The Bible: can we trust it?

[Ozzimo]

I don't want to start a flame war here but theres an important question that must be adressed whenever I talk about religion with someone. Basicly most religions out there have a set of holy or divine texts. Prime examples being the bible, torra, and Qu'ran. Each traces its belief to the spacific texts. And from these texts come the stories and "history" that shape the religion.

Now here comes ther big question: How do you prove the validity of any relgious text?

Skeptics like myself have brought up issues that cast doubt on these texts as divinely inspired. For instance psycological medicine was non-existant in the times these texts were preported to be written. Who's to say weather the visions were divinely inspired or just the visions of a mentally ill person. Moreso it seems that people might want to say they had a vision so that they may gain praise from the community. Surely people at that time were clever enough to realize what being a prophet meant if you could fool the people. Fame, praise, a following. Power.

Leaving that behind all of these texts have been re-told an re-written and re-translated hundreds of thousends of times. Even if we agree that the original texts were divine then we would have to accept that humans being fallable may have mis-read, mis-written, and mis-translated these texts over and over again. How much of the text was lost in these accidental but wholey probeble foul-ups? Also, its very probable that people re-wrote the texts to better suit thier position. It seems almost certian that there were editiorial remarks in these texts. Weather it be monks, anti-semites, priests, or rabbi's. All it takes is for one person to change the word and it could continue on to today.

Some evidence that parts of the bible may be wrong exist in the field of archiology. Dinosaurs existed, its very very hard to debate that. We are still finding new species of dinosaurs every year in all places around the earth. However the bible makes clear that cration occured with no mention of giant lizards. One would think that if any human existed at the same time as dinosaurs that they might have written it down or told people about it.
Another example has to do with jews being enslaved in egypt and thier exodus. There is no archiological evidence to suggest that Jews were ever used as slaves in Egypt. No bones, no scripture, not even any written words related to the Hebrew language. Moreso there has been no evidence found to supoort the idea of exodus. No trash, no hebrew settlements. The idea that many thousends of jews left egypt, walked around the desert for 2 generations and left no mark of ever having been there is very hard to accept.
Noah's Ark is often brought up in this discussion. Considering how many speices of animal live on this earth now, and how many may have lived in the time of Noah, the Ark would have been impossibly huge. Something so big that it could not have had enough boyancy to float let alone hod the weight of every animal on earth + enough food for every animal to survive for 40 days and the waste left behind after that food is consumed. Even if Noah and his family just did poo duty the entire time, day and night, the ark would never be clean of waste.

now some will say that these stories are more parables and not meant to be taken as truth. Who says? What athourity makes one story fact (like Jesus rising from the dead) and another a parable (like a talking snake that tempts mankind)

So what is it that makes you all (im speaking to believers here) so sure that you can trust your book?

[malcolan]

Christianity: Simple Truth

Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world. Yes, as hard as it is to hear in our pluralistic world community, Christianity is different than all the others. That may sound terribly dogmatic and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is the only true religion.

Christianity: Why Believe It’s the Only Way

Christianity is not based upon evidence...but it is backed by evidence. Obviously anyone could “claim” to be God. The difference with Jesus is that His life completely backed those claims. Check out the history, check out the claims – it’s an absolutely phenomenal study.

A primary focus for your study is that Jesus fulfilled over 300 messianic prophecies written in the Old Testament scriptures. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the reliability of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, both of which have been proven to exist prior to the time Jesus walked on the earth, you can be assured that these prophecies were not “conspired” after-the-fact. They were truly fulfilled by the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Examine the probability of one man fulfilling just a handful of the most specific prophecies, and you’ll be amazed.

And He [Jesus] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. Luke 24:44

Another focus for your study is to understand what Jesus said and did as a historical figure. No legitimate scholars today will deny that Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago, was a great teacher and doer of good works, and that he was crucified on a Roman cross for the crime of blasphemy among the Jews. The only dispute is whether Jesus rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion and that He was, in fact, God incarnate. This is where everyone must test the evidence for the resurrection, examine their hearts, and make a decision about who Jesus really was.

Jesus said that He alone was the way to the Father (John 14:6), that He alone revealed the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22).

Christians do not go around saying Christianity is the only way because they are arrogant, stupid or judgmental.

They do so because, based on the evidence, they believe what Jesus said.

Christians believe in Jesus, who claimed to be God (John 8:58; Exodus 3:14), who forgave sins (Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48), and who rose from the dead (Luke 24:24-29; John 2:19). Jesus said that He was the only way.

Jesus is unique.

He was either telling the truth, He was crazy, or He was a liar.

But since everyone agrees that Jesus was a “good man,” how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? He must have been telling the truth. He is the only way.

Buddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster. Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn't raise the dead or heal the sick. And although there is far less reliable information written about these “religious” leaders, they are believed in and followed by millions.

Christianity: A Relationship

Christianity is not really a religion; it is a relationship with God. It is trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross for you (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), not on what you can do for yourself (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Christianity is not about ornate buildings, flamboyant preachers, or traditional rituals.

Christianity is about truly accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

[Ozzimo]

You've missed my point entirely.

You can't use the Bible to show evidence for the Bible. Thats ignorant

[GLO]

Skeptics like myself have brought up issues that cast doubt on these texts as divinely inspired. For instance psycological medicine was non-existant in the times these texts were preported to be written. Who's to say weather the visions were divinely inspired or just the visions of a mentally ill person. Moreso it seems that people might want to say they had a vision so that they may gain praise from the community. Surely people at that time were clever enough to realize what being a prophet meant if you could fool the people. Fame, praise, a following. Power.

I'll try to discuss your points without using scripture references. As far as the visions that you are referencing...it's difficult to discuss specifics because there are a number of "visions" in the Bible, both old and new testament. I'm assuming you're probably referencing some of the sightings in the New Testament about people seeing Jesus after His resurrection. Those are the most commonly questioned "visions" in scripture. There are a couple historical and physcological facts that make it VERY unlikely that they were fake or made up for some religious reason. The first point is that the visions were had by multiple people, on some occasions literally hundreds. The probability of multiple people having the exact same "vision" at the exact same time in the exact same place are so astronomical that it would be a greater miracle for that to happen than it would be for someone (Jesus) to be raised from the dead. The other thing that must be considered is the fact that Jesus was NOT popular among those in power at the time (both religious and political leaders) and the people who were claiming to be Christians were being persecuted on a daily basis (in most cases, killed). Anyone in that society at the time looking for some quick fame and glory would definately have NOT claimed to be a Christian or claimed to have any type of experience that promoted Christianity.


Leaving that behind all of these texts have been re-told an re-written and re-translated hundreds of thousends of times. Even if we agree that the original texts were divine then we would have to accept that humans being fallable may have mis-read, mis-written, and mis-translated these texts over and over again. How much of the text was lost in these accidental but wholey probeble foul-ups? Also, its very probable that people re-wrote the texts to better suit thier position. It seems almost certian that there were editiorial remarks in these texts. Weather it be monks, anti-semites, priests, or rabbi's. All it takes is for one person to change the word and it could continue on to today.

There are historically proven and accepted ways of determining a documents historicity. Here are some facts to ponder...

Apologist often appeal to three general tests for historicity.
1. Bibliographical test – Seeks to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the originals.
2. Internal Test – Asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by eyewitnesses.
3. External Test – Asks whether material external to the document (in this case, archaeology of the writings of early church fathers) confirms the reliability of the document.

New Testament Documents (bibliographical evidence)
1. Approximately 5000 Greek manuscripts (containing all of part of the New Testament)
2. 8000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (Latin translation done by Jerome, 384-405)
3. 350 Copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic versions of NT)
4. 32,000 citations in the writings of church Fathers prior to the council of Nicea (325)
5. Codex Sinaiticus (350AD, contains virtually all NT)
6. Codex Vaticanus (325-50, contains almost entire Bible)

When you look at those statistics in light of the fact that there are more original copies of holy scripture than there are of any other historical documents in existence it's difficult to argue the translation of the scriptures. It's also funny that there are more original texts of the scriptures than any of the works of Shakespear, Homer, or anyone else but none of those are ever questioned for validity. As further proof the Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in the late 1940's contained full copies of the book of Isaiah and many other Old Testament books and when compared with the oldest manuscripts that the church had were found to be over 99.5% accurate. That speaks quite a bit for the accuracy of the translations for itself.

As far as your other points. The Bible never claims that dinosaurs didn't exist. Some uneducated Christians will attempt to make arguments that it does, but you cannot judge an entire belief system and its followers off of a few who may be less educated than most. It is also believed in some circles that the flood that is referenced in the story of Noah was more accurately probably a regional flood of a catostrophic level and I believe there is actually some geological proof for the shifting of plates under the ocean during the time period in which the flood occured according to scripture. I apologize I do not have a link or reference to that information readily available.

peace,
gLO

[Wallis]

I approach the question from more of a philosophical point of view.

From my own history, having attended 8 years of parochial schooling, 4 years of public high school, and 4 years at a synodical college to be a Lutheran school teacher, this is the progression of faith and believing.

1. Total acceptance of the Bible as the truth and nothing but the truth.

2. Questioning the Bible. In other words, what is fact, fiction, poetry, parable, et al.

3. Moving away from a scripture-based faith to a God-based faith.

In my short lifetime of 57 years, I have read quite a lot, part of being the theologian. And, as I have digested this material, I go through a lot of meditation, exegesis, and evaluation. In simple words, what does all this material have in importance to my relationship with God, both to me and to the world in general.

I feel that when people successfully disprove parts of the Bible as being fact, there is a great tendency to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." In other words, if the Bible is not 100% true, then nothing is true. And this is terribly sad at its core. For the individual, all of the personal exeriences with God acting in his or her life is also thrown out. And, for these individuals, their faith is necessary to believing words written (typed) down on paper rather than the "evidence," which is both internal and individualistic, of God being real and involved in their lives.

Some of my current favorite books, which I have listed elsewhere, are:

The Mythic Past, Thomas L. Thompson
When Jeus Became God, Richard E. Rubenstein
Hebrew Myths, Rogert Graves and Raphael Patai
The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
All of Alfred Edersheim's works (which are online, by the way)
Much of C.S. Lewis' works

So, I guess my bottom line is this: you take the Bible as a whole and figure out what the main leitmotivs are. Then you try to get "into the heads" of the writers and figure out what their world was like, their philosophies, and the modicrum (style, type, use) of their writing. We begin to understand how and why these people viewed God in their particular way, and then we can make a "bridge" to these people and to our present time.

-------

For the Jew, it is not necessary to believe in an actual Adam and Eve, a Noah, a Joseph, an Abraham, et al as actual history. What is important is that the personal relationship each of these characters had or were portrayed as having is made manifest with the real relationship one experiences in the here and now.

Now for the Christian, it is necessary to believe in the real person Jesus the Christ. I use the additional word "the" to underscore that in the midst of so many messiahs (or christs) that have come before and after. The difference that we see in the New Testament is three "histories" and a "symbolic history" of the Christ, followed by letters of exhortation, preaching, and explanation of the core mission of the Christ and its meaning for humanity from beginning to end.

