maadmax 0
QuoteWell, do your research, study, pray, and allow the Holy Spirit to teach you. It is a lot of fun and very rewarding. You should give it a try.
maadmax 0
QuoteDamn, I wanted the 666 post to this thread, I missed it....Oh well, the hell with it!
Don't despair you may yet get the chance to wear it on your forehead or your right hand.
jclalor 12
QuoteHaven't you noticed, God gave us His Word and lets us do what we will with it. We can search its mysteries for the Truth it contains. Or we can bend and twist it to suit our evil desires.
You do realize that the gospels were written 35-70 years after the death of Jesus, and that we have no origional copies of the gospels. In fact we do not even have copies of copies of copies of copies of the origionals. In fact, the earliest manuscrips were written in Greek using the oral stories of jesus passed from person to person to person over tens of years. The gospels are riddled with so many mistakes and contradictions that to claim they are the inerrant word of God is laughable
In thinking about the title of this thread, it should be named " i'm becoming an Athiest again" We are all born Athiest and are only indoctriated into religion at an early age. I strongly believe if you were to isolate a child until adulthood, and then tell them about religion and God, he would think you were a nut.
maadmax 0
--You do realize that the gospels were written 35-70 years after the death of Jesus, and that we have no origional copies of the gospels. In fact we do not even have copies of copies of copies of copies of the origionals. In fact, the earliest manuscrips were written in Greek using the oral stories of jesus passed from person to person to person over tens of years. The gospels are riddled with a few mistakes and contradictions that to claim they are the inerrant word of God is laughable
That was my point. Despite some minor translational and copying problems the message of the Bible comes through loud and clear. We need God to make us whole and He is there . The Bible is the starting point, seeing God work through the experiences of ones life is what really counts.
That was my point. Despite some minor translational and copying problems the message of the Bible comes through loud and clear. We need God to make us whole and He is there . The Bible is the starting point, seeing God work through the experiences of ones life is what really counts.
quade 4
QuoteDespite some minor translational and copying problems the message of the Bible comes through loud and clear.
Clear? The "message" in just the two verses we've looked at in the last few posts are contradictory. In one it's claimed Jesus proudly and unequivocally stated he's god and in the other it's claimed Jesus is being coy about it to the point of pretty much being a smart ass.
Same verses, two different translations, two wildly different meanings.
Let me suggest to you that various translations exist mostly to nuance the power structure of those that have financed them. It is and always will be about control.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
jclalor 12
Quote
--You do realize that the gospels were written 35-70 years after the death of Jesus, and that we have no origional copies of the gospels. In fact we do not even have copies of copies of copies of copies of the origionals. In fact, the earliest manuscrips were written in Greek using the oral stories of jesus passed from person to person to person over tens of years. The gospels are riddled with a few mistakes and contradictions that to claim they are the inerrant word of God is laughableQuoteThat was my point. Despite some minor translational and copying problems the message of the Bible comes through loud and clear. We need God to make us whole and He is there . The Bible is the starting point, seeing God work through the experiences of ones life is what really counts.
I think there are too many contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled. Most Christians read the gospels and then combine them into one big gospel. The gospels were written by different people who had different agendas.
Read the birth narratives and make a list of what happens in the two, you will see two completely different stories. Such as where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus?, three wise men or three shepards?, was Jesus born in a manger or at his parent's home?, did they flee to Egypt right away or stay and have all rights performed in accordance with the old law? Christians combine the two and give us the Christmas story. you cannot combine the two gospels because then you have made your own gospel. The two writers of the birth narratives tell two different stories. Make a list of the two and I think you will be amazed at the differences. Both cannot be right.
The same with the passion narratives, they combine all of the words of Jesus on the cross and give us his final words. the passion narratives however tell two very different stories, one tells us Jesus is very much in control and has lucid conversations while on the cross, the other shows a despondent Jesus who can only cry why has he been forsaken. The two different accounts of the same event cannot be reconciled.
Each writer of the gospels had their own agenda for what they wrote, There is also strong evidence that some books. were changed by later scribes to suit their own particular beliefs. We will never know.
A good example is of the story of the women found to be in the act of adultery. The very famous " let he who is without sin cast the first stone" This is perhaps one of the most famous quotes attributed to Jesus and most likely he never said it. This story is not found in any early manuscripts. This story was added hundred of years later. Most new bibles will still have it but place a footnote stating it is not in the earliest manuscripts.
