception of minute copying errors here and there, the Dead Sea manuscripts exhibited virtually identical readings to their counterparts of the ninth century. They proved that the many scholars who expressed doubts concerning the accuracy of the Massoretic text were unfounded.”
In fact, compared to other ancient writings (Plato etc.) the Bible is far more accurate:
"Now let’s compare these to the Bible. The New Testament which records the life of Christ, was written between 50 and 90 A.D. Fragments of the New Testament writings exist from as early as 114 A.D., entire books from 200 A.D., near complete New Testaments from 250 A.D., and copies of the entire New Testament from 350 A.D.
This gap of time is only from 30 to 225 years. But the remarkable thing is that we have over 5,300 copies of these ancient manuscripts.
Comparing these ancient manuscripts with our translations today we discover that the Bible is 99.9% accurate. The .1% discrepancies are variations in spelling, grammar, or word order. The amount of ancient data supporting the reliability of the Bible is vastly greater than any other ancient book."
http://www.waytogod.org/qtrust.html
[/quote]
Reliability of the Bible? At best, you establish the reliability of the copies made. In no way does that verify the validity of the content.
[quote]I’m sorry pookie, I have seen no evidence which indicates that your charges regarding the Old Testament have any merit. If you do have some evidence of what you have posted please produce it.
I thank you.[/quote]
Never mind the OT, let’s stick to Jesus. We can discuss Abraham, Moses and the Exodus in some other thread.
Yes, but the point was that the books of the Bible are thought by many people to be presented in chronological order, which they aren’t. It looks like it goes from the beginning of time in Genesis to the end of time in “Revelation,” but the order is entirely arbitrary, selected to present the most convenient order.
There was no real Jesus either, so your 400 prophecies are still waiting for fulfillment.
Great, when is it due?
Only the earlier works really need to be altered (and many, such as Josephus, have been shown to have been “creatively edited” when earlier copies than those previously possessed where found.)
Once the Jesus myth was established, and that took only decades, the later work can attest to the existence of the Church or of Christian and be completely authentic. Doesn’t make Jesus any more true.
Maybe I missed something, so tell me: What do the DSS say about Jesus?
Who would? At a time when texts often existed as one copy only, whoever had guardianship of the copy could pretty much do what he wished with it.
Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?
[quote]Pliny the younger was an Roman historian, philosopher and lawyer. He mentions Christ and Christians.
Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112. [/quote]
So about 80 years after the fact. Pliny never met Jesus; all he can attest to is that there where people who called themselves “Christians” and who followed the (mythical) Jesus Christ.
I’m not contesting the existence of the Church or of Christians. I’m looking for an historical Jesus who’s nowhere to be found.
[quote]“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996." [/quote]
So we had Christians in 112AD. Congratulations, captain Obvious.
Your smile is the smile of the person who hasn’t yet realized that the joke’s on him.
Pliny and all those other historians simply attest to the existence of the Church and Christians. There are no texts from the time when Jesus existed, even Josephus wasn’t born when Jesus supposedly “died.” And those earliest texts are the ones where the most evidence of later tampering can be found.
Pliny’s works might be 100% accurate. Unfortunately, they do nothing to support Jesus’ actual physical existence. Written at least 80 years after the fact they can, at best, attest to the presence of Christians at that time. Whoop-di-doo.
Faith-free for close to 30 years now.
Are we still on this flat/round thing? Who cares what the Bible says about it. Hell, the Greeks knew the Earth was round in 500 BC. Get over it.
[quote]Yes, man has free will just as Satan has free will. God is not a master puppeteer. We are all born with certain gifts (which are mentioned in the Bible). And many of us see things differently.
Even Paul had disagreements with other Christians in the early church (the church that you think never existed ha ha).[/quote]
There you go dragging the goal posts again. I’m not contesting the existence of the Church or of Christians. It’s Jesus who’s missing in action, so to speak. And without him, the rest of the setup pretty much comes crumbling down as the enormous sham it is.