That Christians will place an emphasis on the Old Testament as being some kind of prerequisite for believing in the reality of the Christ is lamentable. But then part of my supporting arguments for this emphasis is not really germane (at the moment) to your introductory question. What I want to say here is that there is an emphasis on trying to prove that Jesus was not only for real (as a person as well as God) but also that He was the required sacrifice to satisfy the Law, under which no person has a snowball's chance in anyone's version of hell of being "saved."

I further lament that so many people have to rely so heavily on words to sustain their faith, when if they would simply open their eyes they can see God with them every nano-second of their lives. But then we have, as a world community, suffered all kinds of renditions and interpretations that have abrogated or just terribly twisted the very simple message of the Christ. You know the drill. For example: if you love God (Jesus), you're going to have a good life; if you don't love God enough, you're going to have problems. This example is just the tip of the iceberg, and such teaching is absolutely injurious--perhaps lethal--to the health and growth of spirituality and an honest relationship with God.

Be a skeptic. I am, and it has further strengthened my faith. As I wrote somewhere else, even if every word of the Bible, Old and New Testament combined, were proven absolutely false in every respect, it cannot shake my absolute conviction that the only way I can be "saved" from eternal death (whatever form that might take or be) is through God. It is the message of hope and the faith generated from that hope, reinforced by personal experiences, that will live on forever (or as long as I'm alive).

[malcolan]

Jesus is the best evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible, which was the reason for my post.

There is plenty of other evidence, you just have to look for it.

The Proof of Science

Paleontology--First off, Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. I think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible.

Astronomy--The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. 2 examples are Genesis 22:17 and Jeremiah 33:22. Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. I have seen estimates of 10 with 21 zeros behind it—which is a lot of stars.

The Bible also says that each star is unique--see 1 Corinthians 15:41. All stars look alike to the naked eye. Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others. (*Note: I understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but I would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

Meteorology--The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere. See Ecclesiastes 1:6.

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics. See Job 28:25, The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth. (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore my omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.)

Biology--The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood. The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism. See Genesis 1:11,12; Genesis 1:21; Genesis 1:25.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.

Anthropology--We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men in Job 30:5,6. Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually.

Hydrology--The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle. See Psalm 135:7 and Jeremiah 10:13. In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle—the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation.

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.

The Proof of Prophecy

Type one...The Messianic Prophecies

Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an “anointed one” (“Messiah” in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About 4 BC, a miraculous event occurred—a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary. You can read His story in the book of Luke. Starting at age 30, Jesus fulfilled more and more of these prophecies written about the Messiah. His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible’s writers were inspired supernaturally—by God.

Type two--Fulfilled Prophecy Dealing With Nations

There are many prophecies that can be proven through archaeology, especially prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would reward them if they started doing what was right. The book of Jonah records a case where the Assyrians stopped doing what was evil as a result of Jonah’s short prophecy. This is what God wanted, and God did not punish them as a result of their change of heart. However, most often the people would jeer at God’s prophet and continue their bad behavior—later becoming recipients of the exact punishment that God threatened.

Like other prophecy recorded in the Bible, these predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible. The prophecies recorded in the Bible came true in such a detailed way that they could not have been predicted by chance. Further, archaeologists have evidence that these prophecies were written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were not falsified documents claiming to be prophecies that came true. (The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls stopped the majority of that talk.)

An entire website could easily be filled with Archaeological evidence, not enough room to go into it here.

The Proof of Textual Evidence

Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the “library” of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).

Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the hardened skeptic can that they all represent the same text.)

The Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ

Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this “sect.” None exists. Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the “book” we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus’ miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as “fairy tales.”

The Proof of Historians

Secular history supports the Bible. For example, in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus writes:
“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to Jesus (called “Christus,” which means “The Messiah”) in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

--That's all I have right now. My suggestion would be to research these types of things yourself...but be forewarned, it may strengthen your faith...as it did mine.

:)

[Wallis]

Malcolan,

Good post. But I read Ozzimo's in a slightly different way.

I see good evidence of historical proof of the Bible being written. What we do not have is good historical proof of the events in the Bible as having occurred.

In this same vein, we have good historical evidence of the Upanishad, the Mahabharata, the Bhagwad Gita, the Ramayana, the Panchtantra, the Jatakas, and other scriptures. But we still do not have good historical evidence that the events described in these scriptures actually happened.

What we do have is a religious and philosophical history that is millenia-old. Also, we have a history of how people viewed their world several thousands of years ago, which was quite different from modern view(s), as well as a wealth of literature, which was written in a style and view point that is quite different from the modern world.

My central point in my last post, as windy (the long "i") and meandering as it was, is that it matters least in the authenticy of events occurring long past and matters most in the belief that God was, is, and will be acting in man's current existence.

[malcolan]

Wallis,

While every event in the Bible cannot be verified, I do not believe that any event described in the Bible has ever been disproven. On the contrary, if anything, Arcaeological evidence has confirmed many things described in Scripture.

Archaeologist Joseph Free, in his book, Archaeology and Bible History, has said that "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which had been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contrary to known facts."

Christian apologist Josh McDowell tells us that "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy."

Some scholars once said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archaeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).

Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they thought) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on.

My point was, since the Bible can be trusted in areas that we can check (its history, science, etc.), then this gives us a reason to trust it in areas that we cannot check (its claims for inspiration).

The historical evidence shows that the Bible can be trusted. The commonly held idea that the Bible is unreliable or "just a myth" is unfounded. The internal evidence reveals the uniqueness of the Bible, a uniqueness which would be difficult to explain if it was just a human book. These two tests give credibility to the Bible's internal claims to be the word of God. The testimony of predictive prophecy, however, takes us a step further and confirms the Bible's claims to be inspired by God. Finally, the Bible has not been changed through the ages. The evidence shows that there is good reason to believe in the Bible.

[Ozzimo]

I appricate the response this thread has received. i hope to clarify my thoughts here.

First and foremost I never claimed that the Bible itself was incorrect or wrong. I only wish to cast doybt on using it as absolute truth and a moral compass.

historically it can be agreed that the bible shows some events of the time as they occured. Some of the more outlandish events, often those with nearly no evidence or more reasonable explainations, are the stories I target. Examples being the Slavery of the Jews, Jesus walking on water, moses and the red sea, nearly all of genisis and various other stories.

The point of casting doubt on these stories is to show that things in the bible may have been exagerated or even simply made up. The parting of the red sea coincided with an extreme low tide on the Sea of Reeds (known as the Red Sea) at which point any mortal with no supernatual powers would be able to walk accross without the water even reaching thier knees. An explaination of the phenomenon is given here:
"The passage may have been based on a real event with a physical cause. The eruption of the Santorini volcano could have caused some of the plagues which allegedly afflicted the Egyptians, see Biblical records and the Thera eruption . The eruption would have generated a Megatsunami estimated controversially at 600-foot. Tsunami expert, Floyd McCoy wrote,

“We find evidence, believe it or not, on the deep ocean floor. The tsunamis actually scraped across the bottom of the ocean floor in the Mediterranean and disturbed the sediment. We can find that sediment. That gives us some indication of the directions they went. The computer model showed us waves radiating out all over the Mediterranean, reaching the Nile Delta.”

A Tsunami or Megatsunami would cause water from the sea, and from connecting rivers and lakes to recede temporarily, see Signs of an approaching tsunami. The Israelites could not at all easily have crossed the Red Sea in the two hours that the waters would have receded. In any case Santorini is in the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea isn't. They could however have crossed a smaller inlet, cove, lake or river. Later the returning wave would easily have had the force to destroy the Egyptian army. A Tsunami at Mindoro in 1994 entered a lake roughly a mile inland proving this is possible. [8]"
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid=2222&dekey=Passage+of+the+Red+Sea

One still ponders the idea of noah and the Ark. Was it meant as a metaphor or decribed as reality? Or was it exagerated by one of the writers? One can't accuarately say for sure.

So if we know that some of the stories and tales of the bible are at the very least in question we must question with the same verocity other parts of the bible held as faith. Did Jesus exist? Again, we can't say for sure but most educated people seem to contend that a philosopher by that name probebl did exist. He probebly had a large enough following to warrent a watchful eye from the Romans. Was he crucified its possible. Many people were in that time.

But we can't see credible evidence to suggest that he did any spacific act such as walking on water, water wine, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, etc. The only suggestion we have that this person did any of that is in one source (the bible) taht can't be supported as entirely truthful. This doesn;t mean Jesus didn't do these things but it can't be ignored that there is no proof.

Speaking to the idea of Science in the bible I must retort with the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe. Something the Catholic Church contended as fact even in this last century.

The best evidence that the bible cannot be considered a historically accuate document is the lack of archiological evidence. One would think we would have found reminents of a huge boat on some hill or mountian top containing animal remains from around the world by now. Or even 40 years of footsteps and settlements from Jews escaping egypt. Why not even extensive Roman records of this Jesus whom they seemed to fear so much?

So what can be said then? If the bible is found to be un-reliable what can you say about faith? At that moment all you can trust are your own experiances and how you interperate them. Which seems a much safer and more reliable basis for faith to me.

[Wouldhe]

in the wind. You will never convince a believer, nor will you ever get a straight answer from a believer.
Here's the deal. The bible can be viewed as a historical document. Sure a lot of things in the bible can be proven and as a non-believer I can buy into it. It ends though with the supernatural. Did Jesus exist yes, was he born of from a virgin, highly unlikely. Did Jesus run around preaching yes, was it divinely inspired, probably not. Did he die on the cross, yes, was he resurrected probably not. This is how you have to read the bible. There is no way anybody can prove that he was supernatural.
So then we ask, well, what about everything in the bible that was supernatural? Look at it this way, We have people today that we refer to as cults. We had Jim Jones, we had Charley Manson, we had David Koresh, we still have today that lunatic on television that heals people. All of these guys had and still have followers. These people will profess and document that their leader is as claimed and still do till this day. Jesus was no different than these guys. He had his followers, they made false claims about Jesus, they were documented and thus we have a bible.
Ponder this, if Jesus (or anyone else) stood in front of a judge today claimed he was the son of God and that the present social order was invalid, was a public nuisance, went to the flea market and started turning over tables and babbling on about scripture, how would the court view him today? I know the answer, lock that lunatic up bailiff! This is what happened to Jesus. He was a social outcast, a trouble maker, and paid the same price as he would today.
Now, when you compare the population of the time to the followers of Jesus you will see there were just a handful of people who believed in him. Again, we are only getting the story's from his followers. They are the only ones who documented anything about Jesus. What I want to know is, what did all of the other people think who didn't follow him. My gut feeling is that they thought like I do - he was a cult leader and nothing more.
Now the reason I say you will never get a good answer from a believer is because of this one fact. Believers were frightened into, and brainwashed into their belief from childhood. The key word being "frightened". They nurtured this fear all the way in to their adult life and will never say anything contrary to their belief in fear. I know, I was one of them. When I finally decided to think for myself and knock down the walls of fear the church and my parents instilled in me I was able to take a fresh look at the topic and draw my own conclusions. Life continues to be good! One more thing, Malcolan is a perfect example of how bible interpretation gets twisted.

[GLO]

wouldhe

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on all counts. I apologize that you've had such negative experiences with people who call themselves Christians that you would assume us all to be brainwashed, zombies who live our lives the way we do because we are wholly motivated by fear. I assure you, even though it is obvious that you have known a number of people like this...we are not all this way.

