Jesus Christ

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think the major aspect of a strictly, pro-biblical stance is willful ignorance. People who say the bible is the divine word of god are willfully ignoring the history of teh book. Most of it was written hundreds of years after Jesus lived. Most of it is second hand accounts. It has been edited many times. The dozens upon dozens of gospels have been cherry-picked and condensed to serve the purpose of the clergy hundreds of years after the gospels were written. Dozens of those gospels have been denounced despite their being more credible sources of the truth of Jesus' teachings. The list goes on and on.

And people want to tout this as the infallible word of, not only god, but Jesus himself.

* i'm afraid the most recent book included in the Bible was the gospel of John, the three epistles of John and the John's book of Revelation and it was written sometime around 98 A.D...

* if you are talking about Apocrypha and Gnostics, yes they are written hundreds of years after Jesus died... 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* i'm afraid the most recent book included in the Bible was the gospel of John, the three epistles of John and the John's book of Revelation and it was written sometime around 98 A.D...

* if you are talking about Apocrypha and Gnostics, yes they are written hundreds of years after Jesus died... 😉

Please read this and tell me what you think.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please read this and tell me what you think.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html

* i was talking about the time when a book was written... the website you gave just strengthens my argument, it says the book of Revelation was written about 95-100 A.D. even according to the Bible critics... 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* i was talking about the time when a book was written... the website you gave just strengthens my argument, it says the book of Revelation was written about 95-100 A.D. even according to the Bible critics... 😉

Did you read all of it? We don't know who wrote the 4 Gospels, and 3 of them my have been copied from a unknown document. I'm not tried to fight you, just having a conversation.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i'm afraid the most recent book included in the Bible was the gospel of John, the three epistles of John and the John's book of Revelation and it was written sometime around 98 A.D...

* if you are talking about Apocrypha and Gnostics, yes they are written hundreds of years after Jesus died... 😉

Okay, we'll take this one step at a time. Consider the time period. There weren't a whole lot of printing press'. The dozens of gospels that were floating around were approved or condemned by certain churches. This gospel was included as canon in one church and rejected as canon in another. It wasn't until some time around 400 AD that they all got together and decided which were indisputable and which were not. In the meantime, there were some that were always considered canon. And that's because a majority of the churches had included them.

On top of that, there were contradictions in one book v. another. So around the time mentioned above, they all got together to see which books fit together the best and decided that was that. Even now the bible(depending on which infallible version of god's word you want to read: Catholic, Protestant, etc) contradicts itself.

On top of that, the "Apocrypha" was written before Jesus was born.

And Catholics believe that the question of canon wasn't settled until the 1540's. And Thomas Jefferson supported the ethical lifestyle of Jesus, but denouced him as supernatural and complied the Jefferson Bible. (I thought I'd toss that in for the benefit of everyone who believes that this country was founded on christianity) I don't think God, who divinly wrote this book, ever said which books were and were not to be included. His son, Jesus, never said which books were to be included or excluded. Even Paul mentions that God is honest, but men are liars! And Calvin, a protestant, said that it was up to the individual christian to decide which were the words of god and which were not. This illustrates an open-minded spirit to christianity that is sorely lacking in the church of today.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you read all of it? We don't know who wrote the 4 Gospels, and 3 of them my have been copied from a unknown document. I'm not tried to fight you, just having a conversation.

Originally posted by Nellinator
But the evidence is very strong that the claimed authors are indeed the authors. That can be said for precious few books dating from that era. Also, I doubt the whole 'Q' factor. It seems reasonable that the accounts of Mark and Matthew could be similar and independent of each other as they are both eyewitness accounts. Actually, it is extremely unusual for a biography to have been written that close to the death of the subject in those days. The Bible is probably the most accurate biography in antiquity.

wow, there is so much wrong with what you say in this post, I'm literally shocked. Especially your last remark. That's what I referred to as willful ignorance.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, we'll take this one step at a time. Consider the time period. There weren't a whole lot of printing press'. The dozens of gospels that were floating around were approved or condemned by certain churches. This gospel was included as canon in one church and rejected as canon in another. It wasn't until some time around 400 AD that they all got together and decided which were indisputable and which were not. In the meantime, there were some that were always considered canon. And that's because a majority of the churches had included them.

On top of that, there were contradictions in one book v. another. So around the time mentioned above, they all got together to see which books fit together the best and decided that was that. Even now the bible(depending on which infallible version of god's word you want to read: Catholic, Protestant, etc) contradicts itself.

