I just said go ask a Jew about it... i dont claim to be an expert on Jewish Theology.
You said it earlier, they were people waiting for Jesus who wrote the OT. Well the jews called this person they were waiting for the messiah. They did not accept Jesus as the messiah. Therefore they were not followers of Jesus, or Christians, they are Jews. Jews are people who are still waiting for the messiah to come. Do you understand what I am saying? There was no such thing as Christianity before there was christ. Jesus was raised jewish himself.
hey finti umm christian actually just means christ like or follower of christ soo they were christiansperfectly aware of that , jews are not christians if the were they wouldnt be jews
there were jews who believed jesus was the messiahand they became followers of the christian way of believe which means they seased to be jews and turned into christians.
Pharisees changed their mind in a book? A story you totally accept but facts determined from the world which actually exists, you have a problem with?
Carbon dating isn't made up, and to this point in time, it hasn't been disproven.
Why jump on someone? I have to actually do a bunch of research before posting here?
i understand but you said no jews believe in him jews are not just followers of judaism they are people as wellnobody mentioned that jews werent suppose to be people, but the things that divide Judaism with christianity is mostly the New Testament. So jews do not believe jesus to be the messiah, jesus claim to be god son and messiah is one of the reason why he was crucified
"Imperial_Samurai> “Well, perhaps open minded is to strong a word, but one can allow for conviction, after all, even researchers have beliefs sometimes.”
Yes, but when this “belief” is not a background thing but the driving force behind research, this research will be neither neutral nor impartial." True, but I would say it is acceptable if they come up with results based upon evidence. I mean, say a rather fanatical person came up and said "the sky is blue". That is a fact, and just because they have a strong religious belief doesn't mean it isn't so. Equally if one came up and said "recently a dictator in the middle east was over thrown", once again it is fact. However they might say God is responsible for both, which is debatable, however does the conclusion they come to disprove the facts they base it on? No.
And I will admit it is possible I have the wrong end of the stick, but I was looking at the question is the bible fact or fiction? As is it based on fact, or is it a work of fiction. I went for fact to a degree, as it is, it seems, based on facts, the fact the places existed, the people it seems did, and the events occurred. Of course not all is true, but pick up any history book these days and there will be inconsistencies, thats the danger of researching times thousands of years past. The real objectionable part would be the claim god is responsible for it all, as one can debate that. However religious people will say it proves God was at work, atheists will say it just proves we have always had bad floods. It is interpretation. I mean, say a prominent historian wrote a book on the American war of Independence. It was considered perfect, good sources were used, fact abounded. Then in the last chapter he says "I feel God was part of this." Now, that doesn't mean the book isn't factual, but the claim God was responsible is debatable.....