QuoteQuoteIf you really want me to throw evidence at you I can
Let's have it then.QuoteThe difference between Jesus and any other God is that Jesus is the only one that rose from the dead, well that is the most obvious one anyway
So why does that make his story any better?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-different.html
Transformations in life don't just happen. There is archeological evidence out there, if you truly lead science it will lead you towards a God/Creator.
People say that they need to feel a sense of security or something after death but for me that was not true i was NOT afraid of death when i was agnostic and even less when I am a christian, I simply did my research, and God drawing me with music and a person's testimony and what she went through.
The thing about debating is that people will tend to stick with what they thought was right in the first place.So whatever your going to throw at me I am sure I looked at it before but go ahead and waste your time.
I will read everything you post and or watch when i have time.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml it is from 03 and can use updates but it still proves consistency with scientific fact in the bible.
Here is a documentary for scientific proof of God if you have time watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw
Please use Richard Dawkins I am just itching to debunk that :)
QuoteQuoteDespite some minor translational and copying problems the message of the Bible comes through loud and clear.
Clear? The "message" in just the two verses we've looked at in the last few posts are contradictory. In one it's claimed Jesus proudly and unequivocally stated he's god and in the other it's claimed Jesus is being coy about it to the point of pretty much being a smart ass.
Same verses, two different translations, two wildly different meanings.
Let me suggest to you that various translations exist mostly to nuance the power structure of those that have financed them. It is and always will be about control.
Science can't prove everything or explain everything and thus requires FAITH. Just like God and the bible. IMO it makes more sense for there to be a creator/God that is in the Christian Bible. We can all poke wholes at anything and disagree with everything as well.
Quote#2 The archeological evidence and other evidence out there
Thashtera, and what would this archeological evidence of Jesus/God be?
I was given by some Jehova witnesses or what ever they call themselves a book going on it's merry way to prove that we all come from Adam and Eve and that evolution is a scam... The cover had Jesus riding on a dinosaur, pretty neat huh?
Oh and if science hasn't proved something yet it does not mean it can't, it just means more research has to be put into that subject.
I don't see a single thing science just straight out can't prove, besides subjects of faith.
Wich would be like asking science if Mickey Mouse is real...
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Dudeist Skydiver #9
Dudeist Skydiver #9
QuoteThere is archeological evidence out there, if you truly lead science it will lead you towards a God/Creator.
Oh I'm sooo looking forward to hearing this .... go for it, I need a laugh.....
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
kallend 2,027
You are out of your depth.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jakee 1,489
Quotehttp://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-different.html
That doesn't say why it makes his story any better. It just repeats that it's different.
Quotehttp://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
That's a shower of wishy washy bollocks. The bible talks about a big animal, maybe it's a dinosaur? The bible says there are lots of stars, wow! the bible notices that some stars look different from other stars, OMG! (Seriously, these twats don't think ancient people could distinguish between stars?) The bible notices that apple trees always bear apples etc. Well colour me convinced
You can do (and people do) exactly the same with the Koran, and it's about as credible.
QuoteHere is a documentary for scientific proof of God if you have time watch it
No. Try putting it in your own words.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
maadmax 0
---I think there are too many contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled. Most Christians read the gospels and then combine them into one big gospel. The gospels were written by different people who had different agendas.
Quote
You have done an impressive amount of study in this area. I respect that. But I am afraid that you give yourself a lot more credibility in Biblical textual criticism than you are entitled to. Some of your points are valid, others are just ignorant . Obviously accepted to support your preconceived notions about Biblical content. I am sure you are convinced of your view points such that you sleep well enough at night. And let me put any fears you may have to rest that I may someday tell you what you can and cannot do. I promise I won't ever do that. Most of the contradictions you mentioned and others that you haven't, are easily enough resolved when you examine the ancient greek new testament manuscripts that are available. But I am sure that like those pseudoscience people, It ain't going to happen. As we all know ignorance can sometimes be blissful.
