Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Any thoughts? I would suspect that the people during his time followed a different time system.

If the bible's true then the dude lived 969 years. If it isn't then he never existed. So something genetic happened after the flood to make people live shorter lives, or the bible's false. (or some lazy copyist made a mountain of typos)

"And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years : and he died."
Genesis 5:27

* yes, this is true... but how? first, consider what they eat then, and what we eat now... see the big difference? next, the nature itself is not as polluted as it is now... their daily habits, their diet... people then really can live that long, bro...

lol what was their calender year as well

Originally posted by Soleran
lol what was their calender year as well

I"m guessing one revolution around the sun. So unless the earth was a lot closer to the sun, or moving a lot faster, 969 years is still a long time.

alot of times way back in the day they went by harvest and crops I believe or supposedly anyway.....................the bible is a pretty good fairy tale so I couldn't tell you where and how they got those ages

Originally posted by peejayd
"And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years : and he died."
Genesis 5:27

* yes, this is true... but how? first, consider what they eat then, and what we eat now... see the big difference? next, the nature itself is not as polluted as it is now... their daily habits, their diet... people then really can live that long, bro...

You really think that?

* bro, they know the day, time, year... people in those times are not stupid... in fact, the calendar we use today were derived from them, the Greeks, Hebrews, Romans, Egyptians... in fact, they are more accurate in dates than us... don't you agree?

He must have been part elvish... you know those guys with the pointed ears

Originally posted by peejayd
* bro, they know the day, time, year... people in those times are not stupid... in fact, the calendar we use today were derived from them, the Greeks, Hebrews, Romans, Egyptians... in fact, they are more accurate in dates than us... don't you agree?

Tacticus came from a pretty damn smart society and he was notorious for embellishing and overexaggeration. I wouldn't appeal to the intelligence of ancient peoples when it comes to the validity of the claims in the book. The Bible also mentions giants over ten to fifteen feet tall, and last I checked we don't have any of those now or have we in the past.

And really, why doesn't anyone cross reference the Bible with another work of the same time period? Any reasonable historian won't just pick up a copy of Julius Caesar's works and use that to paint a picture of the entire era; they'd use every available source, and work to isolate and eliminate inconsistancies and clear misinformation. People write books. People are fallible. I don't get how the Bible is suddenly infallible. Is Christianity faith in Christ, or faith in the Bible?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Tacticus came from a pretty damn smart society and he was notorious for embellishing and overexaggeration. I wouldn't appeal to the intelligence of ancient peoples when it comes to the validity of the claims in the book. The Bible also mentions giants over ten to fifteen feet tall, and last I checked we don't have any of those now or have we in the past.

And really, why doesn't anyone cross reference the Bible with another work of the same time period? Any reasonable historian won't just pick up a copy of Julius Caesar's works and use that to paint a picture of the entire era; they'd use every available source, and work to isolate and eliminate inconsistancies and clear misinformation. People write books. People are fallible. I don't get how the Bible is suddenly infallible. Is Christianity faith in Christ, or faith in the Bible? Exactly. The Bible has been rewritten a number of times by various people that by the Bible's own telling shouldn't have been re-written.

On top of that, human's lie, misremember, etc... I don't place my faith in the bible, but in christ.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Tacticus came from a pretty damn smart society and he was notorious for embellishing and overexaggeration. I wouldn't appeal to the intelligence of ancient peoples when it comes to the validity of the claims in the book. The Bible also mentions giants over ten to fifteen feet tall, and last I checked we don't have any of those now or have we in the past.

And really, why doesn't anyone cross reference the Bible with another work of the same time period? Any reasonable historian won't just pick up a copy of Julius Caesar's works and use that to paint a picture of the entire era; they'd use every available source, and work to isolate and eliminate inconsistancies and clear misinformation. People write books. People are fallible. I don't get how the Bible is suddenly infallible. Is Christianity faith in Christ, or faith in the Bible?