As far as your opinions on the validity of scripture I would also have to say that you are on VERY shakey ground philosophically. (not religiously or theologically). You are both supporting the accuracy of a document and its writer and attempting to tear down that accuracy at the same time. It doesn't matter if you come at the situation from a philosophical standpoint or a literary standpoint, your position isn't able to hold water in an academic setting.

On your comparisons of Christ to the likes of Manson and the others you metioned, you're forgetting a huge part of their lives. While you're absolutely right that Jesus was an outcast, you seem to have mistaken the group of people that he was outcast from. The whole of society not only liked Jesus, but loved and embraced Him completely, there are countless times in scripture and historical records that show Jesus with thousands of followers, entire towns in a celebratory uproar at His arrival and things like this. The people that outcast Him were the political and religious leadership of the time. They were the ONLY social groups that didn't like Jesus. Also, unlike the other cult leaders that you mentioned Jesus did not kill or tell his followers to go commit suicide...while it's true that 11 of the 12 disciples did die a martyr's death, the social and philosophical reasons behind the situations of their deaths were completely different than the deaths of the immediate followers of the cult leaders you referenced. You also have to take into account that cults are by nature very small and because of the faults of their foundations (philosophical, theological or social) they always stay small and never grow socially or historically over time. That cannot be said of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus, if anything His followers only continue to grow and grow and His teachings only become more well known as every new day passes.

It's obvious from your post that you have a measure of intelligence and that you have had years of experiences with people who claim to be Christians. Again, I am truly sorry for the negative and shallow perspective that you have of those who claim to be followers of Christ, but please understand that we are not all that way and if you continue to search you will discover that...eventually.

peace,
GLO

[Ozzimo]

So GLO, what do you think regarding my post? Im interested to know.

[GLO]

So GLO, what do you think regarding my post? Im interested to know.

I appreciate the study and effort that you obviously put into your post. And please understand I think that science is a great tool for us to learn and grow in our understanding of how our world around us works. What I would be careful of is to not let science become your religion, of sorts.

You used the example of the Catholic church believing that the earth was the center of the universe. You're absolutely right, they did believe that, and they were extremely wrong. But, their being wrong about that doesn't impute the Bible any more than me calling myself a pastor and saying that the Cubs are going to win the world series. In other words, the two are unrelated. (I really do wish the Cubs would win the world series though...)

In the same way Science thought that the earth was flat for thousands of years and was proven to be wrong about it as well. Now, does that impute the nature and methods of scientific study? Of course not. It just means that it was wrong according to the level of testing that man had available at the time. I actually believe that science is one of the greatest tools for proving the validity of the Bible, and as man grows in his knowledge of scientific testing the truth of Bible references such as the ones that you have mentioned will be proven. They haven't been proven yet, and some evidence would suggest that they are false...but then again before Columbus made his little trip across the pond almost everyone was convinced (by the scientific evidence) that the world we lived on looked like a giant Risk boardgame.

By the way, some "scientist" still believe that the earth may indeed be flat and it's all a big conspiracy!!!

http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory/flatearth.html

peace,
GLO

[Wouldhe]

When did you become religious?
How old were you?
What did the church, along with your Mother and father, tell you would happen if you did something wrong?

If you answered you were a child, then you were brainwashed. What does a child know about faith and religion. Plenty of adults never got it.
If you answered you would go to hell if you did something wrong then fear comes in to play.

I find it borderline child abuse to take children to church and send them to sunday school. Tell me that isn't brainwashing. It most certainly is.
Dude, get out of your tunnel and see what's outside

[GLO]

When did you become religious?
How old were you?
What did the church, along with your Mother and father, tell you would happen if you did something wrong?

If you answered you were a child, then you were brainwashed. What does a child know about faith and religion. Plenty of adults never got it.
If you answered you would go to hell if you did something wrong then fear comes in to play.

I find it borderline child abuse to take children to church and send them to sunday school. Tell me that isn't brainwashing. It most certainly is.
Dude, get out of your tunnel and see what's outside

Sure I was raised in church. When I was 18 I rejected the church because of the hypocrisy that I saw in it. I went my own way for a few years and decided there was no way any of it could really be true...

Then I was challenged to study beyond the crap that I experienced as a child and genuinely look into things that I questioned. Long story short. I am now a follower of Christ.

wouldhe, for someone who claims to be so open-minded about things I am very surprised at your automatic assumptions about any and everyone who claims to be a follower of Christ. I don't mean to sound harsh but it sounds like you need to deal with some of the stuff that was done/said to you by religious people as a child and get over it. I'm not saying that doing so would "convert" you into a Christian, but it would at least free you from the judgemental and short-sided opinions that you are expressing on these forums towards everyone who claims to be a Christian.

It sounds like you genuinely did have some wrong things done/said to you when you were a child and I am not trying to negate the fact that whoever did/said those things to you was wrong. All I am saying is that it is painfully obvious that those experiences of your past have jaded your world view and now you are seeing everything even remotely related to Christianity through a skewed perspective. Maybe I'm completely wrong (heck, I don't know you from John Smith), but the judgements and automatic assumptions that you make in your posts make it very difficult to assume otherwise.

peace,
GLO

[Wallis]

If I may use my own children as examples:

1. They were sent to Lutheran parochial schools for the first 8 years. They participated in many church activities.

2. They went to public high schools.

3. All but one went to public colleges. My youngest child is graduating from a Lutheran college to continue on in church work.

Given the above, the children naturally accepted a very fundamentalist view of the Bible, God, and faith. However, as they matured, they realized that the "universe" is not so simple, cut-and-dried, and/or black-and-white. Inasmuch as life is different for each individual, the concepts of God and faith are different as well.

Bottomline: While none of my children profess the same fundamentalistic view as they did as children, each of their individualistic faiths and understandings matured according to their own personalities. Again, they built upon the basic foundation of religion to form a more personal understanding and relationship with God and the Christ living within them.

[Wallis]

You know, I lament to myself when I see (and experience) any attempt to "cookie-cutter" Christians or Christianity as a whole.

It is not just the "non-Christians" that attempt to do the "cookie-cutting." Very often, it is the Christians who try (and make a very good impression of success) in portraying Christians in a "cookie-cutter" mode. And in the process of doing so, they are helping broad-brush all Christians in a bad light, even as so many people broad-brush Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, and others.

I really think we need a definition of Christianity. There are plenty out there, by the way, but (IMHO) they are pretty twisted and have perverted the very simple meaning of being a Christian.

From my pickle barrel, this is the very simple definition of being a Christian: the Christ lives and is reflected in daily life, in every thought, word, and deed.

Pick a church body, any church body, and you will see that unnecessary conditions have been added. Some of those conditions border on the sublime, some on the ridiculous.

Dress codes, prohibitions (such as smoking, drinking, and dancing), rituals, and the like have nothing to do with Christianity. These are personal choices that people make to give an outward identity for themselves as Christians.

The biggest danger--and it is practiced every blooming day by people who declare themselves to be Christians--is that if the outward actions are followed (often to the letter), then God is pleased that they are indeed Christian and "doing right" or living "righteous lives."

I lament because when people meet these "one-hour a week" Christians, they are "turned off" by the whole "Jesus-thing" as being nothing more than a sham. A friend of my best friend once tried every major religion there was, starting with Buddhism; his conclusion (after reverting back to Buddhism): all organized religion is obsessed with one thing--and you guessed it--money.

You see, if one accepts my pickle-barrel definition, then one does not need a set of rules to live by to be a Christian. Rather one follows what the Christ would do and thinks, speaks, and acts accordingly.

[ET]

all organized religion is obsessed with one thing--and you guessed it--money.

You win the prize.....this statement says it all

[Wouldhe]

Take a look at what is going on not only in the world but the country as well. Humanity is in a mess! It isn't the non believers that got it this way. It's thousands of years of people, in the name of God, who got it this way. Nothing was done to me as a child. I grew up a Christian until my eyes were opened to the lies, inconsistency's, perversion, coercion, etc., of the church and religion. Just by your reply you are making assumptions about me. Christians are the most assumptions people on the planet. They assume everything. Why should I be forced to place my hand on the bible in the court room? Why, should I, everywere I go have to be force fed the 10 commandments, it goes on and on! Look at your president. The man stood up in front of the world and claimed God wanted him to be president. What a pile of crock! What gives any believer the right to force their morality on anybody else. Is it because believers think they are speaking on God's behalf? I have never talked to a believer that wasn't an expert on the bible, and knows what God wants and expects. Give me a break. With that said, I am not really wrapped around the axle about this religious stuff but I firmly believe that religious belief should be kept to ones self and quit shoving religion down peoples throat when they really don't have the truth. The only truth beleivers have is the words of another man. Take a look at the history of religion more people have been tortured, murdered, and maimed in the name of religion. How about a country that claims it is founded on Chrisitan belief but still puts their people to death in the name of God. The American hipocrits!

[GLO]

Take a look at what is going on not only in the world but the country as well. Humanity is in a mess! It isn't the non believers that got it this way. It's thousands of years of people, in the name of God, who got it this way. Nothing was done to me as a child. I grew up a Christian until my eyes were opened to the lies, inconsistency's, perversion, coercion, etc., of the church and religion. Just by your reply you are making assumptions about me. Christians are the most assumptions people on the planet. They assume everything. Why should I be forced to place my hand on the bible in the court room? Why, should I, everywere I go have to be force fed the 10 commandments, it goes on and on! Look at your president. The man stood up in front of the world and claimed God wanted him to be president. What a pile of crock! What gives any believer the right to force their morality on anybody else. Is it because believers think they are speaking on God's behalf? I have never talked to a believer that wasn't an expert on the bible, and knows what God wants and expects. Give me a break. With that said, I am not really wrapped around the axle about this religious stuff but I firmly believe that religious belief should be kept to ones self and quit shoving religion down peoples throat when they really don't have the truth. The only truth beleivers have is the words of another man. Take a look at the history of religion more people have been tortured, murdered, and maimed in the name of religion. How about a country that claims it is founded on Chrisitan belief but still puts their people to death in the name of God. The American hipocrits!


Umm...do you have any idea how many philosophical self-refuting statements you made in that post? Obviously not, or you probably wouldn't have posted it.

To your first point. (It's Religious people who got the world this way).
1. I will gladly compare the governmental, social and economical standards of "Chrisitan" empires, nations or whatever you want to call them to that of any secular controlled entity of the same size, time frame or geographic location. Believe me, do some studying, you do NOT want to compare Christian empires to secular ones...history has proven that you will lose that argument every time.

Second point (inconsistencies in religion and assumptive nature)
1. You're right, religion (Christian or otherwise) is inconsistent, BUT Jesus is Not. Don't automatically equate Jesus and who He was as a person to the religious system that build itself up around His teachings. Big difference my friend.
2. What's funny about moral relativism (your philosophical stance) is that it says everyone can have an opinion as long as it doesn't disagree with the moral relativistic perspective. Which, is absolutely NO different that any other philosophical world view in existence, whether it is Christian or not. You say that "Christians are the most assumptions people on the planet." I'm assuming you mean that as an insult, if so...you need to realize you just made a HUGE GENERAL ASSUMPTION about 1/5 of the population of the earth. If you're so against a people-group who assume things based off their idea of right and wrong...you may not want to make such huge assumptions.