[quote]Here is one important point however that you leave out: All Christians believe that Christ is the son of God, he came to earth died for our sins and through our belief if the shedding of his blood we are saved and will live for eternity in heaven!
Odd how we all agree on that huh? :)[/quote]
Odd too that the fabled Son of God apparently never showed up for work.
I think I’ve got dumb interlocutors. It should be simple to establish the existence of Jesus, why is there so little evidence? Why is everything you come up with pointing at side issues and irrelevant details? All you’ve managed to establish in three looooong posts is that the Church existed early in the 1st to 2nd century AD, that Christians exist and that some Jewish documents where well copied.
Would you know a real Bible scholar I could debate this with? Your knowledge of your own faith appears insufficient for the task at hand.
Thank you. I’ll be here all week.
[i]"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retainh God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:20-2:1[/i]
Pookie and other Bible haters – God has “your number” already. He knows your thoughts and has addressed them in His Word many many years ago. This is nothing new – you are under the judgment of God unless and until you repent (change your mind about your sin and who God is) and cry out for His salvation.
You have been told – you either accept or reject the free gift of salvation. The choice is yours…eternity depends upon it!
[b][i]“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Revelation 22:17
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand. However, those arguments are quite flawed.
So are yours, but that doesn’t seem to bother you. TVs? Earth Flaps? Those are “flawless” arguments? Ha![/quote]
Keep in mind Pookie those are my own personal comparisons and thoughts as I have told you. I was attempting to make analogies. They are NOT the Bibles.
Cheap Shot!
[quote]It was a rough comparison which I used to make my point. IF you don’t like it so be it. That however does not change one thing relative to the original meaning of the Hebrew word.
Whether it’s “edges” or “flaps” or “handles,” none of it changes the fact that it is simply laughable to think that any of those could be attached to a planet to allow someone to shake it.[/quote]
To you it’s laughable. So laugh, it’s good to laugh as long as the joke is not on you.
[quote]I fully understand that you are a very cynical person. However the Bible is highly accurate. In fact so much so that some were shocked when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. As you know these scrolls are original manuscripts of the Bible!
Yes, they contain a lot of Jewish documents, but we’re talking about Jesus, remember?[/quote]
We are talking about the Bible.
Of course their “Jewish.” What would you expect as they address the Old Testament.
This conversation is inclusive of Jesus. But has expanded to the entire Bible.
I have already proven that Jesus Christ lived. That you don’t accept it does not mean that he did not exist. You can deny that today is Sunday as well, that means little as to the reality of the matter.
I understand where you are coming from on this one. There will be no amount of evidence that will convince you. You have dug your heels in and that is pretty much that.
30 years you say?
I would really like to know what caused your sudden conversion to such a strong belief system.
How someone can KNOW that there is no God takes a great deal of faith.
Care to tell me about that?
Once again the “order” is of little importance in the New Testament. As you have noticed, the New Testament is (mostly) a conglomeration letters. That Revelation is last, first or in the middle is meaningless.
And I might add that no one has ever stated to my knowledge that Revelations was actually written last.
You can pick at it, but it matters not.
You are getting humorous again my friend!
Let’s see there were a group of people who called themselves “Christians” but there was never a “Jesus The Christ.”
I know you want in the worst way to tear everything apart that is Christian but you are looking bad here bro! Really really bad.
[quote]So what you are saying to me right now (yes I’m smiling) is that somehow Pliny never actually mentioned Christ or Christians…and that his works along with ALL of the other historians were tampered with?
Your smile is the smile of the person who hasn’t yet realized that the joke’s on him.
Pliny and all those other historians simply attest to the existence of the Church and Christians. There are no texts from the time when Jesus existed, even Josephus wasn’t born when Jesus supposedly “died.” And those earliest texts are the ones where the most evidence of later tampering can be found.[/quote]
As I already stated, if you think that “Christians” came out of nowhere and there was no “Christ” you are way off base.
Why are they meeting regularly?
Why are they quoting Christ and his apostles?
Why are they dying for their beliefs?
All because Christ never came and walked the earth?
You are claiming that they are dying for a lie THAT THEY CREATED?