...
kallend 2,027
Quote
---I think there are too many contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled. Most Christians read the gospels and then combine them into one big gospel. The gospels were written by different people who had different agendas.Quote
You have done an impressive amount of study in this area. I respect that. But I am afraid that you give yourself a lot more credibility in Biblical textual criticism than you are entitled to. Some of your points are valid, others are just ignorant . Obviously accepted to support your preconceived notions about Biblical content.
...
This applies equally well to you and to Ron.
The weaseling and spinning that you folks do to try to explain away the obvious contradictions is really pathetic....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
beowulf 1
In essence your rebuttal is "you don't know what you are talking about". That's not a very convincing response.
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Science can't prove everything or explain everything and thus requires FAITH.
No, it doesn't. Scientists do not have "faith" in that which there is no proof for.
>IMO it makes more sense for there to be a creator/God that is in the
>Christian Bible.
It makes more sense that women were created out of a man's rib? It makes more sense that a talking snake is responsible for us being aware of our own existence? It makes more sense that some guy built a big boat out of logs and saved every single species of bug, bird, reptile, amphibian, flower, mushroom, tree, mammal and grass when the entire earth somehow flooded?
That's a bit of a hard argument to make.
No, it doesn't. Scientists do not have "faith" in that which there is no proof for.
>IMO it makes more sense for there to be a creator/God that is in the
>Christian Bible.
It makes more sense that women were created out of a man's rib? It makes more sense that a talking snake is responsible for us being aware of our own existence? It makes more sense that some guy built a big boat out of logs and saved every single species of bug, bird, reptile, amphibian, flower, mushroom, tree, mammal and grass when the entire earth somehow flooded?
That's a bit of a hard argument to make.
Coreece 190
QuoteRead the birth narratives and make a list of what happens in the two, you will see two completely different stories. Such as where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus?, three wise men or three shepards?, was Jesus born in a manger or at his parent's home?, did they flee to Egypt right away or stay and have all rights performed in accordance with the old law?
I have already addressed these issues when you brought them up a several weeks ago in the "truth for today thread."
Is it to much to ask that you respond to the answers given before bringing these questions up over and over again?
I could understand if the answers were complete hogwash, but I assure you that they weren't as twisted as your questions.
So here, I'll post them again for your convenience because I can understand that you may be pretty busy guy:
QuoteWas Joseph and Mary already living in Bethlehem? both gospels differ on this.
Ok they differ...so what? Mathew just doesn't offer an explanation of why they went to Bethlehem... Luke does. By your logic one could ask the question "was Jesus ever actually born or was he a phantom as the early gnostics suggested because Mark never gave an account of Jesus's birth?"
QuoteIs it three wise men or three shepards?
It was both...
One gospels tells a story about three wise men, the other talks about a completely different group of men, the shepards. btw, I don't recall it saying anything about three shepards specifically, just that there were more than one. These are not contradictions, just two different stories about two different groups of men living around the same time of Jesus's birth.
It also would've been very hard to confuse the wise men with shepards...Jews often looked down upon shepards and considered them unclean because they had a difficult time keeping the Jewish oral law due to the demands of their occupation.
QuoteMy personal favorite is did they flee to Egypt or stay and have all of the Jewish customs for the first born male performed?
Why would they have to stay in Bethlehem for the Pidyon Haben? It was to be performed in Jerusalem after the first 30 days of life. There is nothing to suggest that it had to be on the 31st day. Take a look at Number 3:15.
QuoteIf you buy the one that they fled to Egypt and only came back after Herod died and was replaced by his son. Don't you think the son would remember something about his Dad killing tens of thousand of first born male babies?
Sure, which is why Joseph was afraid and withdrew to the district of Gallilee, in a city called Nazareth.
There are many undertones of your skepicism that suggest that you really didn't read the scriptures you're talking about, so I'm afraid that I can't be as gracious as Max and give you credit for dilligent study...Are you just taking a skeptic website's word for it?
I'm am interseted in your response if any, so that we can tighten any loose nuts, and move on.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
jclalor 12
Luke offers the explanation of the census for the reason they must go to Bethlehem, he must get them there to fulfill the OT book of Micah, that the savior would come from Bethlehem. It was widely know that Jesus came from Nazareth and a solution had to be found. This is a census that is to be of the whole Roman empire that is not found in any historical records other than Luke. To think the whole Roman empire had to return to their ancestral homes is very hard to fathom. In Matthew's account they are not originally from Nazareth but from Bethlehem. Both writers had the problem of placing the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and not in Nazareth, They each came up with different solutions.