* ah... bro... speaking of historians, Jesus Christ was written in the Roman history...

* we should believe in the Bible more than any book because the Bible was written by spiritually-inspired men...

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ."
II Peter 1:21

* and if you believe in Christ, you should believe in the Bible because Christ's words, laws and His life was written in it...

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Exactly. The Bible has been rewritten a number of times by various people that by the Bible's own telling shouldn't have been re-written.

On top of that, human's lie, misremember, etc... I don't place my faith in the bible, but in christ.

* the Bible may be rewritten and translated to several different languages and dialects but with the power of our technology nowadays, we can discern and trace up to the original manuscript what really is the spirit of the Bible...

* believing in Christ is tantamount of saying, you also believe in the Bible because the true Christ is what the Bible says...

What Roman history? Josephus a historian from that time period never even mentioned him, and if Jesus was BIG NEWS, you would of thought he would of given him at least ONE paragraph if not pages...

Originally posted by debbiejo
What Roman history? Josephus a historian from that time period never even mentioned him, and if Jesus was BIG NEWS, you would of thought he would of given him at least ONE paragraph if not pages...

* do you believe in Christ or not?

Originally posted by peejayd
* do you believe in Christ or not? I believe there could of been a man named Jesus, but not how the bible portrays him. No, he is not god no more than we are god.....Or maybe we all are god just as he was.........Jesus was no different then we are......He did have some great teachings though.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe there could of been a man named Jesus, but not how the bible portrays him. No, he is not god no more than we are god.....Or maybe we all are god just as he was.........Jesus was no different then we are......He did have some great teachings though.

* you believe in Jesus... from where? His teachings are clearly stated in the Bible yet you don't believe in it? how come?

Originally posted by peejayd
* you believe in Jesus... from where? His teachings are clearly stated in the Bible yet you don't believe in it? how come?



I like Hans Christian Anderson tales also but they are just fables told by men, as is the bible.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you believe in Jesus... from where? His teachings are clearly stated in the Bible yet you don't believe in it? how come?

Because the Bible ios most probably a work of fiction. I like to read Batman Comics, that doesn't mean I believe that Batman exists, and that everything stated in teh Comics is true.

Originally posted by Soleran
I like Hans Christian Anderson tales also but they are just fables told by men, as is the bible.

Anderson....that's such a much nicer arguement than mine....mine seems to be very rude, doesn't it?

Lol such is your style Bardock42..

He was actually 96.9 years old.

It was just a typing error.

Originally posted by peejayd
* ah... bro... speaking of historians, Jesus Christ was written in the Roman history...

* we should believe in the Bible more than any book because the Bible was written by spiritually-inspired men...

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ."
II Peter 1:21

* and if you believe in Christ, you should believe in the Bible because Christ's words, laws and His life was written in it...



* the Bible may be rewritten and translated to several different languages and dialects but with the power of our technology nowadays, we can discern and trace up to the original manuscript what really is the spirit of the Bible...

* believing in Christ is tantamount of saying, you also believe in the Bible because the true Christ is what the Bible says...

So let me get this straight... You're validifying the holiness and correctness of the Bible by using... the Bible?

Anyone else find a serious problem with that?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
So let me get this straight... You're validifying the holiness and correctness of the Bible by using... the Bible?

Anyone else find a serious problem with that?

No, I think it makes perfect sence.

That'd be like me saying... "I am an expert in all things nautical". And you ask, why should I believe that? And I reply "Beause I said so."

That's what's wrong with it.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
That'd be like me saying... "I am an expert in all things nautical". And you ask, why should I believe that? And I reply "Beause I said so."

That's what's wrong with it.

You didn't get my satirical statement...come on, I even said "sence"...

Sometimes I read too fast for my own good.

Mid 900's according to the bible was the average life span.. God dropped this down to the 150's.. then dropped it again to the lifespans we have today.. He did this because of the wikedness of mankind..

and anyway.. Methuselah age is nothing though... Enoch is still living..