3. As far as the president thing. I conceed that point gladly. I also think it's ridiculous for any political leader to say something like that. None the less, it doesn't make me doubt the teachings and life of Jesus any more or less just because some Texas boy said something...

4. What you're not realizing in you rant about shoving moral values down someone's throat is that you are trying to do the EXACT SAME THING! That is one of the most idiotic foundations of the relativistic world view. You don't want anyone else to shove their moral values in your face, but you shove yours in everyone else's face thinking it's ok. Whether you want to admit it or not, everyone thinks certain things are right or wrong and everyone who disagrees about certain points will always think the other person is wrong. You're no different than a religious zealot who refuses to look at the self-refuting nature of your own world view. You haven't really changed, all you've done is switched your allegience from a view that holds Christ's teachings as the moral standard by which we should live our lives to a view that hold the philosophy of moral relativism as the standard by which we should live our lives. Some position, different bias...that's all.

Once again, if you would like to compare the histories of governments that considered themselves to follow Christian moral values and those that did not I will be more than happy to discuss it with you...but believe me...you're not going to like the comparison at all.

peace,
GLO

[Wallis]

Chiming in here, but not trying to gang up in any respect.

I know we all make general statements that taken by themselves not only sound ridiculous but are logically impossible. I am one believer who does know the Bible very well, and you have come to know me (somewhat well, I hope). And, from my posting here, what I view as Truth comes from my perspective, my experiences, and my faith. I pray that I do not come from a "force-feeding" or a "brainwashing" perspective, but since the vast majority of these posts are "learning experiences" that you read my opinions with that same perspective.

It is interesting to read St. Clementine's City of God, as he witnessed Rome's sacking by the barbarians first-hand. He rails against the Romans willingness to pray to a pantheon of gods who saved no city who worshipped them but were apparently appeased by even further human debasement. He wrote that if Christianity were a thousand years older, the Romans themselves would have blamed all of their troubles on the Christians.

I find that last statement very apropro in these times, for, indeed, the general depiction of the Christian religion appears to be no different in its relationship with the world than the religions of the past had with their world.

One of my personal challenges is to be different. I have readily admitted on this forum that I do not like to tell people that I am a Christian for the sole fact that there is a very negative connotation with the word "Christian." I perfer to state that I believe in the Christ. I firmly have the Christ within me, and I try to live my life allowing the Christ lead my life and that entails (thoughts, words, and deeds).

I, too, have expressed a lament that the worldly expression that "Christians" present to the world is full of the hypocrisy you wrote about. Given that fact, I refuse to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Since I have embraced the Christ--and my faith confirms the true existence of God acting in my life, through thick and thin--I am going to stand alone, if need be, and be the best "light" to the world. I have met so many people, who feel in various degrees the same way you do, who disdain organized religion and the one-hour a week Christians, and yet, at the same time, refuse to be brow-beaten by the "Christian" perspective (which is very negative at this time) and stand up to the world with a faith that coincides more with the teaching of the Christ.

So, it is a challenge. You alone have the decision to make: accept the Christ as the center of your life or not. But please understand this: accepting the Christ as the center of your life does not mean you also have to accept much of the bullshit that organized religion wants to shove down your throat. If you accept that challenge, believe you me, it will be a hard row to hoe, because you will be bucking not only the non-Christian world but the "Christian" world as well. The good news is that you will not be alone. You'd be surprised just how many of "us" there are who are much less vocal about it than I am.

[Wouldhe]

your assumption:
It sounds like you genuinely did have some wrong things done/said to you when you were a child and I am not trying to negate the fact that whoever did/said those things to you was wrong. All I am saying is that it is painfully obvious that those experiences of your past have jaded your world view and now you are seeing everything even remotely related to Christianity through a skewed perspective. Maybe I'm completely wrong (heck, I don't know you from John Smith), but the judgements and automatic assumptions that you make in your posts make it very difficult to assume otherwise.

Yes you are wrong.

You: 1. I will gladly compare the governmental, social and economical standards of "Chrisitan" empires, nations or whatever you want to call them to that of any secular controlled entity of the same size, time frame or geographic location. Believe me, do some studying, you do NOT want to compare Christian empires to secular ones...history has proven that you will lose that argument every time.

My comment wasn't directed at social and economic issues. The point is, it is religion and belief in an unprovable entity that has formed the worlds mindset and millions have died because of it. The Catholic church being the biggest offenders. Take a look at the crusades. who directed that war? Yes, it was the Pope. Where did capitol punishment originate? Yes the church again. Look at what the biggest issue of the world is today - yes it's faith based. I can't pick up a paper without seeing some believer trying to force others in to their belief. You don't see any non believers knocking on you door daily do you? No, but almost on a daily basis I have someone "feeling sorry" for me and wanting to save me. That's the point!


You: Second point (inconsistencies in religion and assumptive nature)
1. You're right, religion (Christian or otherwise) is inconsistent, BUT Jesus is Not. Don't automatically equate Jesus and who He was as a person to the religious system that build itself up around His teachings. Big difference my friend.
2. What's funny about moral relativism (your philosophical stance) is that it says everyone can have an opinion as long as it doesn't disagree with the moral relativistic perspective. Which, is absolutely NO different that any other philosophical world view in existence, whether it is Christian or not. You say that "Christians are the most assumptions people on the planet." I'm assuming you mean that as an insult, if so...you need to realize you just made a HUGE GENERAL ASSUMPTION about 1/5 of the population of the earth. If you're so against a people-group who assume things based off their idea of right and wrong...you may not want to make such huge assumptions.

Rather than trying to write something I will refer you to a site that expresses my feeling on this better than me.
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/blogitem/20060206_comments_atheism/
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

Quite honestly Glo, I am a firm believer in "live and let live". I accept all, religious or not. Just don't try forcing me (and I don't mean you directly) to believe in something that isn't proven to exist. If you would just listen to the word "faith", it's just way too iffy to put so much weight in. Faith isn't enough. If Jesus came to me and said have faith, yha maybe, but God has never made a showing and the concept of Jesus can't be proven.

[GLO]

Jesus isn't a concept. He is a proven historical person...who just happened to be the son of God.

[Ozzimo]

I have to dissagree. Jesus was PROBEBLY a real person. To prove that A man named Jesus existed we would need at the very least need a body. Even if you believe he rose up into heaven and brought his body with him he would have had to leave behind historical evidence. Some claim this is the bible but as i've already mentioned, I feel the bible is not a solid enough piece of history on its own to warrent proof of anything it contains.

long story short, Most people think its very possible there was a philosopher named Jesus but that person is far from proven to exist and even further from proven to be god and/or the son of god.

[GLO]

I have to dissagree. Jesus was PROBEBLY a real person. To prove that A man named Jesus existed we would need at the very least need a body. Even if you believe he rose up into heaven and brought his body with him he would have had to leave behind historical evidence. Some claim this is the bible but as i've already mentioned, I feel the bible is not a solid enough piece of history on its own to warrent proof of anything it contains.

long story short, Most people think its very possible there was a philosopher named Jesus but that person is far from proven to exist and even further from proven to be god and/or the son of god.

I will respectfully say that you are completely and utterly wrong. There is more than enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. There is not one respectable historian in the world, Christian or otherwise that would debate that issue.

As far as your personification of Jesus as just a philosopher I can't see the logic. He either was exactly who He said He was (the Son of God, came to earth to redeem man from our fallen nature) or He was an absolute lunatic that no one in their right mind would try to defend as a respectable philosopher. He was either one or the other, the audacity of some of the things that He said prevent there from being any "middle-ground". I suppose you could make an attempt to discredit some of the things that were recorded as His saying in the scriptures, but your argument would eventually fail in that arena as well. The social ramifications that occured to the writers of scripture leave absolutely no reason for them to lie about such statements, there was no personal, social, financial, or religious benefit for them to write lies about Him. And on top of that, the most outrageous claims that He made (son of God, live forever, came to redeem humanity) we not said amongst just a few people, there were literally hundreds of people around when He "supposedly" said these things. If He had not said them and one of His followers recorded that He did (in a specific social setting such as the ones in scripture) then someone (of the hundreds of people there) would have spoken up and claimed that the disicples were lying. No one did.

just some things to think about.
GLO

[Wallis]

Now on a certain day of the week, a self-proclaimed prophet approached a man of some means of substance and said to him, “I have just received the Word of God! Repent and correct your ways! For His wrath will soon descend upon you, and you will burn for eternity."

The gentleman, somewhat more than perplexed, returned: “That’s odd. I just had God over for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I thought that He was a gracious guest. As I probably over-spoke and dominated the conversation, not a word did He speak in return but listened with a diligence I have found lacking even in the most compassionate person. When I offered Him all that I had, not one drop of beverage nor one morsel of food (although it was sumptuous) did He take. For His comfort, I offered Him the sweetest part of the bed in my choicest room, yet He disdained to disturb my slumber and allowed me a full night’s rest while He patiently awaited the morning.

“Shortly after rising this morning, I found to my chagrin knocking at my front door several solicitors with bills in their fists. Since I had no money either on my person, in the house, or in the bank, I was sorely aggrieved at this sudden turn of fortune. I did not entreaty God to help me but rather—indelicately, I suppose, for I would not burden my neighbor with my own troubles lest he have more to worry about or somehow use my predicament for his own advantage against me—merely expressed my concerns in terms how I might face an immediate bleak future. Then, to my surprise, several persons began knocking at my back door. Upon investigation, these persons were my debtors who had come to pay back their debts. With money received—and a gracious appreciation from my heart to these faithful persons—I opened the front door and paid each solicitor in full, whom—I lament—were not as gracious in receipt of payment but thought rather it was their rightful due.

“This miracle—for that is the only way I could fully describe this circumstance—occurred not because of any act of my doing but through the love and mercy of God who promised to take care of me. My faith, you see, was my only recourse to accept the fate of life, that whatever may befall me I may be assured that God will remain steadfast beside me.”

As you might be able to imagine, the prophet’s countenance darkened quite visibly, and with a forcefulness of anger he exploded: “Blasphemer! You worship a false god whom you believe wants you to be happy and comfortable in life. The true God is righteously angry, and He is soon coming to judge you and the entire human race and punish you all for your petty and major sins alike with eternal punishment! You had better soon come to your senses and embrace the Truth, lest you be damned for all time.”

Before the gentleman could point out the inconsistency between something eternal (a concept that is totally outside the realm of human cognition) and something bound in time, as public disagreements are wont, a crowd of people gathered to look on and anticipate the conclusion. Human nature being formulated as it is, no doubt some of these silent participants prayed that blood would be shed, and in this manner their ever-present base appetite would be temporarily satiated.

At this moment as well, their happened to be present a person of the clergy. While he later admitted great reluctance to be a party to the impromptu discussion, he felt compelled to interject his presence although to this day he has not a clue as to what motivated him. I would hope that is not the case—although I strongly suspect—that a fleeting thought of personal aggrandizement would be reward for the clergyman to have settled the argument and thus much esteemed among the audience be garnered.