Wise men or shepherds? I guess the fact that most of the nativity scenes or Christmas plays are in a
manger with three wise men. no mention of a manger in Matthew, or three wise men in Luke. The two are combined into one story.
In Luke Jesus is born, circumcised after 8 days and complies with Leviticus 12 and then returns to Nazareth. No mention of what would even for biblical times must have been a horrendous event, The slaughter of so many infants and toddlers. No mention in any historical accounts of this either.
In Matthew there is no mention of circumcision or Pidyon haben but only a need to get out of town fast. When Herod instructs his soldiers to kill all males two years and younger, this must indicate that Jesus was born months or a year before the wise men show up. Even a roman soldier must be able to recognize the differences between a new born infant an a toddler running around.
I think there are just too many differences in the two books on the birth of Jesus to be just explained away. Do I claim to be any kind of expert on the
bible? not a chance. You may find it odd that after I became interested in early Christianity that I find the whole concept of God a lot more plausible then
when I knew nothing of the bible. The main objection I have is people that believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and this is why I become a bit over zealous at times in trying to prove it otherwise.
Wise men or shepherds? I guess the fact that most of the nativity scenes or Christmas plays are in a
manger with three wise men. no mention of a manger in Matthew, or three wise men in Luke. The two are combined into one story.
In Luke Jesus is born, circumcised after 8 days and complies with Leviticus 12 and then returns to Nazareth. No mention of what would even for biblical times must have been a horrendous event, The slaughter of so many infants and toddlers. No mention in any historical accounts of this either.
In Matthew there is no mention of circumcision or Pidyon haben but only a need to get out of town fast. When Herod instructs his soldiers to kill all males two years and younger, this must indicate that Jesus was born months or a year before the wise men show up. Even a roman soldier must be able to recognize the differences between a new born infant an a toddler running around.
I think there are just too many differences in the two books on the birth of Jesus to be just explained away. Do I claim to be any kind of expert on the
bible? not a chance. You may find it odd that after I became interested in early Christianity that I find the whole concept of God a lot more plausible then
when I knew nothing of the bible. The main objection I have is people that believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and this is why I become a bit over zealous at times in trying to prove it otherwise.
Coreece 190
QuoteIn Matthew's account they are not originally from Nazareth but from Bethlehem.
It would really help if you could give references or build a case for what you're talking about.
QuoteI guess the fact that most of the nativity scenes or Christmas plays are in a
manger with three wise men.
I tend to go by scripture, not by what the general public says abouit it nor by grade school plays...and definatley not by what the Catholic authorities say is acceptable for their nativity scenes.
QuoteIn Luke Jesus is born, circumcised after 8 days and complies with Leviticus 12 and then returns to Nazareth. No mention of what would even for biblical times must have been a horrendous event, The slaughter of so many infants and toddlers.
He doesn't have to mention it...it was already disclosed. Why must all four gospel accounts be exact duplicates, what's the point in that?
QuoteIn Matthew there is no mention of circumcision or Pidyon haben but only a need to get out of town fast.
So what? As I said, it is disclosed elsewhere...each of the gospels had their own main ideas that addressed certain issues...these are not contradictions.
QuoteWhen Herod instructs his soldiers to kill all males two years and younger, this must indicate that Jesus was born months or a year before the wise men show up.
No...this might be a case of seeing only what you want to see or taking someone elses word for it...
Herod only instucts the infants to be killed once he realized the wise guys played him...
mathew 2:16
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
This only suggests that Herod was paranoid and didn't know what the hell was going on for about 2 years...the last part of that verse is especialy crucial to understanding.
*Edit*
Also, keep in mind that travel and mail delivery were not as instantaneous as they are today...it's not like they had planes, trains and automobiles...nor the U.S postal service, UPS or Fedex.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
maadmax 0
I think there are just too many differences in the two books on the birth of Jesus to be just explained away. Do I claim to be any kind of expert on the
bible? not a chance. ........ The main objection I have is people that believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and this is why I become a bit over zealous at times in trying to prove it otherwise.
bible? not a chance. ........ The main objection I have is people that believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and this is why I become a bit over zealous at times in trying to prove it otherwise.