^^ Yeah, god took him away on a space ship!

Been reading Chariots of the Gods again?

Originally posted by debbiejo
What Roman history? Josephus a historian from that time period never even mentioned him, and if Jesus was BIG NEWS, you would of thought he would of given him at least ONE paragraph if not pages...

actually Josephus does mention him twice, very briefly.

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

There is some debate about whether or not some of the things said about jesus were inserted by later christian historians, but there is little debate that josephus did know of jesus.

Originally posted by docb77
actually Josephus does mention him twice, very briefly.

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

There is some debate about whether or not some of the things said about jesus were inserted by later christian historians, but there is little debate that josephus did know of jesus.
why did you post that twice?

"There is some debate about whether or not some of the things said about jesus were inserted by later christian historians, but there is little debate that josephus did know of jesus."

uh yeah the whole Jesus thing could have been added at anytime in the revision and rewriting of the bible that certainly doesn't make it fact.

However, it is significant that Origen, writing in about AD 240, fails to mention it, even though he does mention the less significant reference to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (bk. 20, ch. 9). Origen also states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" (Cels, bk. 1, ch. 47) "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" (Comm. Matt. X.17), and "he says nothing of the wonderful deeds that our Lord did" (Stromateis II.2) but the testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Starting in the 17th century, this has given rise to the suggestion presented by Protestant philologists that the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the earliest copies, or did not exist in the present form.

Many modern historians reject the passage as an interpolation, on other grounds, for several reasons inherent in the text. In its context, passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and thus the thread of continuity, of "sad calamities," is interrupted by this passage. The context, without the testimonium passage, reads:

So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.

The passage 3.3 also fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorff, 2002. It is also argued that "He was Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian; he characterized his patron Vespasian as the foretold Messiah.

The deepest concerns about the authenticity of the passage were succinctly expressed by John Dominic Crossan, in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (1991, ISBN 0060616296): "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish." Three passages stood out: "if it be lawful to call him a man . . . He was Christ . . . 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." These seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. Consequently, most secular historians (and even many Christian scholars) dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation.

The entire passage is also found in one manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War. Lower Criticism has concluded that this is an interpolation as other extant manuscripts do not contain it, and reflect the modern standard text of The Jewish War.

Besides that...If he did believe in Christ don't you think he would of dedicated at least a chapter........not a paragraph that when you read it in whole, you can see how it breaks the flow of this thought.......He was talking about wars, then , then talks about wars...If you take out the inserted paragraph, it flows more naturally....

Originally posted by Bardock42
why did you post that twice?

sorry, didn't mean to post it twice. Here is the real second reference.

Antiquities 18.3.3 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 among 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.

Deb - Your right about people thinking there are interpolations. There's a good article about what may be true and what may not here: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html.

Take the middle ground, Josephus didn't accept Jesus as Christ, but he did acknowledge his existence and the existence of followers at the time he wrote the passage.

Your link doesn't work.......

Originally posted by debbiejo
Your link doesn't work.......

OK, try this one

http://tinyurl.com/ha375

No, it isn't. I believe that Christ exists, has existed and does love us, and does share some of the characteristics that are in the bible... and that are in most other religions god figures.

I do put much stock in a lot of what the bible says, because human's have a habit of embellishing, lieing, being dishonest, etc. Most of the modern day translations originated from King James's rewriting of it.

As for finding the original bible in it's spirit, sorry, I can't read Ancient Hebrew.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because the Bible ios most probably a work of fiction. I like to read Batman Comics, that doesn't mean I believe that Batman exists, and that everything stated in teh Comics is true.

Anderson....that's such a much nicer arguement than mine....mine seems to be very rude, doesn't it?

* nice logic, bro, but Batman is not about faith...

Originally posted by Janus Marius
So let me get this straight... You're validifying the holiness and correctness of the Bible by using... the Bible?

Anyone else find a serious problem with that?

* no problem about that, bro... it's correct and i ask what do you find the Bible that is wrong?