This is what the clergyman had to say: “No one can understand nor come to God except through studious reading of the Bible and strictly adhering to the Commandments, which He has given.” To the prophet, he stated: “To proclaim that God has spoken to you personally is more akin to the hearkening to evil demons whispering into your ear. If God would deign to speak to any person, He should choose a more worthy candidate, more like myself or one of my superiors who have immersed oneself into the Scriptures and totally dedicated one’s life completely in the service of God.” To the gentleman, he remarked: “You should contain yourself to your most private place and meditate not only on the wonderful mercy of God but also to what good work you might have performed that was deserving of His mercy.”

An atheist then stepped forward, and his manner was full of chagrin and disdain at such religious talk. “You all are but delirious fools, believing in a nonsense whereby some mysterious force has intervened.” To the prophet, he said: “I highly recommend a competent psychiatrist take you into his care, for I suspect that an unfortunate injurious event in your life has altered your perception.” To the clergyman, he retorted: “You have elevated a book of man’s to be of divine origins and have given over your own mind to the flaws of man’s own imaginations as being sacred and unprofaned.” To the gentleman, he advised: “Think carefully your good fortune and be of open mind to realize that the world is filled with both consequences and coincidences. And, do not lightly disregard the power of your own mind, which does shape the world around you.”

The assembly shortly disassembled, each person continuing on their own way and destination. The prophet, to be sure, was undeterred in broadcasting his message of dire doom. The clergyman chastised himself for becoming involved and regretted it sorely to the end of his days. The atheist felt assured that he had the greater wisdom and felt unabashed in educating the otherwise duped and infirm in mind and spirit. As to our gentleman, he returned to his house where he found God as patient and excellent company as ever. As the gentleman relayed this particular event, God said not a word; but there was a smile on His lips that spoke volumes, and it was in this smile that our gentleman was comforted.

[asael83]

You also have to keep in mind. If the Bible was written by man, it wouldn't have lasted for so many ages. It would have been burned up or lost.

There is only a few things that will last into eternity 1. Your relationship with God 2. Your relationship with Brothers and Sisters in Christ 3. The Word Of God 4. Your works done for Christ

I also believe that science is catching up with God. And there is evidence.

But the real question is....

Do you believe or not. You see, God will not force you to have faith in him. And if God won't force you.....then Angels and Demons won't violate your will either.

Here's an eye opener.....
God is eternal : We are eternal
God is a spirit : We have a spirit
God has a will : We have a will
We are made in the image of God. Demons hate us becuase of this simple fact.

Any questions? I can go on....

[Ozzimo]

I will respectfully say that you are completely and utterly wrong. There is more than enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. There is not one respectable historian in the world, Christian or otherwise that would debate that issue.

As far as your personification of Jesus as just a philosopher I can't see the logic. He either was exactly who He said He was (the Son of God, came to earth to redeem man from our fallen nature) or He was an absolute lunatic that no one in their right mind would try to defend as a respectable philosopher. He was either one or the other, the audacity of some of the things that He said prevent there from being any "middle-ground". I suppose you could make an attempt to discredit some of the things that were recorded as His saying in the scriptures, but your argument would eventually fail in that arena as well. The social ramifications that occured to the writers of scripture leave absolutely no reason for them to lie about such statements, there was no personal, social, financial, or religious benefit for them to write lies about Him. And on top of that, the most outrageous claims that He made (son of God, live forever, came to redeem humanity) we not said amongst just a few people, there were literally hundreds of people around when He "supposedly" said these things. If He had not said them and one of His followers recorded that He did (in a specific social setting such as the ones in scripture) then someone (of the hundreds of people there) would have spoken up and claimed that the disicples were lying. No one did.

just some things to think about.
GLO

Well i have to say that although im a bit tired from a weekend in Canada I still can't see what follows from your assertions. First off to say that you have PROOF that Jesus did in fact exist is very interesting. I'd like to know what evidence specifically, not including the bible, you have to make such a bold claim. I've also done a bit of googling and found a few historians and thologens who surmise that jesus may never have existed. I do this in answer to: "There is not one respectable historian in the world, Christian or otherwise that would debate that issue."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd4.html
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
Anyway, that ought to be enough to ruin your breakfast (with too much reading I mean)

Now to the second paragraph. You say:"He either was exactly who He said He was (the Son of God, came to earth to redeem man from our fallen nature) or He was an absolute lunatic that no one in their right mind would try to defend as a respectable philosopher." I say its not a black and white issue. Most importantly we have to remember how many times this book or story has been re-told, re-read, re-translated and re-edited. Exageration of the truth is not out of the relm of possibility. We can surmise from some of the other stories in the bible, even ones having to do with Jesus himself, that exageration probebly happend or else just making up stories for the sake of the message like parables. All of these outcomes are resonalbe and fairly logical explainations for otherwise extrodinary things.

You also say: "The social ramifications that occured to the writers of scripture leave absolutely no reason for them to lie about such statements, there was no personal, social, financial, or religious benefit for them to write lies about Him. " and Again i must dissagree. off the top off my head I can see religious benifit in making the stories sound more miraculous so that they might gain more followers to the faith. I can see socially getting more attention and even power by writting these stories from the perspective of being there and doing things with jesus. So probebly thought if they wrote something good about jesus that God would favor them. Its resonable and it can be said that even today people try to use media as a way to look good for god. See the 700 club and Jerry Falwell.

Now notice that in all of this I never claimed I had proof that Jesus never existed. i only surmised that from evidence gathered via social norms and human nature such activities like exageration of the truth and outright liying for attention are not out of the relm of possibility.

I would suggest in the most polite way possible to GLO to try and not think about Jesus in absolutes. From there you can test thories without jumping to the conclution that Jesus didn't exist.

now as for asael You also have to keep in mind. If the Bible was written by man, it wouldn't have lasted for so many ages.

It would have been burned up or lost. There is only a few things that will last into eternity 1. Your relationship with God 2. Your relationship with Brothers and Sisters in Christ 3. The Word Of God 4. Your works done for Christ

I also believe that science is catching up with God. And there is evidence.

But the real question is....

Do you believe or not. You see, God will not force you to have faith in him. And if God won't force you.....then Angels and Demons won't violate your will either.

Here's an eye opener.....
God is eternal : We are eternal
God is a spirit : We have a spirit
God has a will : We have a will
We are made in the image of God. Demons hate us becuase of this simple fact.

Any questions? I can go on....

I must also dissagree with you on many counts and plee for evidence of your claims. First to say that the only way literature would last so long is if it were holy or divinely insired right? Well what about this book: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2939362.stm
its over 2000 years old and mentions nothing of Jesus or the Christian god. texts like the Indian Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam predate Jesus himself. Also what about the knowledge passed on from anchient Greece and Rome? The Illyad and The Oddesy. Plato's Republic. The list goes on. To say that the only way literature and stories can be this old is because they divinely inspred is just wrong due to the amount of things we still have that either have nothing to do with god or even refute it.

now this last bit is just over the edge of reason or logical discourse. All you are doing making a claim... thats it, no evidence, no reasoning behind the claim. Look: "Here's an eye opener.....
God is eternal : We are eternal I would say we aren;t eternal as people die every day. When the body dies the mind can no longer survive. This is a claim we have evidence for. If the brain dies there is no longer a person there. For instance i couldn't replace my brain with the brain of someone who just died and con tinue living.
God is a spirit : We have a spirit I claim that the idea of a spirt is nothing more than the electrical impulses that transmit data to and from our brain. When this activity ceases, we cease to be as well. We also have evidence for this claim in using technologies that can detect this brain activity and even rate its voltage.
God has a will : We have a will" Frankly the word will has a few definitions that might fit here. But if by will you mean the ability to make descions and furthmore to make them without coercian of another than I say we do have a will. However we hold no evidence of any supposed Gods having a will if indeed they existed to begin with.

Look guys. As much as you think i'll go away if you just put down what you think is the be-all, end-all argument for your faith, I'm more intelligent than that. i've been debating theology for near a decade now and can honestly say i have heard very little compelling evidece in support of the idea that the bible is divinely inspired. Im not going to make demands here or anything but I would appriciate that when you post some claim that you also post what evidence you may have for this claim. I try to do the same for you so that we may all learn a new perspective with which to view the greater questions of life.

midnight. Well see you in the morning I suppose.

[GLO]

I'm honestly not quite sure what to say anymore. There are many historical works that prove the existence of Jesus, take the works of Josephus for instance, who was not a Christian but wrote in detail about the life of Jesus as a man. As far as your references to "scholars" who doubt His existence, I am refering to more of an academic standard. If you would like I can find 5-6 links of people that genuinely belive animals can talk english to each other when we're not looking or anything else. We, as Americans, have to get over the idea that just because someone has a PhD in front of their name they know what they're talking about. Almost anyone will say almost anything for the right amount of money. And please lets not forget that the entire internet thing we are using to communicate to each other was invented by Al Gore!!!

As far as not looking at Jesus in an absolute, that's completely ridiculous. What you're saying is like me saying "Maybe Abraham Lincoln really liked slavery...who knows??? All we have to go on was what was written about him by historians of his time". Or "Maybe Napoleon was a pacifist and really hated war....all we have to go on is the historical records of the wars he waged". There is MORE THAN ENOUGH historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible, this point has been debated on this very thread already. Until you can provide solid ACADEMIC rebuttals to the evidence that is provided by a scholastic historacity test (which the Bible passes in all three aspects) your point is a mute point.

Once again, in reference to the social ramifications, the society and cultural attitudes that existed in the time of the writers of the New Testament were completely opposite of what they are today. It is inconsistent to compare the two. There was no benefit to them in their lifetimes for what they wrote and said, unless you consider beatings, imprisonment, and death benefits.

On the other hand, it does sound like you and I agree on one thing. The face of Christianity that is represented through the media (like the 700 club and TBN or anything else) is...well...how do I put this...Absolute CRAP! If that's all I had experienced of Christianity there's no way I would ever want to become a follower of Christ.

I have thought quite a bit about Jesus without applying absolutes to Him. When I left the church in my younger years thats truly about the only thing I did because I wanted to justify my position. But a person can only study and hit solid brick walls for so long until you have to say that they solid brick walls actually do exist. I've got plenty of lumps on my head to prove it.

peace,
GLO

oh...you didn't ruin my breakfast...the english muffins were delicious! :)

[Wouldhe]

Being a non-believer, I will have to disagree with Ozzimo. I have done a lot of studying on the topic myself and have not seen anything plausible that claims Jesus never existed. My belief is, Jesus existed but WAS NOT the son of God but more of a radical activist.
Glo, I didn't mean to say in my earlier post that Jesus was a concept. I meant the concept of him being the son of God.
I saw on the History Channel over the weekend a fact that supported my belief. After the death of Jesus, those who followed him and Christianity had to go underground. They had to hold secret get togethers for worship and did so in places that could/would not be discovered by the Romans. They were truly underground. This went on for about 300 years but in the 4th century when Constantine became ruler of Rome he converted to Christianity and the Christians began coming out of the closet. You now have what you have today. This supports my belief that Christianity was a cult and Jesus was the leader. 300 years is a long time. Consider the U.S. has been a country for about 260 years.