Do you know what is really miraculous about the Bible? That even though you may or may not understand it, that fact has absolutely no bearing on the Bible serving as a conduit of God's Message to me. My life has been transformed and I have been liberated all the while being a thorn in your ass. I think that is just amazing. And please don't let your heart be troubled, I promise I won't tell you things to do.
...
jclalor 12
In Matthew's account they are not originally from Nazareth but from Bethlehem.
It would really help if you could give references or build a case for what you're talking about.
Matthew says nothing about Joseph and Mary being from Bethlehem, nothing about an inn or a manger.
Show me any verse in Matthew that says they came from Nazareth. When they return from Egypt they at first plan to go to Judea ( where Bethlehem is ) but because Archelaus is now the ruler is the reason why they go to Nazareth.
Nice, bash the Catholics.
.
They do not need to be duplicates, just not have conflicting stories of the same event
You are correct in that I was told to read the gospels horizontally instead of vertically. I was told to write down all the main facts of each and then compare them side by side. This is the same process you would use when comparing the testimony of two eye witnesses in court.
The simple truth is I will never convince you, nor will you ever convince me.
It would really help if you could give references or build a case for what you're talking about.
Matthew says nothing about Joseph and Mary being from Bethlehem, nothing about an inn or a manger.
Show me any verse in Matthew that says they came from Nazareth. When they return from Egypt they at first plan to go to Judea ( where Bethlehem is ) but because Archelaus is now the ruler is the reason why they go to Nazareth.
QuoteQuoteI guess the fact that most of the nativity scenes or Christmas plays are in a
manger with three wise men.
I tend to go by scripture, not by what the general public says abouit it nor by grade school plays...and definatley not by what the Catholic authorities say is acceptable for their nativity scenes.
Nice, bash the Catholics.
.
QuoteWhy must all four gospel accounts be exact duplicates, what's the point in that?
They do not need to be duplicates, just not have conflicting stories of the same event
QuoteNo...this might be a case of seeing only what you want to see or taking someone elses word for it...
You are correct in that I was told to read the gospels horizontally instead of vertically. I was told to write down all the main facts of each and then compare them side by side. This is the same process you would use when comparing the testimony of two eye witnesses in court.
The simple truth is I will never convince you, nor will you ever convince me.
Coreece 190
QuoteMatthew says nothing about Joseph and Mary being from Bethlehem, nothing about an inn or a manger.
Show me any verse in Matthew that says they came from Nazareth. When they return from Egypt they at first plan to go to Judea ( where Bethlehem is ) but because Archelaus is now the ruler is the reason why they go to Nazareth. [/reply
]You're just trying way to hard...give a better case with references and maybe I'd be obliged to give a better response...but I already smashed your're theory...sorry you can't accept it...that is you're problem, not ours.
you'd be better off sticking to the ressurection stories with your faithless logic...hint.QuoteNice, bash the Catholics.
OMG.....hahaha...thanks for the belly ache...who am I to be honored with the privelage of exposing two hypocrites in one week.
wasn't it you to be so passive aggresive to say:
"The Catholics have done some good things, however.... They have done far more harm than good."
Wasn't it you to blast mother teresa:
"Mother Teresa was a fraud"
Get out of my face...You Hypocrite!
I had much more respect for you untill now...
you take things much to personal....I must be under your skin or something.QuoteThey do not need to be duplicates, just not have conflicting stories of the same event
And since I've obviously showed that there is no such conflict, there is nothing to talk about anymore...is there?QuoteThe simple truth is I will never convince you, nor will you ever convince me.
You are correct...That is not my job...It's God's...So I regretfully shake the dust off my feet.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
jclalor 12
QuoteWasn't it you to blast mother teresa
"Mother Teresa was a fraud"
*******Get out of my face...You Hypocrite!******
And you think you got under my skin......... lol. What a great example of a true Christian, with an attitude like this, converting us heathens can't be easy. I do not believe I have ever called you a name or directly insulted you. I just think it's great when people like you bash any religion other than their own. who is being the hypocrite, This is just the same as saying that believing in the Easter bunny is silly but believing in Santa Clause is rational.
Don't be afraid, choose reality.
Well, do your research, study, pray, and allow the Holy Spirit to teach you. It is a lot of fun and very rewarding. You should give it a try.