Originally posted by NineCoronas
No, it isn't. I believe that Christ exists, has existed and does love us, and does share some of the characteristics that are in the bible... and that are in most other religions god figures.

I do put much stock in a lot of what the bible says, because human's have a habit of embellishing, lieing, being dishonest, etc. Most of the modern day translations originated from King James's rewriting of it.

As for finding the original bible in it's spirit, sorry, I can't read Ancient Hebrew.



* we have technology nowadays to help us translate ancient Hebrew writings...

" we have technology nowadays to help us translate ancient Hebrew writings... "

Right, because I have access to that.

* if you really want, they are many ways... if you don't, they are many reasons...

Originally posted by peejayd
* if you really want, they are many ways... if you don't, they are many reasons... Procure me access then, with reliable technology.

Why don't you try researching the history of your faith. You just might be surprised.....But then I'm sure, you won't come back to the forums and admit you were wrong about your belief.

History of Christianity (what this has to do with the age of Methuselah I don't know)

-Man named Jesus (Greek translation of Hebrew Joshua or Jehoshua) is born, according to all accounts (admittedly second hand), to a virgin.

-Said Jesus performs miracles, teaches, and organizes his followers.

-Said Jesus is Crucified by the Romans, with some prodding from Jewish leaders.

-According to first and secondhand accounts Jesus is resurrected (restored to life). Witnesses are mostly among his followers, but Paul was anti-Christian at the time of his experience.

-Jesus followers preach, teach, etc. The church grows and is recognized as something other than an offshoot of Judaism.

-Church is persecuted by Jews

-Great persecution by "Gentiles" ie. Nero, Vespasian, etc. Nearly all the original church leaders die during this time. (much of the NT was written during this time AD 50's - 70's about)

-Arguments about doctrine and sacraments arise, some beliefs are called heresies

-about 300 AD Emperor Constantine declares Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire

-Over the course of many councils, a uniform belief system is established, as is the "canon" of scripture(what later became the Bible). Other beliefs and scriptures are destroyed. (willingly or not) This is the crystallization of the Roman Catholic Church.

-Dark Ages (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.)

-Theocratic power in Europe remains unchallenged until the reformation movement.

-Christian churches proliferate rapidly up to present day, diverse systems of belief form all claiming basis in the Bible.

Oh, and before all that - Methuselah is born, lives 969 years, and dies.

Originally posted by docb77
History of Christianity (what this has to do with the age of Methuselah I don't know)

-Man named Jesus (Greek translation of Hebrew Joshua or Jehoshua) is born, according to all accounts (admittedly second hand), to a virgin.

-Said Jesus performs miracles, teaches, and organizes his followers.

-Said Jesus is Crucified by the Romans, with some prodding from Jewish leaders.

-According to first and secondhand accounts Jesus is resurrected (restored to life). Witnesses are mostly among his followers, but Paul was anti-Christian at the time of his experience.

-Jesus followers preach, teach, etc. The church grows and is recognized as something other than an offshoot of Judaism.

-Church is persecuted by Jews

-Great persecution by "Gentiles" ie. Nero, Vespasian, etc. Nearly all the original church leaders die during this time. (much of the NT was written during this time AD 50's - 70's about)

-Arguments about doctrine and sacraments arise, some beliefs are called heresies

-about 300 AD Emperor Constantine declares Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire

-Over the course of many councils, a uniform belief system is established, as is the "canon" of scripture(what later became the Bible). Other beliefs and scriptures are destroyed. (willingly or not) This is the crystallization of the Roman Catholic Church.

-Dark Ages (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.)

-Theocratic power in Europe remains unchallenged until the reformation movement.

-Christian churches proliferate rapidly up to present day, diverse systems of belief form all claiming basis in the Bible.

Oh, and before all that - Methuselah is born, lives 969 years, and dies.

This is not all history, some of this is mythology.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is not all history, some of this is mythology.

Where?