[Ozzimo]

I'm honestly not quite sure what to say anymore. There are many historical works that prove the existence of Jesus, take the works of Josephus for instance, who was not a Christian but wrote in detail about the life of Jesus as a man. As far as your references to "scholars" who doubt His existence, I am refering to more of an academic standard. If you would like I can find 5-6 links of people that genuinely belive animals can talk english to each other when we're not looking or anything else. We, as Americans, have to get over the idea that just because someone has a PhD in front of their name they know what they're talking about. Almost anyone will say almost anything for the right amount of money. And please lets not forget that the entire internet thing we are using to communicate to each other was invented by Al Gore!!!I can surely agree that we can't trust everything we see on the internet. But just like the bible you can't make the overarching claim that everything that you happen to dissagreee with is wrong when it comes from the net. I took to the time to read through those articles and esspecially the wiki so that I didn't just google tand throw up links. These articles seemed to me to be legit and written in a scholorly manner. honestly you can be a scholor and not a PHD in anything, esspecially when theology is concerned. Im genuinely interested to know what this vast treasure trove of evidence is that you seem to have hidden behind your cloak. Im asking directly " Where is the evidence?" I've read the writting of josephus and while they do mention a man named Jesus, some scholors like one of the links i posted have hypothisized that this text could have been written to be a conpanion peice to the bible. In other words re-writing history to fill in the cracks with a messiah. Again this is just a theory and the article goes into more depth than i can. But really, what other texts am i missing out on? Again, i don't count the bible to prove the bible.

As far as not looking at Jesus in an absolute, that's completely ridiculous. What you're saying is like me saying "Maybe Abraham Lincoln really liked slavery...who knows??? All we have to go on was what was written about him by historians of his time". Or "Maybe Napoleon was a pacifist and really hated war....all we have to go on is the historical records of the wars he waged". There is MORE THAN ENOUGH historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible, this point has been debated on this very thread already. Until you can provide solid ACADEMIC rebuttals to the evidence that is provided by a scholastic historacity test (which the Bible passes in all three aspects) your point is a mute point. Moving past this mountain of eveidence you seem to have but don't want to share, you missed the way I used the word absolute. Think of it like the yin-yang. A little bit of evil in all good and a little good in all evil. Its what can be called grey area. Maybe Jesus indeed existed but never did anythign that can't be explained by the science of the day. I mean any good magicain can now turn water into a wine colored drink. Even walking on water was discussed earlier in the thread. Or it could be that Jesus only did a few of these semi-miraculus acts and his followers told the stories which got passed on and exagerated as more people told eachother. Just like a game of telephone in grade school the facts get muddy when washed through channels of illiterate regualr human beings of the time. Why is so hard for you to concede that maybe people got the story wrong in parts? Now I was very nearly hurt when you asked me to provide acidemic rebuttals considering i've already postedlinks in my last post as well as a few posts back. Whereas you haven't. I say this not to be mean, just to say that if you had posted links to evidence you wouln't have to hear my arguments in the same way again. i mean its in your best interest, right?

Once again, in reference to the social ramifications, the society and cultural attitudes that existed in the time of the writers of the New Testament were completely opposite of what they are today. It is inconsistent to compare the two. There was no benefit to them in their lifetimes for what they wrote and said, unless you consider beatings, imprisonment, and death benefits. This I really need links for. As far as im considered you see this sort of activity in the time of egypt not to mention all over europe after the fall of rome. Exageration in a human trait that can be traced back very far. Hell I bet cave drawings show an extra gazzele on the dinner table from time to time just to make the hunter feel better about his skills. One other thing to think about, history is written by the victors. one mans war of independace is another mans war against the rebels. Its the same history with multiple viewpoints. Its safe for me to say that it is POSSIBLE that prats or the entirity of the bible may be skewed to promote the Christian veiwpoint. I know that sounds funny when you first read it but really, we can't count on the bible to be entirely accurate based on the fact that as humans, we have a bias. Its possible as well that josephus was biased and wrote his history in such a way as to be fairly historiclly accurate but also adding Jesus as a footnote or part player, even if he wasn't there. Now did people get punished for being Christian sure, look at the crusades... sorry, bad joke. But yes, I conceide that people have been punished for thier beliefs and the actions taken in promoting thier beliefs. But did that stop all the folowers? Of course not. Just beleiving on its own doesn't often merit disipline. but you have to remember that the goverments of these places still expected taxes tp be paid. Its looks bad if you kill your tax base for really no crime. I would have to say that I find it more believeable that beatings occured to those trying to spread the word and the romans probebly tried to kill the leaders as they popped up to quell the faith but that makes for an interesting theory: What if people wrote about leaders that didn't exist so that they could never be killed? Sure just a theory, but worth a thhought or two.

On the other hand, it does sound like you and I agree on one thing. The face of Christianity that is represented through the media (like the 700 club and TBN or anything else) is...well...how do I put this...Absolute CRAP! If that's all I had experienced of Christianity there's no way I would ever want to become a follower of Christ. Yup, i've often said you can't use the label of Christian as a catch all term. there are so many degrees of good and bad you have to make judgements on an individual level. As with all faiths of course.

I have thought quite a bit about Jesus without applying absolutes to Him. When I left the church in my younger years thats truly about the only thing I did because I wanted to justify my position. But a person can only study and hit solid brick walls for so long until you have to say that they solid brick walls actually do exist. I've got plenty of lumps on my head to prove it. Well, like I said before, Ii've been debating theology for near a decade as well. However I've only found more evidence to support the idea that there may be no god and that most religion is just a collection of stories meant to comfort people. (to put it very simply anyway) i'd love to hear what sort of wall you have run up against that show credibility for faith. It would be irrisponsible of me to not to.

peace,
GLO

oh...you didn't ruin my breakfast...the english muffins were delicious! :) Bah you beat me then, I had Capn' Crunch with crunch berrys. :)

~ozz

[malcolan]

You keep asking for links...why don't you just go back and read one of the links that you already posted. It already disputes the whole Jesus myth extensively. In fact, I was surprised that you chose to post it. To make the claim that Jesus never existed except in stories is just plain foolish, IMHO.


http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

[Ozzimo]

"To make the claim that Jesus never existed except in stories is just plain foolish,"

If you were implying that I made this claim, you are mistaken. I only claim that its possible.

[malcolan]

"To make the claim that Jesus never existed except in stories is just plain foolish,"

If you were implying that I made this claim, you are mistaken. I only claim that its possible.

No, I wasn't implying that you were making this claim, just stating my opinion. Of course, all things are possible, but based on the evidence, is the possibility that Jesus never existed likely?

I'm afraid that I would have to agree with GLO, inasmuch that you would be hard pressed to find any reputable scholar who would back up such a claim.

It seems that we've gotten off topic somewhat, but that's okay. The real issue, in my opinion, is not whether Jesus ever existed, the issue is "was Jesus who he claimed to be?"

This question, perhaps, is what we should be discussing.

[MaggieMcCary]

The real issue, in my opinion, is not whether Jesus ever existed, the issue is "was Jesus who he claimed to be?"

This question, perhaps, is what we should be discussing.

In a time when we're falling apart as badly as we are, I think the only question we should be asking is, "Does it MATTER if He was who He said He was?"

When you need help like we do, it's best not to nitpick. If He could fix it, who CARES???

Just MY opinion.

[Wallis]

Maggie has a good point. Scriptures and helpful books are good sources to learn about other people's faith and then "trying it out." In the end, a faith that is based upon experience, which is a pretty personal thing, becomes unshakable when the "going gets tough."

While I always encourage growth in one's faith, there is a maxim we used to say in the military: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[Ozzimo]

Does it matter? How could it not matter at any time? Considering the extent that some people in the world regulate thier lives based on the book and the teachings it seems to me that if these things were shown to be in some way unreliable than it could change millions of lives, for better or worse.

Im sure there will be people out there who will deny it to then end, others will live thier life feeling lied to, and still others will feel a certain amount of relief.

is it important to know the truth or at least strive to come closer to knowing it? 100% yes.

if tomorrow i found solid proof that God did indeed exist or that the bible compleate truth I would obviously change my life. Not that im a horrible guy right now but you catch my meaning.

But I agree with the earlier post. We have strayed a bit. I still want to know how some people in this world can take the bible as divinvely created. One site I can across not too long ago even points out the bibles own contridictions. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) They've recently added the Book of Mormon and the Quran as well. An entertaining read if anything.

So does anyone here take the bible to be compleately true in that all things occured as they were written? If not, than can't we ask ourselves why God made mistakes in his divinely insprired piece?

[Wallis]

I feel the "divine" label has been applied by mankind.

We have both modern and ancient examples of how a written document (size or length does not matter) has taken on "divine" dimensions. We can get rather silly with examples; the one that comes easily to mind is the "Chicken Little" story.

If we view the Old Testament (current rendition) as an attempt to reform religion and create an identity for the Israelites back in the 8th Century, B.C., it was a philosophy that tried to create a relationship between mankind and God, full of many stories in which God Himself is a player. That it became a "divine" source was rather late in time, named such by the Catholic Church for the Christians and the Jews under severe persecution.

The problem, as I view it, is to treat or respect the Scriptures, known as the Bible, the same way that Islam treats the Qur'an or the Mormons The Book of Moroni or other religious sects who create their own extra-Biblical writings, as having been written by God. We know that Mohammed the Prophet is credited with writing the Qur'an, having been given the words by an angel of God and then declared the words of God given directly to mankind. Same with Joseph Smith. But the Bible was not touted as such by the Jews or by Christians in the beginning of its introduction and subsequent redactions.

When a person bases his/her faith on words alone, he/she is building a house on potential sand. Why? Because words can be disproven. A myth taken as fact becomes embarrassing when reality sets in. (Look at the opposite, when Troy was always considered to be a myth until its ruins were discovered; a lot of naysayers were very embarrassed.) I cannot tell you how many people have personally told me that if even one part of the Bible were disproven as fact that they would have serious doubts about the existence of God.

I lament. The proof that God exists is within the individual, not within a collection of words. I will reiterate words I have posted before: even if the whole kit-and-kaboodle of the Christian faith is indisputably disproven (i.e., that the crucifixion and the ressurection never occurred), it would not shake my faith. Why? Because it is the faith (even of just the idea of hope and belief) that is reinforced on a daily basis that God is with me and is going to take care of me. And all these other kinds of people have the same "proof" within themselves, but rather than paying any attention to these daily "miracles" or "actions" that demonstrate faith in action, they pay attention to words, even to the point of vigorously defending them with bloodshed, if necessary.

Over the past year or so, we have had some posters who have made such comments as:
1. I was lied to in my early years.
2. I had bad experiences with my church.
3. The Bible is not God-inspired or God-written, and therefore is spiritually worthless.
4. God hasn't talked to me--I'm still waiting--so, for now, He doesn't exist.
5. If God really is a loving God, then how come this life is so hellish; He isn't real (or) doesn't exist.

And a lot more!

I can only say this: fuck the people who hurt you; fuck the bad experiences. Life sucks the big one: get over it! We are sojourners in this man-made hell for a very short time, and we have a choice: get beaten into the ground with a whole lot of whimpers or stand up and go down to defeat with a smile. Take up a faith, any faith. You want to make your favorite rock in your garden as being representative of God, do so. Pray to it; talk to it. Personally, I don't think you'll have much luck, but who knows! You are energizing your brain and the capability of taking charge of your life. And as far as God not talking, make Him talk! Grab Him by the proverbial gonads and get Him to talk to you! It works!