No one is that stupid my friend. Even those who hate Christianity as much as you would not die for your beliefs. Think about it.
If someone put a gun to your head right now and said BLEIEVE IN CHRIST OR DIE. You would be on your knees paying it lip service, and you know it! Don’t you think the early Christians wanted to live as well?
Get real pook.
Since when do the build any sort of organization around a man who NEVER EXISTED?
Hey we wouldn’t even have the “Wieder Principals” if old Joe never lived.
LOL…Yea pookie it’s all a big lie. The early Christians made up a lie and then went out and died for it.
LOL
Okay…seriously, what the heck happened to you? No seriously, something very bad happened to you that turned you like this what was it?
You’re not “faith free.” The faith that you have includes believing that every Roman author and historian who ever mentioned Jesus is either lying or has had his work tampered with.
And you top it off with a hefty dose of faith that thousands of early “Christians” made up a guy named Jesus Christ and then after making it all up went out and died for the lie they made up when they could have lived simply by saying “just kidding man he he…put that sword down.”
You have far more faith than most Christians to believe that load of crap.
pookie, there is a ton of evidence. That you don’t want to see it or believe it is your choice.
Bible scholar? Oh you’re looking for a Bible scholar…well then I’ll be leaving.
I’m only a man who has accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. Based on faith. And if you think about it why would God want it any other way? If “faith” is important as it clearly states throughout the Bible then why would God Spoon feed any of us?
We believe one way or the other.
You choose to believe a very wacky theory that thousands of people died after making up a lie that they decided to stick to.
I choose to believe a well researched document that has stood the test of time!
In the end one of our beliefs will be proven correct.
Thanks for the talk
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
[i]"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retainh God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:20-2:1[/i]
Pookie and other Bible haters – God has “your number” already. He knows your thoughts and has addressed them in His Word many many years ago. This is nothing new – you are under the judgment of God unless and until you repent (change your mind about your sin and who God is) and cry out for His salvation.
You have been told – you either accept or reject the free gift of salvation. The choice is yours…eternity depends upon it!
[b][i]“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Revelation 22:17
[/quote]
Phillippians 2:10 - 11
That at the name of Jesus every Knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Respond as you feel necessary… your hate really has far less impact than you probably think.
We can’t change your heart. Only God can handle that. At some point in your life, possibly near that last breath, you will re-think your position on our creator. I don’t expect you to acknowledge it now…but you will @ some point.
I’d suggest that you not let your human pride keep you from the Love of our Lord.
I can’t explain God. I don’t have all of the answers. But I know that if you decide (nobody will know but you and God) to simply ask him to reveal himself to you, it will happen.
I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t take a chance on it.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
DPH,
You never sent me a PM.
[/quote]
I did…maybe the PM function is having problems…
certainly the ‘Fall’ must have occured before God created Adam…otherwise there would have been no temptation in the garden of eden…
strange…
I was under the impression that only God existed…then He started creating things…according to a literal interpretation of the bible ALL of creation lasted for six days…
that being the case, Lucifer and the other angels must have been created and the ‘Fall’ happend in a very short time frame…
or are you suggesting that there was a creation before the CREATION that is mentioned in the bible?
[quote]DPH wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
DPH,
You never sent me a PM.
I did…maybe the PM function is having problems…
Like Haney said, there is no mention in the Bible about a time frame concerning Lucifers creation. The Bible clearly states that Lucifer was created by God, but does not go into detail on when or how long it took.
certainly the ‘Fall’ must have occured before God created Adam…otherwise there would have been no temptation in the garden of eden…
Lucifers creation is a seperate event from the creation of earth.
strange…
I was under the impression that only God existed…then He started creating things…according to a literal interpretation of the bible ALL of creation lasted for six days…
that being the case, Lucifer and the other angels must have been created and the ‘Fall’ happend in a very short time frame…
or are you suggesting that there was a creation before the CREATION that is mentioned in the bible?[/quote]
Genesis 1:1 allows for Heaven and Earth to be created without God doing anything with them right away. It would be the creation of the Sun, and the orbital rotation of the earth around it that would mark the first day in a literal interpretation. That in between part allows for a creation of celestial beings that weren’t recorded.