Originally posted by docb77
Where?

No one has ever been born of a virgin, it is not passable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one has ever been born of a virgin, it is not possible.

What if a virgin were artificially inseminated (ie. test tube baby). She still hasn't had sex, isn't she still a virgin?

Other possibility - anciently the word virgin referred to any young girl.

I'm still not seeing any mythology.

Originally posted by docb77
What if a virgin were artificially inseminated (ie. test tube baby). She still hasn't had sex, isn't she still a virgin?

Other possibility - anciently the word virgin referred to any young girl.

I'm still not seeing any mythology.

Well, if you don't believe in the virgin birth, as defined by the church, then we don't have a problem.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, if you don't believe in the virgin birth, as defined by the church, then we don't have a problem.

depends on which church. I do believe that God is the Father of Jesus, I don't think of it in quite as mystical of terms as many Christian denominations do, since I think of God as being an actual person.

Originally posted by docb77
depends on which church. I do believe that God is the Father of Jesus, I don't think of it in quite as mystical of terms as many Christian denominations do, since I think of God as being an actual person.

I was only pointing out a part of you history line that could not be supported. There is nothing wrong with believing in the virgin birth, just don't list it as history.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was only pointing out a part of you history line that could not be supported. There is nothing wrong with believing in the virgin birth, just don't list it as history.

Only thing is that all the primary sources do support that. I seem to recall another source dated a few centuries later that claimed that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier, but that's hardly reliable.

The sources we have are secondhand, true, but they are people who could have had actual knowledge from Jesus or Mary. In the absence of a written testimony from Mary, Only God can tell for sure.

Originally posted by docb77
depends on which church. I do believe that God is the Father of Jesus, I don't think of it in quite as mystical of terms as many Christian denominations do, since I think of God as being an actual person. You think god is an actual person who flew down from heaven to have sex with Mary a 14 year old???.....Oh, naughty god.

He sounds just like Zeus...

And now back to Methuselah.......Yeah, he was old...

Originally posted by debbiejo
You think god is an actual person who flew down from heaven to have sex with Mary a 14 year old???.....Oh, naughty god.

He sounds just like Zeus...

And now back to Methuselah.......Yeah, he was old...

Oh, I think she was still a virgin too.


And yeah, really old

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Procure me access then, with reliable technology.

* try this... it got Hebrew and Greek translations...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why don't you try researching the history of your faith. You just might be surprised.....But then I'm sure, you won't come back to the forums and admit you were wrong about your belief.

* do not overshadow everything... history of Christianity and history of Catholicism are two distinct things... Christianity is true, Catholicism is a ruse...

Originally posted by debbiejo
You think god is an actual person who flew down from heaven to have sex with Mary a 14 year old???.....Oh, naughty god.

He sounds just like Zeus...

And now back to Methuselah.......Yeah, he was old...

* because God didn't do that... God and Mary are NOT husband and wife... God had chosen Mary to give birth God's Son in the flesh... but originally, God Himself, as a spirit, He was the One who gave birth to Christ...

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father , he hath declared him."
John 1:18

* Christ was in the bosom of God...

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
Hebrews 1:5

* God Himself, gave birth to Christ... the only thing Mary gave birth was the manifestation of Christ in the flesh...

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit ."
John 3:6

* and Jesus have siblings too... so after Mary gave birth to Jesus in the flesh, Joseph and Mary had really joined together as husband and wife, so Mary is not a virgin thereafter...

* and yes, Methuselah was really old...

Try what?

Catholics are Christians, and the protestant faith sprung from the same lie. Baptism, trinities, communion, and the cross are all pagan. These customs came before christianity.

And Methuselah as old as they say he was could not be true biologically...His bones wouldn't last, nor his teeth...cavities ya know..ie no dentists back then...

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Try what?

* oops, sorry... here: The Blue Letter Bible ...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Catholics are Christians, and the protestant faith sprung from the same lie. Baptism, trinities, communion, and the cross are all pagan. These customs came before christianity.