But the last thing I want to see is people just rolling over and playing dead, defeated that the "battle" has been lost, and this life is just something you have to endure because there is no meaning, no purpose, no nothing. Everyone is connected, and everyone's life impacts upon every single human being on this planet (and maybe beyond). Each of us has a mission and a purpose, and none of those missions and purposes are to tear down anything of this world but to continue to build up and maintain. And if that alone isn't God acting in and among us, I don't know what is.

[GLO]

ozzimo,

please see my earlier posts (in this thread) for the "evidence" that you referenced for me to provide. I didn't respond because it was already given and ignored. If you have any specific questions please feel free to let me know.

peace,
GLO

[The Prophet]

Wallis, you speak the wisdom of the ages.

The Book of Moroni or other religious sects who create their own extra-Biblical writings, as having been written by God. We know that Mohammed the Prophet is credited with writing the Qur'an, having been given the words by an angel of God and then declared the words of God given directly to mankind. Same with Joseph Smith. But the Bible was not touted as such by the Jews or by Christians in the beginning of its introduction and subsequent redactions.

And it was not touted as such with good reason. I mean, c'mon! Read Proverbs 26:11. Are there those who walk among us that actually think that God inspired such prose?? I have it on good authority that God despairs at such prospects!

[Wallis]

When a young man who has been going to church in a routine way honestly realises that he does not believe in Christianity and stops going—provided he does it for honesty’s sake and not just to annoy his parents—the spirit of Christ is probably nearer to him then than it ever was before. - C. S. Lewis

[The Prophet]

The sad thing about Christianity is the term has been hijacked by the likes of "Reverend" Fred Phelps; a truly hateful little man.

http://www.nndb.com/people/908/000025833/

Nasty bit of business

[Wallis]

I found it rather courageous that his own estranged son has stood up to his own father.

Yes, it is unfortunate that so many people, like Phelps, has hijacked Christianity. It is more unfortunate--I seem to like the world "lamentable" these days--that so many more people swallow this form of prejudice and line of thinking and "go along with it."

While this thread is about the Bible, we can see that all of the major religions of the world are being similarly hijacked. I just penned a piece on religion; I might insert it somewhere on this forum where it appropriately belongs.

[Ozzimo]

ozzimo,

please see my earlier posts (in this thread) for the "evidence" that you referenced for me to provide. I didn't respond because it was already given and ignored. If you have any specific questions please feel free to let me know.

peace,
GLO

My appologies but we've spoken at great lenth and I may have missed it. If you would be so kind as to link and/or quote the material i'll be sure to go over it thouroughly.

yours in logic, Ozz.

[DVLS_ADVT]

Your like sheep being led to slaughter. I'll be waiting!!!!!!!!! ;)

[Ozzimo]

no reply? Does that mean you didn't want to go back through 4 pages of info either? I don't blame you.

[GLO]

no reply? Does that mean you didn't want to go back through 4 pages of info either? I don't blame you.


No, I really don't. I discovered a long time ago that anyone in search of genuine truth will go to quite a bit of trouble to find it. If someone is not willing to do a little work to find truth then they probably aren't after truth in the first place.

peace,
GLO

[Ozzimo]

Fair GLO, But I've discoved in my time on the internet that if someone says "I 've already explained it, just go back to my posts" then they haven't explained it and can't give a good reply.

To think I haven't read what you've had to say is a bit insulting to be honest. If you've taken the time to try and answer my questions then I'm obligated to read/listen.

Look, to quote you:"There are many historical works that prove the existence of Jesus," Its amazing that in my search i've not found one. Its even more amazing that with all the Christians in the world this "Super evidence" has not been widely distributed in an effort to show people the truth so they might save themselves from damnation. But as is clear no such work has shown to be "Absolute Proof" that that jesus existed.

Im asking because I want to know: What works do you know of that prove the existance of Jesus? (the God kind not the philosopher)

[GLO]

Read the works of Josephus. (who wasn't a Christian and never became one)
Read any social context that was written in the first century from around the geographic location where Jesus "supposedly" existed. Almost every one of them reference Him in one way or another...if there was any question of His actual existence as a human being don't you think it would have been questioned by someone that held some sort of social, religious or political authority? It wasn't.

Even beyond that. Every fictional character in the history of humanity has faded away into stories and myths. The person of Jesus Christ has never faded away like the stories of the ancient Greek gods. Yes, the stories are still around...but there isn't a "world religion" as you would call it, based upon them anymore.

Honestly, I'm just quiet bored with our conversation. You're questioning things isn't what is boring me, it's the things that you are questioning and the manner in which you are going about it. I been where you are, I've asked what you've asked, but eventually...if you are genuinely seeking historical evidence you will find it and when you do you will have to make a decision...I cannot and should not tell you what decision you should make, all I can tell you is that based on the evidence I have encountered in my life it would take more "faith" for me not to believe in the person of Jesus Christ and what He did than it does for me to believe in Him. Do I understand everything completely? Of course not, if I have come off that way then I apologize right now. But I would challenge you that you do not understand everything either. Heck, most of us don't even understand how our microwave works...

Take away everything you know. Whether it is for or against the belief of Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind. Until you get to the point in which you can admit that you have biases that are determining what sources you find credible and what sources you don't you will never be able to accurately look at the evidence for and against the existence of Christ. Please understand I am not attemting to say that I do not have biases as well, I know that I do...but instead of letting them determine my belief system I question them and challenge them whenever possible. I would challenge you to do the same.

peace,
GLO

[Ozzimo]

Read the works of Josephus. (who wasn't a Christian and never became one) The works of Jospehus are debated to this day. While his works are a wealth of knowledge regarding the Jewish-Roman War his works about jesus are considered by some scholors to be second-hand information passed off as truth. Its far from being proof of anything but an example of storytelling during the time that jesus may have existed.
Read any social context that was written in the first century from around the geographic location where Jesus "supposedly" existed. I've read a few but if you have a few prime examples im all eears... and eyes...you get the idea. Almost every one of them reference Him in one way or another...if there was any question of His actual existence as a human being don't you think it would have been questioned by someone that held some sort of social, religious or political authority? It wasn't. Again, im less internested in saying that there was no man named Jesus as I am in saying there was no son of god named jesus who did accual miricles. In essance thats what I mean when I say Jesus may not exist.

Even beyond that. Every fictional character in the history of humanity has faded away into stories and myths. The person of Jesus Christ has never faded away like the stories of the ancient Greek gods. Yes, the stories are still around...but there isn't a "world religion" as you would call it, based upon them anymore. What do you call any of the Chinese folk religions? How bout Taoism? Budhhism? Have they faded away? All of these faiths are in fact OLDER than the jesus story and compete in numbers with Christianity. Even so im not sure why this should matter. Truth is not democratic. You can't vote on how the world began, it began one way regardless of how you fell about it.

Honestly, I'm just quiet bored with our conversation.... Im sorry to hear that. however you seem to care that I know the truth and I indeed wish to understand better the state of things. Here is where I have to laugh though. You basicly say that you feel you have come to the truth over the years through thought and what evidence you have found. I on the other hand believe I have not found the truth and keep searching for it. But then you say you do't care enough to show me the truth and expect me to do it myself. My point is, if you really know the truth then share it. If you don't know the truth then join my search.


Anyway, i still appriciate the replies.

Goodnight, Ozzimo.

[GLO]

Some scholars? Like who, give me specific examples, what are they're creditials, are they respected by the historical academic society? As far as his works being anything but storytelling, I could say the same for anyone who wrote about a historical figure. How do you know that Alexander the Great lived and did all the things the "untrustworthy historians" wrote about?

You say that you're all eyes and ears, but it doesn't quite seem that way from your posts. Instead of swallowing what the people you agree with say or agreeing with what I say about historical documents and writings, why don't you read them for yourself. Make your own judgements, you seem to be an intelligent person who would be more than capable of determining the validity of a writing as a historical document. I'm assuming you know the three tests for historicity that historians use to determine the accuracy of ancient writings, read the stuff for yourself and use those tests...see what happens.

Your point of a man named Jesus existing but the son of God who did miracles not existing doesn't make sense socially. Let's say the man did exist and did none of the miracles and it was all made up. Don't you think there would have been at least ONE person of authority that would have stepped up and shot down all the lies and stories that these crazy people were making up? And yet, no such account exists. One of the greatest examples is the resurrection itself. The Jewish religious leaders of the time (who were, by far, the group that was most against Jesus being the son of God) didn't even try to claim that Jesus didn't exist or that His body wasn't missing, they just tried to make up some other story about the body being stolen. If Jesus had been a fictional character to them why would they (who hated him the most) try to make up their own stories to go against the stories that Jesus followers were writing, why wouldn't they just appeal to logic that the man never existed? Basically, anyone and everyone who had any kind of authority (social, political and religious) hated Jesus and the claims that His followers made about Him. So if everyone in authority hated Him and the stories about Him so much why weren't the stories shot down? It's common knowledge that history is written by those who are in authority at the time of it's writing. The only logical reason is because too many people actually saw these stories come to pass and the authorities of the time knew that false propoganda wouldn't fly because of the amount of eye witnesses that saw the truth. Do not forget that Christians were persecuted severely until the third century, they were not in power in an aspect of society and were not able to promote their beliefs through their own "spin" of the facts.

Which leads to your next point. All of the eastern religions were established by people who had some sort of social authority in their time. Jesus was a total outcast in His time, He did not have the backing of the political leaders, the religious leaders or even the economic leaders of His day and yet He is the most famous person in history. If you consider that to simply be coincidence then that is your right, but I can't just pass that off as something that means and signifies nothing.

As far as knowing the truth goes. I am no brilliant mind (that should be obvious from my posts), I'm sorry if I have presented myself that way. All I know is that when I genuinely began to seek the reason I'm on the mud-ball everything I found lead me to begining a real relationship with Jesus Christ. I'm sure my story is different from yours and from everyone else's as well, we all have our own unique stories. The road to relationship with Jesus is NOT a formula, there are some ingredients that help, but the ingredients themselves are not the answer. I have no right to tell you how you should search out the truth about Jesus. I probably would have been offended if someone came to me and laid out some "simple 12 step plan" to acheiving salvation. It has to be something that you come to know for yourself, no one can tell you how to do it or find it. All I can say is that if you continue to search, you will find Him, even if you don't believe that now...you will find Him.

Have a good Tuesday! (it's my wife's birthday so I probably won't be back on tonight)

peace,
GLO

[Little_Grasshopper]

The answer is very simple. Here's the logic: (1) Man is not God. (2) The bible was written by man. (3) The bible is the MEAN of creating followers base in order to pursue a particular goal or END (in philosophy term).

Try to look back throughout the story of mankind to the present day. Man always wanted followers so that he gains power from it. All man power comes from devoted follower. Man has different way of creating follower base whether through speeches, Ads, books or some other mean. In the past, man used the bible to fight war or pursue a certain goal. The end result is the follower. The more you have followers the more power you have. Since the beginning of time to the present day, man always fighting for power whether it personal or for the country. In conclusion, if God wanted follower he would appear in person and tell you not through man's bible.

[GLO]

The answer is very simple. Here's the logic: (1) Man is not God. (2) The bible was written by man. (3) The bible is the MEAN of creating followers base in order to pursue a particular goal or END (in philosophy term).