[quote]haney wrote:
Genesis 1:1 allows for Heaven and Earth to be created without God doing anything with them right away. It would be the creation of the Sun, and the orbital rotation of the earth around it that would mark the first day in a literal interpretation. That in between part allows for a creation of celestial beings that weren’t recorded.
[/quote]
I see…
so Creation (from a fundamentalist point of view) could have taken billions of years…
interesting…
P.S. did you get the PM I sent you haney?
[quote]DPH wrote:
haney wrote:
Genesis 1:1 allows for Heaven and Earth to be created without God doing anything with them right away. It would be the creation of the Sun, and the orbital rotation of the earth around it that would mark the first day in a literal interpretation. That in between part allows for a creation of celestial beings that weren’t recorded.
I see…
so Creation (from a fundamentalist point of view) could have taken billions of years…
interesting…
P.S. did you get the PM I sent you haney?[/quote]
Not quite. The heavens and earth could have been very old, but not the actual creation of things on it.
most fundies would say the age of the earth is still only 6k, but the wiggle room is there for a loose interpretation of the Heavens and Earth. Most won’t agree with it.
No I didn’t get your PM. Kind of weird
[quote]haney wrote:
Not quite. The heavens and earth could have been very old, but not the actual creation of things on it.
most fundies would say the age of the earth is still only 6k, but the wiggle room is there for a loose interpretation of the Heavens and Earth. Most won’t agree with it.[/quote]
yeah…
that’s why I was hoping one of the fundies would chime in with an explanation…
their view of the ‘Fall’ and the strict six days interpretation seem to be at odd with each other…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have already proven that Jesus Christ lived.[/quote]
Really? Where? You’ve proven that the Jesus myth started in the 1st century has had a lot of adherents since.
The actual messiah is still nowhere to be found. Odd how someone of supposedly such importance left no trace at all.
Evidence would be welcome. Do you intend to eventually produce some? Don’t give me stuff written hundreds of years after the fact, when the Church was already well established. Show me that the source of Christianity (ie, Christ) was actually a living, flesh-and-blood person.
It’s better described as abandoning a system based on old myths and tales AKA refusing to live a lie.
[quote]How someone can KNOW that there is no God takes a great deal of faith.
Care to tell me about that?[/quote]
Where have I stated that I KNOW that there is no god? I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t think there is one; but unlike many believers who “know” god exists because he talks to them or takes away their booze, I have no such certainty.
I look a these two propositions:
A) God exists.
B) No God exists.
And then consider all the available evidence for A or B, and to me, B makes a lot more sense.
Of course, when considering what you’re willing to accept as “evidence,” I understand how A makes sense to you. Life in Fantasyland must have it’s perks, now and then.
Not so. That the order was tampered with to give the Bible better coherence poses the question of what else might have been tampered with?
Why are there missing gospels? Why are some apostle’s acts not included?
If god is actually inspiring these works, why not present them all verbatim and in the order god inspires them?
[quote]And I might add that no one has ever stated to my knowledge that Revelations was actually written last.
You can pick at it, but it matters not. [/quote]
I guess it’s easier to believe when you dismiss every question as “doesn’t matter.”
You get it. The supposed Jesus never wrote anything himself; and no contemporary ever wrote about him either. The gospels speak of cities that didn’t exist at the time, of Roman event that didn’t take place until years later, etc. It’s all a little off.
I think you’re the one who’s looking bad. Basing your life on a book about someone who never lived at all.
Personally, I don’t really care whether Jesus really lived or not. I don’t really care whether Muhammad lived or not, but he, unlike Jesus, seems to have been an actual living person.
No, I think that a little group of people started the myth of Christ in their little sect and that that little sect grew and grew until in a great move they managed to become the official religion of the Roman empire.
I’m not denying the existence of Christianity, or it’s long and not so illustrious history, I’m just saying that the messiah is missing.
[quote]Why are they meeting regularly?