* then Catholics are pagans, not Christians... true Christians do not worship fellow humans, graven images, relics, etc...

Originally posted by debbiejo
And Methuselah as old as they say he was could not be true biologically...His bones wouldn't last, nor his teeth...cavities ya know..ie no dentists back then...

* it can be... the earth then was not as polluted as it is now... consider the food they eat, their lifestyle, their diet, their habits... no canned goods, no preservatives, no MSG's, no carcinogens, etc...

As are Protestants. They grew out of the Catholic tree and brought with them rituals such as baptism, trinity, Satan, Last Judgment, Fire torment in hell,............All originated from paganism.

Originally posted by debbiejo
As are Protestants. They grew out of the Catholic tree and brought with them rituals such as baptism, trinity, Satan, Last Judgment, Fire torment in hell,............All originated from paganism.

* the doctrine of Baptism (not infant-baptism), the existence of Satan, the Last Judgment, the existence of Hell are all found in the Bible... believing in these things does not make someone a pagan...

* plus, the doctrine of Trinity is not according to the Bible...

Originally posted by peejayd
* the doctrine of Baptism (not infant-baptism), the existence of Satan, the Last Judgment, the existence of Hell are all found in the Bible... believing in these things does not make someone a pagan...

* plus, the doctrine of Trinity is not according to the Bible... These practices were practiced long before the bible...and BTW there is no existence of hell in the OT........Look it up in your concordance. Look at the root Hebrew word and definition......Come back and tell us what it means.

Originally posted by debbiejo
These practices were practiced long before the bible...and BTW there is no existence of hell in the OT........Look it up in your concordance. Look at the root Hebrew word and definition......Come back and tell us what it means.

* you got some twisted ideas...

"The wicked shall be turned into hell , and all the nations that forget God."
Psalms 9:17

* hell existed even on the Old Testament...

Originally posted by peejayd
* you got some twisted ideas...

"The wicked shall be turned into hell , and all the nations that forget God."
Psalms 9:17

* hell existed even on the Old Testament...

Actually she's right on that one. The word translated as hell is sheol. It's also translated as death. righteous and wicked are refered as going there.

My guess is that hell itself was always there, but the ancient israelites didn't have a perfect understanding of the afterlife.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you got some twisted ideas...

"The wicked shall be turned into hell , and all the nations that forget God."
Psalms 9:17

* hell existed even on the Old Testament... You didn't look it up in your concordance did you?

Hell only means death. No fire, no torment.

Originally posted by debbiejo
You didn't look it up in your concordance did you?

Hell only means death. No fire, no torment.

* you did not looked it up yourself...

1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit
a) the underworld
b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead

1) place of no return
2) without praise of God
3) wicked sent there for punishment
4) righteous not abandoned to it
5) of the place of exile (fig)
6) of extreme degradation in sin

* there really is hell in the Old Testament...

Originally posted by Janus Marius
And really, why doesn't anyone cross reference the Bible with another work of the same time period? Any reasonable historian won't just pick up a copy of Julius Caesar's works and use that to paint a picture of the entire era; they'd use every available source, and work to isolate and eliminate inconsistancies and clear misinformation. People write books. People are fallible. I don't get how the Bible is suddenly infallible. Is Christianity faith in Christ, or faith in the Bible?


So you believe Julius Caesar existed right???

I believe he existed as well but there are only 16 historical documents from the time to confirm his existence. Jesus (for example) had over 25,000 pieces of text from people all over and outside Israel from around his lifetime to confirm his existence. Yet a lot more believe Caesar existed.

I know Caesar is an easier figure to believe in than someone who claims to be the Son of God, but that's not my point. My point is today numerous historians and scientists throughout the world try to learn more and make more discoveries relating to historical events of thousands of years ago and, when they start, one of the first historical documents they refer to is the Bible. Even taken at its face value, many people who don't believe in its ethical content, approve of its historical reliability.