On top of that, the "Apocrypha" was written before Jesus was born.

And Catholics believe that the question of canon wasn't settled until the 1540's. And Thomas Jefferson supported the ethical lifestyle of Jesus, but denouced him as supernatural and complied the Jefferson Bible. (I thought I'd toss that in for the benefit of everyone who believes that this country was founded on christianity) I don't think God, who divinly wrote this book, ever said which books were and were not to be included. His son, Jesus, never said which books were to be included or excluded. Even Paul mentions that God is honest, but men are liars! And Calvin, a protestant, said that it was up to the individual christian to decide which were the words of god and which were not. This illustrates an open-minded spirit to christianity that is sorely lacking in the church of today.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The Apocrypha you are talking about are history and could be included in the Bible, but are not needed. However, the Gnostic Apocrypha were written well after Jesus's death and should not be included.

Thank you for proving my point! You have been endowed with the seldom granted right to speak for the creator of everything that exists. Congratulations!

On top of that, you seem to miss the point that the "clear biblical canon" you mention from 170 AD has been altered dozens of times since then.

Originally posted by Nellinator
But the evidence is very strong that the claimed authors are indeed the authors. That can be said for precious few books dating from that era. Also, I doubt the whole 'Q' factor. It seems reasonable that the accounts of Mark and Matthew could be similar and independent of each other as they are both eyewitness accounts. Actually, it is extremely unusual for a biography to have been written that close to the death of the subject in those days. The Bible is probably the most accurate biography in antiquity.

Please show all the evidence that you can. The Q factor is not about the stories being the same, but the words are same, as if someone had copied them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please show all the evidence that you can. The Q factor is not about the stories being the same, but the words are same, as if someone had copied them.

Those differences are dismissable. The very people he mentions in his quote can't even agree on if Peter being the first pope.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Those differences are dismissible. The very people he mentions in his quote can't even agree on if Peter being the first pope.

Everything is dismissible if you try hard enough. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please show all the evidence that you can. The Q factor is not about the stories being the same, but the words are same, as if someone had copied them.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Those differences are dismissable. The very people he mentions in his quote can't even agree on if Peter being the first pope.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Everything is dismissible if you try hard enough. 😉

But my point is that every time a major church figure disagrees, the church splits along this line or that. The Catholic church, teh orthodox church, teh eastern orthodox church, protestants, lutherans, baptists, jews for jesus even. These people have spent the last 2000 years spliting themselves up over not one damned point that was really relevant to what Jesus said or preached. He didn't condone exclusion or exclusivity. And that's what these guys have spent the last two millenia arguing over. Is it okay to touch another man's peepee? Is it okay to touch my own? Is it okay for me to touch it on the sabbath? Did Jesus ever touch his? It's all just petty semantics that have been drawn out longer than a bunch of drag queens arguing the merrits of preperation h. It's stupid and nothing more than an intentional distraction from what Jesus said. And it's all been done to keep this man in power or that group in power. And the end result is no one REALLY knowing what the truth of Jesus' message was. Just a bunch of bickering people who can only agree on one thing: everyone else is wrong and we hate each other only slightly less than them because we all get our robes from the same christian supply store.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Dr. Craig Bloomberg who is a leading expert on the gospels.

and exactly what kind of intimate relationship did he have with Jesus and the old man?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Mostly because I am sure that Peter never intended for himself to be the pope as it is currently defined (voice of God on earth, etc.). Peter should have been wise enough that no man can fill that position as it is already taken by the Holy Spirit. However, since Peter was very close to Jesus and was a major player in the Roman church the pope wanted to claim inheritance of power from him. That definitely creates confusion.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Thank you for proving my point! You have been endowed with the seldom granted right to speak for the creator of everything that exists. Congratulations!

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
and exactly what kind of intimate relationship did he have with Jesus and the old man?

And sometimes things need clarification. No need for sarcasm. I am not attacking you or being unreasonable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Everything is dismissible if you try hard enough. 😉

I was joking.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I am saying that he knows a lot about the antiquity of the Bible and about comparison of collaborating evidence. I am simply saying that he is qualified to comment on the subject and his knowledge should be taken into consideration.

And sometimes things need clarification. No need for sarcasm. I am not attacking you or being unreasonable.

As Roosevelt said: There are as many opinions as there are experts.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As Roosevelt said: There are as many opinions as there are experts.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I think he's wrong... But hey, that's just my opinion.

Okay, how many "other experts" does this Bloomberg cite in his expert opinion?