Why are they quoting Christ and his apostles?
Why are they dying for their beliefs?
All because Christ never came and walked the earth?
You are claiming that they are dying for a lie THAT THEY CREATED?[/quote]
Millions of people have died for their beliefs throughout history; often for beliefs that have nothing to do with yours? Is that your “proof?” Evidence by willingness to die?
19 men crashed two airliners in the WTC on 9/11; according to your logic, that makes their beliefs valid. Have you been praying to Allah recently?
[quote] Even those who hate Christianity as much as you would not die for your beliefs. Think about it.
If someone put a gun to your head right now and said BELIEVE IN CHRIST OR DIE. You would be on your knees paying it lip service, and you know it![/quote]
Yeah, sure. But it’d be exactly that: lip service. Deep down I wouldn’t believe anymore than I do now.
[quote]Don’t you think the early Christians wanted to live as well?
Since when do the build any sort of organization around a man who NEVER EXISTED?[/quote]
Your organization is not built around a man, it’s built around the myth of a man.
But ol’Joe has published a lot, had his picture taken, etc. His existence has left traces attesting to it. You know, it’s called “evidence.” Jesus, uh, not so much.
[quote]LOL…Yea pookie it’s all a big lie. The early Christians made up a lie and then went out and died for it.
LOL[/quote]
You laugh a lot. Is that to make diversion form the fact that you can’t produce one single shred of evidence to back up Jesus’ existence?
Diversion number two: Let’s look for some bad event in the atheist’s life. Sorry, Zeb, no such event.
I note you forgot common diversionary tactic number 3: Exclaim surprise at all the “anger” in my posts.
That’s not faith, that’s objectively considering the evidence. If you could produce evidence that was contemporary to Jesus, I might be forced to agree and admit I was wrong; but all you’ve got is hearsay, contradictory witnessing and historians observing that the Christ sect existed in 100AD. Very nice, but still no Jesus.
If someone put a gun to your head and told you to renounce Jesus, you’d take the bullet?
Most Christians believe about as much as I do, I’ll grant you that.
There’s the problem right there. “Believe” in evidence? Evidence stands on its own. Evidence you have to “believe” in is not evidence at all.
Why do you think we require evidence in courts to convict people? Evidence is use to remove any reasonable doubt.
From what you’ve given me, doubting Jesus’ existence is quite reasonable.
The same Jesus who never existed. That’s coherent.
Yeah, why would God want to make sense. Just because he gave us brains doesn’t mean he meant for us to use them.
Alternate theory: The Bible mentions “faith” as being important, because some of the more lucid clerics of old noticed that whole thing didn’t make much sense. Solution? Make the lack of sense a feature, designed to “test the faith.”
That way, the less sense it makes, the more you should believe it.
Damn, maybe I’ll start my own religion.
Are you referring to Jim Jones and the Jonestown tragedy?
David Koresh and the Branch Davidian?
Or the Heaven’s Gate cult who killed themselves to hitch a ride on their comet?
You really must be more specific, Zeb, with all the people killing themselves over silly beliefs, it’s hard for me to guess which group of lie-believers you’re referring to.
If it’s so well researched and tested, how is it that you can’t show a single corroborating piece of evidence for it?
Did you mean “a well researched (by those who already accept it) and tested (by those with a vested interest in seeing those test succeed)…”
Yeah, mine.
And thanks for showing me that there really is no evidence to support Jesus’ existence.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Pookie and other Bible haters – God has “your number” already.[/quote]
Is he the asshole who calls in the middle of the night but always hangs up?
If I was to start my own religion, you can bet your intolerant bigoted ass that I’d make sure to include all manners of warning against all those not of my faith.
It’s taught in “Make Up a Religion 101.”
Sin? Irrelevent concept. I’m quite clear on who god is too. You know, like Santa, but without the jolly.
Well, if it’s free, count me in.
[quote]?[b][i]“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Revelation 22:17
[/quote]
[/i][/b]Yay! More Crapture. That’ll work.
The Bible was originally titled “Chuck Norris and Friends”