Originally posted by willRules
I believe he existed as well but there are only 16 historical documents from the time to confirm his existence.

Evidence? For that matter,



is definitely false. We don't have any texts from "around his lifetime." Even Paul was about two decades later.

Originally posted by Gregory
is definitely false. We don't have any texts from "around his lifetime." Even Paul was about two decades later.


It was believed that everything Luke wrote was many years later. Many people also believe that Luke wrote many of his texts around the actual time. It varies with opinion.

No. Luke and Acts can't be comtemporary, because they are intended to correct earlier gospels and give a history of the early Church, respectively. That means that the first was written after a great many people had already written their Gospels--and keep in mind that the earliest Gospel we have is dated to about 70CE--and the second was written after the early Church was already well-developed. In other words, not when Jesus was around.

Originally posted by Gregory
No. Luke and Acts can't be comtemporary, because they are intended to correct earlier gospels and give a history of the early Church, respectively. That means that the first was written after a great many people had already written their Gospels--and keep in mind that the earliest Gospel we have is dated to about 70CE--and the second was written after the early Church was already well-developed. In other words, not when Jesus was around.

Oh don't get me wrong I'm inclined to agree with you that it was written a fair few years after Jesus. I was stating something my friend had said to me. She said that herself and many others believe that Dr Luke wrote some of his texts a while after Jesus but a lot more of it than originally thought is now believed to be (by herself and others) written around the time of Jesus.

Personally I think that if some of the text was written during or after is irrelevant, its the message they are trying to convey that is of importance at the end of the day

Does your friend have a PH.D in dating documents or in archeology?

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Does your friend have a PH.D in dating documents or in archeology?

Nope why do you think I don't believe her?

Originally posted by Gregory
No. Luke and Acts can't be comtemporary, because they are intended to correct earlier gospels and give a history of the early Church, respectively. That means that the first was written after a great many people had already written their Gospels--and keep in mind that the earliest Gospel we have is dated to about 70CE--and the second was written after the early Church was already well-developed. In other words, not when Jesus was around.

hmm... I understood the Gospel of mark to have been written around 65 AD. And the earliest epistle of Paul around 50. That's well within the life span of the average person (who died of natural causes anyways). These are contemporary documents (contemporary means written in the same generation as the events concerned.)

For example, if I were to write about the hippies in the 60's. My work would be considered contemporary by historians. It would be secondhand testimony since I wasn't actually there, but still contemporary. Now, if I wrote about the Revolutionary war - not contemporary.

Mark was contemporary and probably a firsthand account. Mathew as well. Luke probably secondhand, but still contemporary. John... well, assuming John wrote it at the ripe old age of 90something - firsthand, but maybe not contemporary.

65 CE is an early dating; most scholars put it around the destruction of the second temple, at 70 CE. Matthew is dated to around 80, usually, which is pushing it for "contemporary"; if Jesus hadn't been crucified, he probably still would have died naturally by the time that Gospel was written.

Even if you choose to call Paul and and the synoptics "around his lifetime," that's a long way from "over 25,000 pieces of text from people all over and outside Israel from around his lifetime," which was the original point.

Of course not...............



















































SPAM

Originally posted by Gregory
65 CE is an early dating; most scholars put it around the destruction of the second temple, at 70 CE. Matthew is dated to around 80, usually, which is pushing it for "contemporary"; if Jesus hadn't been crucified, he probably still would have died naturally by the time that Gospel was written.

Even if you choose to call Paul and and the synoptics "around his lifetime," that's a long way from "over 25,000 pieces of text from people all over and outside Israel from around his lifetime," which was the original point.

Yeah, I don't know where he got the 25,000 number from either.

Outside the bible the only references I've heard of are the 2 from josephus, Contemporary anywas, the number explodes after about 150 AD.

I have heard rumors of a small roman one line reference to him, but haven't been able to verify it.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you did not looked it up yourself...