Try to look back throughout the story of mankind to the present day. Man always wanted followers so that he gains power from it. All man power comes from devoted follower. Man has different way of creating follower base whether through speeches, Ads, books or some other mean. In the past, man used the bible to fight war or pursue a certain goal. The end result is the follower. The more you have followers the more power you have. Since the beginning of time to the present day, man always fighting for power whether it personal or for the country. In conclusion, if God wanted follower he would appear in person and tell you not through man's bible.


LG,

Your theory sounds good at first....but falls short because of the context of the "men" that wrote what God spoke to them. If they had genuinely been seeking some type of power for themselves they would have wrote the exact opposite of what they did. For that matter they would have lived in complete opposite ways of the ways they lived their lives. Everything the authors of the Bible wrote and lived led them to be killed. If the sole motivation was to have power through having followers then they wouldn't have written and lived in a way that would have ended thier lives (and their power according to your theory). It's only logical to acknowledge that they would have wanted to live as long as possible so as to obtain as much power as possible. It doesn't add up.

Just curious...since you obviously don't have too high of an opinion about the Bible I was wondering what parts of it you specifically don't agree with or think are so aweful.

peace,
GLO

[Little_Grasshopper]

God mean higher dimension the way I understand it. To help you comprehend the nature of God and how I understand it, I would like to borrow an analogy from the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott. Abbott was a mathematician and the model is geometric in nature. It was originally written in the 19th century for the purposes we are using it for here. Flatland is the story of a man who lives in a two dimensional world--like a sheet of paper. In the surface of the paper there is only length and width-there is no such thing as thickness. You and I are three-dimensional beings-we have length and width and frequently considerable thickness. You cannot get me, a three-dimensional being, into a two-dimensional sheet of paper. You can draw a front view of me (a portrait), but that is not the whole me. You can draw a top view of me which because I am bald, ends up being three concentric circles, but that is not the whole me. If you and I were to look at the man in Flatland, we would see him as a profile. He would be outlined but have no thickness.

One day the man in Flatland is visited by a sphere. The sphere is a three-dimensional object just as we are, and it just so happens that it crosses Flatland right in the man's living room. Now if you will think about that for a moment, you will realize that for the man in Flatland a rather incredible thing has happened. A dot appears on the man's floor with no cause that the man in Flatland can understand. A dot in Flatland is matter! In, the man, himself, is made up of a series of dots. Just as a tennis ball dipped in paint and touched to a sheet of paper would produce a dot on the paper, so too has our dot which the man in Flatland calls matter appeared out of nothing. As the man in Flatland watches, the dot becomes a circle which continuously grows in size. You will see if a plane truncates (or slices) a sphere, it will produce a circle; and the deeper the sphere sinks into the plane, the larger the circle will become.

The circle becomes so large it is about to fill the living room of the man in Flatland. He is terrified because he does not understand what is happening. All of the laws of science which state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed are being violated. What he sees is for him a true miracle. Just as he is about to run in panic from the room, the sphere reaches its equator, passes its equator, and gradually sinks out of the plane. So what happens to the circle in Flatland? It begins to shrink, and it becomes smaller and smaller until finally it is just a dot on his floor and then it is gone! Another violation of the laws of science! Matter cannot be destroyed and yet the man in Flatland has seen it happen. The man in Flatland is being confronted with miraculous and ghost-like events which violates his science and his common sense.
Let us suppose now that the man in Flatland begins talking to the sphere, and he says to the sphere: "What is it like to be a sphere? The sphere says, "I'll tell you what it's like; draw a circle on your floor." This is not easy for the man in Flatland to do. His perception of a circle is a constantly curving line that returns to its origin, but he cannot see all of the circle at once. He can only see the side of the circle facing him. The only way he could see a whole circle would be to be inside the circle, and if he got inside he could never get out. People in Flatland commit suicide by drawing circles around themselves that they can never get out of. Because of this it takes along time for him to draw the circle. The sphere is most impatient with all this because he could have done it instantly. Finally the circle is completed and the sphere says, "Now what I want you to do is to rotate the circle! What he has in mind is that the man in Flatland will rotate the circle about its diameter producing a sphere, but what the man in Flatland does is to rotate the circle about its circumference, spinning it like a record on a record player. "No, no--rotate it the third way,' says the sphere. "There is no third way you fool," cries out the man in Flatland, and for him this is true. There is no third way, no up and down in a thickness direction, and absolutely no way for him to comprehend what the sphere is talking about or what the sphere is. The only thing that he can understand is the world or dimension in which he lives.

As you can see, God is in higher dimension. We can't possible understand what God is saying unless we go up to God dimension. To be fair for us human, God can't punish or penalize us for not understanding him or believing in him or whatever may be because we would never understand it. What we do wrong in this dimension gets punish by people in this dimension not by God.

In conclusion, I think God has nothing to do with the bible. In fact, any book ever written or anything we say has nothing to do with God influence in any way shape or form.

[GLO]

so basically the "god" that you believe in is just your own ideas of what God should be that happens to be convienent for the way you want to live your life. That's a great deal! You can live anyway you want, do anything you want and if you want to decide that your "god" likes what your doing and justify it that way. (please note the sarcasm)


out,
GLO

[GLO]

Here's the philosophical answer to your example. You are assuming that God is the sphere...the problem with that is that in almost every religion (not just Christianity) God is the one who created this universe and that is part of the reason why the followers of "insert religion here" worship Him, it or her. The problem with your idea of God is that it isn't god, it's just another being that lacks the ability to communicate with the thing it supposedly created. He's powerless. A God who couldn't figure out how to communicate and describe Himself to His creation is not a God at all. Don't read too much into this, I'm not saying that Christians believe we know everything there is to know about God, the Bible specifically says that the knowledge of Him is inexhuastable, but we do believe that He communicated enough to us through His word to have an understanding of His nature and the way He would desire for His creation to live.

The other problem with your position is that you argue (in great detail) how it is impossible for God to explain himself to us but then turn right around and explain God yourself. The only logical assumption one can take from your position is that you believe you happen to be the only "enlightened" human to ever live and figure this out and somehow this "god" that can't explain himself to humanity explained himself to you. Your position is self-refuting.

peace,
GLO

[Little_Grasshopper]

You got me wrong! I used "sphere" as an example in term of dimension to explain different reality). We're in one reality and God in another. Do you get it? Since God and us living two separate realities (dimension) only God (higher being) or whatever you want to call it can understand us but we cannot understand God. People describe God in many differences way. Some say that God (higher being) is the SUN, Jesus (human), and so on. As for me, I look at God as abstract from higher dimension. The reason why I say abstract simple because I have no clue what God is. To me, God could be human-like, animal-like or some other form. That's all I have to say about God.

[NinjaHound]

Glo and GrassHopper:

You are both trying earnestly to prove a point about Christianity via looking across an ocean of info, when the real info needed to prove or disprove any religion, is right in the very pages of it's own document. In poor Jesus' case, there is one specific doctrine in all Christian doctrine that in fact, all Christian "Core" doctrines rest directly upon. And, when you rip out the chair I'm standing on, what happens? Without my solid foundation, it's ouch time. That foundation for Christianity is none other than the Virgin Birth itself.
In Matthew 1, in the New Testament, an angel talks to Mary, and she is worried that she is somehow mysteriously plump. After consoling her, the angel proceeds to talk to Joseph, Mary's "fiance". After the angel is done, the writer of Matthew speaks up, "all these things took place to fullfill the scripture; for it is written: 'The virgin [or maiden???] will be with child, and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel", which translated means, "God with us." "
There you have it, Christianity must be legit. Wait- wasn't that virgin bit a "quote"?? Yeah, specifically Isaiah 7:14. But, can you even give me a rough idea of what the chapter in it's entirety talks about??? If you are a Christian, that answer would most likely be "no". Isaiah 7 begins when Israel is actually split into 2 nations, Israel and Judah. Israel at this point has completely turned from their god and has allied with a former enemy, Syria, or a nation that occupied that location. Together, Israel and "Syria" plot to attack Jerusalem, and then control it, then they begin attacking. King Ahaz of Judah, and his people, are afraid, the passage says "they are shaken, as the trees are shaken by the wind."
God sends Isaiah and his son to meet King Ahaz, at a time and location God designates. They meet, Isaiah tell Ahaz to not worry about the two Kings that are attacking, because God will deal with them, Judah will go on for a while longer. Then Isaiah tells Ahaz, "Ask from God a sign, make your request wide or high or deep." Ahaz says, "I will not tempt the Lord my God!" Isaiah says, "You weary the hearts of men, will you weary the heart of my God also? This then, is the sign God will give you: A maiden will be with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will call his name, Immanuel. 15&16> AND HE WILL EAT CURDS AND HONEY WHEN HE KNOWS ENOUGH TO REJECT THE WRONG AND CHOOSE THE RIGHT, BUT BEFORE THE BOY KNOWS ENOUGH TO REJECT THE WRONG AND CHOOSE THE RIGHT, THE LAND OF THE TWO KINGS YOU DREAD WILL BE LAID WASTE."
Ok, time to simplify: He'll eat curds and honey when he KNOWS right from wrong. BUT, BEFORE THAT, when he is very young, the land of who?? ISRAEL AND SYRIA- will be laid waste. (Those lands, would be the lands of the two kings that Ahaz and his people, DREAD.) In other words, Immanuel was born over 700 years before Christ. And as for the other "prophetic scriptures" about the "Messiah", when it talks about the hands and feet, and the piercing, and the clothes and the lots cast for the clothes, it is a psalm of David folks, and David is specifically using analogy to describe how HE FEELS, in the midst of all his (and Israel's) enemies, AT THAT POINT IN TIME. It is NOT talking about Jesus. Jesus was created by Rome, and Gentile followers of Judaism (Jesus' faith) began to change their doctrinal structure after 70 AD, when Rome destroyed the Temple and conquered the Jews. The Gentile followers realized rather quickly that they would be a new target unless they took drastic measures. They changed their Sabbath to Sunday, to honor Rome's current Caezar's personal views, and changed their doctrines a bit, which Rome quickly took charge of. But right away- Rome recognized this group numbering in the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS, and Rome noticed that they were earnestly trying to please the Roman government. From that point on they were pampered by Rome, and treated very nicely, and together they ushered in the Roman Catholic church, mixed with ALOT of Judaism, but with much of the Jewish aspects watered down and replaced with much of Rome's former mythological practices and customs and attire. Christianity, as in American Christianity, (Lutheran, Methodist, Assemblies of God, Four-square, Baptist, etc.), did not even merge for hundreds of years after. And I've only scratched the very surface of the huge gaping holes in the New Testament, and how it contradicts itself and disproves Jesus, over and over again.

[bundlesofbunnies]

I honestly believe its in your heart and you just have to believe. I believe that in life things have happened that are stated in the Bible and I fully believe that its the trueth. So yes you can believe what it says.

[NinjaHound]

Hey there. Is anybody there? It seems that everyone is either afraid to respond or has lost interest. Let's tango!! Come-on dudes!!! :D

[Anner]

Hey there. Is anybody there? It seems that everyone is either afraid to respond or has lost interest. Let's tango!! Come-on dudes!!! :D
Ya like to dance?