1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit
a) the underworld
b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead

1) place of no return
2) without praise of God
3) wicked sent there for punishment
4) righteous not abandoned to it
5) of the place of exile (fig)
6) of extreme degradation in sin

* there really is hell in the Old Testament... And where's the part about Satan and demons torturing you and fire and never ending torment.....????

Hell only mean death as I have said......

Originally posted by debbiejo
And where's the part about Satan and demons torturing you and fire and never ending torment.....????

Hell only mean death as I have said......

* so, you conceded on the part where "hell" does not exist in the Old Testament...

HELL -
1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit
a) the underworld
b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead

1) place of no return
2) without praise of God
3) wicked sent there for punishment
4) righteous not abandoned to it
5) of the place of exile (fig)
6) of extreme degradation in sin

* it is a place... and it exists...

If you went back and reread all I have stated you would see that what I meant is that there is no hell as in a place of torment, the devil or demons....etc...

* it still is, a place... and it exists... even in the Old Testament...

No kidding..........it only means death, grave, pit hole.......yes that is a place........no devil, fire, demons, place of suffering...etc, etc.....

"For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell , and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains."
Deuteronomy 32:22

* er... what?

Metaphors again..........hell means death..........just like Gehenna was an actual place for burning refuge.........

Tell ya what, when we die, I'll say I told ya so.......

* well, that's YOUR opinion...

So anyways, Methuselah would have been 6783 years old in dog years.

You guys are looking at this the wrong way...

Methuselah was cleary part Elvish... hell I saw a picture of him once and he had pointy ears!

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
You guys are looking at this the wrong way...

Methuselah was cleary part Elvish... hell I saw a picture of him once and he had pointy ears!
Am I the only one who finds this funny? Hell I'm a Christian and I thought it was funny. I mean I'm not very good with humor but this can't be that bad...

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Am I the only one who finds this funny? Hell I'm a Christian and I thought it was funny. I mean I'm not very good with humor but this can't be that bad...

Yeah, was okay, pretty decent joke. You may proceed.

Anyways... is anyone convinced or not convinced that Methuselah was actually 969 years old? If so, why or why not?

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Anyways... is anyone convinced or not convinced that Methuselah was actually 969 years old? If so, why or why not?

No, 969 years is far older then humans can live.

No, there aren't. There are many theories among desperate apologetisits, all profoundly silly.

Among other things, a water canopy would make life impossible on Earth, unless you like 200 degree temperatures. You're right in saying that it would create a greenhouse effect, but you don't seem to have quite grasped the full implications of that....

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
You guys are looking at this the wrong way...

Methuselah was cleary part Elvish... hell I saw a picture of him once and he had pointy ears!
Like Yoda??

Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe there could of been a man named Jesus, but not how the bible portrays him. No, he is not god no more than we are god.....Or maybe we all are god just as he was.........Jesus was no different then we are......He did have some great teachings though. If you mean god-god then no. We are all mortals and God is called almighty god which is supposedly immortal. Well, Jesus wuz sent to earth for the sake of the people and to die for our sins as the day comes. Yea I agree, many have tought us mortals well and I thank god. We should all thank him for all to.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Any thoughts? I would suspect that the people during his time followed a different time system. and to answer that, yea he actually lived for 369 months to be the true. They thought amonths were years at the time where he lived. this is what they thought actually but as it hit the new testement were John wrote the bible, we knew that 12 motnsh was a year

hmmm.... that would make him 80 years old...

-edit-

that is if you meant 969 months instead of 369.

But you're being absurd. We "know" that twelve months makes a year? A month is a totally arbitrary measurment; we could have twenty-seven months to the year, if we could get every one to agree to it.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Originally posted by Gregory
But you're being absurd. We "know" that twelve months makes a year? A month is a totally arbitrary measurment; we could have twenty-seven months to the year, if we could get every one to agree to it.

Am I misunderstanding you?

What about a lunar month?

Many civilisations used to be based on Lunar months....

Lunar months would make it about 50.